Artificial Tanning Tax? No Problem

I have read through the news, including sites such as National Policy Institute and American Renaissance. There is apparently a new racial controversy. Starting July 1st, a new law provision took in effect. There is a new 10% national sales tax on tanning bed sessions. The tax was written within the somewhat recent National Healthcare legislation.

Both of the aforementioned websites included articles discussing the matter. American Renaissance provided two articles(#1 and #2) thus far.

Several oppose it, claiming it entails “disparate impact” on Whites. As the article mentions, even Mainstream Rush Limbaugh has discussed it.

On article #1: With comment #7, Madison Grant claims it is a double-standard, to have a tanning salon tax. Anonymous, in comment #10 sarcastically mentioned that Whites must fund the non-White welfare program; in comment #11, John sought to point a double-standard by suggesting a tax on hair straightening salons.

The comment thread has another emotional response.

“More seriously though, the whole system is about taking ever more from whites: money, property, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, jobs, schools – entire cities have been taken from whites! And it is called ‘progress’

Progress towards what? Is it not obvious yet?

For those who are reluctant to believe their eyes and ears, here it is:
It is all about genocide. The elimination of whites.”–Roger, comment #12.

This is a strong comment by Roger, bringing up the actual ongoing anti-White genocide. In article #2, comment #2 Istvan also points out a double-standard.

I am heartened to see Whites ready to fight against the double-standards of today. Double-standards are greatly placed against us, and any White fighting for White Civil Rights, deserves honor. I am also happy the above commenters will oppose what they perceive as discrimination against Whites. There is nothing to condemn here.

However, I think the other side of the issue is actually correct. And, here is why:

As per Hank Hill’s article #2, comment #4,

Mr. Kennedy is right! We would have no case for ‘racial discrimination.’ The law has pro-health intentions, not “disparate impact.” We really do not want to become like the race-obsessed & nonsense-filled Black mobs, do we?

White advocacy should focus on credible concerns (i.e. Race Quotas, Affirmative Action, forced busing, immigration policy, anti-White school curriculm, etc.); and plus this could be an inadvertently pro-White tax, as it encourages Whites to protect their skin from cancer. [Hence, the bill is a blessing in disguise.]

Hank Hill is correct, We would have no standing in a judicial lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Government, here. Disparate Impact is an extra & quasi-legal reasoning to justify anti-White discrimination, whilst forbidding Whites from doing the same against non-Whites and Muslims. Crying a river over a tanning tax, and getting it repealed would justify the other issues (of anti-White discrimination) of much bigger concern for Whites! So, even if tanning were good for your health-which it isn’t-it would only be a tactical win. We would lose strategically, big time!

Hank also mentions what we should focus on instead. He is again correct. We should fight discrimination against Whites and our demographic displacement-not for a “right” to artificially tan ourselves to death. We want to retain legitimacy, and seek our real interests.

The tanning tax even has benefits. I know it takes money from self-tanning Whites, and re-distributes some money to non-Whites. But it will give some money to dying Whites who may need a transplant or chemotherapy. Look on the bright side.

It will also provide revenue for the U.S., and counter some of our future inflation, as well as discourage harmful behavior. I am sure the Federal Government’s intentions do not include looking out specifically for White people. But, the tax ironically serves White interests, as we patronize tanning beds the most, and have the most to lose from excessive tanning and sunburn. Western Voices World News pointed me to a link about a British woman(Mrs. Cobb) who over-tanned, and now has the potential to develop recurring (and fatal) terminal skin cancer. From article #1, comment #5, Shawn (the female) apparently implies her father died from terminal skin cancer. In the same article thread, Anonymous, comment #17 plays the contrarian-claiming that tanning beds are not dangerous, and wants us to think they are safe while “sun lotion is bad.” [not a verbatim quote from comment 17] He is wrong. Tanning salons do damage White European skin, and contribute to cancer. As evidenced by Mrs. Cobb And Shawn’s father, European skin must be protected from excessive artificial tanning.

Artificial Tanning Tax? No Problem.


American Renaissance article #1:

American Renaissance article #2
article #3 (found through Western Voices World News)–facing-death-cancer.html#ixzz0rRcPezSF

Note: I understand the bibliography is a bit redundant. But, I included it, because the comment references are intermixed-not in full chronological order.


  1. I believe the odd claims of anti-white bias here are dubious for two reasons:

    1) Just what “Hank Hill” pointed out on the AR boards as the author here discussed.

    2) The simple fact that “tanning” is, despite the strange claims by some(see one response in first AR article comments #17), an altogether unhealthy if not deadly activity. Of course we need vitamin D and sunlight is its best provider. But there is a long way between exposure to healthy ammounts of sunlight and “tanning” which is intentional, prolonged exposure to skin-damaging levels. That some would climb into a machine, many times per week apparently, for this “tanning” exposure seems to self-evidently foolish and harmful to me, it shocks the senses that some not only do it, but excuse and promote it!! (reminds of what I feel whenever I see whites who still smoke cigarettes)

    Anyone who knows ANYONE in the healthcare industry likely knows full-well just how deadly over-exposre(from sun or tanning-bed) really is. Thus, for once, whatever their actual motivation, I cannot take issue with those who dreamed up this “tanning” tax!

  2. Of all ’causes’ to take up, the anti-tan-tax one is absolutely ridiculous. My wife and I have been poking fun at the commenters on NPI concerning this, but they haven’t absorbed the unimportance of this issue. Wow, another tax levelled at White Americans? It’s unprecedented! To arms! To arms! [snicker]

  3. “Of all ’causes’ to take up, the anti-tan-tax one is absolutely ridiculous.”

    Oh, I don’t know. Lots of revolutions actually begin with something that seems trivial.

    In a tyranny, the people take it, and take it, and take it. Then the PTBs do something truly over the top, and it’s often the gobsmacking silliness of it all that finally convinces the peasants that it’s past time for the aristocrats to go.

  4. Most of the Amren posters are sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome with their droning on and on about “racism.”

    Could anyone define “racism” with any sense of coherence other than sounding like a deranged anti-white “anti-racist?”

    I blame the editors over at AmRen and other outlets for our anger for not addressing and defining the words “racism” and “racist”, but instead taking Mommy Prof at face value and therefore blunting our message.

  5. It is an unhealthy activity, and perhaps this tax will do something to purge us of this obsession with having dark skin and bemoaning fair skin as “unhealthy.” The time a fair-skinned person needs in the sun for health reasons and to achieve a good tone is minimal, about 15 minutes a day. More than that and you will burn.

    However it is a fair point that any tax that had disparate impact on non-Whites would be viewed as racism and struck down.

  6. It’s a trivial issue — minimal health consequences for most who engage in it (it’s even prescribed here in Sweden for winter depression) and minimal revenues. Why are they pushing it? What are their strategic goals? What message are they trying to send?

  7. John, it obviously does not have minimal health consequences for Mrs. Cobb (in the linked article). It does not have minimal tax revenue, as there are over 300 million people in America.

    At least officially, the purpose of the provision is public health. The provision was implemented, probably because of skin cancer-awareness organizations with some lobbying. We should be thankful for it, not whining about this-when we should be working against affirmative action and massive Brown immigration.

  8. Disparate Impact is an extra & quasi-legal reasoning to justify anti-White discrimination, whilst forbidding Whites from doing the same against non-Whites and Muslims.

    The term “disparate impact” gets thrown around a lot by ethnopatriots who don’t seem to know what it means, and are focusing on the underlying thinking. “Disparate impact” in this context is a legal term, applied only where specified by law; it’s applies only to hiring practices and conformance with civil rights law. In short, it’s a legal term and it’s racist anti-white nature is written in.

    Now, it makes perfect sense for us to use the aforementioned underlying thinking rhetorically, but as far as I can determine, we got nothin’ as far as legal avenues go. At least, not in terms of “disparate impact.” As far as that goes, our best bet is to point out that it’s a (blatantly) racist law. Now, the equal protection clause, that’s another story. Seems to me the EP clause could be used to attack not just the tanning law, but “disparate impact” law, too.

  9. In a tyranny, the people take it, and take it, and take it. Then the PTBs do something truly over the top, and it’s often the gobsmacking silliness of it all that finally convinces the peasants that it’s past time for the aristocrats to go.

    Indeed. Me will put up with it, until they won’t, then the straw that broke the camel’s back (likely not something of Earth-shattering significance in and of itself) looks like something important in and of itself, maybe they name the revolution after it, etc.

    It’s funny how our masters are screwing us orders of magnitude harder than the British ever did, but Americans will wax all nostalgic over our long-dead revolution, simultaneously poo-pooing the idea of our doing what our ancestors did.

Comments are closed.