Poverty can be solved locally not at the federal level. Your local Mayor has far more to do with this then the President who has zero control over poverty.
Julian Assange: Hero or Villain?
- Thread starter Rearden Metal
- Start date
Poverty can be solved locally not at the federal level. Your local Mayor has far more to do with this then the President who has zero control over poverty.
Well, poverty is very complex and can be created at every level. Poverty is involved in culture, race, immigration and yes, even central banking. There isn't one bogeyman, but several. The solution however is local.
Yeah this is pretty funny stuff.
Here are the sobering statistics: Nearly 17 million children were facing hunger at some point last year. Thatâs 17.2% of all children, or almost one in four. Among them are:
* 5.1 million kids â43.6%âliving at or below the poverty
threshold.
* 5.9 million kids living with a married couple.
* 5.8 million kids -one-thirdâwho live in single-woman households .
* 5.3 million Caucasian kidsâ1.4 million or more than any other racial group.
* 10.6 million kids living within metro areasâ5 times the number living outside metro areas.
* 5.2 million in the Southâmore than in any other region of the country.
http://strength.org/childhood_hunger/
Knock yourself out.
I'm not saying some americans don't go without enough food, but 10%?! But you know what might help them? Not spending billion after billion on some stupid war for political interests and the oil and defense lobby!! Bringing the army home and putting them on the Mexican border so that illegals don't come take jobs from poor people, and push the wages of lower end jobs down further. THAT would help those poor hungry people, hence the $10k was far more efficient to that end, than giving 10k to poor people would have been. The 10k addresses the problems, giving 10k to the poor people only addresses the symptom.
Dude, stop preaching to the f*cking choir. I know all that shit and I was supporting Ron Paul before you were old enough to vote. And no, giving 10k to a f*cking anarchist is not going to solve anything and I'm really truly deeply sorry you believe that. But you know what, it doesn't matter. You believe what you want to believe. I'm sure we'll bury some more dead kids today that died of hunger. Nothing to see here, move along.
Interpol and whoever controls it looks like it's become an instrument of totalitarian feminism, and since feminism already controls every family court in the U.S., and its insidious results can be seen everywhere in the Western world, I'm inclined to support Assange for that reason alone. The charges against him are the equivalent of the police charging someone for spitting on the sidewalk because they want him out of town. Ferdinand Bardamu has an excellent article on his site, which I'm going to post here in its entirety.
By: Ferdinand Bardamu Category: Feminism, Men's Rights, Politics, Sexuality, Sociology
http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/12/0...-and-why-we-must-stand-behind-julian-assange/
The charges against Assange arenât even bullshit. Theyâre bullshit squared. Theyâre as grounded in reality as the existence of unicorns and green cheese on the moon. Interpol starting a manhunt for him on the basis of these charges is evidence that they are little more than instruments of the government-corporate complex.
Want proof? Via Crime & Federalism, hereâs Wikipediaâs summary of the rape and âsexual harassmentâ charges against him:
On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman he had been staying with in Stockholm. Shortly after the investigation opened, however, chief prosecutor Eva Finné overruled the prosecutor on call the night the report was filed, withdrawing the warrant to arrest Assange and saying âI donât think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.â
Washingtonâs Blog has even more details on this baloney rape charge. According to Newsweek, the basis of the rape charge was not actual rape, but Assangeâs violation of a Swedish law that forbids condomless sex:
Borgstrom said that specific details about the the allegations had not yet appeared in Swedish media. But he acknowledged that the principal concern the women had about Assangeâs behaviorâwhich they reported to police in personârelated to his lack of interest in using condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the womenâs request, for sexually transmitted disease. A detailed, chronological account of the womenâs alleged encounters with Assangeâwhich in both cases began with consensual sexual contact but later included what the women claimed was nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didnât use a condomâwas published on Tuesday by The Guardian; a Declassified item included a more explicit reference than The Guardian to Assangeâs declining to submit to medical tests.
Assangeâs refusal to sack his dick when he has sex with strange girls makes him a moron. It doesnât make him a rapist, except in the fevered imaginations of the most insane, man-hating Dworkinite feminists.
And finally, from a Daily Mail article, we get a look at Assangeâs encounters with the women who falsely accused him. First, Woman A:
Woman A, who works for the Christian branch of the [Social Democratic P]arty, was the main organiser but they had never met before.....
The attractive twentysomething, described by friends as hardworking and fun-loving, offered to let him stay in her one-bedroom flat in Sodermalm, Stockholm.
She planned to visit her family on the other side of the country and would be away until the Saturday seminar.
But she returned on the Friday, anxious about the amount of work still to do for the seminar.
According to a police source: âThey had a discussion and decided it would be OK to share the living space, then went out together for dinner.
âWhen they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom â it had split.
âShe seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.â
âHardworking and fun-lovingâ is code for slut. And in a feminist dystopia like Sweden, sheâs no doubt one of the biggest sluts of them all. Also, is it a sign of how inured Iâve become to our sick world that I donât even bat an eyelash at the fact that a woman who works for a Christian organization is having extramarital sex?
And how does Woman B fare? Even worse, if you can imagine it:
Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde,also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.
In her police statement, Woman B described how, in the wake of the Afghanistan leaks, she saw Assange being interviewed on television and became instantly fascinated â some might even say obsessed.
She said she thought him âinteresting, brave and admirableâ.
Over the following two weeks she read everything she could find about him on the internet and followed news reports about his activities.
She discovered that he would be visiting Sweden to give a seminar, so she emailed the organisers to offer her help.
She registered to attend and booked the Saturday off work.
She appears to have dressed to catch his eye, in a shocking-pink cashmere jumper. But, she says, among the grey-suited journalists who filled the room, she felt uncomfortably out of place.
The woman admitted trying to engage her hero in conversation.
Assange seemed pleased to have such an ardent admirer fawning over him and, she said, would look at her ânow and thenâ. Eventually he took a closer interest.
He spent most of the 45-minute journey surfing the internet on his laptop, reading stories about himself and twittering or texting on his mobile phone.
âHe paid more attention to the computer than to me,â she said bitterly.
It was dark by the time they arrived in her suburb and the atmosphere between them had cooled.
âThe passion and attraction seemed to have disappeared,â she said.
Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: âIt felt boring and like an everyday thing.â
One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
Her only concern was about leaving him alone in her flat. âI didnât feel I knew him very well,â she explained.
The drama took a bizarre and ultimately sensational turn after she called the office of Woman A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar.
The two women talked and realised to their horror and anger that they had both been victims of his charm.
The issue of unprotected sex left a fear of disease. It is believed that they both asked him to take a test for STDs and he refused.
Woman B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy.
And it was in this febrile state that the women, who barely knew each other, walked into a police station and began to tell their stories.
Re-read those excerpts, and the entire story, and let them sink in. The women who accused Julian Assange of rape are a slut who was mad that she got played by a player and a worthless, jilted groupie who got all butthurt because the object of her obsession wasnât who she thought he was. And letâs not forget that the charge stems from Assangeâs unwillingness to use condoms in CONSENSUAL sexual encounters that didnât become ârapeâ until both girls fell out of love with him. Assangeâs only sin here was that he couldnât keep his girlfriendsâ ginas tingling.
And Interpol seriously thinks this crap is worth hunting down a man across national borders for?
Not even bullshit. Bullshit squared.
Iâm issuing a call to menâs rights activists, manosphere denizens, and other anti-feminists â we MUST support Julian Assange. He is as much a victim of feminism as he is a victim of governmental and corporate conspiracies to hide the truth about their scams. His case is a textbook example of how misandry and female supremacy in the West have gone too far. If enough people speak up on the blatantly obvious relationship between Assangeâs persecution and radical feminism, the worldwide anti-feminist movement will gain invaluable exposure. Regardless of how you feel about him and his motives, he is more than worthy of your support.
And even if you donât count yourself as part of the aforementioned groups, Julian Assangeâs efforts against government and corporate corruption are invaluable.
By: Ferdinand Bardamu Category: Feminism, Men's Rights, Politics, Sexuality, Sociology
http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/12/0...-and-why-we-must-stand-behind-julian-assange/
The charges against Assange arenât even bullshit. Theyâre bullshit squared. Theyâre as grounded in reality as the existence of unicorns and green cheese on the moon. Interpol starting a manhunt for him on the basis of these charges is evidence that they are little more than instruments of the government-corporate complex.
Want proof? Via Crime & Federalism, hereâs Wikipediaâs summary of the rape and âsexual harassmentâ charges against him:
On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman he had been staying with in Stockholm. Shortly after the investigation opened, however, chief prosecutor Eva Finné overruled the prosecutor on call the night the report was filed, withdrawing the warrant to arrest Assange and saying âI donât think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.â
Washingtonâs Blog has even more details on this baloney rape charge. According to Newsweek, the basis of the rape charge was not actual rape, but Assangeâs violation of a Swedish law that forbids condomless sex:
Borgstrom said that specific details about the the allegations had not yet appeared in Swedish media. But he acknowledged that the principal concern the women had about Assangeâs behaviorâwhich they reported to police in personârelated to his lack of interest in using condoms and his refusal to undergo testing, at the womenâs request, for sexually transmitted disease. A detailed, chronological account of the womenâs alleged encounters with Assangeâwhich in both cases began with consensual sexual contact but later included what the women claimed was nonconsensual sex, in which Assange didnât use a condomâwas published on Tuesday by The Guardian; a Declassified item included a more explicit reference than The Guardian to Assangeâs declining to submit to medical tests.
Assangeâs refusal to sack his dick when he has sex with strange girls makes him a moron. It doesnât make him a rapist, except in the fevered imaginations of the most insane, man-hating Dworkinite feminists.
And finally, from a Daily Mail article, we get a look at Assangeâs encounters with the women who falsely accused him. First, Woman A:
Woman A, who works for the Christian branch of the [Social Democratic P]arty, was the main organiser but they had never met before.....
The attractive twentysomething, described by friends as hardworking and fun-loving, offered to let him stay in her one-bedroom flat in Sodermalm, Stockholm.
She planned to visit her family on the other side of the country and would be away until the Saturday seminar.
But she returned on the Friday, anxious about the amount of work still to do for the seminar.
According to a police source: âThey had a discussion and decided it would be OK to share the living space, then went out together for dinner.
âWhen they got back they had sexual relations, but there was a problem with the condom â it had split.
âShe seemed to think that he had done this deliberately but he insisted that it was an accident.â
âHardworking and fun-lovingâ is code for slut. And in a feminist dystopia like Sweden, sheâs no doubt one of the biggest sluts of them all. Also, is it a sign of how inured Iâve become to our sick world that I donât even bat an eyelash at the fact that a woman who works for a Christian organization is having extramarital sex?
And how does Woman B fare? Even worse, if you can imagine it:
Whatever her views about the incident, she appeared relaxed and untroubled at the seminar the next day where Assange met Woman B, another pretty blonde,also in her 20s, but younger than Woman A.
In her police statement, Woman B described how, in the wake of the Afghanistan leaks, she saw Assange being interviewed on television and became instantly fascinated â some might even say obsessed.
She said she thought him âinteresting, brave and admirableâ.
Over the following two weeks she read everything she could find about him on the internet and followed news reports about his activities.
She discovered that he would be visiting Sweden to give a seminar, so she emailed the organisers to offer her help.
She registered to attend and booked the Saturday off work.
She appears to have dressed to catch his eye, in a shocking-pink cashmere jumper. But, she says, among the grey-suited journalists who filled the room, she felt uncomfortably out of place.
The woman admitted trying to engage her hero in conversation.
Assange seemed pleased to have such an ardent admirer fawning over him and, she said, would look at her ânow and thenâ. Eventually he took a closer interest.
He spent most of the 45-minute journey surfing the internet on his laptop, reading stories about himself and twittering or texting on his mobile phone.
âHe paid more attention to the computer than to me,â she said bitterly.
It was dark by the time they arrived in her suburb and the atmosphere between them had cooled.
âThe passion and attraction seemed to have disappeared,â she said.
Most of what then followed has been blacked out in her statement, except for: âIt felt boring and like an everyday thing.â
One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.
This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
Her only concern was about leaving him alone in her flat. âI didnât feel I knew him very well,â she explained.
The drama took a bizarre and ultimately sensational turn after she called the office of Woman A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar.
The two women talked and realised to their horror and anger that they had both been victims of his charm.
The issue of unprotected sex left a fear of disease. It is believed that they both asked him to take a test for STDs and he refused.
Woman B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy.
And it was in this febrile state that the women, who barely knew each other, walked into a police station and began to tell their stories.
Re-read those excerpts, and the entire story, and let them sink in. The women who accused Julian Assange of rape are a slut who was mad that she got played by a player and a worthless, jilted groupie who got all butthurt because the object of her obsession wasnât who she thought he was. And letâs not forget that the charge stems from Assangeâs unwillingness to use condoms in CONSENSUAL sexual encounters that didnât become ârapeâ until both girls fell out of love with him. Assangeâs only sin here was that he couldnât keep his girlfriendsâ ginas tingling.
And Interpol seriously thinks this crap is worth hunting down a man across national borders for?
Not even bullshit. Bullshit squared.
Iâm issuing a call to menâs rights activists, manosphere denizens, and other anti-feminists â we MUST support Julian Assange. He is as much a victim of feminism as he is a victim of governmental and corporate conspiracies to hide the truth about their scams. His case is a textbook example of how misandry and female supremacy in the West have gone too far. If enough people speak up on the blatantly obvious relationship between Assangeâs persecution and radical feminism, the worldwide anti-feminist movement will gain invaluable exposure. Regardless of how you feel about him and his motives, he is more than worthy of your support.
And even if you donât count yourself as part of the aforementioned groups, Julian Assangeâs efforts against government and corporate corruption are invaluable.
Continued:
A couple days ago, Advocatus Diaboli sent me a link to a blog post outlining Assangeâs true goals for Wikileaks. Itâs truly a fascinating read:
In this sense, most of the media commentary on the latest round of leaks has totally missed the point. After all, why are diplomatic cables being leaked? These leaks are not specifically about the war(s) at all, and most seem to simply be a broad swath of the everyday normal secrets that a security state keeps from all but its most trusted hundreds of thousands of people who have the right clearance. Which is the point: Assange is completely right that our government has conspiratorial functions. What else would you call the fact that a small percentage of our governing class governs and acts in our name according to information which is freely shared amongst them but which cannot be shared amongst their constituency? And we all probably knew that this was more or less the case; anyone who was surprised that our embassies are doing dirty, secretive, and disingenuous political work as a matter of course is naïve. But Assange is not trying to produce a journalistic scandal which will then provoke red-faced government reforms or something, precisely because no one is all that scandalized by such things any more. Instead, he is trying to strangle the links that make the conspiracy possible, to expose the necessary porousness of the American stateâs conspiratorial network in hopes that the security state will then try to shrink its computational network in response, thereby making itself dumber and slower and smaller.
In other words, the point of posting leaked diplomatic cables on the Internet is not to embarrass the government, but to impede their communications and thus make them less capable of committing harm. Wikileaks is pouring sugar into the gas tank of the government-corporate complex.
Also of interest, Bryan Caplan posted a link to an interview of Assange in which he describes his politics. Everyone who accused him of being a leftist is way off the mark, as heâs actually somewhat of a libertarian:
Would you call yourself a free market proponent?
Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you donât have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.
How do your leaks fit into that?
To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.
Thereâs the famous lemon example in the used car market. Itâs hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers canât get a good price, even when they have a good car.
By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means thereâs a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who theyâre dealing with.
Julian Assange is less CounterPunch, more LewRockwell.com. Neither are my bag, but whatever.
Yesterday, after I posted my rhetorical question about the PATRIOT Act and Wikileaks, Paul Elam commented on Facebook that six hours had passed and no one had answered me. Truth be told, I wasnât expecting an answer, but making a broader point.
A month after I began blogging, I wrote a post in which I explained why I named my blog In Mala Fide:
We all know that society is sick and civilization is waning, but how is an individual supposed to react to this? Once youâve learned that following the rules is a sure way to get screwed over, you canât go back to being Boobus Americanus (to borrow from Mencken). Western civilization, in its politically correct, feminized state, demands that you bend over and grab your ankles in order to be a good citizen, and breaking the rules will earn you the contempt of society at large â and yet, breaking the rules is the only way to survive. Thereâs no proper ethical code in existence that requires people to submit to tyrants who seek to bind them in chains. Much like how the Christians of the Roman Empire refused to worship the emperor, sane Westerners are refusing to worship the various false idols that comprise our dying cultureâ¦
â¦The moral configuration of Western society, as chronicled on this blog and others, requires its best citizens to rebel, to go against the grain, to behave in mala fide in order to secure their own fortunes.
The reason you need to behave in bad faith towards society and government is because society and government are behaving in bad faith towards you, in the form of feminism, socialism, neoliberalism, multiculturalism and other similar ideologies. That is the underlying theme of everything I write about, be it sexuality or politics or race relations.
The point I was trying to make with my question is that if a government repeatedly and continuously behaves in bad faith towards its citizens, its citizens will start behaving in bad faith towards it. Itâs physics. Itâs inevitable. If a government begins spying on and prying into the lives of private citizens, they will feel no remorse about reciprocating the favor. Whether you think its justified is irrelevant. Would Assange have been so quick to publish the cables had the U.S. government not acquired such a nasty reputation thanks in part to idiocy like the PATRIOT Act? Would Wikileaks even exist if Western governments and corporations werenât colluding to screw people over to enrich themselves? I doubt it.
This is something that neocons and other police state fetishists donât understand, as evidenced by their hysterical reaction to Newtonâs Third Law of Physics. Everyone from the incoming House Homeland Security Chairman to everyoneâs favorite retarded Alaskan hick is screaming for Julian Assangeâs head, and one particularly deluded neocon twerp is outright calling for his assassination:
I canât believe this Tom Flanagan guy. After the CBC anchor expressed shock at what he said, he replied âIâm feeling very manly today.â You little chickenshit. Calling for other men to assassinate someone from the safety of your tenured professorial position is the opposite of manly. If you had a pair, youâd pick up a sniper rifle and a Kevlar vest and go shoot Assange yourself. You wonât, because you neocons are all the same â cowardly little worms who talk tough, writing checks your asses will never cash.
Thatâs the neocons, right there. Rah rah rah, God bless America, right up until their necks are on the line. Isnât war just wunderbar? Especially when itâs other boys who are doing the fighting for you? More war, more war, MORE! Letâs invade Iran! Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran! Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler! Donât appease, attack! Itâs all to keep them from getting nukes theyâll never develop â erm, I mean to oust a tyrannical regime â erm, I mean to spread democracy and FREE-DUMB! Just donât ask ME to serve, because dying in battle is for the proles!
And these jokers think theyâre manly? They view themselves as the last vestiges of masculinity in the West? Theyâre about as manly and courageous as Eric Cartman:
Breast Cancer Show Ever
Tags: SOUTH
PARKmoreâ¦
Yes, Julian Assange is far from perfect. Yes, heâs an attention whore. Yes, his actions may be tainted by anti-Americanism. None of that matters. What matters is this man struck a hard blow against a corrupt institution that is working against all of our interests. He hit the school bully dead center in the face with a dodgeball, leaving him with a bloody nose and a river of tears flowing down his cheeks. Nobody felt sorry for Cartman when he got his comeuppance, and nobody with a sane bone in their body will feel one iota of sympathy for Uncle Sam.
And for that alone, Iâm standing behind him one hundred percent.
A couple days ago, Advocatus Diaboli sent me a link to a blog post outlining Assangeâs true goals for Wikileaks. Itâs truly a fascinating read:
In this sense, most of the media commentary on the latest round of leaks has totally missed the point. After all, why are diplomatic cables being leaked? These leaks are not specifically about the war(s) at all, and most seem to simply be a broad swath of the everyday normal secrets that a security state keeps from all but its most trusted hundreds of thousands of people who have the right clearance. Which is the point: Assange is completely right that our government has conspiratorial functions. What else would you call the fact that a small percentage of our governing class governs and acts in our name according to information which is freely shared amongst them but which cannot be shared amongst their constituency? And we all probably knew that this was more or less the case; anyone who was surprised that our embassies are doing dirty, secretive, and disingenuous political work as a matter of course is naïve. But Assange is not trying to produce a journalistic scandal which will then provoke red-faced government reforms or something, precisely because no one is all that scandalized by such things any more. Instead, he is trying to strangle the links that make the conspiracy possible, to expose the necessary porousness of the American stateâs conspiratorial network in hopes that the security state will then try to shrink its computational network in response, thereby making itself dumber and slower and smaller.
In other words, the point of posting leaked diplomatic cables on the Internet is not to embarrass the government, but to impede their communications and thus make them less capable of committing harm. Wikileaks is pouring sugar into the gas tank of the government-corporate complex.
Also of interest, Bryan Caplan posted a link to an interview of Assange in which he describes his politics. Everyone who accused him of being a leftist is way off the mark, as heâs actually somewhat of a libertarian:
Would you call yourself a free market proponent?
Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you donât have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.
How do your leaks fit into that?
To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.
Thereâs the famous lemon example in the used car market. Itâs hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers canât get a good price, even when they have a good car.
By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means thereâs a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who theyâre dealing with.
Julian Assange is less CounterPunch, more LewRockwell.com. Neither are my bag, but whatever.
Yesterday, after I posted my rhetorical question about the PATRIOT Act and Wikileaks, Paul Elam commented on Facebook that six hours had passed and no one had answered me. Truth be told, I wasnât expecting an answer, but making a broader point.
A month after I began blogging, I wrote a post in which I explained why I named my blog In Mala Fide:
We all know that society is sick and civilization is waning, but how is an individual supposed to react to this? Once youâve learned that following the rules is a sure way to get screwed over, you canât go back to being Boobus Americanus (to borrow from Mencken). Western civilization, in its politically correct, feminized state, demands that you bend over and grab your ankles in order to be a good citizen, and breaking the rules will earn you the contempt of society at large â and yet, breaking the rules is the only way to survive. Thereâs no proper ethical code in existence that requires people to submit to tyrants who seek to bind them in chains. Much like how the Christians of the Roman Empire refused to worship the emperor, sane Westerners are refusing to worship the various false idols that comprise our dying cultureâ¦
â¦The moral configuration of Western society, as chronicled on this blog and others, requires its best citizens to rebel, to go against the grain, to behave in mala fide in order to secure their own fortunes.
The reason you need to behave in bad faith towards society and government is because society and government are behaving in bad faith towards you, in the form of feminism, socialism, neoliberalism, multiculturalism and other similar ideologies. That is the underlying theme of everything I write about, be it sexuality or politics or race relations.The point I was trying to make with my question is that if a government repeatedly and continuously behaves in bad faith towards its citizens, its citizens will start behaving in bad faith towards it. Itâs physics. Itâs inevitable. If a government begins spying on and prying into the lives of private citizens, they will feel no remorse about reciprocating the favor. Whether you think its justified is irrelevant. Would Assange have been so quick to publish the cables had the U.S. government not acquired such a nasty reputation thanks in part to idiocy like the PATRIOT Act? Would Wikileaks even exist if Western governments and corporations werenât colluding to screw people over to enrich themselves? I doubt it.
This is something that neocons and other police state fetishists donât understand, as evidenced by their hysterical reaction to Newtonâs Third Law of Physics. Everyone from the incoming House Homeland Security Chairman to everyoneâs favorite retarded Alaskan hick is screaming for Julian Assangeâs head, and one particularly deluded neocon twerp is outright calling for his assassination:
I canât believe this Tom Flanagan guy. After the CBC anchor expressed shock at what he said, he replied âIâm feeling very manly today.â You little chickenshit. Calling for other men to assassinate someone from the safety of your tenured professorial position is the opposite of manly. If you had a pair, youâd pick up a sniper rifle and a Kevlar vest and go shoot Assange yourself. You wonât, because you neocons are all the same â cowardly little worms who talk tough, writing checks your asses will never cash.
Thatâs the neocons, right there. Rah rah rah, God bless America, right up until their necks are on the line. Isnât war just wunderbar? Especially when itâs other boys who are doing the fighting for you? More war, more war, MORE! Letâs invade Iran! Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran! Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler! Donât appease, attack! Itâs all to keep them from getting nukes theyâll never develop â erm, I mean to oust a tyrannical regime â erm, I mean to spread democracy and FREE-DUMB! Just donât ask ME to serve, because dying in battle is for the proles!
And these jokers think theyâre manly? They view themselves as the last vestiges of masculinity in the West? Theyâre about as manly and courageous as Eric Cartman:
Breast Cancer Show Ever
Tags: SOUTH
PARKmoreâ¦
Yes, Julian Assange is far from perfect. Yes, heâs an attention whore. Yes, his actions may be tainted by anti-Americanism. None of that matters. What matters is this man struck a hard blow against a corrupt institution that is working against all of our interests. He hit the school bully dead center in the face with a dodgeball, leaving him with a bloody nose and a river of tears flowing down his cheeks. Nobody felt sorry for Cartman when he got his comeuppance, and nobody with a sane bone in their body will feel one iota of sympathy for Uncle Sam.
And for that alone, Iâm standing behind him one hundred percent.