Disgusting New Axe "Make Love, Not War" Campaign

The latest commercial airing for axe products right now involves four scenes depicting war scenarios in 2nd world war, Vietnam war, and tensions in Iran and North Korea. In each scene it appears as if the aggressor is about to commit a horrible act against either another visible human (in the case of the first two scenes involving ground forces) or unseen population (in the second two scenes representing known tyrants).

On the surface, the message appears endearing, but it covers a disturbing idea, or at least creates confusion when confronted with reality. Because of this, my initial reaction was, "Why is this making light of the horrible atrocities these dictators have committed." The reaction is mixed on youtube, with most falling for the surface fluffy message ignoring the disturbing factors. However, there are some that are disturbed. They don't seem to be able to put their finger on why, and are quickly attacked by others.

Maybe I can spotlight my reasons.

In the past, Axe created a borderline frustration, as it promoted a carnal lust as love, an idea not too uncommon today. "Use this, and you'll be irresistible to women." Of course, this message drags this to the point where the women are unaware or apathetic to the fact that there are multiple women engaging with this single man. Rarely in the commercial do they even fight over the man, satisfied to merely be engaged in intimacy simultaneously.

I suppose they felt the need to mature this message. Apparently Axe now produces true love capable of averting even war. At least that's the overt message. However, when you couple this with the fact that they equate the love of a war world 2 ground soldier with the love of a tyrant to his forced marriage, the message becomes disturbing. Added to that is the reality of these tyrannic cultures. Where women are treated less than human. Axe is either, changing the man who's wearing it, or, based on past Axe messages, is making the woman apathetic to their condition. It's this liberal, all people can be reformed, nonsense again. Another naive attempt to ignorantly believe that there's no such thing as evil. Instead of carrying a sheep into battle, we'll carry Axe.

First they make light of love. Putting higher value on a man manipulating carnal lust in women, disenfranchising women in a derogatory way.

Then they make light of the atrocities committed by tyrants. Disenfranchising women by making light of their suffering in these backwards parts of the world.

Right to bear or left to bare.

Gun control. A log of registration and a background check. We already have the background checks, it doesn't work. You have two issues. The lack of communication between states, and the fact that most rampages come from people with no evidence of mental instability (on the record). People aren't breaking out of asylums to go blow up a school. Even if they can't get a gun, will you stop them at home depot buying PVC? Tell me what gun control legislation would have stopped Boston?

I have a NYC reader's comment here:
"While the second admendment came as a by-product of American's history and was certainly necessary at the time, that is not the case now..."

I would like to see this person make the argument for why it was necessary at the time. You see, when you want to expose the weakness of the argument, don't overlook the introductory clause.
What made it necessary?
Native-American attacks? No different than an armed robbery.

Sometimes you have to update the law because new avenues, to which it should apply, appear. Take libel for example. Is a reader's comment a publication? No? For that matter, is the article? Is a tweet?

However when a change in culture raises a change in law, we need to stop and reflect. The foolishness of assuming that we have "progressed" past the Bill of Rights assumes that the people who established them were lacking something. Was it intelligence? Is that what we're saying here? That we are somehow smarter or more enlightened than they were. The founding fathers were living, breathing people. Don't dismiss them.

If you want to know why the second admendment was necessary look at the language.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason.

Now tell me, what makes that a by-product? What makes that no longer relevant.

The answer is clear. The culture today believes that it is ok for the government to define The People, instead of what the founding fathers believed -- The People define the government.

I'll have my right to bear arms, the government answers to The People. WE ARE The People.

Pressured to ban.

The Bleeding Hearts of America hereby support a nationwide ban on pressure cookers. Who really needs to cook that meal in 30 mins or less? Is it worth the 100s injured by the deadly explosive force they employ. These assault cullinary instruments are only really intended to damage detached flesh.

We also support the restriction of any cartridge of nails and or ball bearings to 10 count. There's no use for rapid bearing deployment of bearings ove the count needed to construct a single axle. And roof tiles only need 6 nails each. Nail gun cartridges should be limited as well.

Signed,

Loons of America.

That's terrorist!

Most of you know right now what has happened in Boston. It's a tragedy. Let's not get our words mixed up trying to redefine what peoples' intentions are. Did the act cause panic? Did it target the public? Was it deadly use of force? The definition is clear. It does not matter what group, what nation, what organization. This is terrorism. This is war against The People. War against us. Whether it is perpetrated by one insane individual or one insane group. Life is they know it for these victims is forever changed. Let's not do them the disservice of belittling the crimes perpetrated against them. Who are we trying to protect?  the people who might get offended because they wear their feelings on their sleeves, or the men and women that have lost family; that lost their able-bodiedness. My intent is clear, my heart is with the people in Boston.

The Truth About Health Care

Ok, so we're looking at this big mess and we're wondering how to fix it.

I propose we set up this huge band-aid so that people don't have to pay the huge bills, they can just make claims without having to shop around, or demand lower prices, or even care about the outcome, as long as they are fix't.

We'll dub it insurance.

Doctor's will have to give discounts to remain "in-network", which we'll drive that traffic by offering better coverage "in-network". It's a win-win.

Meanwhile, we can keep inflating health care costs without anyone noticing, because all they'll end up paying is slightly more on their insurance premium.

We can't blame the insurance companies, because combined they earn less profit than Coca-Cola. So if the insurance companies are evil, so is Diet Coke. [1]





[1] http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/47570/insurers-profits-arent-problem/jeffrey-h-anderson

Fundamental Reason for our Success

I've tasked myself with educating the public since there apparently are kids in our education system that think that socialism is a good thing.

Socialism in a nutshell:

Socialism revolves around worker ownership of production, its means, and the methods of distributing the refined resources (created by the production or the result of trade with an outside entity).

It means that the people who work own an equal share of the means of production (they own the warehouses, equipment, the mine, etc.) They also own a equal vote in the distribution of the resources (food, clothing, shelter, education, opportunity).

Problem with socialism:

It's unfeasible. In any realized socialistic government there exists a few that control the means of production and the resources, and they alone decide (in the name of the voice of the people) how the resources are distributed. The result of which is communism.

Communism in a nutshell:

Communism takes socialism and establishes a centralized government that have all the rights the workers were designated by socialism. Government control production, its means, and distribution of resources.

Our Republic in a nutshell:

Our republic is ruled by law. Unfettered law based in our Constitution is inherently impartial. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. Democracy is rule by popular opinion (or majority rule). The law protects each person with the same rights. Therefore, 5 people cannot take what belongs to 1 person because the victim is protected by a common law that makes such a thing illegal.

The laws are written by legislators which, according to the constitution, are supposed to only adapt to unknown changes in the future; they aren't supposed to undo the concept of equal protection.


See, the founding fathers were smart and realized they needed legislators who could apply the constitution to things like equal protection of intellectual property. Property wasn't intellectual in the past. A physical item had to exist. However the constitution provides equal protection for a person's means of production, and the lyrics of a song qualify for this protection. The concept of intellectual property was created to provide just that protection guaranteed by the constitution. Such laws do not CHANGE the concept of equal protection, but extend it to all property.


Judges are supposed to interpret law, because not each individual case can be covered in words. Therefore the law is generic, and judges interpret how to apply the law to the case at hand.


The economy in a nutshell:

Here is my theory which will define the ultimate difference between communism (because socialism cannot exist) and a republic with regards to the economy. The success of any economy revolves around this concept: does the individual feel that his means of production are adequately protected.

Think of a farmer. does he feel that he can grow crops without external forces taking his land, seeds, and produce? Does he fear that the government does not adequately protect him from his neighbor farmer burning his crops down to create a monopoly? Does he fear that the government will take his land away without due compensation?

Consider the stock broker. Is he confident the government cannot tax his capital gains so much that he cannot use his talent to generate personal wealth?

When people do not feel they can protect the means to generate wealth (notice I'm not saying they MUST generate wealth), the economy fails.

And The Difference???

Socialistic confidence in the protection of the means of production depends on the PARTIAL AND BIASED actions of the people who control the government. That means NO guarantee the law is impartial. NO Guarantee the law protects ones rights. If the people feel the government is not acting in the best interest of this security, SOCIALISTIC ECONOMY fails.

Republic confidence in the protection of the means of production depends on an impartial law and impartial legislation, jurisdiction, and enforcement of such a law. If the people feel the government no longer applies the law, or that the law has been distorted to not provide equal protection, A REPUBLIC ECONOMY fails.

Why is this so important:

This may not seem different to you because it appears as if people can change laws or refuse to apply them fairly (resulting in a dependency on the people in power), however in a Republic, this is imaginary. The CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES that we always have the right to demand that the law is applied impartially. The CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES the law will always allow us to protect our means of production (and other inalienable rights) regardless what the people in office claim, say, or do. We are even given the right to revolt against any people in government who refuse to provide this protection.

In a socialistic government, in which the people do not have this buffer of protection by impartial law, the law is changed at whim by the people in power, and the people do not have the right to revolt.

That's why, if any government official says that the Constitution must be changed to enable progress, that person does not understand the fundamental guarantee in the Constitution that law will impartially protect THE PEOPLE and their basic rights. They aim to take this away from us.

THIS IS the only source of freedom.

And now you are educated. Now you know why the Constitution, the Republic, and the guarantee of impartial Law is so fundamental to our nation. These things are the very spirit of the foundation of our nation.

ANY FREE MAN MUST PROTECT THIS FREEDOM DEARLY.