Proletariat Blogging in the Heart of (UK) Predatory Capitalism! Exploring the Interface between Matter and Perception, Chinese Buddhism, Daoism, Hakka Ethnography, and All Aspects of Radical Politics, History, Psychology and Philosophy – 全世界无产者联合起来!
Pink’s recent comments are not just unfortunate but also incompatible with the role of a UNICEF Ambassador—an individual expected to promote peace, understanding, and humanitarian values above personal biases. UNICEF’s mission is to uphold the rights and dignity of all children, regardless of political affiliations or geographic boundaries. We rely on ambassadors to be torchbearers of these principles, fostering inclusive dialogue and meaningful support.
After surveying and identifying the bombs, UXO Lao teams coordinated with local authorities and informed nearby residents about the planned destruction process.
Following safety assessments, the bombs were moved approximately 1,500 metres away from the community to a secure demolition site.
Authorities said the explosives were destroyed using low-order demolition techniques in accordance with technical safety standards.
The operation was conducted to ensure the safety of local residents and prevent potential risks from unexploded ordnance remaining from US aggression in Laos.
The problem with this definition is that the concept of a modern “migrant” is not politically “neutral”. A migrant is displaced by war, famine, illness, and economic hardship – much of which stems from the disruptive foreign policies perpetuated by the political establishment. Migration is quite often heavily politicised – as the acceptance of the individual migrant is used by the government and the media – to equate to the acceptance (a priori) of the political cause associated with the migrant. Migrants from regimes the UK government prefers are welcomed with open-armed – whilst migrants from opposing regimes (or political) views are excluded. The UK has a long history of importing migrants from regimes that oppose Socialism. The government (and establishment) do not want the taxpayer to understand or grasp the real situation and reduces it instead to a simplistic “either-or” argument. The issue is twofold – rejecting the coercive political situation becomes conflated to rejecting the migrant. Rejecting the migrant is equated with an “immoral” decision.
US Embassy staff have a long history of breaking UK law – and then using their diplomatic immunity to flee the country. Once back in the US – due to American notions of racial exceptionalism – the US government refuses to extradite. US crimes in the UK include murder, assault, rape, and possession of child sexual images (below), as well as breaking UK parking and driving laws, and refusing to pay parking and driving fines (the US owes £15.9m fines going to press). Bear in mind, both US diplomats and private US citizens are always committing crime in the UK – but due to US hegemony – these crimes are ignored or played-down by the UK media. I believe this criminal tendency stems from their terroristic days of the 1770s.
The Captains were paid for the slaves, purchased sugar with some of this money, and then set-sail for England. The slaves, of course, particularly in the West Indies, were forced to work on the sugar plantations, but were further exported into the American hinterland – where they would farm cotton. The Americas consisted of vast open spaces but there were not enough White workers to exploit this space. Slavery was the answer – with thousands of slaves controlled by a handful of Whites. Until 1648 – the slaves branded with a “Crown” meant that they were the personal property of the (absolute) British Monarchy. After the 1648-49 Execution of Charles I (and the overthrow of the aristocracy by the bourgeoisie) – the absolute monarchy was abolished and the “Crown” symbol was re-directed to refer to the bourgeoisie (which now controlled the means of production) and the elected government that was voted-in by the masses to represent its interests. Of course, the “Crown” simply designated those slaves acquired and sold by the British – as opposed to those slaves acquired by other European nations. It was a marker of dominance – rather than direct ownership – as each slave was owned by whoever had provided money to purchase the rights of ownership (like a car or a house).
The “Line” is comprised of petty bourgeois hotel, restaurant, and cafe owners, etc, and these people refuse to relate to unionised workers. The series conforms to Cold War sentiment as the Belgians are depicted as confronting the Nazi Germans and subtly resisting their allies – the Communists. And yet in reality, it was the Communists who carried-out most of the fighting, took most of the risks, and suffered the highest casualty rates. The Communist Party of France was funded and directed, in-part, from the USSR and the UK. I would say the series treads an ideological tightrope very successfully. The height of the rather silly anti-Soviet script writing appears in Series 2, Episode 2, entitled “Russian Roulette”. This story supposedly depicts two airmen (from the Soviet Red Airforce) shot-down over Eastern Germany during 1943.
