i am watching the american elected official, mr obama, and i believe he is a robot sent from the future to disable america prosperity with his talk about social justice for all peoples and logical health care reforms and gun bans. sure, he will make america more prosperous and free, but he will make it harder for militiamen like me and my buddies from forming militia to defend against the british in case they come over to re-conquer america.

a robot sent from the future, where britain once again rules the world and the world all plays fucking soccer, is a world that is crazy enough to send back a black elected official to steer america to an evil and impotent state. we must warn ourselves to this menace, and disclose this "man" as the futuristic cyborg that he is. even now as i youtube his speech and see the metallic glint in his eye as he seeds our minds with his british thoughts, i shudder with horror.

Rick Santorum wants War on Porn

Published: 17 March, 2012,

John Macdougall US Election 2012

Land of the free and home of the brave, indeed � but if Rick Santorum has his way, America will soon have another assertion to stand by. The GOP hopeful is running for p******** and, if he wins, he�s pursuing an end to pornography in the US.

If Rick Santorum wins the race to the White House, the senator from Pennsylvania will inherit, among other things, a nasty operation in Afghanistan. Santorum is capable of starting battles on his own, though, and his first order of business might be another war. It won't be in Iran, however, as Santorum is instead eying up the possibility of a war here at home. The insurgents will be adult film actors, actresses and producers who will be persecuted for their role in pornography, something Santorum says is causing the collapse of America.

Republican Party p********ial hopeful Rick Santorum let his supporters know that he is indeed the true conservative option, not even taking into account just his political positions. Sexually speaking, Santorum is the clear conservative choice now after saying that morality in America is going down the drain and the reason is, naturally, porno. Santorum updated his campaign website this week and among the addendums is a not-so arousing rant about the dangers of pornography, its wrath on America and what p******** Rick will do to make porn a thing of the past.

�America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography� insists Santorum, who cites �a wealth of research� that can now reveal what he no doubt knew all along: that porn can be poisonous to society. According to the former Pennsylvania Senator, modern studies suggest that pornography can cause �profound brain changes in both children and adults,� and that�s just the tip of the iceberg. Also on the rise due to porn, suggests Santorum, are divorces, violent acts against women and the rise of prostitution.

To curb these societal scars, of course, the answer is obvious. Pornography must be abolished and Rick Santorum is the man for the job.

�I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture,� says Senator Santorum. �For many decades, the American public has actively petitioned the United States Congress for laws prohibiting distribution of hard-core adult pornography. Congress has responded.Current federal �obscenity� laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced.�

That�s where Rick wants you to know he�s your guy (if you also despite naked people). �If elected p********, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so,� he says, suggesting a Santorum administration will be one dead-set on sending all those penises and vaginas back to wherever it is they came from. Going by the anti-evolution ethos subscribed by the senator then, some omnipotent intelligent designer must have been asleep at the wheel when he gave man a video camera and a San Fernando Valley studio space.

Santorum charges that not only has the current White House done nothing to address this porno pandemic, but, in his words, �the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families.� That will change under p******** Santorum, he insists, relaying that he proudly supports the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition and that, with the help of several Christian think-tanks listen on his website, they will prevail to make porn a thing of the past.

For RT�s Republican readers, we aren�t endorsing any candidate over another, but we do recommend our right-wing audience research how each candidate in the GOP pool has played the porn card to vie for the party�s nomination. Michele Bachmann? She signed a pledge saying she condemned it. Santorum? He wants it gone altogether. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, was actually a bit instrument in assuring that the Internet would be a place where dirty, dirty things could be downloaded by anyone in America. When Congress tried to draft laws in the mid-1990s to decide on what was worthy of a big ban from the Internet, Gingrich called an attempts at abolishing online porn as �clearly a violation of free speech� as well as �a violation of the right of adults to communicate with each other."

BANNED WORD! OH NO!

I confess that I searched for a banned word on Motherless.

Then, the site shows me pictures or videos of teens pissing and people taking a huge shit. Then I typed in dog, no problem there either... even pres worked.

Motherless: Where anything legal stays... but, somehow free speech isn't allowed.

“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” - Winston Churchill (picture unrelated)

Taboo is destroying society.

Look at the animals, do they launch missiles? Yeah, monkeys fling shit at the walls and dogs and cats lick their genitals, but neither dogs nor cats fling shit at walls. Okay, monkeys do occasionally try to lick their genitals, BUT SO DO SOME HUMANS! My point is, we can see the difference.

Why aren't weapons tabooed? Why not taboo things that do obvious damage! Instead, we obscure our nature.

And don't call me libtard, you fucktard, or I'll fling my wang in your general direction. Sure, free speech and all... wait, now I'm curious; is it legal to fling shit? Are there any regulations regarding that?

Wtf ML, why are you taking away freedom of speech on this site!!? Banned words, not being curse words. How do I suppose to know what these words are? Being a moral-free zone. Why do you have banned words? This is not improvement to this site. This is quite the opposite, my friend.This is a step in the wrong direction. You have taken the one thing , that made this site. Who knew you couldn't say chil**en, p********, etc. on this site. Why not come out with a list of what you can,and cannot say? I always thought this site was better than this. Sorry, I was mistaken.

Random thanks to ML staff.

I just want to extend my heartfelt appreciation for what the ML staff have done.

Sometimes it's slow, sometimes things don't load, the ads are kinda annoying but take all of 5 seconds to close.

Even so, ML has extracted much semen from my epididymides. Thank you for the visuals. Thank you for not backing down on your (admittedly wicked) morals. Thank you for being a supporter of free speech. Don't mind the haters; their whining makes my penis soft.

Its been a while since something irked me enough to post here. But im pretty irked. So here goes.

You know how people draw Muhammed for shits n giggles? Then immediately get upset at the Muslims who get so offended by it that they want to take a gun to peoples' heads?

Im not a muslim, and i dont particularly like what they stand for. But something i like even less than that is people who refuse to be considerate toward them, knowing full well the consequences of what they're doing. Even worse, they say "I have the right to free speech" like its an excuse to antagonize whoever you want.

Its alot like getting up in a black mans' face and telling him "Fuck you nigger bitch" and then busting a cap in him once he lashes out at you, saying "I have the right to free speech" like its an excuse to antagonize people.

It'd be simpler to say "You poke the bear, the bear will bite".

What i dont understand is, what is so damn difficult about not doing the ONE thing that makes muslim people turn violent? ONE FUCKING THING. YOU HAD ONE FUCKING JOB. TO NOT DRAW MUHAMMED. MERHAMMERD. MO-HUMID. AND YOU FUCKED IT UP.

I mean, do people even understand where the whole "Draw Muhammed" thing came from?
Wether they want to admit it or not, doing it wasnt even a thing prior to an event in recent history, over a certain TV show. A TV show that whos producers, when met with threats, went ahead and censored it. But nope. People dont care about why something is censored. Only caring that it IS censored.

Drawing Mohammerd is nothing more than saying "I dont give a shit about other people".

It makes me want to rage. People who draw their prophet, and then shit all over them when they get upset, are nothing but a bunch of air thieving retards who are moving humanity back two steps, who do not deserve the right to free speech, since they clearly are incapable of using it non-malliciously.

It should be like street racing. You get too many 'points' on your license, your license gets taken away, because you dont know any better.

I dont brake check people. I dont flip people off while driving.
I dont stick my arms out into the cages at the zoo. I dont even touch food without washing my hands first, if it can be helped.

And i certainly wont draw the prophet Muhammad. Because i know that it apparantly makes a certain people so upset that it makes them want to kill other people.

And you know why i dont do these things? Because i know better. Because i give a shit about other people. Because doing it is tantamount to causing the violence to occurr.

Seriously people. Dont do the equivalent of poking a bear, or brake checking a semi truck. Its stupid. It causes mankind to retrograde. And its pretty damn insensitive toward a very large group of people. People that we know all to well will take to violence when someone does the ONE thing that will almost certainly make them flip.

I dont care what backward ass reasoning you have to try and justify it. You KNOW what will happen if you do it. Have some fucking self control, and dont do it. Otherwise, stop breathing my air. Its not being worth spent on the line about your "Freedoms' that you use to justify your actions.

One day mankind will be able to just get along. But before it happens, we need to learn to respect each other.

But i guess it'll never happen because i have no respect for those who poke the bear, knowing what will happen.

No respect. No respect at all.
"I dont want to live on this planet anymore" - Professor Farnsworth

I should also mention that i've laughed my ass off at some of the drawings of Muhammed people do. Some of them are clever, and not even intended to be malicious. It still doesnt make it right, however. Funny, yes, but not right.

You know, i feel like if i 'preached' about this, stood on a street corner with a sign, and a bullhorn, using my 'right to free speech' to convey a message of fairness and consideration, someone would probably kick my ass. Even though im a natural born citizen of the united states of motherfucking america, and were using my goddamn rights for a GOOD cause.

Anyway, just be considerate toward others. You can claim whatever "White knighting" or "Moral faggotry" you want about it, but its not like bowing in to feminism. Its not like changing everything to be friendly toward animals. Its not even like voting for equality for gays, or protesting against war.

You dont even have to LIKE muslims. Just dont draw their prophet. And make it clear that its got nothing to do with rights or free speech. Its all just about not being an antagonist.

Nobody likes an antagonist. Stop antagonizing people like a nigger.

Just curious, why is "p********" always censored? We can say "resident," but not after a "p". This just seems really weird to me on a site that promotes free speech as much as possible.

Web licenses to End Internet Anonymity

A Web License to End Internet Anonymity and free speech?

The first time I wrote this, I posted it on another site in 2010. A year later people are still talking about internet censorship. How is it going to turn out?

Microsoft is pushing for UK people to have to get �internet licenses� to prevent blogger anonymity and shut down �politically incorrect� sites.

Yes, this means you wouldn�t have views of your own, or, won�t be able to talk about them at least if someone thinks you are being too politically incorrect. If you have views that aren�t liberal or if you �lean too far to the Right� in someone else�s eyes, your views will be shut out from the public and later someone will be showing up at your door to fine and/or arrest you.

This already does happen in some countries, like Holland for example.
�September 19th 2007 the houses of four SF-members [StormFront-members] were invaded and computers and documents were seized. There�s enough evidence against two of these persons to prosecute them.�

Prosecute them for what, having non-matching political views? Exactly. There is no two sides to the story, people actually get in trouble for going on certain sites in foreign countries or submitting posts and blogs that express their own political views (given the political views). I�ve heard people say that they have had authority figures show up at their house because of something that happened in the real world.

Even in countries that are supposed to be �Democratic� and �fair� when it�s really just the opposite. For example, the German Prime Minister urged that the United States actually censor the internet- Germany asked the U.S. to censor all fascist and �right-wing� conservative and extremist sites. In Germany, I believe this passed and things like that are already being censored or in the process of being �blacklisted�, but the United States declined the censorship due to constitutional free-speech rights� The one time in modern America where we are actually protected by the constitution. (I believe this went on in 2009, so it is somewhat recent).

You might ask, Why suddenly post this now? Why post about stuff that happened from one to four years ago in Europe, and what does it have to do with what I was saying originally?
Well the same exact thing is happening again. Are they going to keep trying to do this with every country until the United States gives in and starts forcing people to get an �Internet License�? It might sound paranoid, but obviously it�s already happening in a lot of other countries, and is actually passing� Even in those countries that claim to be �free� and have free speech like the U.S. does.

�The American blogosphere is going increasingly �viral� about a proposal advanced at the recent meeting of the Davos Economic Forum by Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, that an equivalent of a �driver�s license� should be introduced for access to the web. This totalitarian call has been backed by articles and blogs in Time magazine and the New York Times.

As bloggers have not been slow to point out, the system being proposed is very similar to one that the government of Red China reluctantly abandoned as too repressive. It was inevitable that, sooner or later, the usual unholy alliance of government totalitarians and big business would attempt to end the democratic free-for-all that is the blogosphere. The United Nations is showing similar interest in moving to eliminate free speech.�

They claim that they are trying to stop �neo-Nazi� sites, whatever that is supposed to mean� But in examples like I listed above, like Germany and Holland, they specifically say they are trying to censor �neo-Nazi and right wing sites�. Well, I can assure you, Nazis ,or National Socialists to use the correct term, are not right-wing conservatives (conservative is more like a democratic label), they are trying to censor two completely different things. When (if) this happens, who is to say what is �too far to the right�?

That�s it? It�s only happening in some European countries? Nope, Australia too. This has already passed, technically things can already be censored but it isn�t fully in force yet. That�s kind of a different story but it�s web censorship nevertheless�
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia

Hypothetically, lets say this finally did in fact happen in the United States over this past winter in 2009. Hypothetically say they did appeal to Germany�s motion to censor �neo-nazi and right wing� sites�
Meaning, if you�re a Nationalist, if you don�t like immigration due to whatever reason (political, economic or other), and so on, that would be viewed as �right-wing�? Sadly, this is the mind-set most in the U.S. accommodate already, but most don�t actually have the power to censor us outright.

You might think it sounds paranoid, but so many people are pushing for this to happen in multiple different countries. What they�re looking for is various forms of forced integration, forcing people to have liberal and libertarian views only (leaning too far the other way would be �wrong�) and trying to eliminate free speech. They�re saying they are only eliminating hate speech by doing this� The sad truth about them doing it is that it�s hypocrisy for one, because they are censoring people�s views, and secondly that is forcing them to be the only ones in power by saying everyone else is just �hateful� and censoring them.

No group is filled only with peace and love, you can just as easily say they hate fascists and right wingers, therefore they silence something they could otherwise not control.
So that being the hypothetical situation in the United States, when will it really happen? Microsoft is an American company and they are obviously in favor of it as well as some other major businesses are, so many foreign British and European �free� countries are pushing for it, it�s not a very unrealistic prediction of this happening here in �The States� sometime soon.

I�m not the kind of �conspiracy-theorist� type of person either, I tend to see the outside and obvious points of things, so that should say something about how apparent this hidden agenda really is

Saw this on another website and thought it would be of interest here.

Twitter and Facebook aside, groups of young blacks who violently harass whites and Asians (�flash mobs�) are hardly new. In the 1960s this was called �wilding,� and for over a decade New York City subways (and probably much public transportation elsewhere) became almost unusable thanks to black teenagers who moved from car to car terrorizing hapless white riders.

Nevertheless, today�s flash mobs (for a listing of attacks, see http://violentflashmobs.com/) are disturbing beyond the immediate violence. In the context of contemporary race relations, this growing epidemic of anti-white mayhem was not supposed to happen. Blacks attacking whites because they are white represents an abrogation of a decades-long treaty between whites and blacks. Not a treaty in the formal sense, but an �understanding� that might as well be a legal contract. Let me explain.

The 1960s saw widespread black violence, much of it explicitly anti-white. This ranged from week-long urban riots to individual blacks killing or raping whites opportunistically. Many victims were chosen only because of race. The government�s response was both enhanced policing and, of the utmost relevance, today�s racial spoils system: affirmative action, set asides, massive anti-poverty spending, Justice Department decrees to help blacks get elected, dumbed down civil service standards, easy home mortgages and sundry other �help blacks� programs. You can also add race-driven political correctness: banning �offensive� words (e.g., colored), exaggerating the role of blacks in American history, glowing media portrayals, downplaying black-on-white violent crime, and everything else designed to massage black egos. And for good measure, add hate crime laws, speech codes, and draconian punishment for those who spoke the truth on race. This is the price white America now pays for public safety.

The Treaty�s aim was to stop the underclass from running wild by creating a black middle class who would, it was assumed, keep a lid on things out of economic self-interest. A newly appointed affirmative-action $125,000-a-year black school principal might not boost test scores but he would not encourage pupils to seek economic justice �by any means necessary.� Better to have potential rabble-rousers toiling as corporate vice-p********s for diversity than stirring up the brothers.

Endless failed policies have not undermined the Treaty. In education, for example, Head Start and school meals funding is still growing despite disappointing outcomes. Armies of support staff now fill largely black schools even though academic performance remains unchanged. Clearly, this lavishness can be understood only as a pay-off to sustain racial peace.

The Treaty is sacrosanct across the ideological spectrum, and even admitting its existence is verboten. Nobody dare ask, for example, if all the affirmative action hires or government set-a-sides that guarantee domestic tranquility actually yield economic benefits. No struggling black university student worries that flunking out will endanger affirmative action; a dreadful drop-out rate will only bring more government largess.

Since the 1960s, with scant exceptions, this pay-off has been amazingly successful. Once common �race war� rhetoric (burn baby burn, the fire next time etc.) has virtually vanished. Urban riots have gone from once a week to once a decade. Black militancy has largely reverted to its pre-1960s form of litigation and legislative demands. White mayors no longer walk the streets to keep the peace during the �long hot summer� or plead for Washington money so they can hire community-activist firebrands. Yes, black crime persists, black-run cities like Newark and Detroit sink into Third-World depravity, and whites are sometimes the victims of black crime, but 1960s style anti-white mayhem (and revolutionary oratory) has, at least until very recently, almost vanished.

The key question is whether these flash mobs are the first inklings of a soon-to-be broken Treaty (recall how the �Arab Spring� began with a single, seemingly innocuous incident). It is not inconceivable that America could return to 1960s-style racial upheaval. It is this possibility, not the criminality per se, that makes proliferating flash mobs especially frightening. Aggressive policing in response could prompt a vintage urban riot, and rioting is often contagious. Fiscal cutbacks might end millions of government �make work� jobs for blacks, and many of the slots blacks used to fill are now taken by Hispanic immigrants. Our former $125,000-a-year principal will no longer have an incentive to keep the peace.

Keep in mind that no black under the age of 40 remembers the pre-Treaty days, a world without the lucrative spoils system and ego-enhancing PC. For them, all the keep-the-peace benefits bestowed by a white-dominated government are normal, a justly deserved arrangement with no expiration date.

Can anything be done if matters begin reverting to pre-Treaty days? Probably not much beyond more aggressive policing, a risky tactic that might exacerbate violence. The Treaty cannot be amended to provide even more benefits for blacks. Pressuring American firms to hire more unqualified African Americans or upping the penalties for alleged racial discrimination will just push businesses to North Dakota or Asia. It is hard to imagine America becoming even more PC on race. Admitting more unqualified blacks to colleges would just boost the drop-out rate. And forget about more generous welfare at a time when cities and states already have budget shortfalls. If anything, the tide seems to be turning to renegotiate the Treaty to cut benefits for blacks. State bans on racial preferences�never legislated by elected representatives but forced on them by voters�are a good example of how ordinary people are thinking.

In short, the Treaty may be expiring but the spoils system�even if the benefits are a little leaner�is probably forever.

Mr. Kay is a retired academic finally free to speak his mind.

(Posted on August 5, 2011)