http://consumerist.com/assets/resources/2008/04/youdontneeditstickers.jpg
http://antiadvertisingagency.com/projects/you-dont-need-it-stickers-2
If you'd like a free set of stickers, send a self address stamped business envelope to:
Steve Lambert/Anti-Advertising Agency
c/o Eyebeam OpenLab
540 W.21st ST.
New York, NY 10011
I have been reading about this for the past week. I am generally anti-Christian in my philosophy, however, I feel compelled to comment on the total farce our collective morality has become in light of the response to the polygamists.
It is very likely at this point that the telephone call about the alleged abuse going on there was a total fake. This essentially renders the pretext for the raid and detention of all the minors to be moot (though not legally, apparently, as a judge has ruled).
What this is all about is the state's idea of "abuse". The idea is that, if you're a grown man and you engage in marital affairs with a post-pubescent teenager (which is a key distinction here - the young women are old enough to be sexually active - just not old enough to leagally engage in it), you're somehow "abusing" the young women.
There might be some arguable situations in which statuatory rape laws are legitimate - if you can argue that a young woman is not mature enough to really fend for herself and make her own decisions regarding mates, then perhaps there is an argument here to protect her from becoming pregnant at such an early age before she is able to adequately able to handle the consquences of childbirth while still trying to make it out of school.
However, the context here is much different. The young women are, at least from initial appearances, taken care of well and their needs handled. So where is the abuse exactly? I'm not seeing it. In ancient European culture, teenagers being taken up as brides or merely as sexual partners was common. Was that abuse too?
Law enforcement, courts, and your average American, would have you believe that there is some universal moral law that makes it a crime, in the most absolute sense, to have sex with a teenager (of course, the age puberty happens is never really explained away by the moralists).
Recent history tells me that the government looks down with disdain at any group of people who create quasi-self-sufficent communities that manage to culturally isolate themselves from the rest of society (Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind here).
Purely speculation on my part, but I believe that the government genuinely sees the formation of distinct and self-sufficent communities as a threat to its power. If enough people started creating these communities in a region of the country, they might become large and powerful enough to pose a threat (such as secession). Gotta nip them in the bud before people realize that local communities offer them much more than consumer-culture globalism and junk entertainment.
I don't really know whats going on with these children, but nobody has presented any evidence that anything truly harmful was going on and thus the position I take is that there was never any evidence to begin with to justify the harm that has been caused.
Professor / Dr. Kevin MacDonald is currently under siege for daring to speak his mind about a very controversial and incredibly sensitive subject: Jews. His works tend to be critical but honest rather than one-sided and anti-Semitic. He is a tenured professor of psychology at CSU Long Beach, so of course, he cannot be easily disposed of for speaking his mind as his detractors would hope.
The following is the description of a group I just created on Facebook:
Dr. Kevin MacDonald is a Professor of psychology at CSU Long Beach. He has written and researched extensively on the topics of evolutionary psychology and human group strategies.
He has generated much controversy because of his writings on Jewish group behavior and anti-Semitism.
In discussion of contemporary cultural and political phenomena, MacDonald makes several observations. In regards to our open immigration and pro-War/pro-Israel policies, MacDonald discusses the influence of prominent Jewish activists who sought to impose these policies upon a majority of gentiles who played a much less significant role in their genesis. He also discusses the genesis of Boasian anthropology and Frankfurt School sociology as a form of Jewish academic activism designed to counter formerly popular views of racial differences to create a cultural atmosphere that would be less threatening to Jews who are historically sensitive to anti-Semitism.
MacDonald has chosen a purely academic path in his argumentation, calling upon his expertise in social psychology and a careful analysis of historical events, including an honest appraisal of historical anti-Semitism, to make his points. MacDonald is not an anti-Semite and holds absolutely no ties with neo-Nazi groups, despite the far-fetched implications of his detractors.
Despite this, a tide of anti-MacDonald activism from the likes of the SPLC and ADL (Jewish ethnic interest groups) and others have swooped down upon Long Beach to denounce his academic inquiry and call for his removal as a Professor. The hypocritical moralists have created a Hitleran caricature of him rather than engaging him in the historical academic tradition of debate and dialogue. The same people who denounce MacDonald, by the way, are never to be found when Frankfurt School academics make statements that are explicitly anti-White and attack Whites. I personally denounce them as intellectually dishonest hypocrites on this basis.
I call upon those of you who enjoy MacDonald's refreshing counter to social and academic cultural orthodoxy to show your support of MacDonald's right, as an academic, to freely research and discuss social issues without being bullied or threatened with any loss of his Professorship and academic credentials. I also call upon the right-thinking among us to denounce the people who are acting out against MacDonald as blatant hypocrites, as I describe above.
Your politicians and their foreign policy are being sold to alien interests. Am I the only one who remembers what Thomas Jefferson said about entangling alliances?
Some of the country's most prominent Jewish liberals are forming a political action committee and lobbying group aimed at dislodging what they consider the excessive hold of neoconservatives and evangelical Christians on U.S. policy toward Israel.
The group is planning to channel political contributions to favored candidates in perhaps a half-dozen campaigns this fall, the first time an organization focused on Israel has tried to play such a direct role in the political process, according to its organizers.
Again I ask, how would it be viewed if say, the French (or a more obvious example: the Chinese), were a little more politically active and tried to bribe congressmen for more aid to France? Of course it wouldn't go over very well. It would be seen for what it was - bribery of politicians for the sole benefit of an ethnic minority. Yet with Jews and Israel, there is a double standard.
What does the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and the resistance of Tibetan nationalists against that occupation, have to do with nationalism here in the West? The answer is: a great deal. This article will use the recent events in Tibet as a starting point, and attempt to break down Left-Right thinking on the subject - that is, it will try and show that the Left does not have an exclusive monopoly on the issue. The intention of this article is to show that it is no exaggeration to say that, 'We are all Tibetans now'.
From the Gene Expression Blog:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/uploaded_images/PC2-721839.jpg
Northern Europeans make up a pretty tight cluster (Irish, German, British, Scandinavian, Dutch) and the Southern Europeans (Spanish, Greek, Italian) make up a more loosely defined cluster, and finally, Ashkenazi Jews make up a *very* tightly knit cluster of their own. Interesting.
While the West chokes on multiculturalism, capitalism, and petty battles for Israel, China has been quietly accumulating wealth and power.
^_^
Related reading on Spengler and his Decline of the West.
There seems to be many of these lately.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=international+food+riots
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-cia-behind-free-tibet-campaign.html
I can't speak for the validity of any of this information. However, anyone who knows about the history of our foreign interventionism knows that the CIA has played a significant role in interfering with the political process of countless nations.
Not everything is always as it seems. We have a history of making our enemies into grotesque caricatures, for example.
What is really going on in Tibet? I have no idea. What I do know is that there are two factions who want us to believe two different stories. I'm not prone to accept either one, on the face of their statements.
Do Tibetans enjoy a modicum of cultural and political autonomy under Chinese rule? Does the Dalai Lama really represent an indigenous cultural and political movement or does he represent a bought-and-paid-for politican who will open up Tibet to foreign capitalists and heed the political desires of the West? The answers to these questions are not clear.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Finance officials from the world's top economic powers endorsed a plan Friday aimed at preventing another financial crisis like the credit and mortgage debacles that erupted in the United States and quickly sent tremors around the globe.
The Financial Stability Forum, a group that includes central bankers and major financial regulators from around the world, developed the plan adopted by the G7. The forum is headed by Mario Draghi, chief of Italy's central bank, who presented his group's findings to the other G7 officials during their closed-door meeting.
The plan is designed to make financial markets less secretive and improve supervision, which in theory would help prevent a repeat of the current financial debacles.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080411/credit_crisis.html?.v=15
I hope I'm not the only one who sees the irony of having a closed-door meeting to discuss openness of the economy.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I am not exactly sure what guns have to do with the job situation. Religion is not a reaction to the job situation by any means, its the common set of values and traditions these people have had for a long time, in good times and bad (I'm not a fan of modern Christianity by any means - just pointing out fact).
People oppose immigration and importation of cheap goods because those things actually do affect their welfare. You can't support your family when your job is devalued by an influx of labor who is willing to work for less than what you are making. China (as a singular example) is essentially a giant slave labor camp who can produce things for far cheaper than we can here because China invests far less in social welfare, worker's rights, environmental regulation, and etc. than we do, so of course, the importation of cheap goods from overseas will create less demand for domestically produced goods and subsequently depress wages and/or cause job loss.
There is no group that is belittled, mocked, and treated poorly more today than the white working class. Successful and hard-working whites are mocked for allegedly benefiting from "white privilege" rather than their actual effort. Whites are denied meaningful political representation while other ethnic interest groups are allowed favorable presentation in the media and attention from politicans. Legislation and court rulings have essentially made white people into 2nd class citizens who are given lower priority for admissions into college, government contracts, grants, hate-crime laws, and what not. If you're white and you try to represent your people politically, you're considered racist and bigoted (while the NAACP gets a pass). If you're white, you're made to feel guilty for being white and made to accept responsibility for historical events and other people's inability to succeed.
So these are the choices you have in Nov. 2008: a neo-Marxist who belittles the white working class (Obama) and a Zionist shill who wants to invade Iran and do Israel's bidding (McCain). This is the pinnacle of democracy!
An 18-year-old Sugar Land student sued the University of Texas at Austin on Monday, challenging the school's use of racial preferences in its admissions policy.
Abigail Noel Fisher, a senior at Stephen F. Austin High School in Sugar Land, was named in the lawsuit filed on her behalf by the Project on Fair Representation.
Good luck with that. The courts have already decided that its OK to discriminate against whites because of 'historical injustices', despite neither you or your family having participated in any such activities. If you happen to be a white of Irish descent, well tough shit getting anyone to care about the historical injustices your ancestors had either because you're white.
When society finally collapses, I can only imagine how this welled-up anger is going to be manifested against all the judges and politicians who were responsible for creating and enforcing the mess.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5682324.html
Some residents in Oakland, which is located south of Apopka, are outraged over the proposed limit on water and said the rapid growth in the area must stop until there is no longer a shortage.
"I don't understand why they are allowing them to still build if the water supply is not there," Oakland resident "Susan" said. "And, why should we be cut?"
"What bothers me is when I get my bill and it is $50 or $100 and then they say, you can't use this much water," Angela Cardon said.
Nobody wants to engage in any sort of social responsibility here. The thinking is entirely selfish and individualistic. This is the sort of culture that promotes McDonalds and SUVs as cultural icons of high regard.
What will people do when Nature forces the era of irresponsible consumption to an end?
Testing out this new feature. Every blog post I make here will be simultaneously transmitted to MySpace, Xanga, Slashdot, Livejournal, and Facebook.
http://blog.myspace.com/collapsingempire
http://xanga.com/SmashGlobalism
You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.
