You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access. Click here for a concise introduction to Sovereignism and here for a summary of our key values. Do you like what you see? Want to socialize and network with others who feel the same way? Want to be part of our movement to build a new land and new State for our Sovereignist nation? Registration is fast and simple. Join our Symposium today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
"Seeno evil, hear no evil, speakno evil." What an excellent recipe for being blind, deaf and dumb! (Dumb in more ways than one.) From the Law Blog at WSJ.com:
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, we have news of an interesting obscenity case, long in the making, that reached a conclusion recently when the defendant, Karen Fletcher, agreed to a plea bargain that will keep her confined to her home for the first six months of a five-year probation.
Fletcher, 56, pleaded guilty to violating federal obscenity law based on several stories she wrote for her Web site, “Red Rose Stories,” which depicted the rape, murder and torture of children. According to the Post-Gazette, Fletcher, of Donora, Pa., began writing the stories as “a kind of self-imposed therapy” to help deal with her own sexual abuse, published them on a Web site and charged 29 members a $10-per-month subscription fee. (Click here for the plea agreement, which — be forewarned — contains graphic language.)
“The individuals willing to pay money to subscribe to this Web site clearly have a very strong sexual interest in children — not just a sexual interest, but a violent sexual interest,” said the prosecutor, Stephen Kaufman.
“In my stories, I have created new monsters,” wrote Fletcher in a 2007 affidavit. “[They] rise above the horror of the real life monsters. Somehow, making these monsters so much worse makes me feel better, and makes my life seem more bearable. . . .I may still be afraid of the monsters, but at least in the stories, they prey on someone else, not me.”
U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti reportedly told Fletcher that she would have seriously considered a sentence of incarceration had the government not recommended against it. (The sentencing guidelines reportedly called for a range of 27 to 33 months in prison.) “If anyone would have read the story and acted upon it, a little child could have suffered devastation that you would have had to live with for the rest of your life,” Judge Conti said.
According to social theorist, Alvin Toffler, in his seminal work Future Shock, “Every person carries in his head a mental model of the world, a subjective representation of external reality.” This mental model is, he says, like a giant filing cabinet. It contains a slot for every item of information coming to us. It organizes our knowledge and gives us a grid from which to think. “When we think,” economic philosopher E.F. Schumacher asserted, “we can only do so because our mind is already filled with all sorts of ideas with which to think.” These more or less fixed ideas make up our mental model of the world, our frame of reference, our presuppositions—in other words, they make up our worldview.
Midlothian woman charged in federal child-exploitation case
Tribune staff report October 31, 2008
A Midlothian woman faces federal child-exploitation charges after allegedly bringing a 3-year-old girl in her care to a "sex party" in Indiana where the girl and an 11-year-old Downstate girl were abused, according to a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis.
Tabitha D. Robinson, 32, is charged with conspiracy to produce child pornography and conspiracy to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity, as are William M. Milligan, 27, of Bloomington, Ind.; and Louise Helen Masulla, 32, of New Athens near East St. Louis. The alleged conduct came to light after an investigation by Alton, Ill., police.
The Family Violence Partnership in Milwaukee, via ad agency Serve, has launched a print campaign to, uh, lift awareness of the crime of statutory rape.
Barack Obama has been called a socialist by some, but if his appointee of choice, Rahm Emanuel, is any indication he has some pretty strong ties to corporate America.
Rahm Emanuel sat on the board of directors of Freddie Mac when the mortgage giant was behaving deceptively, something that was conspicuously missing from the New York Times biography of the new White House Chief of Staff.
Freddie Mac's questionable practices and unscrupulous financial decisions greatly contributed to the mortgage meltdown in the US and contributed to the current global economic crisis.
The fact that Emanuel played any role, let alone one that is so important, in how Freddie Mac conducted its business makes him a curious choice for such a critical White House position.
One of the most important ideas in gender today is the Gender Similarities Hypothesis. This hypothesis was proposed by Janet Shibley Hyde, a professor at UW-Madison. It was originally published in American Psychologist, as a direct contradiction to the more commonly held Gender Differences model. The Differences model argues that male and females are vastly different from one another biologically and psychologically.
Hyde tested the opposite hypothesis, that men and women are actually more similar to each other than different, by analyzing meta-analyses of gender differences. ...
Hyde examined the major meta-analyses that had already been conducted on gender differences. In a sense, she did a meta meta-analysis in order to see what gender differences are true or not. She started out with the hypothesis that most differences between the two sexes are negligent to non-existent. In fact, that is exactly what she found-with a few exceptions. The largest gender differences are in the domain of motor performance (such as throwing velocity and distance). A second area is sexuality, particularly in reported masturbation activity, and attitudes about casual and uncommitted relationships.
For more on Hyde's hypothesis, click here for a PDF file of "The Gender Similarities Hypothesis," American Psychologist (Hyde, 2005). Some highlights:
Inspection of the effect sizes... reveals strong evidence for the gender similarities hypothesis...The striking result is that 30% of the effect sizes are in the close-to-zero range, and an additional 48% are in the small range. That is, 78% of gender differences are small or close to zero...
The small magnitude of these effects is even more striking given that most of the meta-analyses addressed the classic gender differences questions—that is, areas in which gender differences were reputed to be reliable, such as mathematics performance, verbal ability, and aggressive behavior.
Hyde did find some significant gender differences, which she terms "The Exceptions." As Grewal noted, among these is motor performance. From a Sovereignist perspective, it is worth noting that such differences, however substantial, are not such that they will preclude the national gender integration (e.g., in military/police functions) which is integral to our overall mission. Female motor performance is readily strengthened through proper training and discipline. Hyde also found some gender differences in physical aggression, but only moderate. Physical aggression is tied to physical courage, which is likewise strengthened by proper conditioning. Women who are braver through physical training will be more physically aggressive as a result, which will be positive since such aggression will be properly channeled in line with the national good.
Notably, Hyde found large gender differences in the area of sexuality:
Gender differences are strikingly large for incidences of masturbation and for attitudes about sex in a casual, uncommitted relationship.
There is a noteworthy degree of similarity between the Sovereignist conception of the sexes and Hyde's hypothesis. For instance, Sovereignists reject the notion that females and males are inherently different in "mathematics performance, verbal ability, or aggressive behavior" such that our goals of gender integration would be impractical. However, at the same time, Sovereignists do acknowledge large gender differences in attitudes about casual sex. National policy is tailored accordingly.
As sexuality is such an important part of human nature, Grewal exaggerates in titling her entry "Why Gender Doesn't Matter." (This is clearly intentional, of course: a play on Leonard Sax's book entitled Why Gender Matters.) However, the title rings true in the sense that gender difference should be no excuse for keeping women out of certain noble occupations (particularly after proper sexual outlets are put in place to faciliate maximum gender integration). For another example, gender doesn't matter such that apparent gender gaps in mathematics or verbal ability should be written off as acceptable and inevitable.
If so many alleged gender differences are indeed small to nonexistent, why do so many people believe otherwise? Sovereignists answer that one important reason is extrapolation to the female sex as a whole from the unrepresentative subset of incorrigibly bimbo females, along with other females who behave like bimbos out of social conditioning, peer pressure, and so forth.
Although many much-touted "gender differences" hardly stand up to scrutiny, Sovereignists suspect that the sexes are not redundant. That is, both sexes are worth preserving and strengthening.
Here is an excerpt from A scientific reckoning of the sex drive, an interesting article by Natalie Angier (Sei may recall that I've sent her one of Angier's critiques of just-so evo psych).
Quote:
In a series of studies at the University of Amsterdam, Ellen Laan, Stephanie Both and Mark Spiering demonstrated that the body's entire motor system is activated almost instantly by exposure to sexual images, and that the more intensely sexual the visuals, the stronger the electric signals emitted by the participants' so-called spinal tendious reflexes. By the looks of it, Laan said, the body is primed for sex before the mind has had a moment to leer.
Moreover, she said, arousal is not necessarily a conscious process.
By reordering the sexual timeline and placing desire after arousal, rather than vice versa, the new research fits into the pattern that neurobiologists have lately observed for other areas of life. Before we are conscious of wanting to do anything - wave at a friend, open a book - the brain regions needed to perform the activity are already ablaze.The notion that any of us is the Decider, the proactive plotter of our most lubricious desires, scientists say, may simply be a happy and perhaps necessary illusion.
This brings to mind something I have known for quite a while: that sexual arousal and drive are not necessarily conscious phenomena. This is practical fact, not merely some Freudian fancy. Therefore, much of the rhetoric one hears about "self-control" with regard to sexuality is hollow. This also indicates a flaw in the methodologies of studies which purport to measure sex drive by the number of times one thinks about sex per day, week, month or so forth. Thinking about sex can be incredibly distracting -- this is especially true for men -- so a great many will do their best to avoid it most of the time. But that does not mean the urges are magically gone. Particularly given a lack of effective outlets, the sexual drive continues to powerfully affect behavior from the shadows of the subconscious.
Interesting and informative research by Devon Brewer, et al. From the abstract:
Quote:
One of the most reliable and perplexing findings from surveys of sexual behavior is that men report substantially more sexual partners than women do. We use data from national sex surveys and studies of prostitutes and their clients in the United States to examine sampling bias as an explanation for this disparity. We find that prostitute women are underrepresented in the national surveys. Once their undersampling and very high numbers of sexual partners are factored in, the discrepancy disappears. Prostitution's role in the discrepancy is not readily apparent because men are reluctant to acknowledge that their reported partners include prostitutes.
The so-called democratic approach is beyond just corrupt; it is fundamentally dishonest from the get-go. E.g., there is no pristine and shiny "genuine democracy" to be found, such as by scraping away some scum of corruption! The very essence of the "democratic" process - such as expressed in telling hierarchical pack animals[1] that they are Rational Equal Individuals and that the functionaries they rubberstamp "run the country"[2] - is steeped in illusion. As I said to a blogger who asked, "Has the election already been stolen?":
Quote:
What I find even more interesting is that either way, the election is fraudulent. Even if carried out 100% lawfully, “democracy” does not fulfill its promise. The people or the majority do not rule. The president voted in by the masses does not “run the country.”
And it's not just US "democracy." The problem goes deeper than corruption - at root, "rule" by the masses is neither desirable nor even feasible (e.g., structurally) to begin with.
This factors into why the honest authority championed by Sovereignists must, by definition, eschew all forms of "democracy."
1. Note: To be clear, I did not need evo psych just-so stories to come to this conclusion (that humans are hierarchical pack animals)! As a matter of fact, I've seen Steven Pinker and the like actually invoke evo psycho tripe to argue that humans evolved to be naturally "democratic!" *gag*
2. This highlights another aspect of the fantasy circus nature of dumbocracy. Honestly - can you honestly tell yourself that Dubya has ever "run the country" without busting out laughing? That puppet-slash-pińata would have difficulty running an elementary school, yet the Michael Moore types act as if he's some sort of dictator responsible for policies that he didn't really conceive and can hardly care to understand. Of course, Dubya is a particularly blatant example - but put the pieces together and a picture emerges rather clearly. These term- (& otherwise-) limited POTUSes ultimately aren't in charge. They're beholden to those whose power is not so limited (i.e., power elites largely not even officially part of the "big gummit" which supposedly causes the bulk of problems). The same is true with regard to "lesser" elected officials as well, o'course. Dishonesty begets dishonesty. A fraudulent form of "authority" provides cover for transnational financial elites (&co.) who are pleased to take advantage, often gleefully holding up "big gummit" as a scapegoat for their own depredations.
I happened upon this in the library the other day. Looks to be a refreshing and honest treatment of Phoronic "just-so story" evolutionary psychology, particularly as it relates (which it almost always does) to stringent binaries between men and women that somehow perfectly match dominant "conservative" views - even when these views contradict each other. From what I've seen, it includes most of the major arguments Brandon and I made in forum debates about the subject years ago; it's refreshing to see them in print. I wish I'd known about this book in 2005, when it was published.
Among the benefits of honest authority is a lack of the insecurities associated with falsely premised authority. One of the ways this benefit will manifest in the Sovereignist State shall be evident in drug policy.
The State shall not need to treat certain substances almost as if they were demon-possessed. This will surprise some, considering that (among other things) upstanding service in the national forces will be a requirement of citizenship. But think about it. For example, most militaries tolerate drinking, and alcohol arguably contributes to more death and destruction than marijuana or even powder cocaine. Why should alcohol, relative to various other substances, be given special treatment as an off-duty recreational drug? For that matter, in (say) the United States, many prescription drugs can easily be less healthy and useful than various illegal substances.
Pharma, as with the economy as a whole, shall be directed by the State to serve the national interest. Guidelines regarding quality control and other aspects shall be laid down as law, but not with unnecessary convolution. Gangsters, pirates, and others who would like to set up shop in the Sovereignist sphere while scoffing at national direction will be rooted out. Of course, there will still be some drugs that are simply not to be taken. There is no good reason to give the blessing to recreational crack-smoking, for example. There is every reason to implement reasonable regulations regarding various substances to ensure that they pose no imposition upon the nation's overall strength, readiness, productivity, morale, honor, and sense of duty. But blanket prohibitions shall be few and far between. No sprawling and spiraling legal labyrinth nor embarrassingly bloated bureaucracies need be devised. The genuinely strong State shall be leanly muscular, not grotesquely obese.
The Sovereignist approach to problem-solving emphasizes not only honesty but also appropriate sophistication. This will be reflected in Sovereignist State policy. For instance, the State will utilize complex outlets and pressure-valves in preference to ham-handed repression. The legal institution of bimbo bondage shall be the ultimate expression of this approach. E.g.:
Rather than pretending that laws against illegal rape and sexual harassment provide nearly optimal or even adequate protection in themselves, ready access to bimbos in legal and lawful sexual bondage will provide the ultimate outlet for the lusts that would otherwise lead to those crimes. This arrangement will substantially prevent the debasement of female citizens not only through rape but also sexual harassment, quasi-bimbofication and pressure for casual sex. It will prevent the debasement of male citizens from the onset of figurative "blue balls" and the associated impulsiveness, poor judgment, susceptibility to ensnarement into webs of sexual usury (dishonest prostitution), etc. It will provide male as well as female citizens an incomparable outlet for their sadistic instincts. For these and other reasons, it will greatly aid in facilitating the State's policy of maximum gender integration in the citizenry.
Likewise, instead of "abstinence-only" indoctrination, State schools shall feature comprehensive sex education combined with sexual outlets. Girls will be encouraged to abstain from casual sexual intercourse, but out of informed pride in their bodies rather than shame about same. With sexual outlets readily accessible, they will not face unwanted pressure from boys to "put out."
A key realization of Sovereignism is that "democracy" is an inherently dishonest arrangement. The masses do not rule, but a "democratic" system fools the gullible into thinking that they do. The vote caters to the individual's drive for power, albeit dishonestly. As Sovereignism rejects all forms of dishonest authority, there will be no elections in the Sovereignist State. Instead, the State (with the Syndicate having served as proto-State) shall constitute unified and sovereign national forces with honest authority and hierarchy. So without the illusion of power offered through voting, what will slake the power-thirst of each citizen? For instance, in the Sovereignist State, legalized slave ownership will cater to the same drive honestly, as voting never could, as well as far more intensely than voting ever could.
In the 1976 book The Hunting Hypothesis, Robert Ardrey declared, “Man is man, and not a chimpanzee, because for millions upon millions of evolving years we killed for a living.” And remember, it’s Man the Hunter. The ladies were supposed to sit at home raising the wee ones and gather some berries.
The story of hunting is a lot more complicated today, thanks to a lot of new evidence and some critical reappraisal of the old evidence. Jane Goodall discovered that male chimpanzees hunt monkeys, and since they’re our closest living relatives it’s possible that our ancestors were hunting millions of years before they could stand upright. ...
And the evidence keeps coming in. Today the journal Current Biology publishes yet another piece of the puzzle: female chimpanzees hunting with spears. ...
And what’s particularly intriguing in the report is the fact that of the 22 observed cases of spear-fashioning, only one involved an adult male. Thirteen were carried out by females. ...
The filming was done on the steppes of Mongolia where Genghis Khan grew up. One could see how hard life was at that time for the people living there. In spite of this hardship and many attempts to kill him he always came back and destroyed his enemies. He also reunited the Mongols and made them a strong fighting force that went on to conquer most of the known world then. I was inspired by his strength and resolve in the face of adversity. He was truly a great leader and man of his time. I would recommend this movie for anyone to watch, it was excellent.
Nailin' Paylin: Watch First Minute Of Palin-Inspired Porn (VIDEO)
The first safe-for-work minute of the Sarah Palin-inspired porn from Hustler is online. To watch minute one of "Nailin' Paylin," scroll down. The plot involves stranded Russians and the four-eyed brunette lady of Alaska played by Lisa Anne who helps them out.
Amusing. By the way, imagine how incensed Arianna Huffington & Co. would act if a female Democrat VP were parodied in a porno! Arianna has been known to complain about the sexual exploitation and degradation of females. Unlike Sovereignist women, she never said something like "...but bimbos, as opposed to intellectually curious and self-respecting females, should be fair game." She has employed fairly standard liberal feminist rhetoric, giving lip service to notions of universal sisterhood. Yet now Arianna is promoting the "Paylin" porno with glee...
Here's an interview with Lisa Anne [the porn whore who portrays Palin in Nailin' Paylin] doing a Palin impression:
Here's what they do with dead horses in the rest of the world: they eat them. But in our country the thought of eating horse is so taboo that the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act was just reintroduced in Congress--although there are even fewer horses eaten than flags burned. Despite our reputation, it turns out we are actually a nation that thinks like a 14-year-old girl.
How is it thinking particularly like a 14-year-old girl to support a hysterical and hypocritical "animal rights" agenda? I seem to recall that Adolf Hitler, for example, made Germany the first nation ever to ban vivisection (at least with regard to non-human animals...). Yet I have hardly observed many people accusing Ol' Adolf of being overly girly.
Indeed; there is no evidence that an excess of estrogen has anything to do with the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act or the like. To the contrary! Yet there exists a readily observable tendency to equate that which is pathetic, softheaded, or simply wimpy with femininity. Stein's quip is a "fine" example. Sei and others will recall this topic of conversation -- but Eating a Dead Horse is not beating a dead horse. This subject remains remarkably relevant.
So let us have a reality check. Those who support this ridiculous legislation as true believers are not thinking like 14 year old girls; they're largely "thinking" like pathetic, softheaded, hysterical men. Because, by and large, that is exactly what they are! Of course, there are numerous bimbos who bleat in favor of "animal rights" -- as vividly displayed in the Name Duh Bimbo thread -- but bimbo buffoonery must not be extrapolated to females in general. I do not see any credible evidence that they are inherently more likely to support such silliness than their male counterparts. Can you imagine Stein saying "we are a nation that thinks like a 52-year-old man?" He might as well, considering, for example, Bill Maher's membership in PeTA. This Bill Maher quote makes the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act look like a paean to tough-mindedness and clear thinking:
Quote:
To those people who say, 'My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say, 'Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade-off.
Does Bill Maher's koala-bear lookin' ass* - see below/left - look anything like a 14 year old girl to you?
Murder is a term of law: "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law." By definition, an act of killing which is legal in the relevant jurisdiction does not constitute murder. Of course, one can ignore the dictionary and refer to legal abortion as murder. The same can be done with regard to capital punishment, anti-personnel killings carried out in the course of combat, self-defensive killings, or even the slaughter and consumption of cattle. In practice, this is often a creature of attention-grabbing rhetoric more than anything else.
There is, however, the argument to the effect that abortion is illegal under God's law regardless of the pronouncements of divinely uninspired lawmakers. (See, for example, Jay Rogers in "Applying God's Law to the Abortion Issue.") One could call this "the theonomic argument."
One problem is that no credible evidence is provided that a Creator God concerned about abortion exists at all. Those presenting the theonomic argument against abortion are essentially making one big argument from assertion -- and Sovereignists are unwilling to buy what they are selling.
GUELPH {A CITY IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO, CANADA ~B.}
A teenage girl stood beside her father and wept softly yesterday as a judge said while he could send her to jail for possessing child pornography, he would not do so. {Now imagine that judge saying the same to a non-elite teenage boy facing the same charge. You may as well get comfy just imagining it, because that's all it is - a fantasy! It is also worth noting that the girl's father had already been arrested and hit with the same type of possession charge in the previous year. They had assumed he was the possessor until the girl confessed. ~B.}
Justice Norman Douglas said the girl's conduct was so offensive it would allow him to impose a custodial sentence, but opted instead to impose a maximum term of probation with tight restrictions.
The Wellington County girl, now 16, pleaded guilty in June to possessing 1,578 images and 18 videos of child porn. She came to the attention of an OPP officer monitoring online file-sharing programs in February 2007. The investigation led to the girl's father's home, where three computers were seized.
Court heard police initially arrested the father before his daughter confessed and explained in detail the elaborate storage and classification system used to save the offensive materials.
The girl told police she is "sexually attracted to young girls," court has heard.
The images depicted children as young as six or seven engaged in "a full range of sexual activity," court heard. {Yet another example showing that when you were told females do not have erotic interests of this nature, you were being fed a line of garbage. Ditto when you were told that females are not visually stimulated. ~B.}
Yesterday, defence counsel Michelle Dwyer called the case "a bit of a head-scratcher."
Dwyer said her client "can't articulate . . . the why; the part we're all wondering." The lawyer said while the girl is embarrassed and ashamed of her actions, she cannot explain why she collected the material except that she was motivated by curiosity.
"She's sort of going down the rabbit hole," Dwyer said. "She's going further and further and further."
The lawyer compared it to a youth coming across a Playboy magazine "except it's not flipping pages. It's one click and it opens up thousands of images."
But Douglas rejected the Playboy comparison or assertions the girl was motivated by sexual curiosity.
"This isn't about sex," the judge said. "This is about abuse. {In reality, sexuality and harm are not even close to mutually exclusive. Remarkable, eh? ~B.}
"People who access these pictures or videos support . . . and assist the people who are making these videos and taking the pictures."
Douglas said Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada have made it clear denunciation and deterrence are keys in dealing with child porn cases, noting if the teen was an adult she would be facing a minimum of 45 days in jail.
But the judge said the Youth Criminal Justice Act stresses rehabilitation, and he opted to follow that direction instead.
The girl was put on probation for two years, during which she must not use a computer except for school work, not be alone with anyone under 14 and take counselling.
Systematic, scientific testing shall be required to name duh bimbo with legal force. However, casual bimbo-naming makes fine fodder for a fun Salon 'n' Saloon thread - all the more with heaping helpings of digital pictures, still and motion.
I'll start us off with Caitlin Upton (b. March 27, 1989), Miss South Carolina Teen USA 2007.
A glimpse of a sexy bod in a bikini overwhelms the male brain, rendering him less than savvy when making decisions.
Quote:
This month’s issue of the Journal of Consumer Research features a paper titled “Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Choice,” which is a neuroeconomist’s (definition in a moment) way of saying that men don’t make good decisions while checking out pretty girls in bikinis...
The sexy imagery did not work on all men all the time, but, as a group, men with sex on their brains settled for a less lucrative bargain, suggesting they were more impulsive and valued immediate gratification more than the controls.
Shocking? Only if one is clueless enough to believe that "male weakness" really is a "myth." More here.
Sovereignist Symposium - Lobby
It is also worth noting that 
~B.}
