ANGLO AMERICA CONTINUES PUSHING LARGELY FICTITIOUS, ANTI-SEX “HUMAN TRAFFICKING” NARRATIVES

America works lustily towards forming an all-out War on Sex

The Anglo-American Matrix is anxious to eliminate all forms of economic competition, and prevent people from existing outside the clutches of the matrix. One of the main ways people who don’t lick the corporate boot make good money (tax-free money, too – something government revenuers hate) is through the drug and sex trades.

Alongside the lust to eliminate other avenues for people to make a living outside the corporate-government complex, we find a dovetailing of a similar nefarious agenda in the fact the matrix is hard at work trying to screw up human sexual behavior in any way it possibly can. Ostensibly, social engineers want to get the birth rate down. But beyond that, broken human beings with shattered sex lives make excellent consumers to “sell” sex appeal back to.

For over a decade, the matrix has been trying to legally and socially conflate prostitution between two willing, consenting adults with a largely fictitious “human trafficking” narrative. Rent a whore, and you’ve just “trafficked” a woman. Even if she was willing, even if she didn’t have a pimp, and even if she likes fucking. Of course, penalties for this newly created “offense” will be blown completely out of proportion (taking it well beyond the scope of a misdemeanor, which it is in most states) just as penalties were with the Drug War. Senator Rand Paul speaks to to the related insanity of the Anglo-American Drug War:

We went crazy on the War on Drugs. We have people in jail for life for nonviolent drug crimes. I think this is a crime in and itself.

The latest push at getting the human trafficking campaign (i.e. War on Sex agenda) rolling comes out of Texas. The official line from government operatives in the Lone Star State is that “human trafficking” affects men, too. Krista Leeburg Melton with the Texas State Attorney General’s Office (the same office that enforces child support slavery and estrangement upon fathers) says:

“Human trafficking is modern day slavery. It is the exploitation of men, women, and children by third-parties for their own profit or gain.”

That line sounds good on the surface, but make no mistake a gynocentric society doesn’t give a fuck about so-called trafficking of men. The true aim is foisting another Puritan Prohibition on the populace, centered on “protecting” perfect, asexual Anglo goddesses.

This is quite simply another infamously Anglo-American moral crusade to crush the sex trade altogether, forcing men who have figured out the scam that is modern marriage and moved to save their live savings by opting for P4P back onto the gynocentric plantation. Call it a clandestine War on Sex, one that will be just as Draconian as the War on Drugs.

The matrix has to give The War on Sex an air of legitimacy before it moves in for the kill – seeking worldwide bans on prostitution. We find the oft-used Hegelian Dialectic being employed again – creating a “problem” that largely doesn’t exist (certainly not to the extent those pushing the human trafficking narrative claim) so the government can have a pretext to step in and strip yet more personal freedom away from its subjects, while simultaneously extending the financial tentacles of the matrix.

Just as Puritans were sure the devil was going to tempt the flock with “obscene” sexual satisfaction, Neo-Puritans (secular nutcases this time around) or those creating this social hysteria out of whole cloth are conjuring up all kinds of participants in the charade, including a “reformed sinner” or former pimp Joshua Jones. No doubt eager to reduce his prison sentence by playing along with authorities, Joshua says:

“Sit your daughter down and let her know. There’s people out there really ready to manipulate her.”

While there’s chilling truth to his statement, the Hegelian Dialectic is served best when the actual danger to your daughter is blown completely out of proportion.

Here comes more typical Anglo-Americn social hysteria from another participant in this money-making, freedom stealing scheme:

Human trafficking is modern day slavery. Kevin Bales of Free the Slaves defines it as “a relationship in which one person is controlled by violence through violence, the threat of violence, or psychological coercion, has lost free will and free movement, is exploited economically, and paid nothing beyond subsistence.

 

 

The rehabilitation business is no doubt expected to be huge. In similar fashion to modern drug rehab houses that don’t really rehab anything, prostitutes will be “rehabbed” and Johns will be persecuted at an even more extreme level than they already are in America if the human trafficking campaign reaches full steam.

Importantly, if the above statement from Kevin Bales doesn’t perfectly describe every GloboWorldCorp job I’ve ever had, nothing will. Corporate drones don’t have free will and free movement (if the government’s regulations don’t get you, corporate policy will), are exploited economically, and paid nothing beyond subsistence. Sure, they can “quit” their jobs but they’ll soon have another master, just at a different company.

Hidden in the details are the campaign’s true intentions. Now, we finally get a taste of the truth behind all these machinations:

Human trafficking is a media buzz word that often conjures images of brothels in Thailand or confusion with the ongoing immigration debate. This innovative digital training tool cuts through the confusion, arms the viewer with an understanding of what human trafficking is and is not, and helps them recognize that this is a Texas problem with Texas buyers, sellers, and victims.

The goal is to muddy the definition of “human trafficking” so much that it turns into whatever the state says it is.

It refocuses our attention on adults and children who are regularly exploited but are unlikely to self-identify as victims or seek help. This video walks the audience through actual cases prosecuted in the state of Texas, identifies the tools of traffickers and how they are typically utilized to obtain and maintain victims, and equips viewers with red flags and a reporting protocol. Most of all, it challenges Texans to change the culture in which we live from one that identifies with and honors perpetrators to one that provides safety, security, and genuine reintegration for the survivors of trafficking.

It bears repeating that the truth behind all this hot air is the human trafficking facade is just another attempt by the government to whip up a social hysteria so legislators and lying politicians will have the pretext to seek bans on prostitution worldwide. Just as with the War on Drugs, the corporate-government complex wants to eliminate all forms of economic competition and all ways out (including men choosing to pay up front for sex rather than mortgaging their entire lives for wives who can dispose of them with one phone call) so every person on earth is dependent on their system.

The faux human trafficking scare is yet another expression of the ingrained Puritanism Anglo societies are rife with. Sex and drugs, nay any form of personal pleasure are verboten in a deeply repressed society.

https://relampagofurioso.com/2018/01/29/anglo-america-continues-pushing-largely-fictitious-anti-sex-human-trafficking-narratives/

Landlords getting too personal, says B.C. privacy commissioner

B.C.’s Information and Privacy Commissioner says some landlords are going too far when it comes to asking prospective tenants for personal information.

“Low vacancy rates may prompt landlords to believe they can collect whatever information they want,” Drew McArthur, acting information and privacy commissioner, said in a statement.

The office examined personal information collected by 13 landlords during the tenancy application process.

It released its findings in a report published Thursday. It found in some cases landlords were asking applicants to provide months’ worth of detailed bank statements, consent to do a credit check or even ask whether the applicant was single or married, which violates the Human Rights Code.

David Hutniak, CEO of Landlord B.C., said the majority of landlords respect the privacy of tenants and in cases where they don’t, it’s not malicious, but due to a lack of information.

“I think there is a lot of lack of knowledge, when you don’t have knowledge you don’t necessarily do the right thing,” he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/landlord-too-much-information-watchdog-1.4588430

Jordan Peterson is Driving His Critics to Desperate Attacks

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/jordan_peterson_is_driving_his_critics_to_desperate_attacks.html

Jordan Peterson, the Canadian clinical psychologist, is having an enormous impact on our culture.  His refusal to use legally mandated language has reverberated around the world.

He is obviously rattling leftists as they continue to make hysterical claims about him.  The most recent and long-winded example comes from Nathan J. Robinson, the editor of Current Affairs.  He published an almost twelve-thousand-word essay in that journal.  It’s hard to believe, but even with all those words he lands not a single blow on Peterson.  He does manage to make a complete fool of himself.

His essay begins by listing an impressive group of people, including the head of Harvard’s Psychology Department, who praise Peterson’s work.  He then sets out to try to prove them all wrong.  He also lists a large number of writers who have treated Peterson unfairly.  He then supersedes them all.  There is no way to cover all the silliness in this piece, but I can explain a few of the problems in it.  If you think I’m making this stuff up, by all means, read the whole messy, wordy essay.

Robinson has a long windup.  There are many long paragraphs with snide remarks and hand-crafted editing designed to make Peterson look vague.  The man is anything but vague.  Finally, we arrive at the first factual disagreement with Peterson.  In the famous interview with Cathy Newman, Jordan said that you now have more female than male doctors, and the trend in that direction is accelerating.

Robinson tells us there are not more female than male physicians either in the U.S. or Canada.  (In context, you can hear the rim shot.)  It’s worth dwelling on this supposed killer line.  Peterson was in England being interviewed by Newman.  His English interviewer is pelting him with questions about the lack of female executives in England.  Jordan explained that women are often drawn to alternative professions.  For example, you, in England, have more female doctors than male.  That’s what he said, and he is correct.  Don’t take my word or his.  Invest thirty minutes to watch a truly intelligent and, under the circumstances, gracious person at work in that half-hour interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

While it’s worth noting that trends in the medical profession in North America are moving in the English direction, the current ratios are not germane to the conversation Jordan and Ms. Newman had about England.  It is fair to ask: was Robinson trying to slip one by, like a Clintonian lawyer, or is he just sloppy in his thinking?  I think it’s a combination of both in roughly equal measure.  He, like many of his peers on the left, is half-cocked.  That phrase will come in handy later.

The original basis for Peterson’s worldwide notoriety is his objection to being compelled to use legally mandated language.  This is a huge step beyond the current Canadian laws, which prohibit and criminalize certain speech.  Robinson denies that the law does any such thing and that it’s crazy to think speech would be criminalized.  The link he provides looks moderate enough.  It’s the text of the law that simply adds gender pronouns to existing hate speech law.  Robinson is careful not to link to the existing law, but we easily grasp its content by noting that the amendment is to the Criminal Code.  I’m not a lawyer, so instead of the legal text, here is Wikipedia on that criminal code.  Peterson is right.

Again, I don’t think Robinson is lying.  There is a funny space that some people on the left occupy that blinds them to facts.  They are just very odd people.

To paint Peterson as a space cadet, Robinson presents a “random” transcript of 17 minutes of a YouTube lecture.  He then dares the reader to read all the way through because it’s so spacey.  I lost the dare.  In print, the lecture is full of anecdotes and asides that make it hard to follow.  But if you have 17 minutes and have not watched Peterson, this YouTube lecture is a good one to start with.  As a lecture, it is enlightening, in places very funny, and finally at the end a little sad.  Two thoughts: Robinson may have shot himself in the foot, as some of his cohorts might actually watch this video.  They will see Robinson in the same negative light as I do.

If you believe the claim that this video, which clearly does not translate to print, was selected “at random,” please come to Florida, because I have some prime land for you.  In today’s world, you’ll make a fortune growing oranges.

One of the reasons why unfettered speech is vitally important is that it’s our only alternative to violence.  Peterson makes a couple of recurring points here.  One is that he, like most men, knows how to stand up to other men who have unfairly trespassed.  We all know that in a serious – say again, serious – dispute, things can get physical.  Peterson says in a variety places that no one respects a man who makes it clear that under no circumstances will he stand up for himself.  His second point is that physical force is clearly prohibited between men and women.  It is forbidden, and for good reason.  But that prohibition can put men in an untenable position.  It is important to recognize that problem.

Robinson reads this prohibition as Peterson regretting that he can’t hit a woman.  That’s pretty amazing.  Here is the video in question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0OJEIpzlXo

Decide for yourself.  But our man doesn’t stop there.  He stoops to the lowest of all internet tactics: he quotes from the comments section.  I never know who is serious or even who is, in a case like this, a troll saying things I’ve never heard right-of-center people say.  I think Robinson understands the problem.  Not for lack of trying, I can’t find a place to leave comments on the Current Affairs website.

A recurring theme in Peterson’s work is the need to fix yourself before you reform the world.  The world is made up of complex systems.  It requires a competence to change a complex system for the better.  It is much easier to destroy a complex system than it is to improve it.  One step on the road to competence is to fix yourself.  Peterson says to develop some competence.  Clean your room before you try to reform the whole world.  While he means that literally, he also means it metaphorically.

This sends Robinson into a frenzy of lists of things that people like him aim to fix, and these things are of greater importance than a tidy room.  He completely ignores competence.  I do not have space here to debate all the issues, but it is clear that many of the reforms designed to help the disadvantaged have done more harm than good.  Rather than get too far afield, I’ll say just this: black unemployment is at an all-time low and continuing to improve.  Liberals, progressives, socialists, or whatever had nothing to do with that.  Programs they want to implement will actually undo this progress.

A final point: There is a paradox.  Like me and many other folks on the right, Peterson is a fan of the socialist George Orwell.  Virtually everyone knows 1984and Animal Farm.  Few people are familiar with The Road to Wigan Pier.  It is a fabulous book that is divided in half.  The first half is a heartbreaking picture of the brutality of working-class life in early 20th-century England.  It catalogs what the left wants to call the contradictions of capitalism.  But it’s not that at all.  It paints a clear picture of the deprivations caused by the social and personal disruptions of moving from near subsistence farming to an industrial economy.  It’s terrible, but so is what came before it.

Peterson spends many lectures movingly describing these deprivations.  He is also, like many of us, interested in the second half of the book.  In it, Orwell describes his total disgust with socialists.  They are not interested in alleviating suffering.  They are smug, resentful, bratty snobs who want to strike out at people.  That pushed Peterson away from socialism, as it did me and many other people.

Robinson says we should work on our reading comprehension, because here is Orwell’s conclusion: “To recoil from Socialism because so many socialists are inferior people is as absurd as refusing to travel by train because you dislike the ticket-collector’s face.”

I read that line as a teenager.  My opinion has not changed: Orwell was wrong.  Socialism puts the government in charge of all economic resources.  When people realize they and all their relatives are mere economic resources, then the depraved nature of individual socialists takes on paramount importance.  They are the inferior people who under socialism run everything – run it badly and run it cruelly.  We see that in every instance, in every part of the world, where socialism’s been implemented.  When Orwell wrote Wigan Pier, socialists were neither nice nor competent.  In Robinson, we can all see that they’ve gone downhill.  Had Orwell lived to see the drivel published by Current Affairs, it’s quite likely he’d rethink that quotation.

It is possible that Mr. Robinson’s room is neat and tidy.  His magazine and his writing are not.  His work is creepy in its dishonesty.  He should clean up his act.  That would start with an apology for the garbage he’s spread in this essay.  When that’s done, maybe we’ll listen to his ideas for reforming the world.  Well, maybe.