The British Parliament today announced today some sweeping new reforms aimed at suppressing the Black Market slave trade. Under an amendment passed to a 2015 law, British Naval authorities now have the authority to detain and inspect vessels suspected of carrying human cargo.
In an official statement, the UK government affirmed that "thousands of law enforcement officers across the United Kingdom will be empowered to join the fight against modern slavery at sea using new powers in the Modern Slavery Act which come into force as of August 8th. These new powers include the authority to board and search vessels, seize evidence and arrest offenders where it is suspected that modern slavery is taking place and rescue victims in UK waters."
The amendments also provide stiffer sentencing guidelines for slavers.
These new laws would have been unthinkable before BREXIT. Under the maritime laws and judicial restrictions of the European Union, Britain had far less authority to regulate its own waters. The British Home Office believes that the UK is the 5th largest point-of-origin for the illegal slave trade.
Britain has taken a step in the right direction and, as one of the first governments historically to abolish the slave trade, hopefully will become the global leader in fighting this international scourge. The numbers of victims of the modern slave trade are unknown; but they are predominantly women and children. There has been an unfortunate tendency in the West to deny the problem even exists. The denial is coming largely from segments of the Manosphere who believe that the problem is a feminist exaggeration. However, we have seen in the Middle East undeniable proof that the Jihadist Wahhabi Cult is engaging in these crimes on a substantial scale.
In fighting any Black Market activity, we must also identify who is receiving the product. The fact that slaves are expensive and predominantly women and children seem to argue against some on the Left who would have us believe that the slaves are destined for sweatshops in poor countries. No, it is quite obvious that these slaves are sold to buyers in wealthy countries; to rich degenerates and high-level criminals for immoral purposes. And to follow the money even more closely, we are talking about countries with close political and economic ties to the Wahhabis: i.e., the US, EU, the Japanese Empire, and Arab Peninsula Sheikdoms.
By extension, the sheer volume and profitability of the slave trade must also lead us to conclude that the numbers of depraved customers for it among our so-called Cultural Elites must also be quite high. The very fact that the above-named governments and their respective media outlets are silent on the subject ought also to raise some suspicions. It also should raise some suspicions that there strong US/NATO military presence in all the areas in which these slaves are said to be originating.
So evidently we'll not see much, if any action or discussion in our own sector of the world. But Britain, committed to the fight, may begin bringing some new evidence to light. Post-BREXIT, the UK is once again standing tall on the side of right and reassuming its position as an international leader in the fight for justice.
Here in the Prozac Nation, the political process has actually degenerated to the point where the two top presidential candidates are debating over each other's mental fitness to hold office and accusing each other of employing foreign spies. The mere fact that Ameroboobs are basing our national future on which candidate we believe is less insane speaks volumes about the nadir to which our culture has sunk.
But while the American people are busy getting into political street fights, getting stoned, and watching the Rio Olympics, some politicians elsewhere are doing some worthwhile things. In the African country of Malawi, one of those countries despised by American pundits as a third-world hellhole, members of that country's parliament crossed the aisles and joined hands to donate help to a struggling orphanage in the Malawian capital, Lilongwe. The Mother Teresa Children's House is home to 52 orphans. The politicians brought a supply of badly-needed food items such as milk, corn, and cooking oil.
"You know that this is the Year of Mercy as declared by our Pope---Pope Francis---and as the Catholic Community in Parliament, we thought that we should do something to support those in need." said Francis Kasaila, who organized the delegation, "Though many of us here today are political opponents, we believe our duty as Catholics comes before politics."
Kasaila's statement explains the contempt American politicians feel for Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular. In a culture where the personal is political, and the public conditioned to see political opponents as insane, there is obvious hostility toward anyone who thinks that morality transcends politics.
The Parliamentarians also spent time with the children, and plan future donations of educational and other personal needs. Sister Mira, Mother Superior of the orphanage, thanked the politicians for their support. Afterwards, she also stated to the press:
"We would want to discourage the social tendency of aborting innocent children. Therefore, let those who feel they couldn't manage caring for their children to bring them here to the Center instead of aborting or abandoning these innocent souls. As you know, life is a gift from God, and who knows? These children too may one day be our future leaders."
It should be noted that both major presidential candidates, as well the candidates of the two minor parties in the US elections are unequivocally 'pro-choice'. And it is even worse that politicians in tiny countries in Southern Africa are moral examples to mankind, while ours are international laughing-stocks.
In the exceptionalist United States, in fact---the nation that first enshrined religious liberty---the political Left is trying to shut down Catholic charities for refusing to provide abortion and homosexual services. And the political Right is trying to shut them down for not turning away immigrants. Meanwhile, 52 Malawian children have hope for the future, because politicians heard the Church's call to be "faithful witnesses of charity and love one another despite political differences."
Blogger Insanitybytes posted some articles lately about the American Right and its attitudes towards poverty. Since she asked for a discussion, we thought to address the subject here as well.
Both poverty and concentrations of wealth and power in the US are artificial creations. They exist because of specific policies fomented by political and economic interests who benefit from a huge economic disparity. The Left profits---quite handsomely---off the Welfare State. The Right wants poverty because lack of opportunity limits economic competition. Both sides use poverty as a political wedge against the other, when in reality both are working together for the same ends: monopolizing power and profit.
Pundits on the Right stereotype the poor as a class of lazy bums (and many actually are); while Leftist commentators portray the rich as exploitative parasites (which is also true of many of them). This is typical of political propaganda. There are deserving poor and there are deserving rich. The propagandists, who are all being paid to spread class antagonism, want us all to believe that one's economic status identifies him as friend or foe. The same way that racists identify with skin color, for example.
What formerly made America the Land of Opportunity was not tied to specific economic theories so much as it was to a cultural attitude that everyone was entitled to a fair chance. This belief is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence which lists mankind's three entitlements as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Note that happiness itself is not an entitlement; but the pursuit of, or opportunity to attain it, is. And, as our Founders made clear, this entitlement is an inalienable right from God.
There actually is no fundamental difference between godless Capitalism and godless Communism. As Theodore Roosevelt pointed out 100 years ago, it really makes little difference whether a corporate monopoly or a state commissariat controls a given economic sector: the end result is identical. But the problem is that interested parties have framed the argument so that there is no possibility of compromise. Our last essay, which spoke of China's technological advances in transportation, is a prime example. It's not necessarily that China's plan is the best possible one. The reason that China is dominating us in rail technology is because the Chinese leadership recognized a problem, made a plan, and then did something about it. If we had any actual leadership here, we could probably have a better system than China's; but our so-called leaders are more interested in plunder than solving problems.
And the same principle applies to solving the problems of poverty. Americans need to get out of their collective state of denial and stop letting right-wing shock-jocks and left-wing agitators do their thinking for them. Do we need a social welfare system? Yes. Do we need economic deregulation to encourage job growth? Yes. To end mass-poverty we need both; but not as either are currently being practiced. Welfare needs to be made more efficient and deregulation needs to be made more fair. And both sides need to stop using their respective powers to sabotage the other. There is absolutely no logical reason why strong government and economic power are mutually exclusive; nor why economic planning is a bad thing. It only becomes a negative when both government and business are run by gangs of criminals, as ours currently are.
Both Left and Right Wing agitators radically revise US history, the latter pretending that our forefathers were rugged individualists who lifted themselves by their bootstraps, with no dependence or concern for the community whatsoever. The former tells us the same thing, only depicting earlier generations as mostly slaves of these rugged individualists. Both perspectives are political deceptions.
Some on the Right will likely sneer at this point, and say that the government poverty programs of the 20th Century failed to eliminate poverty. We can say in response that the Church has sought eliminate poverty for 2 millennia and have not succeeded. Poverty is, sadly, something that is never going away but both Church and State can do things to minimize its pervasiveness and ameliorate its effects. If any one needs proof that they cannot work together, note that the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Government combined to build one the greatest humanitarian relief efforts in history in Syria even as we speak.
So, to answer Insanitybytes' question: yes, we do need a national conversation on this problem. But what needs to be done first is a national willingness to deal with it and to hold our leadership accountable for following through.
Guangxi, the Chinese railroad company, unveiled its far-reaching plan to connect all major cities in China with high-speed rail by 2020. The project, which will create thousands of new jobs, is part of an ongoing program launched in the last decade, already serving China's major cities.
The announcement follows a statement released yesterday that the state-owned Beijing-Shanghai Line made a whopping $982 million profit in 2015, and all other lines show profits as well. The Beijing-Shanghai Line carries 130 million passengers per year and covers about 700 miles in just under five hours.
It is quite telling that most American politicians, who see no problem spending billions on bogus 'security systems' in airports, object to such systems here on the grounds that it would not be profitable and that the government has no interest in national transportation systems. But while we here in the Prozac Nation willingly submit to the most degrading humiliations at the hands of TSA perverts and bullies at airports, the Chinese are enjoying low-cost and enjoyable transportation which makes a profit for the government.
The US has effectively no national passenger rail service at all, other than Amtrak, which hasn't been upgraded since the 1970s. There are municipal commuter-rail services; all of which operate at loss (despite their expense to the commuters) because of outdated technology, corruption, and legal and bureaucratic red tape. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimate that 45% of US households lack any access to public transit and estimate the annual economic loss from the failing system we do have at $90 billion.
As an example of the differences, note that China plans to complete a high-speed rail line in Hubei Province by 2017. The project began in 2014, with a projected cost of $3 billion. In contrast, Seattle's much-touted Link Light Rail System began in 1999 and is expected to be completed by 2020 at the cost of nearly $6 billion. The Seattle project covers 23 miles, while the Hubei project covers over 100 miles. And, Seattle's system, which is less secure and less efficient than the Hubei system, is actually one of the better and least expensive systems in the US.
China's success has attracted the interest of developing countries, and the African country of Kenya entered into joint project with the Chinese to construct high-speed rail there. The project began in 2014 and is expected to be fully completed by 2017. The Kenyan government reported that that nation's economy has already seen 6% growth related directly to infrastructure improvements.
Saitote Torome, an official in Kenya's Interior Ministry stated to the press: "We are building a base for industrialization with these infrastructure projects. Likewise, these new systems reduce energy costs, which have been a major deterrent to industrial investment."
Despite US Corporate Media propaganda to the contrary, teams of international observers have been invited to China to assess the environmental impact of these new rail systems. They found that China is taking especial precautions to ensure environmental integrity, including the construction of 15 wastewater treatment facilities along the Qinghai- Tibet line alone. In contrast, a proposal to build a high-speed rail in California was scrapped because of frivolous lawsuits and harassment from environmental extremists.
Considering that the United States once had one of the most advanced and successful passenger rail systems in the world, one would think that the subject would be widely discussed in the current political campaign. But instead, the candidates are arguing over each other's mental conditions. Despite the fact that for the cost of Trump's border wall or Hilary's expansion of the welfare system, we could easily regain our position as leaders in rail technology and boost the economy as well. Meanwhile, though, China is getting the job done.
The American entertainment media was once known for realistic dramatic presentations. Real men and women faced and overcame extraordinary circumstances; and always kept higher values and purposes in focus. This format changed in the mid-to-late 1960s when producers and screenwriters began drifting into the realm of escapist fantasies with amoral heroes, who invariably worked for some nebulous 'good' organization against an ill-defined 'evil' one.
Spy and espionage programs somehow naturally fit the new dramatic paradigm. We saw a new generation of spies, a la James Bond. Men who could sleep with a love interest one day and put a bullet in her head the next. Men who worked for organizations whose purpose was never specified except that they paid well, against groups who were evil for the sake of being evil. And naturally these agents could do anything. That was escapist fantasy, and Hollywood has followed that model ever since.
1966, however, saw two WW2 espionage series that took the Television's Golden Age out with an exclamation point. One was Jericho (which we reviewed on June 24th) and the other was this weekend's viewing recommendation, Blue Light.
Blue Light ran during the first half of 1966 on ABC and was everything a typical late 60s espionage was not supposed to be. It was the story of David March, an American counter-intelligence agent who posed as a traitor to infiltrate the Nazi Government. Unlike contemporary productions, Blue Light did not glamorize or whitewash the realities of espionage and warfare.
It has been said of men in certain dangerous professions that they have tough, though necessary, jobs. March is character profile that brings that out in bold relief. He is faced daily with the horrors of the Nazi Regime (which the producers make no attempt to disguise) and the human suffering and consequences of that regime's policies (which the writers also pointedly address). In other words, March is a man who clearly comprehends the Nature of Evil, which he must oppose both as part of his mission and internally---to keep from becoming that which he is fighting. Throughout the series, March is forced into some of the most grueling moral dilemmas imaginable and walks a delicate tightrope between his own spiritual values and succumbing to the temptation of falling to the moral level of the Nazis.
This is especially important for men to see today, when both Male Feminists and the Manospherians (and the culture in general) are teaching men that conformity to the status quo and brushing aside traditional values to achieve one's goals is the correct policy. It doesn't work that way in reality if one truly believes in Good and Evil. In fact, some of the Cultural Marxists employed as film critics actually argue that the Nazi characters in Blue Light were portrayed as too evil---on the contrary, they were fairly accurate depictions of the psychopaths, fanatics, and criminals who ran the Third Reich. Postmodernists do not like to be confronted with the reality of what human evil is actually capable of doing. They prefer a hazy moral grey area where one side is really no better or worse than other.
That is one feature that truly makes Blue Light a lost gem. This is probably one of the most anti-moral relativist series ever made. It's not improbable that, in the 1960s Counterculture, that the producers deliberately wished to stress that point. Nor did they take any evasions to hide the fact that standing on principle carries a price. In one early episode, March learns that his lover in England committed suicide, believing him to be a traitor. In another, he confronts his brother---now a prisoner in a German POW camp.
Blue Light is not a series for the escapist. However, those men working in 'dangerous professions' and families who know or respect them, will find a sympathetic character in David March.
Blue Light was also a serialized drama---with one episode usually premised on earlier ones. As of this writing, the first four episodes are available only on Dailymotion. The DVD set is the best option for viewing it, although it may take some internet to find it. Still, well worth the investment for its fast-paced action and its profound themes.
A commenter called 'OK Rickety' raised some points in one of our discussions which need some further elucidation in a longer essay. He took exception to a statement we had made concerning the differences between our culture's past and current sexual education of boys. Here is his observations:
"Well we don't live in the past. Instead boys today experience the reality that most often their fathers or their friends' fathers have been divorced by their mothers. As they reach the point of considering marriage, they likely hear more details about these marriages and realize that it is unlikely that they will be any more successful."
This statement, and variations of it are something like an axiom among followers of the Game/Red Pill Philosophy. The problem is that it is based on false premises, though superficially true. The general theme is something like this:
1. Things were different in the past.
2. Modern society has adopted a New Morality.
3. The present is the reality we must deal with.
4. Therefore, we must conform to this reality.
Points 1 and 2 are obviously true, it is third premise, and consequently the conclusion, that are false.
It is a common human tendency to assume that present social conditions represent reality, when in fact they do not. This is especially true during times of social instability. It is not a natural condition for children to be raised in broken and dysfunctional homes any more than it is natural for homosexual love-trysts are legitimate marriages or mass-violence is legitimate sociopolitical expression. The reality of what a marriage and family are have never changed. What we are experiencing in 21st Century America---divorce, abortion, broken children, gender-identity disorders, et cetera---are the consequences of avoiding reality.
It is simply wishful thinking to assume that gender polarity is not essential to a healthy society's long-term viability. Remove the masculine component, as the Feminists teach, and you get an unstable and neurotic culture like the 21st Century West where violence, drug abuse, corporate and political expediency, and instant gratification are typical. Remove the feminine component as the Game Cultists teach, and you get brutal and authoritarian cultures like the Wahhabi Arabs where fanaticism and obedience to leaders of personality cults are typical. As a side note, it is not a positive sign that in our own presidential elections that Hilary Clinton represents one tendency and Donald Trump, the other.
The correct response therefore is not to conform with or adapt to unreality. The only moral choices we have is either to resist the unreality actively, or withdraw from it passively (i.e. seek another society that respects correct choices). What the Red Pill Philosophy offers is a false solution; the idea that we can play by our opponents' rules and still emerge victorious. At best, such a course of action can only produce a variant form of social dysfunction; just as Red Pill Philosophy is nothing but a variant of Radical Feminism.
It is not therefore a matter of teaching young men and boys outdated ideals concerning marriage and gender relationships as it about teaching them the correct ideals. As we mentioned in our earlier, Red Pill Philosophy fails here, because it is based on a materialist, marketing approach to relationships and marriage. These matters are not about selling oneself and winning a product. This is why marriage historically falls under the jurisdiction of religion. Religion recognizes the deeper universal principles underlying a marriage bond; that two individuals must spiritually bond as one for a higher purpose. This is much different than the economic models of the Gamers and Marxists who see marriage as something more like forming a corporation and sex as something to be negotiated like a sales pitch.
What both Game and Feminism are ultimately based upon is narcissism. Neither likes the idea of one party giving up their independence and individual to become an integral part of a family. And one sees the divisiveness present in modern America, we understand that it has its roots in divided families. One situation is the direct product of the other.
Allied military engineers confirmed today that yesterday's poison gas attack in Aleppo, Syria originated in zone controlled by the Pentagon's so-called moderate rebels. General Sergei Chavarkov, commander of the Russian Expeditionary Force notified the Beltway of its discovery. The barbarians deployed the gas---probably Chlorine---on a residential neighborhood in Aleppo, killing 7 and critically poisoning 20 others.
This is certainly not the first incident of US-backed forces committing atrocities in Syria. Most recently they publically beheaded a 12-year old boy, and massacred about 40 women and children in cold blood outside Aleppo. Other noteworthy actions include the slaughter of the entire village of Zara, and systematically burning out farms in the Ghouta District.
"We haven't confirmed those reports." said Mark Toner, spokesman for the LGBTQ-friendly US State Department of the gas attack. "Obviously we condemn the use of chemical weapons. We'll investigate."
And no doubt, like the inquiry into Hilary Clinton's Benghazi e-mails, whatever we hear will be to the Beltway's liking. They will probably go about as far as the official inquiries into US bombings of civil targets in Syria, or the Chilcot Report's conclusions about US war crimes in Iraq.
It is interesting to recall that one reason Obama was elected in 2008 was his opposition to the Bush Administration's meddling in the Middle East. Yet Obama has not left Afghanistan or Iraq, and has expanded the conflict into Syria, Libya, Yemen, and possibly Turkey. During the entire 8 year Reign of Terror that Obama's foreign policy has been, we have not seen any of the types of orchestrated protests or media criticism that we formerly saw against Bush.
Instead, the Corporate Media is distracting everyone's attention because Hilary Clinton had some token Moslem speak at the Democratic Party Convention and Donald Trump made some allegedly insensitive comments about it.
If we would care to discuss Moslem heroes we can look instead to the brave people of Syria who've been fighting for their country against both Wahhabi Jihadists and Western Leftists for 5 years. Or the Moslem volunteers from Lebanon, Iran, and parts of Russia who've joined the fight. We could look at the Moslems in Iraq who have been doing the same. Or the ones in Yemen, who've been resisting---successfully---a US-backed Wahhabi invasion. We could look at the Moslems in Libya whose country was occupied by US-backed Wahhabis and are fighting to liberate themselves. We could look at the oppressed Shiite population in Bahrain rising against another US-backed Wahhabi Regime.
But the interests of Wall Street and International Organized Crime would prefer that we not look into such things. Hence, Ameroboobs are at each others' throats over some political name-calling, while ignoring things like poison-gas attacks on civilians.
