Another issue commonly brought up in the immigration debate is the notion that immigrant labor is stealing American jobs. With a 20+% unemployment rate and another approximately 20-25% underemployment rate, the issue of labor certainly needs to be addressed. Of course, none of the candidates are saying anything that will have the slightest effect on this problem, but scapegoating immigrant labor is quite common.
The Political Right is correct when they say that we are becoming a third-world nation, but this not because of our population demographics. It is happening because governmental policies---supported by Wall Street special interests, and our public education system are failing to produce both the economic climate and the skilled workforce needed to build and sustain a productive economy.
Look closely at the types of people attending Sanders rallies; the crowds rioting on college campuses; and the street bums and drug dealers plaguing most cities. Eliminate immigrant labor from the workforce and understand that they are whom you're counting upon to replace it. Is it any surprise that the service sector is dependent upon immigrant labor?
America's agricultural base is likewise eroding. There have been migrant farm workers here for a long time. Before the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, this work was performed by a domestic industry called Sharecropping. Sharecroppers in the past did not have a much higher standard of living than migrant farm workers do today. The domestic sharecropping industry is not likely to return, for the reasons stated above. Realizing that, some pundits have called for replacing migrant farm labor with prison-labor and welfare/work camps. Suggestions like these should raise immediate red-flags that Wall Street and the Agribusiness Cartels are behind these kinds of suggestions. Why would any respectable business concern want to replace skilled labor with slave labor unless to maximize power and profit?
Our agricultural base is not declining because of immigrant labor---it's collapsing because of governmental regulation and our deteriorating infrastructure. California, for example, has been in a near three-year drought while desalinization plants and other upgrades in irrigation are being blocked. Water treatment facilities in the Northwest are so inadequate that the salmon industry is comprised because of toxic levels of narcotics in the water. There have been no dams or artificial lakes constructed in the United States for decades. Likewise, our freight rail system is operating on 1970s technology. None of this is the fault of immigrant labor. It is the fault of Americans who've allowed this to happen without demanding accountability from their government.
Right now, the US is a net importer of most fruits, vegetables, fish, sugar, and rice. Price inflation of foodstuffs is scandalous---but it is because of scarcity. Our leading cash crop in most US states is Marijuana---and that puts much of Ameroboob negligence for these problems in context.
Our industrial base is in severe decline but immigrant labor is not to blame; in fact, immigrant labor is almost all that keeps the domestic industrial base alive. Industry is being outsourced to foreign countries for the simple reason that it is cheaper to manufacture goods abroad and re-import them into the US. Unlike agriculture, there is no shortage of skilled domestic labor in Industry. There is, however, a severe shortage in employment opportunities. The cause behind this almost exclusively tax and regulatory burdens on industry; combined with considerable financial skullduggery from Wall Street. Again, this not a problem we can blame on foreign labor.
Finally, our technology sectors have come in for some recent criticism for importing foreign tech workers and executives. The reason for this again is government regulation---specifically Affirmative Action laws. When a company is prohibited from hiring qualified whites and cannot hire a sufficient number of qualified minorities---what is left for them to do but to import minorities?
So, just as with the Border Wall, we see that the huffing from pundits about immigrants stealing our jobs is another smokescreen to divert Ameroboob attention from the fact that our economic decline is due to Americans' own negligence and narcissism.
Certain elements within the Manosphere who advocate the cultish philosophy of Game, have recently taken up a new term to disparage their opponents: Egalitarianism. Now, it's evident from their writings that they have no idea what the term actually means. Egalitarianism is simply a view relating to socio-political equality within a prescribed framework of civilized social norms. Of course, any philosophy that promotes equality denies supremacy; and Supremacy is one of Game's fundamental premises.
It needs to pointed out, however, that the Cultural Marxists also pervert the meaning of Egalitarianism. They have grafted on to the idea of equality Moral Relativism and Utilitarian Ethics. Under such a paradigm, equality becomes a meaningless concept since there are no circumscribed boundaries under which it can operate. Under the old paradigm, women were presumed equal within the Feminine Polarity; and equal with men under the Law and under God. Radical Feminism, a component of Cultural Marxism, destroyed the social boundaries and left us with the pseudo-equality of Androgyny.
The Gamers, as they always do, accept the Cultural Marxist paradigm as normative, which makes the Egalitarian term a pejorative one. One of the chieftains of the Game Cult, a self-professed happily married father in a post-feminist world, now even refers to clerics outside his sect as 'Egalitarian Pastors' (as if that term describes their denominations) and took issue with one Rev. Wade Burleson. Burleson is quoted by them as follows:
"Any religion on Earth that refuses to assist women to find their basic needs met in Jesus Christ, any religion that refrains from pointing to women the King of Kings and encourages them to revel in the riches of being 'wed to Christ' and any religion that somehow makes a woman think that she needs her husband (spiritually, emotionally, or materially) is a religion that is not based on the Infallible Scriptures or God's Kingdom. On the other hand, those Christian women who have been set free from the bondage of believing that they need their husbands to meet their basic needs, and then instead simply love their husbands from the overflow of experientially resting in the love and provisions of Christ will find a little slice of Heaven in their homes."
Although phrased somewhat awkwardly (and assuming that the writer quoting him didn't take him out of context), what Burleson is essentially arguing is that Christian wives should reclaim their status as Sisters in Christ within the context of a marriage: a position wholly advocated in the New Testament and by the Church Fathers. It's Burleson's use of the term needing their husbands that has the Gamers stirred up. It's evident here that what Burleson actually refers to are Christian wives who are using their husbands as a crutch instead of fulfilling their feminine roles as helpmeets and co-laborers in Christ. But that's not how the Gamers spin it:
"Feminism tells us that women are to be strong and independent and that it is a sin for a woman to need a man." he proclaims. Actually, Feminism tells us that women are supposed to submit its doctrines, and it is a 'sin' to go against Political Correctness. But he continues: "But the Bible tells us that women are to submit to and revere their husbands, and to turn to them for spiritual instruction. What is a Christian Feminist to do? The answer is of course to craft a biblical-sounding argument that submitting to husbands is a sin and that women need to be strong and independent."
This is a blatant deception because Burleson said nothing in the quote about submission as a sin. What Burleson described was a Christian wife recognizing her God-given strength in Christ to better her abilities to serve her husband. Burleson makes this clear saying: "A woman is to get her significance, security, and love from her union with Jesus Christ, and never a union with any man."
The Gamers take offense at that suggestion too, because wives might conclude from it that it is not their Christian duty to submit to abuse and infidelity (which the Game Cultists routinely insist that they should). They throw up their hands in pious horror that Burleson should say:
"Therefore if your husband is unfaithful or abusive, confront your husband in love and draw a boundary. Tell your husband that you cannot control his actions nor is it your desire to control him. Let him know that if he desires another woman or feels the need to abuse you, then you will let him go. You can and will end the marriage because you do not need him. In many marriages, wives will unintentionally enable their husbands to continue in sin and addictions because they unintentionally substitute their husbands for Christ. When a wife cannot picture a future without her husband, she has made the marriage her idol and lost her perspective on the reality that her marriage is intended to reflect her union with Christ."
Now, it is altogether obvious that Burleson is addressing women who are trapped in abusive relationships---of the type the Game Cult holds up as an ideal. So naturally, the author exhausts his vocabulary on the type of wife who would dare stand up to a swinish husband; calling such things an act of rebellion. He concludes all of this by saying that feminine selfishness is really the problem here---if a husband acts like a brute, it's only a sinful and rebellious wife who would object.
Overall, what Burleson stated was correct; it is not a Christian virtue to submit willingly to willful abuse. Though we have to disagree with Burleson that the two genders do not need one another; a relationship that has lost its meaning through the actions of one party is invalidated. The Sacrament of Marriage is inviolate only so long as continuance in it does not produce a greater evil, such as infidelity or abuse. The Gamers again show that they only use 'Christian Marriage' as a cloak to conceal their gender-supremacist ideology.
A huge national distraction is underway in the American election, the so-called Immigration Crisis. Now, considerable problems with US Immigration policies do exist---none of which are being discussed by political candidates or the Media Cartels. This is a complicated issue that will be covered in several posts; which hopefully will expose some of the truths behind this problem.
At the top of the list comes one of Donald Trump's proposals to construct a Wall of some type, running the length of the US-Mexico border, and forcing Mexico to pay for this project. Trump and former Mexican president Vicente Fox have had some heated exchanges over these proposals---and Fox does have a valid point that Mexico may have something to say about footing the bill for the project.
To understand why the very feasibility of the Border Wall is even seriously being considered, one has to understand the audience involved. Surveys conducted by the National Geographic Society have shown that over half of Americans cannot locate Mexico on a map of North America. That puts a lot of the issue in context by itself. Maybe, for example, we should focus on educational reform instead?
The US-Mexico Border is 1,989 miles long. A conservative estimate of the cost of building a wall of that length comes out at a minimum of over $17 billion; and that is simply for the material cost (exclusive of labor, machinery, and other overhead). Trump's estimate of $7 billion is an illusion. His calculations are based on extrapolating the cost of constructing the Israeli Security Fence; which was built on level terrain in an urbanized environment. The US-Mexico border is completely different geographically. Also, Israeli labor costs are far cheaper than American labor costs---especially for government contractors who are bound by Prevailing Wage Laws. A Congressional Budget Office study recently concluded that after seven years, the cost of maintaining the Wall would exceed its construction cost.
What about the argument, then, that the Wall would create American jobs and keep illegal immigrants from taking American jobs? To start with, Obama and Kerry are currently in Brussels negotiating the TTIP Treaty with the EU. Germany is pushing for TTIP to include opening US contractor bids to EU interests: the irony here being that a Border Wall designed to protect American jobs will redound to the profit of the European Union. Germany, incidentally, already has a higher trade surplus with the US than Mexico has.
And who would supply the materials for constructing the Wall? A job like that would likely be handled by a consortium (such as the Carlyle Group) most of which are heavily invested in by concerns from the Wahhabi Sheikdoms on the Arabian Peninsula. So not only could the EU profit from a Wall, so could the Arabs.
If the American people really want to do something about immigrants and their impact on the job market, they can do the following things instead:
1. Repeal laws that make it cheaper for manufacturers to outsource to Mexico.
2. Invest the billions for the Wall into upgrading our infrastructure; such as ports, dams, the power grid, highways, bridges, water-treatment, irrigation, the transportation systems, etc.,---all of which are dangerously obsolete or deteriorating in the United States.
3. Abolish Affirmative-Action and hiring quotas. These laws are responsible for more importation of labor than most realize.
4. Amnesty, such as Ronald Reagan introduced, allowing immigrant workers to fill jobs where there are domestic labor shortages (such as migrant farm workers).
All those things would accomplish far more economic good than a Border Wall, something which should be obvious but evidently is not. It's not in the interest of Transnational Corporate Cartels to build a strong and independent US economy, but a project like the Border Wall, is.
The Neo-Nazi crackpots who run what's left of Ukraine came out with another proclamation that embarrassed its supporters in the West. As Europe celebrated Europe Day this week, Ukrainian Parliamentary Chairman Andriy Parubiy proudly announced that Ukraine was not only an integral part of Europe, but historically responsible for European Civilization.
"It's a special day for Ukrainians...We are a state that stood at the foundation of European Civilization. Ukraine was one of the states which created Europe as a phenomenon, a civilized area."
These kinds of claims are not new coming from the Poroshenko regime. Valery Bebik, one of Ukraine's top scholars and vice-president of Ukraine University once published an article in the official state newspaper claiming that Jesus was a Ukrainian.
"We have established the facts," Bebik wrote, "that question the official Church's version of the ethnic origin and Biblical chronology of the life of Jesus and historical epoch forming the basis of when Christianity was established. It is evident that Christ lived 3,000 years before His canonical birth and spoke the Coptic language, which is linguistically close to the ancient Ukrainian language."
Another diadem in the Ukrainian academic constellation offered this as collateral evidence: "The pictures on Egyptian pyramids show that Egyptian queens were blonde women with blue eyes, just like many Ukrainian women. One is also struck by the fact that the Trident, which is currently a national emblem of Ukraine, can be seen there too."
Last year, the Ukrainian government produced a historical documentary asserting that ancient Ukrainian engineers constructed the Black Sea and that mediaeval Ukrainians developed the first submarines.
This group came into power in 2013 in a coup engineered by Wall Street and the Obama Administration---the object of which was to seize control of the Black Sea and Russian oil ports. The pattern was the familiar one seen in Libya, Syria---and now Brazil---import a 'revolution' and install a pro-Western puppet. In Ukraine, a motley force of Nazi Skinheads and Radical Moslems overthrew the elected government, installing oligarchs Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk as the populist leaders.
The plot failed when Crimea---the most valuable province in Ukraine seceded and reunified with Russia. In retaliation, the Nazis began a program of ethnic cleansing against the Russian population. The ethnic Russians resisted and established a new country in the industrial and agriculturally-rich East Ukraine, the Republic of Novorussia.
So, the Wall Street freebooters were left with nothing but a resource-poor and impoverished rump of a once-productive country to show for their efforts; although they have profited handsomely off the anti-Russian sanctions Obama forced upon the EU.
And American taxpayers coughed up $5 billion to set up the phony revolution and have spent billions more since to prop up the Ukrainian government. All the money that could have been better spent on building our own collapsing infrastructure instead subsidizes Neo-Nazis with delusions of grandeur who have engaged in Crimes Against Humanity.
But this will all be ignored by the Ameroboob, because the media has him convinced that Russia was the aggressor in all of this. With our own water treatment plants failing and utility costs becoming unaffordable; Wall Street and Washington are stuffing their pockets building such infrastructure in Ukraine. And the Ameroboob is satisfied that we're sure showing them thar Russkies while he pays with higher taxes, unsafe water, and higher electric bills.
In our Friday features, we select media from America's pop culture past---not only to offer readers some decent weekend entertainment; but also to explode contemporary mythologies about things like gender roles. This is especially necessary in the case of men---who are caught between the emasculated 'ideal' that modern culture promotes and the pseudo-masculinity offered by the so-called 'alternative Right' in much of the Manosphere.
Certain elements within the Manosphere give us a profile of the high-status 'Alpha' male, as defined by themselves. This week's feature recommendation is that of what a high-status male looks like in reality.
This week, we recommend a television crime drama that was very popular in its day: Peter Gunn. The series ran from 1958-1961, on NBC for two years and ABC during its third, returning for a feature film in 1967. The title character was a private investigator in an unnamed city with a film-noir background. The theme music was provided by Henry Mancini.
Gunn was a character who epitomizes the high-status male: tall, handsome, successful, resourceful, living a life of excitement and adventure; wearing expensive suits, driving a Cadillac convertible, living in penthouse apartment. So naturally, according to Game philosophy, Gunn must have racked up numerous sexual conquests and despised women as inferiors, right?
Well, no. Actually Gunn was, throughout the series, in a committed monogamous relationship with nightclub singer, Edie Hart. Edie herself deserves some comment because she exuded genuine femininity like just about no other character in television history. Considering that both worked in venues that provided ample opportunity for infidelity, it illustrates just how seriously fidelity and commitment was once taken in our culture. Gunn is frequently offered sex by various femme fatales but never takes advantage of it; and, though he gets playfully aggressive with Edie on occasion, she counters him by starting to talk about marriage and children.
All this is counter-intuitive to Game/PUA illogic, because they fail to understand that truly high-status men are not defined by their sexual conquests, but by their ability to win the love, respect, and devotion of a high-status woman. In 1960, this was common knowledge; which explains both the popularity of the series then and the near-oblivion it's fallen into today.
In fact, Peter Gunn as a series is remarkable by modern standards for its noticeable absence of violence against women. Unlike the thuggish Hollywood heroes of today, who don't mind beating a confession out of a female suspect or causing her violent demise, Gunn once risks his life to save a deranged female stalker because "She's very clearly sick and needs help." The natural gender polarity is very pronounced throughout this series---empathy for the weak, which was once considered a male virtue, marks Gunn's character as well.
Gunn has no office, but meets clients in a waterfront nightclub called Mother's where Edie also works. Mother is an older woman who runs the club, and it's never clear in the series whether she is Gunn's biological mother or not; but there definitely seems to be a mother/son dynamic between the two of them. Gunn always addresses her as 'Mother' and pays her considerable respect and freely gives her his protection.
By the standards of the Game/PUA crowd, Gunn is a Blue-Pill Beta Chump, and a White Knight who succumbs to the Female Imperative. Though watching the series, we see a cool, confident male who routinely confronts extremely dangerous situations with resourcefulness and courage---and always motivated by helping those in need or protecting those for whom he cares. These, not the outward trappings, makes Gunn a respected character and a genuinely masculine archetype. In Peter Gunn we see a very decisive picture of what an earlier generation considered high-status in both genders.
Peter Gunn has no shortage of two-fisted, hard-hitting action as he and his policeman friend Lt. Jacobi wreak havoc on the Underworld. There is also a lot of light-hearted humor, especially from Gunn's eccentric network of informants. And the romantic teasing between him and Edie is genuinely charming. The plots are well-written, suspenseful, and often unpredictable. Mancini's musical scores outlived the series in their popularity.
This series is great fun to watch; several episodes are free on Youtube and the complete set available on DVD.
One of the remarkable aspects of North American cultural degeneracy is its limitless ability to reach a new nadir on a such a consistent basis. It's almost like a perversion of the capacity that Americans once possessed of reaching higher and higher standards of excellence. Whereas once, every great American innovation was followed up by a new and improved technology; today every depravity is followed up by an even lower and more vitiated debasement.
Enter onto the American scene a new literary masterpiece titled Mary Wept. This piece de resistance of the North American literati is all the rage among the enlightened and educated among us. It was written, and illustrated, by Canadian cartoonist Chester Brown. Brown is an award winning and internationally recognized figure among his fellow sophisticates, having previously produced such outstanding work as Yummy Fur and Ed the Happy Clown. Now, in less cultivated ages tomes like Mary Wept were sold in brown paper wrappers at some of the less ethical newsstands. But today underground comics represent the high-water mark of Civilization and Culture.
Essentially the theme of Mary Wept is that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a prostitute; a subject with which Brown seems to have an obsession, based on both his personal history and his other writings. He's been politically active in Canada on the subject and once received a grant from the Canada Council to write another of his epics, Paying for It.
In an interview with the effete publication Salon, Brown gives us the benefit of his deep and profound theological insights:
"My contention is that Jesus had a different relationship with prostitutes than we think he had. I think His Mother was a prostitute, and I think he had women around Him who were also prostitutes...and there was some sort of association there involved with religious prostitution and goddess-worship and that sort of thing."
Brown claims to have drawn this brilliant insight---which 2,000 years of Christian scholarship presumably overlooked---from reading the Gospel of St. Matthew.
In a separate interview with Slate, we get a good glimpse of the operative mentality behind these shocking new revelations. The interviewer poses this remarkable and insightful observation:
"There's a lot of nudity here---male and female---and probably a lot more explicit sex than people are used to seeing in Biblical adaptations. Are you worried about the response to all of that?"
To which, Brown replies:
"I think that people who are most likely to be offended by that are Christians."
Thank goodness for the American media. Without them, who would ever have guessed that turning the New Testament into a pornographic comic book might offend Christians?
Yet it shouldn't be surprising that a culture, whose chief socio-political concern is gender-neutral public bathrooms, would hold Mary Wept as the apex of literary acumen. It fits in perfectly with the rest of America's New Normals.
One of the great benefits of the Internet is that it allows to circumvent the agenda-driven Western Media Cartels and hear things that PC culture diligently suppresses. Pravda, which occasionally posts some good op-ed pieces recently published an essay The Key Facts About Homosexuality which debunks the common pro-homosexual talking-points promulgated in their propaganda.
The author, apparently a Turkish journalist, states plain facts which would never be allowed publication in our free and open society. Once, here in Western countries, medical/psychiatric professionals knew and understood the damage promoting this so-called alternative lifestyle among the young can cause, and for this reason it was prohibited. The author points out that, in Russia---where the government has wisely taken measures to protect society from this scourge---instances of drug abuse, suicide, and mental disorders are already declining among the young.
Contrary to the image imposed upon us by the Media, homosexuals make up only a numerically insignificant percentage of the population. In fact, if homosexuals were considered an ethnic group, they would rank about 5th or 6th in minority demographics---numerically about as represented as American Indians. Of course, they are not an ethnic group, but people who have chosen a lifestyle which the author also cites recent studies. The studies found the very same conclusions once reached by American scholars: that homosexuality is a choice. In fact, nearly all scholarly American psychiatric publications from before the 1970s are filled with case-studies of homosexuality being cured. And these cures did not involve religious conversion or torture, as homosexual propagandists would have us believe, but through ordinary psychoanalysis and counseling.
Census data shows us that homosexuals seem to be concentrated in a few major cities---not coincidentally centers of governmental, media, and academic power. It ought to be apparent to anybody who's still sentient in America that the Rainbow Movement is the product of a deliberate, well-financed, and well-coordinated organization. Not only in America, but we've seen recently this group has the capability of projecting its power abroad: exporting provocateurs into foreign countries like Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Brazil, and Israel most recently.
When we see in the United States co-ordinated attacks upon those who oppose the homosexual agenda; everything from spontaneous attacks on the Internet to boycotts; the legal costs of the recent so-called 'marriage debate'; the fact that homosexual propaganda dominates the American media and that Government at every level caves into their demands and enforces their will---these things are the obvious consequence of what may be termed, A Shadow Government.
This is another reason why sensible governments have historically suppressed homosexuals. Earlier psychological studies---especially from the WW2 Era---show that homosexuality is collectively, as well as individually antisocial. That many Nazi leaders of that era were openly or latently homosexual is well-documented; and homosexuals naturally gravitate to authoritarian political regimes. This is because homosexuals are united in a common cause by their sexual identity and not by national allegiance. By definition, they hate tradition: family, religion, nation, and are filled with bitterness and resentment against heterosexuals of any kind.
All of this is rapidly becoming a moot point in America, where the effete and degenerate population really no longer offers any resistance to any hostile force, foreign or domestic, who want to control them. But other countries---who still cherish freedom, faith, and family---can take note. Guard your borders. Because Cultural Imperialism is just as dangerous to your sovereignty as military intervention; and the erosion of a society at its fundamental levels will ensure its collapse.
