Where unreality meets reality, Taboo is common knowledge, and what is to come…
March 21, 2009 Leave a Comment
The New American Revolution
The stage has been set, the actors are now approaching, the 2nd American revolution is around the corner.
March 21, 2009 Leave a Comment
Jetfuel powerpack, armour… shoulder turret?
Posted in Science, 27th February 2009 12:18 GMT
US weaponry globocorp Lockheed is pleased to announce the unveiling of its newly-acquired powered exoskeleton intended to confer superhuman strength and endurance upon US soldiers.
Needless to say, corporate promo vid of the Human Universal Load Carrier (HULC™) is available:
The exoskeleton is based on a design from Berkeley Bionics of California, but Lockheed say they have brought significant pimpage to the basic HULC. The enhanced version is now on show at the Association of the United States’ Army Winter Symposium in Florida.
“With our enhancements to the HULC system, Soldiers will be able to carry loads up to 200 pounds with minimal effort,” according to Lockheed’s Rich Russell.
From the vid, the HULC certainly seems a step forward on Raytheon’s rival XOS mechwarrior suit, which at last report still trails an inconvenient power cable to the nearest wall socket.
Not so the HULC; four pounds of lithium polymer batteries will run the exoskeleton for an hour walking at 3mph, according to Lockheed. Speed marching at up to 7mph reduces this somewhat; a battery-draining “burst” at 10mph is the maximum speed.
The user can hump 200lb with relative ease while marching in a HULC, however, well in excess of even the heaviest combat loads normally carried by modern infantry. There’d be scope to carry a few spare batteries. Even if the machine runs out of juice, Lockheed claims that its reinforcement and shock absorption still helps with load carrying rather than hindering.
There are various optional extras, too. The HULC can be fitted with armour plating, heating or cooling systems, sensors and “other custom attachments”. We particularly liked that last one: our personal request would be a powered gun or missile mount of some kind above the shoulder, linked to a helmet or monocle laser sight.
One does note that remote-controlled gun mounts weighing as little as 55lb are available, able to handle various kinds of normally tripod- or bipod-mounted heavy weapons.
You’d need more power, but that’s on offer. According to the Lockheed spec sheet (pdf) there’s an extended-endurance HULC fitted with a “silent” generator running on JP8 jet fuel. A tankful will run this suit for three days, marching eight hours per day – though presumably at the cost of some payload.
Doubtless other power options could be developed: Lockheed says the HULC needs 250 watts on average.
It’s important to note that the HULC is basically a legs and body system only: there’s no enhancement to the user’s arms, though an over-shoulder frame can be fitted allowing a wearer to hoist heavy objects such as artilery shells with the aid of a lifting strop.
The HULC may not be quite ready for prime time yet. But the military exoskeleton as a concept does seem to be getting to the stage of usefulness, at least in niche situations for specific jobs.
The BigDog petrol packmule, an alternative strategy for helping footsoldiers carry their increasingly heavy loads, may now have a serious rival. ®
March 21, 2009 Leave a Comment
Read our related editorial: The toaster did it
CYBER-ATTACKS on a nation’s military and commercial computers have grown a lot more sophisticated since the days of the lone hacker targeting a system’s defences just for the thrill of it.
Nowadays, electronic attacks are increasingly seen as a cheap and easy way for one nation to attack another. “It’s the ultimate bargain hunter’s way of destroying everyone’s way of life,” says Glenn Zimmerman, a cyberspace specialist at the Pentagon. “It may even be free.”
So worried are governments by the prospect of an all-out cyber-attack that last month UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon revealed that cyber-weapons are to be added to the list of arms falling under the remit of the UN’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, which develops policy on weapons of mass destruction. Ban said recent breaches of critical systems represent “a clear and present threat to international security”, since the public and private sectors have grown increasingly dependent on electronic information.
But despite the threat, current NATO war games tend to treat cyber-attack simulations as an afterthought, according to military sources. Now the Pentagon is hoping to change that by developing a centre at which the military can play realistic electronic war games.
Called the National Cyber Range, the centre will mimic not only the hardware that might be used to inflict cyber-attacks, but also the likely behaviours of the people behind the attacks. The centre, being developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), is part of the US government’s Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, launched last year.
Until now, cyber-attacks have been relatively limited in scope. In 2006, for instance, Russian hackers, angered by the removal of a Soviet war memorial, launched a sustained denial of service attack on government and business websites in former soviet state of Estonia. In 2007, Chinese hackers attacked US and UK government websites, knocking them temporarily offline, and in 2008 Georgia suffered massive internet outages alongside its military battle with Russia. In January, Kyrgyzstan became the latest victim when its two largest internet service providers were targeted by a denial of service attack from hackers in Russia.
As if such attacks weren’t worrying enough, military and private sector security experts attending a recent Cyber Warfare conference in London claimed attacks can only get worse because our electronic infrastructure is so poorly defended. What’s more, computer scientists do not yet know how to defend critical systems against attacks, says Amit Yoran of NetWitness, an electronic security company based in Herndon, Virginia. “We are largely blind and ignorant of how to protect ourselves against cyber-attacks,” he told delegates. “Advanced threats continue to evade deployed solutions.”
With this in mind DARPA is ploughing $30 million into developing its testing range for cyber-warfare countermeasures, or “cyber sidearms” as it refers to them. The facility will allow teams to engage in lengthy fights in cyberspace using faithful replications of the US military’s global satellite, wireless and landline networks. Many of the range’s functions are classified, but DARPA says it wants it to have a sophisticated “nation-state quality” enemy team against which to test its countermeasures.
Heli Tiirmaa-Klaar, an adviser to the Estonian ministry of defence, says that because a cyber-attack can destabilise a country without sending forces across a border, it is a likely first strike tactic. Russia did just that in the Georgian conflict last summer. DARPA shouldn’t expect that such attackers will use easily fought viruses, says Yoran. “They have fantastic engineering resources and can develop customised and very powerful ones.”
One likely target, says Julian Charvat, a cyber-terrorism analyst with NATO in Ankara, Turkey, is the control systems for power stations, chemical plants and water utilities. These Supervisory, Control and Data Acquisition systems (SCADAs) often lack adequate cyber-defences.
Another risk comes from the fact that western microchip firms have outsourced manufacture to Asia, where saboteurs could design hardware-based viruses into chips. “Our semiconductor devices now need authenticating,” says Zimmerman. That could have a strange corollary: because the internet is to acquire many billions more IP addresses, machines will get internet addresses – leading to fears that rogue chips within, say, fridges, TV sets and cars could launch cyber-attacks.
Ultimately, the best hope lies in organisations like DARPA developing early warning systems for cyber-attacks, says Charles Williamson, a US air force cyberspace analyst at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. Convincing military leaders of the urgent need for such a system may not be easy, he admits. “Our biggest threat is senior leaders who think the computer is technologically equivalent to a toaster.”
Read our related editorial: The toaster did it
March 21, 2009 1 Comment
More great articles from guywhite.wordpress.com
The most dishonest argument in favor of the ancient Egyptians’ blackness is the idea of African genetic diversity. No matter what you say, it is the response of some Afrocentrists.
- So-and-so was blond as evidenced by the mummy.
- Who cares, Africans can be blond, as if this is the usual hair color for Africans, rather than a genetic abnormality.
(I’ve made this point before: it is no more normal for Africans to have blond hair than it would be for a woman to have facial hair. What is normal for one race/gender, may be a disease for another.)
Even DNA evidence is responded to the same way: no matter what haplogroups the DNA may be, the answer is always: “Africans are diverse, so DNA means nothing and that proves that the Egyptians were black.”
But why does it prove that they were black? Why doesn’t it prove that they were Caucasian, Oriental or Polynesian?
If the fact that blacks have genetic diversity proves that Egyptians were black, why doesn’t it prove that the Vikings were black? Why not the Slavs? Why not the Indians? Why isn’t everyone black?!
Because Africa could not have any non-black population? Why? One can easily walk from Israel in Asia to Egypt in Africa. In fact, there are much longer treks beings made at the time, so there’s no reason to believe that people would magically stop at the place arbitrarily marked as Africa by geographers living thousands of years later. The Rome and Hannibal (alleged by Afrocentrists to be black despite contemporary art and coins showing him to be distinctly white) fought wars showing that the Mediterranean was easily crossed by the Europeans and North Africans.
The natural barrier that would keep people mostly separate at the was the Sahara desert, which would be far too treacherous for most people to cross.
It was done, but usually from the north to the south, not the reverse – which explains the great black genetic diversity.
The Afrocentrists claim of genetic diversity means nothing when you understand how things work. Caucasian haplogroups occur in Caucasians only.
If one sees a Caucasian haplogroup, that means that the person is Caucasian, regardless of the fact that blacks may have more haplogroups than whites.
Consider this: Women’s breasts show much greater diversity of size and shape than men’s. That does not, however, mean that looking at this picture, we can conclude that it is a woman just because women tend to have great diversity of shape and size. We know that is it a man, diversity or not. Even when clothed, we can tell with near-100% precision if this is a man or a woman.
This is true even when a man has “man boobs” or a woman is flat.
The same applies to race. Greeks are genetically diverse from Swedes, and yet both are very clearly white and very distinct from blacks, whether dark-skinned or light.
DNA evidence reflects what we can see even more clearly. Just as DNA can identify with near-100% certainty who’s the father of a child, so too can it identify the person’s race.
Whatever genetic diversity exists, it does not mean that blacks have a “universal DNA” and therefore can claim everyone as one of their own.
Blacks, like all others, have their own haplogroups. It is very simple to identify blacks as blacks, whites as whites, Orientals as Orientals.
But if blacks really want to claim someone due to their genetic diversity, let us compromise: from now on, we’ll agree that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were black. Genetic diversity and all.
Posted in Ancient Egypt | Tagged racism, race, blacks, whites, racialism, race realism, egypt, Ancient Egypt, egyptians, ancient egyptians | No Comments »
A year ago today I started this blog.
In that time, I’ve written 524 posts and received 3,091 comments (about 6 per) to them. But let’s start with readers first. After all, it is the biggest issue one faces when deciding to start a blog: will I reach anyone or will this be, like most blogs, an internet-published diary.
First of, just about every the blog’s traffic grew. According to Quantcast, this blog has more than 1,600 regular readers and a total of 4,700 readers per month who come here about 10,000 times per month for a total of 22,000 page views.
These aren’t huge numbers, but they are more than my original expectations. I was looking at Quantcast statistics of other race realist blogs and this one is near the top of one-man blogs. I won’t name names because it’s not a competition, but let’s just say that I was very surprised to have higher numbers than blogs by a couple superstars/aka established journalists who publish other than on their own blogs.
Usually, this subject attracts fewer women than a men’s room in a gay bar, so I was pleasantly surprised that 43% of the readers are women.
About two thirds of the readers have a college degree, as compared to only about a quarter of all Americans. You are 250% more likely to have a graduate degree (8% vs. 20% of the readers).
The more you make, the more likely you are to read this blog:
30% make over $100,000.
26% over $60,000.
25% over $30,000.
And only 19% make under $30,000.
The biggest age group is 35-49 (35%), followed by 18-35 (27%).
But what about the content? My goal was to create an intellectual discussion. More than anything, what keeps me writing are the highly intelligent comments left by the regulars.
I don’t think that most of you needed education statistics to know the high quality of the comments left by the readers.
It is rare that one can discuss controversial topics both openly and intelligently. Usually the debate degenerates into politically correct platitudes or outright fighting, complete with name calling and someone storming out of the room.
To avoid such hostilities, I set certain rules for myself. I would not get in the mud and I would not speak about the particularly controversial subject of IQ. Almost immediately, I broke both rules. One must address IQ as an explanation because in the absence of it, we cannot discuss why blacks always fall behind. Other than IQ, the only other explanation is white hate and racism. (Who caused the defects of black culture? Who caused black society to be destroyed by welfare? Racism and the legacy of slavery? Or IQ? What other answers are even possible?)
And I had to respond by dropping the gloves and slugging it out in a less-than-genteel fashion with leftists who come here to re-post the same propaganda they write everywhere.
Originally, I considered starting a blog about Islamic imperialism (takeover of EU, terror), especially in the wake of 9-11 and European terror, but there are already plenty of blogs, major blogs with millions of hits, dealing with that. It is also not as taboo as race.
Another potential topic was feminism, but it is not as much of a problem as racial PC because the vast majority of women aren’t out to destroy the whole society so that they could get something for themselves. Ultimately a woman cares about her husband’s job and her son’s grades far more than that of a stranger who also happens to be female.
I’ve touched on both subjects, but the bulk of my writing is on race. It is the defining issue of the last 50 years and the next. It is what is turning out country from the land of the free into a country of cowards, from a meritocracy where college admissions and hiring depends on intelligence and experience to the land of affirmative action, from a Western democracy to a Third World cesspool, one neighborhood at a time.
The liberals are right in one sense: this is not our fathers’ America!
And in every way possible, it will not be our children’s American either.
The average person on this blog is about 40 years ago. When he retires in 30 years, whites will no longer be a majority (I expect the census to revise their projects of a non-white majority from the year 2042 to something in the early 30s).
He will have spent all his life paying taxes that go to sponsor Minority Welfare Queens. Over and over, and more as time goes on, he and his family will be victims of minority set-asides and affirmative action. And when all is said and done, the mostly young minorities will likely refuse to pay for his old age, seeing as it will be mostly whites receiving Social Security and mostly minorities in the working-age groups.
It will be a country that he won’t recognize. In his old age, his English will be seen as outdated and improper as compared to the new and improved Ebonics. His will be the English of dead white guys and Ebonics will be the new wave, making a comeback, stronger than ever. Or if he’s like the frequent commenter “Californian”, he will just have to learn Spanish.
Neighborhood by neighborhood, this country is changing. The destruction of public schools and even a formerly elite universities such as CUNY was only the beginning.
Some neighborhoods look like a plague just swept through them, with only the homeless and the drug dealers making use of former condos and government-built high-rises. But rather than thanking whitey for paying for them, we are told that tall buildings are responsible for crime and that the residents are just innocent victims to whom drugs and violence just happens, like a hurricane.
We are blamed for fleeing from crime whose name we dare not speak. Not even the bravest souls are willing to say that there is more black-on-white crime than black-on-black. If the topic of black crime is ever brought up, we are supposed to lie that blacks themselves are its greatest victims.
We are just blamed for being racist as we are feeling from the neighborhoods where the new residents are driving us out through sheer terror.
Nor are we wanted if we come back to live with minorities despite black-on-white crime. When they move into our neighborhoods, they bless us with their magic ‘diversity’ that makes everything from business to friendships better. But when the white plague, I mean a white family, moves into a minority neighborhood, we are ‘gentrification’ that is destroying their culture.
But English, Dutch or Italian cultures … aren’t.
Sometimes I think I am crazy. Could it really be?
Could it really be? How could it be?
In the Soviet Union, people who understood the danger and the inevitable failure of Communism were placed in mental institutions. They were crazy.
Listening to people discuss the crime caused by the height of the buildings, I feel like this whole country is one big Soviet-style mental ward. And so I wanted to be the crazy one to stand and shout, “wake up!”, to tell the truth, to finally be honest with myself.
I wanted to stop being an intellectual coward and tell the truths that Eric Holder doesn’t want to hear.
More than anything, I wanted to say that this is our country and we are a good people with an advanced civilization that deserves to be protected.
And so, a year ago today, I started this blog by writing the following:
With millions of blogs out there, why start yet another one? What else can be said? When it comes to race, diversity and multiculturalism, turns out it’s a lot! Opinions expressed fall into two basic categories: politically correct and racist.
The racists, the real racists, a tiny minority of those speaking publicly, hate and vilify each and every member of a group. To the KKK types, no blacks (or Jews) have any redeeming qualities and they will frequently use sweeping statements such as, “blacks are all criminals”.
The politically correct multi-cultists – they are the dominant majority that destroys anyone who dares to disagree with them – believe the opposite absolute: only whites may be blamed and stating that any “person of color” is at fault for his actions as an individual is “racist”. Even more “racist” in the PC mind is the idea of averages, such as citing government statistics that show that blacks are several times more likely to commit violent crime.
Both views are wrong. There is no reason to hate blacks and other minorities, but I am tired of being told that white men are the epitome of all things evil, to blame for all the problems of the world. It is time that someone stoop up to defend the white race from libel.
The West is a society of emasculated liars. A people lacking the will to stand up and say the truth. Whites usually know that multiculturalism and the race card tricks are based on a lie, but cooperate in the cultural and demographic destruction of their nations nonetheless for the fear of being called “racist”.
So powerful is the claim of racism that more than 95% of people will immediately back down if you only accuse them of being racist. It does not matter what you discuss – immigration, taxation, favorite athlete, music, anything – try calling your opponent a racist and you will immediately put him on the defensive. His facial expression will change. He will no longer be concerned with explaining why he enjoys golf or classical music and will instead try to rehabilitate himself as anything other than a racist.
The primary dogma of today’s multiculturalism is the belief that White people have never done anything positive, nor has anyone else has done anything negative. The idea is hard to maintain when so much evidence is available to the contrary. A woman who was raped by a young Black male may not admit that Blacks commit more crime than Whites, but it would be hard to force a crime victim to lie about the race of her attacker. So while we can blame a black criminal in a particular case, as a society we must excuse the behavior of black rapists as acting out against the so-called “institutional racism”. It is ultimately not the criminal who’s at fault, but the society created by white people.
The violent black criminal is just a victim of racist society. Discrimination and persecution, such as the evil standardized tests to gain admission to a university, made him angry. He did not rape the White woman because he’s a vicious criminal. No, he raped her because he was tired of the White society dominating Blacks, and responded by imposing dominance on a White person the only way he knew how.
Why did the rapist rob his victim? Very simple – he’s poor and white racism caused his poverty. Why did he drop out of school? Because he’s heard that he will face job discrimination and won’t succeed anyway. Why did he get a low score on aptitude tests? Because tests are racist, or because whites had been guilty of the “soft bigotry of low expectations”. Why is he using illegal drugs? Because his community is filled with narcotics. Why is his community filled with drugs? Whites caused poverty and destroyed Black desire to succeed.
Whites also placed the Black criminal in a neighborhood full of crime, illiteracy and drugs. But is crime, illiteracy and drugs a natural occurrence? Does crime grow on trees in certain neighborhoods? Do drugs rain on Black projects? When we are told that Blacks “bring the street” with them to class, does it mean they bring a piece of pavement with them, or are they bringing their own culture and traditions?
Why are American Blacks poor? Racism. Why are African Blacks poor? Colonialism. Why do African nations get only poorer with years of independence? Global “post-colonialism” is even worse than colonialism.
Why does a neighborhood become more poor and dangerous when Whites are replaced by Blacks? Because Whites take the jobs with them as they move to the suburbs. Does that mean that an accountant puts his job in a suitcase and moves it out of the community? Or is it simply that when professionals and businessmen are replaced with illiterate criminals, jobs disappear and crime rises?
Of course not all Blacks are illiterate criminals, nor are all Whites professionals and businessmen, and many Blacks are smart and caring human beings. However, even a casual observer knows that Blacks do not put the same value on education as Whites, while committing more crime.
The Cult of Multiculturalism forced the White race, and the ethnic groups within it, to become sheep going to their slaughter without putting up a fight. Everyone blames them. Their countries are over-run by foreigners – foreigners in every sense of the word because they come from cultures that are shockingly different from that of the West.
These foreigners will permanently destroy the Western civilization and yet we hear that there is no such thing as a culture common to White people. Hardly any White person is brave enough to stand up and say, “This is our culture. This is our land. This is our civilization. You may or may not like our civilization, but we do. We think we have created a good culture and decent countries, and we believe it is our right to protect our civilization from a budding foreign majority.”
Somebody needs to stand up and say that we are a good and decent people. We aren’t perfect, we’ve done bad things and no doubt will make moral mistakes in the future again. But all people have done wrong; we don’t have a monopoly on evil and nor are we bereft of any positive qualities. We are no worse than other races, and we aren’t to blame for their failure.
And that’s why I started this blog!
Posted in Dialogue on Race | Tagged race, race realism, racialism, racism | 8 Comments »
Definitely worth a read. Gets better as the article goes on.
There are two types of people on earth. Those willing to accept the verdict of truth, regardless of how it reflects on them personally, or their pet causes, or how uncomfortable it might be; and those who don’t.
If you adopt only those truths which suit you, while denying those truths which you find distasteful, like some sort of chinese menu, you are a coward, a hypocrite, and a cur.
Race realism has a wonderful purpose. Its purpose is to shatter people’s illusions and force people to accept the truth through continuous presenting of evidence, science, genetics, history, geography, the news, whatever reveals the essence of racial differences that so invalidate the fantasy world of equalitarians. But race realism does not exist to serve whites, it exists to serve truth. If Jews are found to be smarter than whites, then race realism requires we accept that. If East Asians are found to be less criminal, have fewer illegitimate children, or a lower divorce rate, race realism requires we accept that. If blacks have bigger dicks and can sprint fast, race realism requires we accept that.
Race realism is a tiny subset of the truth that exists about this world. There is plenty of truth out there. Evolution is real, religion is false, gender matters, homosexuals are mentally ill, HIV causes AIDS, the free market is the best generator of wealth, democracy is fundamentally flawed, divorce causes lasting harm to kids, and star trek sucks compared to star wars.
People who wrap themselves in their pet causes and start clamoring on about how offended they are, how insufferable those who question their delusions are, how everyone on earth has to cater to them and never speak ill of anything they want, are no better than blacks insisting they’re equal and they built the pyramids or invented the refrigerator. Either people cleave to the truth or wrap themselves up in a lie that becomes the basis of their self-worth, and rise or fall on the basis of how many people are forced to acknowledge this lie. The problem with this is, for every person who gets the glowy satisfaction of having some self-satisfying lie told to him or her, there is another person humiliated and killed inside for having to speak a lie.
Solzhenitsyn lived through the gulag archipelago and came out the other side with this fundamental lesson: Live not by lies.
The cold could not break a person, starvation could not break a person, sleeplessness could not break a person, but once you could get them to tell a lie, they were lost. From there on, they could take no pride in themselves, they could not stand up for anything, they knew in their hearts they would buckle next time too. There is nothing more harmful to the human heart than knowing something is a lie, but having to say it’s true. And yet every day people heedlessly, selfishly, callously, demand dozens of lies be told about them, about their group, about their pet cause, to soothe their ego. Unthinkingly, these soul harvesters go around humiliating and defiling everyone they meet, demanding no one notice the Emperor Has No Clothes. You don’t deserve such tribute, no one does. No one deserves to be told lies just so they can feel good. Requiring others to lie about you, or your group, or your pet cause, is a slavery deeper than any whip or collar. It is enslaving even the inner conscience of man. It is making a man acknowledge he is a dog, which no amount of treating someone like a dog could do!
The Soviet Union was largely an all-white nation, but it was still hell on earth. Why? Because everyone was forced to mouth lies. You could not even speak your heart amidst friends or family. Any of them could be spies, informers, traitors. You could never, ever know. The furnace of your true mind and feelings circulated round and round your soul like a pressurised volcano, but it could never come forth! It could never be expressed! You could never be yourself! Exist! Live!
Ayn Rand aptly described the Soviet Union in We the Living: “In a totalitarian world, you can either kill yourself, kill your mind, or leave.” Enduring the hell of lies is impossible. One or another part of you is lost forever. Nor was she grandstanding, look at Russia today! The majority of children are aborted, alcoholism has taken the men to third world life expectancy, despair and depopulation hangs over people like the ghost of christmas past. What horrible tragedy must occur to make people kill their babies, kill themselves, kill their mental faculties with alcohol and drugs, abandon all hope and all wish to live? Simple–communism required people to say nothing but lies for the last 70 years. God help such a nation! God help such a soul!
So no, we can not accept ’some’ lies for the sake of civility, or machiavellan policy, or any other excuse. Life without truth is worthless. Never ask that of anyone.
Posted in Dialogue on Race | Tagged race, race realism, racialism, racism | 1 Comment »
Should I allow this kind of crap on this blog? These are just statements made without any proof or logical reasoning done for the purpose of posting propaganda in as many places as possible so that they could later say, “everyone knows that…”
It is not as if this adds any value, seeing as we’ve all seen these arguments in many other places.
I really have a problem with this stuff, but I’ll let the readers decide if you want to see it.
————>
With all do respect for your historical investigation, your way off on this one. Let’s look at some basic facts here. Facts anyone can look up, so when your done, please look it up.
[I did that by posting Carthaginian art and coins showing Hannibal and others as light skinned whites. He fails to address it. Also look at the DNA of North Africans.]
First off, Hannibal is of a North African heritage of over 2,000 years ago. Evidence shows that most of Africa during that time was Black or Negroid as the scientist used to say.
[No citation of what evidence. He just ignored my evidence of DNA, art and coins.]
They have done enough digging in that area to record this. By basic American standards, what makes one Black or Negroid in appearance? Simple, if you boarded a bus in the south during jim crow you would have been asked to go to the back. That’s one method of how America made that distinction. White Guy, I have news for you. All the Carthaginians of that era would have been ask to move it to the back.
[What is this assertion based on? Nothing. It is done so that liberals can later claim "everyone knows that..."]
Secondly, Mediterranean people aren’t really white.
[DNA evidence shows otherwise.]
They already have a cultural and genetic term and it’s call Mediterranean not Caucasoid.
[What an idiot!]
Have you seen how dark many of them get.
[Hair, yes. Skin, not so much.]
Can you imagine how dark they were before the sacking of Rome?
[Yes, I do know. Their Y-DNA haplogroup is known to have been J-2.]
Third, the Caucasoid was coined a barbarian by the Romans.
[That would be Germanic people.]
If Hannibal were of this stock, the Romans would have said so.
[So if the French call their neighbors "Dutch", does that mean that Netherlands isn't white? Or is it France that's Negroid?]
But they didn’t called the Carthaginians of Africa Barbarians, they called them Carthaginians!
[And the Norwegians call their neighbors Swedes. One of them must be black based on this logic!]
Forth, Hannibal employed fighting men out of Nubian via Africa South.
[So? All empires used local fighters. Saint Paul was a Jew who was an officer in the Roman army. Does that mean that all the Romans were Jewish?]
Up to that point not one Roman or Greek was able to penetrate Nubia with any real length of success.
[Ummm... that's because neither Rome nor Greece was an Empire at the height of Ancient Egypt's power. That's like saying that America wasn't able to defeat the mighty Polish army in 1780 and therefore the Poles are now having a more dominant effect on world affairs than does the United States.]
Even Alexander, when given the option to go into Nubia, turned his troops around at the boarder when faced by a Kandake from the area of Kush.
[And the Mongol hordes refused to go to the mountains of Caucasus. That hardly proves that the little nations there were great fighters. But in fact the Nubians were defeated by Europeans at the fall of Egypt. They briefly conquered a small territory in southern Egypt, but got their rear-end handed to them by those non-white Mediterranean races who came from the other direction.]
Fifth, It’s not very likely that any Nubian warriors of that period would have followed a European into battle because they shared the same concept about the Northern Europeans (Barbarians) that the Romans did. It was the other way around, they followed him once he stated his trip across the Alps.
[No clue what he means here.]
Furthermore we know that the Gods that Hannibal and the Carthaginians prayed to were Gods of the East.
[So did a lot of religions because the sun rises in the East.]
He didn’t pray to Thor or any other White Gods.
[The Chinese and the Japanese also prayed to different Gods. Were they different races? Ukrainians could be Catholic and Orthodox Christian. Does that make mean that there are two separate Ukrainian races? Religions span different races. For example, Islam is popular in black Nigeria, Asian Malaysia and white Albania.]
He and his people paid homage to the Gods of that area.
[Yes, in North Africa, which was white. See Libyans, for example.]
And speaking of Gods, the oldest statues of Buddha shows him with nappy hair, thick lips and dark skin
[No doubt Asians prayed to a black man.]
Christ had the same hair type (wool) with skin of burnt brass and St Augustine is the Black Saint.
[In fact, there are no early depictions of Christ and all the modern drawings have no basis in history. Jesus is thought to be a descendant of King David or else he could not possibly be the Messiah of the Old Testament. Two New Testament books count out his ancestry to King David. It is a known fact from both religious and secular sources that King David was a pale-skinned red head. It was so common for Jews - at least the upper classes - to have red hair that they believe that Adam (husband of Eve) was also a red head.]
The Egyptians stated: “We come from the beginning of the Nile where the God Hapi dwells at the foothills of the mountain of the moon” … That’s Kiliminjaro my friend. These things are written, like it or not.
[Not even sure what they meant here. They may be written, but DNA is DNA.]
This kind of crap appears in my mail box daily. It has no academic value. It is just lies without any proof or logic. I see no value in it.
Posted in Ancient Egypt | Tagged Ancient Egypt, carthage, hannibal, north africa, race, race realism, racialism, racism | 17 Comments »
I was just watching a National Geographic show on the LA riots. At the end they discussed why Koreans were targeted. They blabbered something about Korean culture such as not looking customers in the face.
But one point, though very vague and not clear to most viewers, came fairly close to the real reason: Blacks felt that Koreans were taking over.
Notice how whites are never allowed to feel that way. If whites ever rioted because they felt that a smaller racial group was taking over, it would be an example of evil in the hearts of whites cited to school children for centuries. Just think of how much we still have to hear about violence during the Reconstruction.
But why were the Koreans taking over? One reason is immigration, of course, but that doesn’t explain why they owned over 800 small businesses (according to the show) in South Central alone.
They didn’t benefit from white racism, slave-ownership or imperialism. In fact, they largely came to the US penniless from the often colonized country, speaking no English and knowing nothing about American or even Western culture. These people don’t know how to get on the bus when they first arrive in this country.
But they work hard, they support their family, and they have a high IQ.
Instead of wasting money and then claiming that banks tricked them into taking out loans they couldn’t pay back, these people save and when they get a mortgage they are fooled so rarely that they default less than whites.
Somehow immigrants who speak no English and need to be explained how to get on the bus are more “sophisticated” about mortgages than blacks who have been in this country for 400 years, who went to school here, who have jobs here, who have friends here, and who get help and advice from community activists and others.
If this is not proof that innate IQ and not background is what really matters, I don’t know what is.
Maybe Koreans were taking over because they are actually largely capable of saving for, investing in and running a business, while blacks largely aren’t.
If blacks wanted to run laundromats and grocery stores, they were only encouraged to do so. (For example, through government-sponsored low interest loans and the “buy black” campaigns.)
But they did not want to “waste” their money on laundry machines. Are you freakin’ kidding me here? What use is there in owning that!? Tyrone needs new rims!
What blacks wanted was to get the benefit of running a business, not actually to run one. They wanted to have the things that a successful business owner might have.
And so they came and took whatever they wanted. Nobody thought of a Korean family that scrapped a couple thousand dollars from each family member to open that laundromat.
No, instead blacks complained that Koreans hired their own family members (a.k.a. worked themselves in the businesses in which they all invested), rather than hiring blacks. Did blacks want to work in laundromats? Probably not, it’s a “dead-end job”. But they wanted to get paid so that they could get the stuff they wanted.
No doubt that if blacks were hired, they would complain why they aren’t management or owners. But even as a manager of a laundromat, it’s really a “dead-end job” and few blacks would’ve been satisfied.
So yes, the Koreans were taking over the ‘hood. But who should take over other than the people who are competent and studious enough to actually manage things successfully?
Posted in Race and Crime | Tagged blacks, koreans, LA riots, race, race realism, racialism, racism | 2 Comments »
Being the humanitarian that I am, I’ve previously created a guide to help people understand if they think and reason like true liberals. In my never-ending quest to help the fellow man, I am now publishing tried and true liberal methods to win all arguments. Once you master these techniques, you will become a true liberal intellectual.
Start by calling your opponent a racist
Suppose someone advocates for lower taxes. Respond with, “That is so racist. Our government is subjugating minorities with unfair tax policies.” If your opponent tries to defend himself by saying something like, “my support for lower taxes has nothing to do with minorities and I don’t see how the issue is related to racism”, look shocked and outraged and declare, “You really shouldn’t be talking anymore. You are embarrassing yourself. I never knew that you were such a bigot.” There’s no need to explain how lower taxes equal to racism.
Call your opponent ’sad’
Normally you will win the argument after step one, but if you opponent doesn’t back down and proceeds to make a reasoned argument with facts and logic, respond with: “It is sad that you really believe that. You should get a life. The fact that you are arguing that lower taxes isn’t a form of genocidal racism is proof that you are a racist who never had a girlfriend except the sister that you screw in your trailer park.”
Always cite your education and that boot-leg 5-minute IQ test you took online
Remember, there’s never a need to argue with facts. Nobody who disagrees with you has any brains. They are all rednecks who didn’t finish high school and never traveled anywhere. Demand that they be impressed with your phenomenal credentials. In response to the argument about tax policy, just say that you majored in Sociology. That will make everything they say invalid. If the illiterate redneck will surprise you by claiming to be a doctor or a lawyer, laugh in his face and deny that someone so stupid could ever finish high school, much less a professional grad school. Respond that your IQ score is 140+ (or in some cases 180+) and that if you never went to grad school, there’s no way that your opponent did.
Do not doubt yourself. Anyone who disagrees with you is a moron and you must call him on it.
Make things up
Suppose you meet an American who invests in Peru. Now, you don’t know any cities in Peru, nor how much people there make. But you must take a strong position against this bigot.
Arguing that Peruvians are underpaid makes you morally superior to the person employing them, so obnoxiously ambushing him in the middle of a July 4 barbecue is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged. Try to get a friend or two to yell at this businessman together.
DO NOT say: “I think Peruvians are underpaid.” Think means you aren’t sure. Say instead: “The average salary in Peru in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level.”
If the person you are ambushing knows the real statistics, use all the above techniques: “It’s so sad that you have no life and have to stand here and defend your racist capitalist imperialist actions when I was just trying to eat.”
NOTE: Always make up exact figures.
This is done in case your opponent also knows exact statistics. If you give a round number and he cites an exact number, the uninformed might realize that he’s right. But when both of you have “weird” statistics, you can immediately switch to calling him names if he knows something you don’t.
If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up too. Make sure to do it with a self-righteous flair: “Everyone knows that this information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon’s study for the Buford Commission published on May 9, 1982. Didn’t you read it? Maybe you should not have dropped out of high school to screw your sister in the trailer park.”
Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say, “You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom.”
Use the most difficult words you’ve ever heard, even if you don’t know what they mean
Smart people use big words. You don’t quite understand the meaning of those words, but neither does anyone else. After all, if someone as smart as you with your 184 IQ doesn’t understand it, how could this dumb redneck? It is not true that professionals and academics use those words only because they are actually necessary in some settings. No, these words are for smart people and you are a smart person!
If you are asked why is it that you feel the need to use a thesaurus for every word, respond with a look of disgust followed by, “These aren’t hard words, lol. It is just that you aren’t educated like I am, so you can’t understand what I am saying.” Once again cite your spectacular IQ score from that 5-minute test you took on some blog.
Always remember: there’s no room for facts and logic in any debate. You must defeat your opponent by showing how brilliant you are and that he’s just not as smart as you are, so he might as well just accept your opinion as fact.
If your opponent realizes that you are using the words improperly, respond with, “I don’t have the time to play these games.” Make sure to use all the following words in the next sentence (yes, all of them in the same sentence): sad, greedy, racist, imperialist, uneducated and incest.
Use meaningless but weighty-sounding phrases
Memorize this list and use each phrase in every sentence. It will further impress your opponent and scare him away from arguing with you.
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
Ipso facto
Ergo
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as “Q.E.D.”, “e.g.”, and “i.e.” These are all short for “I speak Latin, and you don’t.” Here’s how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say, “Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don’t have enough money.”
You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, “Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Ergo, ipso facto, case closed. Q.E.D.”
A person with your IQ and education must always speak that way to let everyone know that you are the genius who majored in Sociology.
Only a fool would challenge that statement or the person making it.
Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You’re begging the question.
You’re being defensive.
Don’t compare apples to oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody (other than engineers and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what “parameters” are.
If it is really impossible to argue with your opponents logic, respond with, “you are so linear.”
Here’s how to use your comebacks:
You say: As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873…
Your opponent says: Lincoln died in 1865.
You say: You’re begging the question.
You say: Liberians, like most Asians…
Your opponent says: Liberia is in Africa.
You say: You’re being defensive.
You say: Since the discovery of the incandescent light bulb…
Your opponent says: The light bulb is an invention.
You say: Well DUH!
Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say, “That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say,” or “You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler.”
Posted in Dialogue on Race | Tagged left, liberal, leftist, debate, dialogue | 3 Comments »
Mangan has an entry on a Business Week article, which he quotes (and criticizes):
immigrants are critical to the country’s long-term economic health. Despite the fact that they constitute only 12% of the U.S. population, immigrants have started 52% of Silicon Valley’s technology companies and contributed to more than 25% of our global patents. They make up 24% of the U.S. science and engineering workforce holding bachelor’s degrees and 47% of science and engineering workers who have PhDs. Immigrants have co-founded firms such as Google (GOOG), Intel (INTC), eBay (EBAY), and Yahoo! (YHOO).
And how many of those are Mexicans? Guatenmalans? Somalians?
That list of 4 major corporations that were founded of co-founded by immigrants reads like this: Jew, Jew, Persian, Chinese.
All of them came from educated, high-class families. They weren’t illiterate Mexicans who could not write in English or Spanish.
I don’t know this for sure, but let me take a guess here: all those highly educated immigrants are East European Jews and Chinese, as well as Indians among computer programmers. I would bet you that the number of highly educated, entrepreneurial Mexicans in this group is far less than the margin of error.
When was the last time you met an immigrant from Mexico was was an engineer, either in the US or in Mexico? A doctor? A lawyer? A professor? A web developer? A biologist? A mathematician? Who are we kidding here?!
Some immigration potentially could be valuable to the country. This would be particularly true for highly-educated white immigrants. It would help preserve the white character of this nation, while also help it grow.
But let’s not confuse the issue here: the problem is the pouring of the Third World illiterates into this country.
If Third World illiterates were prevented from coming here, I doubt immigration would be an issue for anyone. The flow of immigrants would be relatively small, and educated people would not be the same drain on the economy and the welfare state that illiterates are.
Posted in Third World Immigration | Tagged immigration | 4 Comments »
Vanishing American has written several times on the subject of who’s an American.
Here’s an interesting thought that I’ve had.
If any Third World person shows up in any white nation, he instantly becomes an American, a Frenchman, a Swede.
But nobody can ever become an Arab, an African, a Japanese.
The Boers have been living in African for 400 years. They aren’t African. But American Blacks who haven’t been to Africa for the same 400 years are “African-Americans”.
Third World people have a monopoly on their native land with nobody ever being able to become one of them. At the same time, as soon as they land on white man’s land, even illegally, they are Americans.
Of the 45 million “Americans” who don’t have health insurance, about a third are illegal immigrants who have no business being here. We can take a bite out of our “uninsured Americans” problem just by kicking them out.
But why is it that white people can never be African, but Nigerians who just landed in Britain are all of a sudden British?
Who made these rules?
March 21, 2009 Leave a Comment
| More news stories on the Demographic Transformation |
|---|
Dwight Frye, American Renaissance, March 2002
| The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization By Patrick Buchanan St. Martin’s Press, 2002 308 pp., $25.95 |
Since 1998, Patrick J. Buchanan has been writing a series of books dealing in depth with the major themes and issues of both his newspaper column and his seemingly perennial presidential campaigns. The first, The Great Betrayal, dealt with the problems of “free trade” and “economic nationalism”; the second, A Republic, Not an Empire, with foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, especially with the alternatives of “global interventionism” and what Mr. Buchanan called an “enlightened nationalism” that avoids needless overseas entanglements. Both books are of interest to AR readers, but the third and most recent, The Death of the West, should be especially so, since it is mainly in this volume that Mr. Buchanan deals with the issues that most AR readers believe are by far the most important our nation and race are facing.
It is Mr. Buchanan’s thesis that the West—the white, Christian cultures of Europe and America—is facing extinction, in part because of falling birthrates, in part because of massive immigration by non-Western peoples who fail or refuse to assimilate, and in part because of the crisis of belief in Western culture that Western elites harbor and spread. Mr. Buchanan does suggest some practical political and policy options by which the Western nations could reduce the threats they face, but by and large he offers little hope for survival.
The Death of the West should be of particular interest to AR readers not only because so many of the “cultural” issues with which the book deals are really racial issues, but also because of confusion among Mr. Buchanan’s many admirers and supporters about his own personal view of race. Throughout his presidential campaigns, many supporters expressed disappointment that he did not more frequently and consistently raise explicitly racial issues—especially immigration and affirmative action—and faulted him for dwelling on more conventional conservative topics. The disappointment reached a crescendo in August, 2000, when Mr. Buchanan as the presidential nominee of the Reform Party chose as his running mate a black woman, Ezola Foster. Not only was Mrs. Foster obviously unprepared to serve as either a credible vice-presidential candidate or as an actual vice-president—she worked as a typing teacher in a public high school, had never held public office, and soon turned out to carry questionable ethical baggage—but also she had, equally obviously, been selected precisely because of her race. That Pat Buchanan would stoop to this sort of racial pandering dashed the hopes and expectations of many of his racially conscious supporters. More substantially, however, Mrs. Foster’s selection also appeared to be in gross contradiction to many of Mr. Buchanan’s own statements over the years that had suggested he shared the view held by most AR readers: that race is a natural and socially significant reality.
The Death of the West, then, could have served as an excellent opportunity for Mr. Buchanan to clarify his own views of race and the relationship between race and civilization. Alas, although Mr. Buchanan confronts many of the most controversial issues of our time with his customary courage and brilliance, and although the issue of race runs surreptitiously throughout the book, at its end the reader will remain as mystified about what the author thinks about it as he was at the beginning.
Declining Birthrates
The major theme of the early part of the book is the declining birthrates that afflict the white populations of the United States and Europe. “The West,” Mr. Buchanan writes, “is dying:”
“Its nations have ceased to reproduce, and their populations have stopped growing and begun to shrink. Not since the Black Death carried off a third of Europe in the fourteenth century has there been a graver threat to the survival of Western civilization. Today, in seventeen European countries, there are more burials than births, more coffins than cradles.”
The result is not only that the populations of the West are dwindling but that as they cease to bear children, they will grow increasingly older and more burdensome to the remaining young people who will have to care for them directly or through higher taxes. The alternative is the mass immigration from the Third World that is actually taking place; only immigrants can replace dying populations and assume the burdens that the population’s unborn children will not bear. “Either Europe raises taxes and radically downsizes pensions and health benefits for the elderly, or Europe becomes a Third World continent. There is no third way,” Mr. Buchanan writes.
Nevertheless, at least in the case of race, it is not at all clear that he knows that it’s race with which he’s dealing, or that he grasps why he should be on one side rather than another.
The population decline is for Mr. Buchanan the major indicator of cultural decline, and toward the end of the book he traces it to the decline of religion, specifically Christianity.
“But, as Christianity began to die in the West, something else occurred: Western peoples began to stop having children. For the correlation between religious faith and large families is absolute. The more devout a people, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, the higher its birthrate.
Mr. Buchanan fails to support this claim adequately. He complains about and indeed documents what he calls the “deChristianization” of American society, but he also insists, largely correctly, that the decline of Christianity in the United States is mainly the result of what elites have imposed on the country, and he acknowledges that “while America remains a predominantly Christian society and country, her public institutions and popular culture have been thoroughly de-Christianized.” Yet the white birth rate in the United States is 1.85, below replacement level (2.1), while black and Hispanic birthrates are above replacement level (2.21 and 2.99 respectively; it’s interesting that Mr. Buchanan nowhere in the book ever mentions these racial differences in fertility). The implication should be clear: America remains, for most of its population, a Christian country, but the racial group that constitutes most of its population is failing to reproduce itself; it is therefore not the decline of Christianity that accounts for the decline of births—unless Mr. Buchanan wants to argue that blacks and Hispanics are more religious than whites and have more children for that reason.
Moreover, while in the later parts of the book Mr. Buchanan mainly invokes the decline of religion as a cause of the birth dearth, in the early chapters he enumerates several other causes: a socialistic political economy in which government takes care of the elderly, and the young are no longer expected to do so; an economy in which women are expected to work and must work if they and their families are to enjoy middle-class affluence; the cultural revolution of the 1960s and the accompanying transformation of sexual mores and the rise of feminism; what Mr. Buchanan calls the “hysteria” about over-population fostered by ecologists and population planners; the availability of contraceptives; and finally the “collapse of the moral order” that is largely indistinguishable from the aforesaid cultural and sexual revolutions.
Most of these are perfectly plausible explanations of why people choose not to have children, and they more or less apply to non-Western countries like Japan as well. But probably the major reason people don’t have children is the one that several people Mr. Buchanan quotes actually assert: people have a choice between bearing the considerable costs of rearing children, or of not having them at all and spending their money on themselves. It is, in other words, availability of contraceptives and the ideological changes that accompany affluence that account most plausibly for the decline of white fertility. The decline of religion may mask affluence as a cause of declining fertility because affluence tends to be correlated with secularization, modernization, and the whole range of other causes to which Mr. Buchanan points.
Whatever its cause, Mr. Buchanan is entirely correct that the prospect of the disappearance of white populations foretells the death of the civilization they created. He is even more correct than he realizes, because he never bothers to deal with a perfectly logical question that arises from his survey of the decline of fertility among Europeans and the mass immigration of non-Westerners: Why don’t the non-Westerners become Western through cultural assimilation and carry on the civilization? If that were to happen, why would it really matter that the white population is vanishing?
If, as Mr. Buchanan argues, “Christianity gave birth to the West and undergirds its moral and political order,” and if a large proportion of the Third World immigrants entering the United States are Hispanic Christians, why is immigration a problem for the West rather than its salvation? Why won’t Christian immigrants ignite a Western renaissance? What would Mr. Buchanan say to an educated, upper-middle class, professional non-white immigrant, who may even have converted to Christianity, who tells him, “So what if the white people of the West are disappearing? I and millions like me are coming into this country, and we’ve assimilated or will assimilate, so we’ll carry on the civilization your ancestors founded.” The answer can only be that there is some other factor than religion or simple cultural assimilation—adopting the language, dress, and mores of the host country—that defines the West, and that factor is the Great Unmentionable: race.
Mr. Buchanan is aware of race and the difference it makes. He offers several reasons why massive immigration from Mexico is such a cultural problem for America, and one reason is that “Mexicans not only come from another culture, but millions are of another race. History and experience teach us that different races are far more difficult to assimilate. The sixty million Americans who claim German ancestry are fully assimilated, while millions from Africa and Asia are still not full participants in American society.”
To be fair, then, Mr. Buchanan does acknowledge that race is of some significance. Nor does he shrink from blasting the enemies of the Confederate flag (white or black, Republican or Democrat), rehearsing the facts about race and crime (and favorably citing both Jared Taylor and the New Century Foundation’s study, The Color of Crime), and quoting with contempt the blatantly anti-white shriekings of such racial demagogues as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Mario Obledo. Mr. Buchanan is clearly on the side of his own race, as well as that of his own faith and nation and civilization.
Nevertheless, at least in the case of race, it is not at all clear that he knows that it’s race with which he’s dealing, or that he grasps why he should be on one side rather than another. He never explains why race is significant or why it is that “different races are far more difficult to assimilate”—is it due to the biology of race or simply that racial differences are more visible than most cultural differences?—nor does he seem quite to grasp that the West and America are, virtually by definition, white. Even if some non-whites do adopt the cultural trappings of the West and even if they share the same cognitive abilities as whites, they will always remain aliens because of their race. “Assimilation,” while perhaps better than non-assimilation and the kind of cultural hatred that many immigrants exhibit toward the West, in the end is not really what’s important, because race is the ultimate foundation of culture. This is the crucial insight that escapes Mr. Buchanan.
Indeed, as he recounts the many different controversies over issues like the Confederate flag, the removal of various national or racial or religious monuments, the re-writing of history, and the long march of “political correctness” through the institutions, the reader begins to notice that he seldom if ever really engages with his enemies. One gets the impression that Mr. Buchanan is writing his book almost entirely for a 60-year-old white, Southern, Roman Catholic—a reader who can be expected to share his beliefs and values and his outrage at witnessing them being spat upon by racial, religious, and national foes, while the cowards, frauds, and fools among the conservatives and Republicans who are supposed to defend them fail to do so. But hardly anywhere in the book does Mr. Buchanan offer a principled, informed defense of any of his beliefs and values. He writes very little that might persuade an opponent who does not share his assumptions, or who might attack his beliefs and values as “racism,” “xenophobia,” “chauvinism,” etc.
Nor does Mr. Buchanan ever offer a very convincing explanation as to why the West is in decline. The decline of religion is at best only a partial explanation. Why has religion declined? Why can’t Christianity resurrect itself, or why doesn’t some other religion replace it if Christianity is failing to serve basic needs? Mr. Buchanan places great emphasis on the role of elites—the long campaign of Marxist-Freudian subversion sponsored by the Frankfurt School and its disciples, the justices of the Supreme Court, the elites of Hollywood and other cultural centers. He is undoubtedly correct that the main locus of cultural decadence and the main source of its spread lie in elites, but he never explains why the elites hate the civilization over which they preside, why they are determined to subvert it, or why they harbor anti—Western, anti-Christian, anti-white, and anti-American ideologies.
Why does Susan Sontag insist that the “white race is the cancer of human history”? Why did John Lennon moan on about his self-appointed mission to abolish religion, country, and possessions? Why does an entire class of academics and intellectuals subscribe to the milkish poison of the Humanist Manifesto? And, perhaps most important of all, why does almost everyone who doesn’t believe this stuff nevertheless tolerate it, submit to it, and fear to challenge it? Mr. Buchanan never offers much of an answer to these crucial questions, but perhaps it’s asking too much to insist on it. After all, who else has offered convincing answers?
Toward the end of the book, he tells us:
“But America and the West face four clear and present dangers. The first is a dying population. Second is the mass immigration of peoples of different colors, creeds, and cultures, changing the character of the West forever. The third is the rise to dominance of an anti—Western culture in the West, deeply hostile to its religions, traditions, and morality, which has already sundered the West. The fourth is the breakup of nations and the defection of ruling elites to a world government whose rise entails the end of nations.”
There can be no disagreement with this catalogue of threats, but with the exception of the fourth, every one of them is directly related to race. The population decline is a problem only because the population in question is white, and no other race can replace it. Mass immigration is a problem because the immigrants are non-white and therefore largely unable to assimilate to or carry on the civilization created by whites. The rise of an “anti-Western culture” is largely driven and almost entirely accelerated by mass non-Western immigration itself, allied with the propensity of Western intellectuals and other elites, for whatever reason, to subvert their own race and civilization.
It would seem, then, that even by the terms of his own arguments Mr. Buchanan should have given a good deal more attention to race than he does, and it would have been extremely useful for him to have explained to his readers that the West and America are white societies that could not have existed in the absence of white majority populations and cannot continue to exist if their populations cease to be mainly white. It is quite true that Christianity, as well as science and various literary and artistic achievements and certain kinds of political and social arrangements, are all essential to the Western identity, but none of these institutions has ever come into existence among non-whites, and there is no evidence that anyone except whites can produce or maintain them.
In place of race, Mr. Buchanan argues (as quoted above) that “Christianity gave birth to the West and undergirds its moral and political order” and suggests religion as “the unifying principle” and “the source of moral authority that holds the West together.” He is probably right that Christianity has served that function for the last two millennia. He is also correct that it is ceasing to do so, and he rightly asks what new “unifying principle” can replace it:
“Some say racial solidarity. But the past five hundred years have been an endless chronicle of European peoples slaughtering one another, with World Wars I and II as climax to the horrors. And during that past half-millennium, the great enemies of Western faith, culture, and civilization have come out of the West. Moreover, America is a multiethnic, multiracial nation today, and the nations of Europe will be tomorrow.”
Yes, but the intra-European conflicts of the past 500 years were in no small part incited by religion, as in the Thirty Years War, the bloodiest conflict in European history until the 20th century. The white race of Europe has been no more divided against itself than the Christians of Europe have been at odds with each other, and even before the religious conflicts of the Reformation era, Christians fought Christians regardless of doctrinal unity. Religious solidarity is no better and no more enduring a unifying principle than race has been. Moreover, when Europeans have faced challenges from other races, as with the Mongols of the 13th century or with Arabic Muslims in the Crusades or (not always, but for the most part) with Indians, Africans, and Asians in the era of empire, whites have generally stood together.
As for the “multiethnic, multiracial” character of modern America, Mr. Buchanan is right, but that in itself is due to recent historical shifts in the composition of our population, and there is no reason why it cannot shift back to what it used to be—especially with a little government assistance.
The fact that race has not always served as an effective social and political bond in the past does not mean that it cannot so serve in the future, or that other forces such as national or credal identity will prevail over racial bonds. It is arguable that the most important achievement of the second half of the 20th century, both in science and in social and political affairs, was the rediscovery of race as a natural reality as well as a meaningful social and political force; that does not mean race necessarily will serve as an adequate bond or “unifying principle,” but certainly there is no reason to assume that it won’t or can’t.
Almost every European nation has an explicitly racially conscious political party that opposes immigration and is gaining votes because of it.
Moreover it is also arguable that as religion has declined, racial consciousness has risen. Until recent years, few Europeans had any experience or knowledge of non-whites, and there was little racial consciousness among them. Today, with non-white immigrants pouring into the continent, white Europeans may not go to church much, but almost every nation has an explicitly racially conscious political party that opposes immigration and is gaining votes because of it. Americans by contrast have always had a racial consciousness considerably stronger than that of most Europeans simply because they have had to deal with Indians, blacks, and Asian immigrants. American history, as the anti-white left keeps preaching, is replete with white racial consciousness; there is every reason to expect it to revive as the confrontation with non-white immigrants escalates. Yet Mr. Buchanan quite simply refuses either to consider that possibility or evaluate its desirability. Far from dismissing racial solidarity, he should have examined its possibilities as a national “unifying principle” much more deeply.
For the last two decades and especially in the last ten years, Pat Buchanan has been one of white America’s foremost heroes—a man who has not hesitated to say what others fear to say about immigration, the economy, culture, foreign policy, and even occasionally about some aspects of race itself, a man who has risked his career—and perhaps even his life—to make Americans see what many don’t want to see and what their leaders do their best to prevent them from seeing. It is a disappointment that he seems to have avoided in this latest book and indeed in most of his career the kind of consistent and ruthless analysis of race he has brought to bear on almost every other subject he has approached.
While The Death of the West is a flawed book—flawed by the author’s refusal to pursue certain questions and issues to their logical conclusion and perhaps by his failure to recognize such questions and issues at all—it is by no means without merit; it offers an avalanche of facts and quotations to substantiate its claims, and it is well worth buying simply as a compendium and as an introduction to the crisis that these facts present. Most Americans, and especially most conservatives, would profit from reading it carefully and thinking hard about the unpleasant realities it documents, and it is probably the most forthright book on the mortal threat of population decline, immigration, and political, cultural—and racial—displacement now in print. Yet if Mr. Buchanan had confronted the truth about race head on, he would have written a much stronger book and a book that could have served as a manual of political and cultural warfare in a white (as well as a Christian) reconquest of America and the West. As it is, The Death of the West is by no means as forthright as it could have been or as it needed to be if the West is to be pulled back from the precipice on which it now stands.
(Posted on March 20, 2009)
March 21, 2009 Leave a Comment
“Dead cat bounce” is the gruesome phrase used by investors to describe a brief rally that occurs during an overall bear market. As you might suspect, it’s based on the observation that even a dead cat cat may bounce if dropped from a sufficient height.
Wall Street markets have been rallying, even since they reached a low point less than two weeks ago, on March 9. Everyone wants to know how long the rally will last.
During the period 1929-1932, the Wall Street markets fell 90%. However, during that four year period, there were several substantial rallies. Here’s a list of them:
Start End Duration Size of market increase --------------- --------------- --------- ----------------------- Nov 1929 April 1930 5 months 49% June 1930 September 1930 3 months 16% December 1930 February 1931 2 months 25% June 1931 July 1931 1 month 29% October 1931 November 1931 1 month 35% January 1932 March 1932 2 months 25% --------------- --------------- ---------- ---- AVERAGE 2 months 30%
So the market didn’t fall steadily from 1929 to 1932. There were several rallies, one as long as 5 months. The average length of these rallies was 2 months.
Moving back to today, the market has fallen almost 50% since it peaked in October, 2007. During that time, there have been several rallies (I’ve updated the last line to the current date):
Start End Duration Size of market increase --------------- --------------- --------- ----------------------- 26-Oct-07 10-Dec-07 45 days 8% 10-Mar-08 16-May-08 67 days 12% 15-Jul-08 11-Aug-08 27 days 7% 27-Oct-08 4-Nov-08 8 days 18% 20-Nov-08 6-Jan-09 47 days 24% 09-Mar-09 19-Mar-09 10 days 16% --------------- --------------- ---------- ---- AVERAGE 34 days 14%
So for those of you wondering how long this dead cat bounce will last, it might be over already, or it might last several more weeks. We won’t know until after it’s over.
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, as well as more frequent updates on this subject, see the Financial Topics thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Read the entire thread for discussions on how to protect your money.) (20-Mar-2009) Permanent Link
Last month, on February 19, CNBC market reporter Rick Santelli unleashed a rant against President Obama’s bailout plan. The video of the rant achieved “viral status,” as it spread around the internet. It became so popular, that even White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs felt forced to make disparaging comments about it.
Suddenly it became CNBC versus the White House, with other journalists taking sides.
Thus, two days later, I heard CNN’s senior report John King say that Santelli made his rant because he was a Republican and wanted to score points against the President. With this ideological statement, both King and CNN completely missed the important story.
Santelli’s rant was nothing new. He delivers rants all the time. Most of his rants are simply ignored and forgotten within five minutes after they’re delivered.
Thus, the big story about this rant was not the rant itself, but the reaction to it. This was a first real sign of what’s now being called “populist anger” at the President. This story was completely missed by CNN and by everyone else, as far as I know.
The populist anger has been growing, and has become palpable in the anger directed against bonuses contractually owed to executives at American International Group (AIG), which was first bailed out in September of last year. AIG has received $173 billion in bailouts, and says that it’s contractually obligated to pay $165 million in bonuses.
The politicians in Washington were quick to jump on the bandwagon, with one Senator after another posturing for the cameras.
President Barack Obama led the way:
But I think Mr. Liddy and certainly everybody involved needs to understand this is not just a matter of dollars and cents. It’s about our fundamental values. All across the country, there are people who are working hard and meeting their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multi-million dollar bonuses. … And that is an ethic that we have to demand.”
It was just a few days ago that Administration officials OK’s a new bailout of AIG, and did nothing about the bonuses. But “populist anger” has grown so quickly that President Obama has suddenly that honoring existing employment contracts is an “outrage,” and violates our “fundamental values.”
Now, I don’t think most of these people deserve bonuses either. I’ve been writing for years that there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence of criminal activity. The main evidence is the sharp increase in the issuance and sale of mortgage-backed securities in 2007, at a time when it was obvious to everyone that these securities were becoming worthless.
But what bothers me about the AIG bonus imbroglio is that it’s based on mob anger, rather than on anything reasonable. In fact, decisions are now being made increasingly by mob demands.
The point I want to make is that Washington is no longer making any decisions.
As I heard one pundit put it, President Obama is now “bouncing from outrage to outrage.”
This is nothing new, and not surprising. It’s the latest extension of the paralysis in Washington that’s been increasing for several years.
I’ve been writing for years about the political bickering that’s paralyzed Congress for several years, during both Republican and Democratic party control. This caused a certain amount of Schadenfreude two years ago, when political paralysis blocked a Congressional pay raise.
Many people believed that the paralysis was all in the past, after Obama won the election, and won a Democratic party majority in both branches of Congress. In fact, it’s back in full force, and it’s going to continue to get worse.
Not only that, but Obama’s approval rating has been slipping steadily since he took office, and his disapproval rating has been growing.
My personal belief is that he brought a lot of this on himself by his smug, overconfident claims that all the world’s ills would be cured the day after he took office. He made these claims of “change you can believe in” throughout the campaign, never explaining exactly what the change was, and even continued the inflated claims after the election was over. Now the public is living with the reality that nothing is changing, that the bickering is continuing, that the economy is getting worse all the time, and that the new Administration has made numerous missteps. Pundits who could find nothing about Obama to joke about in the past are now saying things like, “Obama is paying for the bailout by collecting unpaid taxes from people in his own cabinet.”
This parallels what has been happening in other countries.
Japan’s Prime Minister Taro Aso took office in September, and saw his approval rating fall rapidly from 50% to 16% in four months. In the article I wrote at the time, I suggested that the same thing might well happen to Obama, thanks to his arrogance and his contempt for any opinion other than his own (e.g., “I’m guided by the facts, rather than ignoring them.”).
In fact, Japan has had three Prime Ministers in a row who began with great hope and popularity, but whose approval ratings plummeted quickly when problems arose. Each of these Prime Ministers ended up with approval ratings lower than those of the previous Prime Minister. The same thing may happen to Obama with respect to President Bush’s approval ratings.
This is not surprising. A constant theme of this web site is that the government of one country after another, among those who fought in WW II as a crisis war, has become paralyzed. I’ve discussed this about many countries, including Japan, Israel, Europe, China and France.
For several years, I’ve been warning readers to expect increased anger at criminal activities as the economy worsened. I repeated this warning in my “The outlook for 2009.”
I made this statement because of parallels in history. I’ve quoted several sources in the past that indicated that it happened after the 1929 crash. And I saw it for myself when the Enron scandal broke in 2000 and 2001, when many people were calling for the CEO of EVERY corporation to be sent to jail.
One of the most vivid historical examples of what’s going on today is the bankruptcy of the French Monarchy in 1789 that led to the French Revolution. In the Reign of Terror that followed, any person who was an aristocrat, a relative of an aristocrat, a friend of an aristocrat, a servant of an aristocrat, or even had a resemblance to an aristocrat, would be tried and quickly convicted and sentenced to the guillotine, where his head would quickly and efficiently be severed from the rest of his body.
The mortgage-backed securities of that day were “assignats,” bonds that represented the value of real estate confiscated from the clergy. Like today’s CDOs, the assignats became increasingly worthless, leading to the Reign of Terror.
Some people have suggested to me that the US could be headed for a new civil war, as the economy gets worse. Ironically, I recall my father telling me that the rioting was so bad in the 1930s that he thought that the US might not survive.
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, there are no signs of a civil war at the present time. It’s one thing to have political riots and demonstrations, it’s quite another to have people go to kill their next door neighbors. A civil war requires a fault line based on differences in skin color, religions, geography, or something similar. The only fault line that’s apparent these days is the one between “Yanks” and “Latinos,” but any conflict across that fault line will be fallout of a new Mexican revolution.
But there will be increasing riots and demonstrations as the economy worsens. It will be harder and harder for Obama and the Washington politicians to get anything done except respond to the populist anger.
In June, 1930, eight months after the stock market crash, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Almost every economist said that it was a very bad idea, but an angry public demanded it, thinking that it would protect American jobs by reducing imports.
Instead, it caused enormous economic hardship throughout the world, and in America as well as other countries retaliated. In Europe, it weakened the economy further, and led to the major banking crisis of 1931. And in Japan it shut down the silk industry and infuriated the Japanese people, who bombed Pearl Harbor several years later.
As I always say, Generational Dynamics studies the attitudes and behaviors of large masses of people, entire generations of people. It doesn’t care about the attitudes and behaviors of individual people or politicians, except insofar as they reflect the attitudes of the masses of people.
Whether we’re talking about the war in Darfur, Sudan, or the meltdown in Pakistan, we’re seeing politicians increasingly lose control, and government actions increasing directed by mob action. The same thing is happening in the US.
In a sense, it’s very exciting to read the news these days, because we’re seeing the approach of some of the greatest events in human history. Unfortunately, these events will also be the most disastrous in human history. As part of these, we’ll have to see if the AIG bonus story leads to anything.
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, as well as more frequent updates on this subject, see the Financial Topics thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Read the entire thread for discussions on how to protect your money.) (19-Mar-2009) Permanent Link
Last week on Bloomberg TV (or was it CNBC?) I heard a discussion of the latest corporate earnings reports for Q4 of 2008. The analyst said, “Those figures can’t be right. That would mean that the S&P index should be around 300.” (That’s roughly equivalent to a Dow Industrials index of 3000.)
Welcome to the new world of financial journalism and analysis. The folks at CNBC and Bloomberg TV and the Wall Street Journal and other financial media have been using fudged figures for years to justify the bloated stock market bubble, and now they completely believe their own lies.
There’s a feeling of total chaos in these media outlets these days, because no one knows what to say about the price/earnings ratios (also called “valuations”), as Q4 earnings have turned negative.
I’ve complained many times on this web site about the out and out lies of analysts, advisors and journalists. Even today, you still hear about “valuations being at historic lows,” which is total crap.
These analysts, who make 6 and 7 digit salaries by collecting fat commissions from their clients, use a variety of techniques to lie about valuations.
The most common is to use “forward earnings” to compute the P/E ratio. That means you divide the stock price by the bloated estimates for earnings in the following year. By making earnings as high as possible, the P/E ratio becomes lower.
But something has happened in the last few weeks. After several quarters where actual earnings turned out to be far lower than earlier estimates, investors don’t automatically believe the bloated “forward earnings” estimates any more.
As we wrote last month, fourth quarter reported earnings are crashing. The actual reported earnings are far below the analyst estimates of only a few weeks earlier. This means that people who use “forward earnings” to compute P/E ratios now have to face the reality that “forward earnings” estimates are crashing along with reported earnings.
The same is happening with another form of dishonesty – the use of “operating earnings.” Once again, the objective is to bloat the earnings estimates up as much as possible, so that the P/E ratio is as low as possible.
“Operating earnings” came into fashion during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s. Analysts and brokers and financial advisers needed a way to justify recommendations to buy stock during the dot-com bubble, even though valuations were extremely high. And so they invented a form of earnings that doesn’t count “one-time expenses” and whatever else they felt they could get away with excluding. This boosted the earnings figures, and lowered the P/E ratios.
But now analysts are confounded again, because even “operating earnings are crashing, along with reported earnings.
Since I posted my article last month on the crash in reported earnings, several web site readers have written to me, asking where they could get price/earnings ratio figures. This question has been heavily discussed in the Financial Topics thread of the Generational Dynamics forum, where a number of suggestions have been posted.
Here are several places that regularly provide price/earnings ratios:
Let’s take a look at the last item, because it contains some shocking news. If you download the spreadsheet and load it into your spreadsheet program, you’ll see the following:
|
|
 |
|
|
The data shown on this spreadsheet is as of 2-March-2009. The S&P500 index on that day was 700.82. Please note the following points, indicated by the balloons in the above graphic:
Your eyes are not deceiving you. The earnings crash that we’ve been discussing indicates an astronomical P/E later this year, assuming that the S&P index remains at 700.
The Decision Point Earnings Summary that I described above is updated every week. Here are their summaries in their 13-March-2009 report:
|----------------------------------------------------------| | | Price/Earnings Ratios based on | | Quarter | Reported Earnings |Operating Earnings| |-------------------|-------------------|------------------| |Q4 2008 | 43.5 | 15.4 | |Q1 2009 (Estimated)| 74.0 | 16.5 | |Q2 2009 (Estimated)| 134.9 | 17.0 | |Q3 2009 (Estimated)| 296.0 | 16.5 | |Q4 2009 (Estimated)| 23.3 | 11.8 | |----------------------------------------------------------|
Here is the graphic accompanying Friday’s report showing historical data from 1926 to the present:
|
|
 |
|
|
Notice the sharp spike in P/E ratios in the third graph, thanks to the crash in reported corporate earnings.
In practical terms, what all this means is the following: The S&P 500 index is going to have to fall much further, to the 300 range or lower. This means that the Dow Industrials index will fall to the 3000 range or lower.
That’s why journalists and analysts are freaking out. They’re looking desperately at any way to avoid talking about those figures. Instead, they point to last week’s market rally, and say, “Let’s hope and pray that it continues.”
I guess a P/E ratio of 181 isn’t good enough for them. Perhaps they’d prefer to see it go up to 1000.
(To understand why it can’t continue, see “The outlook for 2009″ and “How to compute the ‘real value’ of the stock market.”)
The Obama administration is evidently feeling exactly the same kind of desperation. On Sunday morning on Meet the Press, Dr. Christina Romer, head of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, was asked “What is the responsible thing for consumers to do at the height of this global crisis?” Here’s her response:
|
|
 |
|
|
Regular readers of this web site, who understand my sense of humor, will not be surprised to know that I couldn’t stop laughing when I heard this moronically stupid statement. But this is what passes for common sense among the politicians, analysts, journalists, winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and others in Washington.
Several web site readers have asked me recently whether last week’s modest Wall Street rally means that things have turned around — or will the market fall again below the levels of two weeks ago?
You won’t get a straight answer to this question from any of the financial blogs or from the mainstream financial media, and certainly not from the politicians. They’ll all hem and haw, and argue about “U-shaped” and “L-shaped” recessions, and make sanctimonious statements blaming everyone but themselves for not seeing what was coming.
So let me make this as clear as possible to readers of this web site: If you’ve been staying in the market because you continue to believe the crap that you continue to hear from the financial media and the Obama administration, and from ideologues like Paul Krugman (on the left) at the New York Times, and Larry Kudlow (on the right) at CNBC, then you’re going to face further financial disaster.
The economy has been in a sharp deflationary spiral for over a year. The market WILL fall well below Dow 3000 with near 100% certainty. and almost certainly will fall sharply from current levels within the next few months, and will not recover for many years. (Paragraph corrected – 16-Mar)
(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, as well as more frequent updates on this subject, see the Financial Topics thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Read the entire thread for discussions on how to protect your money.) (15-Mar-2009)
March 21, 2009 Leave a Comment
On March 19 the New York Times reported: “The Fed said it would purchase an additional $750 billion worth of government-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, on top of the $500 billion that it is currently in the process of buying. In addition, the Fed said it would buy up to $300 billion worth of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months.”
The Federal Reserve says that its purchase of $1 trillion in existing bonds is part of its plan to revive the economy. Another way to view the Fed’s announcement is to see it as a preemptive rescue. Is the Fed rescuing banks from their bond portfolios prior to the destruction of bond prices by inflation?
The answer to this question probably lies in the answer to the unanswered question of how the unprecedented sizes of the FY 2009 and FY 2010 federal budget deficits will be financed. Neither the US savings rate nor the trade surpluses of our major foreign lenders are sufficient.
I know of only two ways of financing the looming monster deficits. One, courtesy of Pam Martens, is that the federal deficits could be financed by further flight from equities and other investments.
This is a possibility. If the mortgage-back security problem is real and not contrived, the next shock should arise from commercial real estate. Stores are closing in shopping centers, and vacancies are rising in office buildings. Without rents, the mortgages can’t be paid.
Another scare and another big drop in the stock market will set off a second “flight to quality” and finance the budget deficits.
The other way is to print money. John Williams (shadowstats.com) thinks that the budget deficits will be financed by monetizing debt. The Federal Reserve will buy most of the new bonds and create demand deposits for the Treasury. In effect, the money supply will grow by the amount of Fed purchases of new Treasury debt. Printing money to finance the government’s budget normally leads to high inflation and high interest rates.
The initial impact of the announcement of the Fed’s plan to purchase existing debt was to drive up the bond prices. However, if the reserves poured into the banking system by the bond purchases result in new money growth, and if the Fed purchases the new debt issues to finance the governments’ budget deficits, the outlook for bond prices and the dollar becomes poor.
It will be interesting to see how the currency markets view the problem. The New York Times reported that “the dollar plunged about 3 percent against other major currencies” in response to the Fed’s announcement.
If the exchange value of the dollar works its way down, it will complicate the financing of the trade deficit and impact the decisions of foreigners who hold large stocks of US dollar debt. The premier of China recently expressed his concern about the safety of his country’s large investment in US dollar debt.
If the US government is forced to print money to cover the high costs of its wars and bailouts, things could fall apart very quickly.
Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.
March 21, 2009 Leave a Comment
As the U.S. financial crisis broadens and deepens, wiping out the wealth and savings of tens of millions, destroying hopes and dreams, it is hard not to see in all of this history’s verdict upon this generation.
We have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
For how did this befall us, save through decisions that brushed aside lessons that history and experience had taught our fathers?
It all began with the corruption called sub-prime mortgages.
The motivation was not wicked. Democrats wanted to raise home ownership among African-Americans from 50 percent to the 75 percent of white folks. Rove Republicans wanted to do the same for Hispanics.
Banks were morally pressured by politicians into making home loans to folks who could not remotely qualify under standards set by decades of experience with mortgage defaults.
Made by the millions, these loans were sold in vast quantities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There they were packaged, converted into mortgage-backed securities and sold to the big banks. The banks put scores of billions of dollars worth on their books and sold the rest to foreign banks anxious to acquire Triple-A securities, backed by real estate in America’s ever-booming housing market.
Computer whizzes devised exotic instruments—derivatives, which could soar in value, making instant multimillionaires, but also plummet, based on rises and dips in the underlying value of the paper.
Came now young geniuses at AIG to insure the banks against catastrophic losses, should the U.S. housing market crash. As the risk was minuscule, premiums were tiny. Payouts, however, should it come to that, were beyond AIG’s capacity.
In AIG’s Financial Products division, based in Connecticut and London, brainiacs were creating other exotic instruments, such as credit default swaps to guarantee against losses and insure profits. To keep these wunderkinds at AIG, they were promised million-dollar retention bonuses.
Who kept the game going?
The Federal Reserve, by keeping interest rates low and money gushing into the economy, created the bubble that saw housing prices rise annually at 10, 15 and 20 percent.
As the economy grew, however, the Fed began to tighten, to raise interest rates. Mortgage terms became tougher. Housing prices stabilized. Homeowners with sub-prime mortgages now found they had to start paying down principal. People losing jobs began to walk away from their houses.
Belatedly, folks awoke to the reality that housing prices could go south as well as north, and all that paper spread all over the world was overvalued, and a good bit of it might be worthless.
And, so, the crash came and the panic ensued.
Who is to blame for the disaster that has befallen us?
Their name is legion.
There are the politicians who bullied banks into making loans the banks knew were bad to begin with and would never have made without threats or the promise of political favors.
There is that den of thieves at Fannie and Freddie who massaged the politicians with campaign contributions and walked away from the wreckage with tens of millions in salaries and bonuses.
There are the idiot bankers who bought up securities backed by sub-prime mortgages and were too indolent to inspect the rotten paper on their books. There are the ratings agencies, like Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, who gazed at the paper and declared it to be Grade A prime.
In short, this generation of political and financial elites has proven itself unfit to govern a great nation. What we have is a system failure that is rooted in a societal failure. Behind our disaster lie the greed, stupidity and incompetence of the leadership of a generation.
Does Dr. Obama have the cure for the sickness that ails the republic?
He is going to borrow and spend trillions more to bring back the good old days, though it was the good old days that brought us to the edge of the abyss into which we have fallen. Then he is going to spend new trillions to give us benefits we do not now have, though the national debt is surging to 100 percent of the Gross National Product, and may reach there by 2011.
Is Obama willing to speak hard truths?
Is he willing to say that home ownership is for those with sound credit and solid jobs? Is he willing to say that credit, whether for auto loans, or student loans, or consumer purchases, should be restricted to those who have shown the maturity to manage debt—and no others need apply?
“Avarice, ambition,” warned John Adams, “would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
In this deepening crisis, what is being tested is not simply the resilience of capitalism, but the character of a people.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America
March 15, 2009 Leave a Comment
http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/
I happened to catch just a few minutes of Glenn Beck’s program on his ’912 Project’. Did anybody out there watch it in its entirety?
I did check the website but was unable to access it for some reason.
What I did hear Beck say was something about how people kept telling him that they wanted a special interest group that would advocate for us, a political party or a lobbying group. Beck scoffed at this, and said that we don’t need such a thing because we already have one — after all we are The American People.
Maybe six or seven years ago, I would easily have agreed with that. Sounds right, doesn’t it, on the surface? But is it really enough that we are The American People? I think in the early days of this blog, as I was slowly moving ever rightward, I used to say that we had the power as The Majority, because after all, our system is supposed to be governed by the will of the majority. Sure, in theory it still is, but can anybody say with a straight face that it is true in fact? That The Majority, The American People, still dominate and have the say in this country?
If so, you would never be able to guess it by looking at the state of our country. We have one who is possibly not a citizen, and who was not really even raised an American, in the highest office in our land. We have tens of millions of aliens whose presence here violates our own laws, and we seem helpless to do anything about this, though a majority of citizens would like something substantial done about it, (and that does not include the government’s ‘comprehensive immigration reform’, spelled A-M-N-E-S-T-Y). We have countless laws and policies that favor everybody but White, native-born American citizens. We have a corrupt and deceitful media that present only one side of the story, and that is not our side. In fact, the media are hostile to us and our interests, and for evidence of this, I refer you to any one of countless stories gleefully predicting the end of White America, and the advent of dominance by people who display animus towards The American People.
For further proof of our loss of dominant status in our country, witness the fact that a former official of the Reconquista group ‘La Raza’ is now part of the administration.
Can anybody imagine a scenario in which somebody who represented a pro-White organization would be considered as part of any administration, even a supposedly ‘conservative’ Republican administration?
In a just world, in a sane world, in fact, in the old pre-1965 world, just being The American People would be enough. We would still be in fact the dominant group in our own country, which is as it should be, since our people founded and built this country, investing their efforts and their blood into the legacy that they hoped to leave us, their posterity.
Beck and so many other patriotic Republican types put so much meaning into words, like The American People, and symbols like Old Glory. And yes, words and symbols are important, but there has to be some substance and power behind them, or they are like so much devalued currency, worth nothing, with nothing to back them up.
The sad reality is that We American People have lost control and dominance in this country. It’s still ours officially; our name is still on the deed, but squatters and impostors have taken over the family manse and the estate, and they are spending away our wealth as I write this.
The word ‘American’ has been stretched far beyond its real meaning, to include pretty much anybody in the world who has the nerve and presumption to sneak across what were once our borders, and take up residence here. Beck well knows this; anybody with ordinary common sense and powers of observation knows this. The tens of millions of illegals who reside here are in fact ‘Americans’ in the sense that they have been granted every legal right and privilege that accrues to legitimate citizens and residents of this country. A ‘mojado’ who crossed the border last night has as many rights, apparently, as those of us whose ancestors have been here for centuries. Officially, of course, they can’t yet vote, but in reality, we know that in fact many do vote, and probably helped vote in our current regime.
So if we apply the politically correct, inclusive definition of The American People to include the mixed multitudes who now live among us, then The American People are a jumble of people who have conflicting interests, and who have little common ground around which to rally.
Beck must surely know that the vast majority of old-style patriots, to whom he seems to be making his pitch, are White, Christian Americans. Few who are not of this group have the same commitment to this country, and the founding principles which Beck promotes.
At this point, someone will say ‘but he can’t say anything about White Americans; he has to say what he is saying or he would lose his job, or that ‘he would be called a racist’, and so on. Again, the very fact that we are The People Who Dare Not Speak Their Name says it all.
I realize Beck has a lot of fans; it seems a lot of people are hailing him for this 912 Project, and I don’t want to rain on anybody’s parade, but I fear that this may end up just being another flag-waving, but essentially politically correct effort which will merely divert or co-opt any real resistance to what is taking place in our country. It may just be another way of rendering ineffectual any dissidents or unhappy conservatives out there. It may just serve to be another ‘patriotic revival’, much like what we saw after 9/11, with lots of flags being displayed and lots of feel-good slogans being chanted. It may in fact have the effect of de-fusing any indignation and thwarting any movements which would lead to a serious questioning of the status quo.
I am not saying that it is necessarily intended as such; the intentions may be good and ‘patriotic’ but the real effect may be to neuter dissent on the right.
Or is it really possible to just apply a few band-aids here and there and mend our existing system with a little patriotic fervor?
I will give Beck and his group a chance; believe me, I would like such efforts to succeed, but can we do it and still stay politically correct and safe?
Karen Kwiatskowski at Lew Rockwell.com writes about a new study which rates the 50 states in what they call a freedom index.
[I]f decentralization is a natural remedy for what we understand as American federalism, then there is another index we should know about. George Mason University has just published a new study “Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom.” Two political scientists – William Ruger (now serving in Afghanistan) and Jason Sorens – have designed the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres.
The authors looked at state and local government intervention across a wide range of public policies, from income taxation to gun control, from homeschooling regulation to drug policy. For each of the fifty states, rankings are determined in four categories: fiscal policy, regulatory policy, personal freedom, and “state paternalism.” This last category is a new way of looking at economic and personal freedom (or lack thereof).”
The index can be found here, and a pdf file of the study is available there. The site also has a link to an interactive page by a reader which is here. The interactive page allows you to create your own rankings by adjusting the relative weight of various categories, according to your personal priorities.
The map at the top of this post, from the State Policy Index website linked above, shows the states, color-coded according to their rankings by quintile.
Karen Kwiatkowski aks in her LRC piece,
Why should we care about freedom scores of the various states? I mean, can one ever really escape? The federal unified state is our permanent home, is it not? Consuming nearly half (44%) of the fifty states GDP, what freedom from the federal government can Americans really exercise, beyond a resigned groan or rebellious scream from the gallows?
We care because there is a little secret about freedom that the mainstream media, academia, and the political class don’t yet know. The secret is that freedom works, freedom produces and perhaps most importantly for a nation in need of fundamental change, freedom plays well with others.
By highlighting how freedom can be quantified, Freedom in the 50 States helps average people understand how liberty may be legalistically and legislatively encouraged at the state and local level. By daring to define idiotic and often unenforceable nuisance laws, regulations and restrictions as abominable state paternalism, the authors have helped pave critical linguistic ground for other mainstream researchers.”
The state where I currently reside is in the bottom quintile according to the study, which is not surprising to me.
How free is your state?
Srdja Trifkovic writes about the global North-South divide, with Europe, North America, and Russia being the North as opposed to the South, made up of third-world countries.
It’s a very good piece by Trifkovic; he paints a rather bleak picture of the future of the North, with declining birthrates of White people and mass immigration from the global South. Meanwhile, the North is divided along ideological lines, and is at the same time in the grasp of elites who want to force an unholy merger between North and South in a new global order. He describes the differing schools of thought in our country vis-a-vis Russia and Europe, and the prospects for our making common cause with Russia.
It is in the United States that the obstacles to a northern paradigm are the most formidable. Opponents are present, to some extent, in every influential segment of this country’s foreign-policy community.
American exceptionalists believe that the United States differs qualitatively from Europe (not to mention Russia) by virtue of her “propositional credo,” which transcends the shackles of ethnicity, race, culture, and faith. Global hegemonists seek dominance over Europe and fragmentation of Russia, rather than partnership with them. Many hegemonists are also visceral Russophobes, owing to their own ethno-cultural baggage rather than any objective assessment of Moscow’s global position and impact on U.S. interests. Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his Vice President, Hillary Clinton’s appointment to State, Robert Gates’ retention at the Pentagon, and General Jones’s management of the National Security Council point to the President’s willful blindness to the collapsing economic foundation of the American “hyperpower.”
Multiculturalists oppose any notion of “our” physical or cultural space that does not belong to everyone. They deny that we should have a special affinity for any particular country, nation, race, or culture, but demand the imposition of our preferences upon the whole world. They are the mortal enemy of any notion that any shared legacy of the European family is worthy of preservation.
These groups share the radical notion that America is not a real country, but a metaphysical concept or a tool for their own Will to Power—or both. They do not want this country to belong to the people whose ancestors created her and who have inhabited her for generations. They celebrate the resulting random mélange of mutually disconnected multitudes as somehow uniquely “American” and virtuous.
Ideologues will deny it, but in the decades to come Europe, Russia, and America will be in similar mortal peril from those very multitudes. The magnitude of that threat will become clear as those nations age and the numbers of hostile aliens grow. In the end there will be no grand synthesis, no crossfertilization, and certainly no peaceful coexistence, between the North and the Third World.
The short-term prospects for fostering a sense of unity among Europeans—Eastern, Western, and American—are dim and will remain so for as long as the regimes of all the major states of the West are controlled by an elite class hostile to its own biological roots and cultural fruits.”
We only infrequently read any discussion of these issues, which include the inexorable march towards globalization, and the forces at work promoting this agenda. We are often so caught up in the smaller details of this movement, such as mass immigration and its attendant problems, and interracial conflicts within our multiculturalist society, that we often forget that it is all part of a larger picture.
Read Trifkovic’s entire piece; he makes some good points about the need for Northern unity, and about how the current economic instability may in fact work in our favor.
But to see what we are up against, it is helpful to go back and read some of the words of the globalist ideologues themselves, like this piece
from the Japan Times.
The notion of a divide between the rich north and the poor and developing south has long been a central concept among economists and policymakers. From 1950 to 1980, the north accounted for almost 80 percent of global GDP but only 22 percent of its population, and the south accounted for the remainder of global population and 20 percent global income.
But the north-south divide is now obsolete. The dynamic process of globalization has resulted in unprecedented levels of growth and interdependence.
However, while this has blurred the old division, new ones have emerged, splintering today’s world into four interconnected tiers.The first tier comprises the affluent countries, notably the United States, European nations, Australia and Japan — with a combined population of around one billion and per capita incomes ranging from $79,000 (Luxembourg) to $16,000 (Republic of Korea). For the past 50 years, these affluent countries have dominated the global economy, producing four-fifths of its economic output. However, in recent years, a new set of economies has emerged that is contesting the affluent countries’ economic dominance.”
The first tier being the ‘affluent countries’, or the ‘rich world’ as the globalists at The Economists like to call us, the other tiers are, next, the Globalizers, which include China and India along with some smaller third-world countries who are developing and, with their vast populations, are seen as being the challengers to the ‘rich world’, in line to replace us.
The third tier comprises middle-income countries. The fourth tier is the ‘Laggards’, as they are called in the article. These are the world’s have-nots, dependent on us, but the globalist ideologue mindset sees them as the world’s victims, in need of being tended to by the rich world. Here we get the globalist worldview summed up:
This emerging four-tier world presents three key challenges.
First, we need to increase our efforts to ensure that the Laggards are no longer left behind. This requires policy changes as well as more generous and more effective aid. If one considers the issue of aid flows, one finds that though development aid rose in 2005 to $107 billion, most of the increase was geared toward “special circumstances,” such as debt forgiveness and for Iraq and Afghanistan. The sad truth is that development aid to Africa has decreased from $49 per person in 1980 to $38 per person in 2005. The true development needs of Laggard countries and other parts of the world are not being met, despite the rhetoric of scaling up aid.
Second, the old powers need to accommodate the rise of Globalizer economies — particularly China and India — by reforming our international order. The Affluents will continue to be major global players, but as the Globalizers’ relative economic power rises, they will demand a greater role in international affairs. Most Affluents seem unprepared for this change, but such demands will need to be accommodated.
Finally, while the Globalizers have lifted millions of people out of poverty and reduced global inequality, this has not resulted in a more equal world, because star economies like India and China are experiencing a rise in domestic inequity. Whether it is coastal versus inland or rural versus urban, these countries must tackle the widening disparities, because high inequality may well threaten their very ability to continue growing as they have.
If we are to create a more equitable world, then traditional levers of development such as trade, investment, aid, and migration need to be scaled up comprehensively and coherently, and global institutions must be reformed. This would improve our ability to address global challenges and better our prospects for building a more equitable world. Otherwise, we might bid farewell to old development divides only to welcome new ones.”
The agenda seems to be exclusively centered on what the ‘rich world’ owes to the Laggards, and about how we must pull them up and create some kind of global economic equality.
The whole argument is exactly parallel to our ongoing domestic lament about how certain races ‘underachieve’ and cannot improve unless we lavish more money, more help, more attention, more privileges, more favoritism on them. There is no allowance made for differing abilities and potentials; that line of thinking is absolutely taboo. No, it’s all about pulling down the ‘haves’ to serve the have-nots. Notice even the phrase ‘to ensure that the Laggards are no longer left behind.‘ Sounds a lot like ‘no child left behind’, does it not? The same ideology is behind both arguments. Critics of the ‘No Child Left Behind’ program in our schools have said it really means ‘no child gets ahead’. The same thing applies with the ‘rich world’ and the ‘Laggards.’ For them not to be ‘left behind’ means for the rest of us not to get ahead or progress. We will be hobbled so as to be no longer able to outrun them.
This website presents the pro-third world viewpoint which drives much of the globalist agenda. It appears to be the site of some NGO, apparently well-funded and established. This is what we are up against; we have only a few voices here and there opposing the global juggernaut, while they have enormous resources and friends in the highest of places.
The writer says:
Growing resentment in the south at the sense of powerlessness in the face of Northern arrogance and impunity breeds frustrations, which hardly provides fertile and palatable ground for development or peace or building the international community. Now, the fear of speaking up in defence of one’s own interests has been further exacerbated by the new dictum “You are either with us or against us.”
But speak out they must-together. If ever there was a time for the collective voice of the south to pronounce itself, it is now, when the multilateral institutions to the United Nations still retain some legitimacy. But if developing countries are to exert some influence in international or global relations and to be able to affect the shape of global and national governance of economic policy, they need to summon the political will to improve rapidly their intellectual and technical capacity to take up the challenge. Failing of which, they cannot but continue to be subject to imperial dictates and increasingly fashioned in the image of Western civilization, though perched on a much lower rung of the ladder of economic and political power.”
So it appears that the nations of the global South, mostly ‘laggard’ nations, are uniting (or being united by outsiders) to act in their own interests, against ours. We, meanwhile, are distracted with internal problems and divisions, and are nowhere near uniting.
One of the rare good pieces which argues our side is this one from 2007, by Matthew Roberts
But what is this new religion of globalism? It has become such a pervasive ideology that no single camp exists. Almost all elitists seem to buy into it – whether one is a neoconservative supporting war, a Wall Street investor backing free trade or a Hollywood liberal adopting God knows how many children from around the world – although they disagree on some points. Ad minimum, globalism presupposes international integration. Thus, we infer three basic tenets of globalism: (1) interventionist foreign policies, (2) free trade and (3) mass immigration (illegal or legal).
[...]
Shadowboxing among globalists has come to pass as debate in the United States. Every frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential Election, Democrat or Republican, is a globalist to one degree or another. Although leading Democrats oppose the Iraq War, they support intervention in Darfur and elsewhere and certainly support allowing an inundation of Third World immigrants, which they believe will sustain their hold on politics. In the mainstream media, few pundits criticize globalization. Those who do complain, like Patrick J. Buchanan or Lou Dobbs, are castigated by the rest.
[...]
Despite all the propaganda in the media and academia, national polls show that the majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq, free trade and mass immigration. If a charismatic politician were to rally round these three issues alone, he could foment a broad base of support. Perhaps it’s high time for a political realignment, but a movement needs organization and a leader.”
Which brings us back to Trifkovic’s piece:
Can we hope that a reminder of the harsher realities of life will revive the North’s sense of itself as a Christian civilization and resistance to the stealth jihad being waged in our midst? Sadly, the more likely result of the crisis we now face is deepening demoralization, increased demands for government solutions and services, and ever more inane adulation of such purveyors of political snake oil as our newly enthroned President Messiah. In the early eighth century the triumphant march of Islam into Christendom seemed unstoppable, until it was halted at the gates of Constantinople (718) and at Tours (732). Conversely, in July 1914, Europe was at the peak of every imaginable human achievement, only to be turned into a pale shadow of its former self a mere century later.
Much of this depends on leadership. Can we find political leaders who will serve as catalysts for social regeneration? If there are any Dmitry Rogozins lurking in the corridors of American and European politics, this would be a good time for them to step forward.”
Amen. The lament that we lack leadership has been heard on this blog on a number of occasions. We are all still looking for a Dmitry Rogozin or his counterpart.
The other side, ‘laggards’ though they may be, are ahead of us in at least this respect; they have more unity in pursuit of their goals than we can muster. We need to learn to put aside the differences we may have for the sake of self-preservation. The lines are drawn. And a leader would be a welcome sight.
Chuck Norris says I may run for president of Texas
On Glenn Beck’s radio show last week, I quipped in response to our wayward federal government, “I may run for president of Texas.”
That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.
From the East Coast to the “Left Coast,” America seems to be moving further and further from its founders’ vision and government.”
[...]
How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution? We the people have the authority according to America’s Declaration of Independence, which states:That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Norris quotes some very apposite words of the Founding Fathers, in support of the idea of resistance.
Norris tells of how Glenn Beck told of a conversation with someone, wherein the question arose:
“If this country starts to spiral out of control and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country (which it would have under I think the Republicans as well in this situation; they were taking us to the same place, just slower), Americans won’t stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up.” Then Glenn asked me and his listening audience, “And where’s that going to come from?” He answered his own question, “Texas, it’s going to come from Texas. Do you agree with that Chuck?” I replied, “Oh yeah!” Definitely.
It was these types of thoughts that led me to utter the tongue-n-cheek frustration on Glenn Beck’s radio show, “I may run for president of Texas!”
I’m not saying that other states won’t muster the gumption to stand and secede, but Texas has the history to prove it.”
I would like to think Norris (and Beck) are right about Texas, though my confidence varies. Sometimes I believe the old spirit is still there, then I have to face the sober reality that Texas is now a different place, populated by different people than in its glory days, during the war for independence and the days of the Republic. And when I say that, I don’t just mean the presence of millions of immigrants and others whose roots are not Texan, but the fact that the younger generations have grown up in a different world and have been thoroughly indoctrinated against all that the old Texas stood for.
But then at other times, I feel sure there is enough of the old spirit present that a resurgent Texas is possible.
Norris discusses the question of secession, and plugs Glenn Beck’s ‘We Surround Them’ telecast, which you can read about by following the link in the Norris article.
On his website, Beck has a list of nine principles which he asks people to read, and if they agree with at least seven of the principles, to send a picture of themselves to be used in the ‘We Surround Them’ program, which will apparently involve groups gathering around the country.
Here are the principles:
The Nine Principles
1. America is good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.”
Is this something that is potentially a real grassroots movement, or just another media-created phenomenon that will fizzle out? Is Beck just another neoconnish media personality, serving to divert real dissent, or is he somebody that is a potential leader of a movement?
For myself, I can’t disagree with any of the principles really, but I get a sense that something important is missing. I wonder if this kind of patriotic protest is just more of the same kind of propositional patriotism that the GOP and the talk radio personalities specialize in, the kind of thing that offers a safe and not-too-politically incorrect way of venting. Or am I being cynical?
Among those principles, shouldn’t there be something about the people? The first principle ‘America is good’ causes me to ask for a definition of ‘America.’
Is America in that sentence a governmental body? A system of government? An idea of ‘liberty and justice for all’, or a notion of ‘democracy’? Is it the ‘nation of immigrants”? If so, I can’t give unqualified support to that statement. America is the people, and not just anybody who happens to be on American soil; one is American by blood and heritage.
And the last principle, number 9, is sound in theory, but is it the reality today?
What do my readers think?
It appears that the slight by the president towards his British counterpart was not imaginary.
The Telegraph story here is that he was supposedly ‘too tired’ to welcome Gordon Brown properly.
British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.
But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama’s inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.”
Too tired? He is one of the younger presidents in our history; why should he be too tired to do his job? All other presidents have managed it, and many of them at advanced ages and in poorer health. That excuse won’t wash.
But if we read further in the article, we get to the heart of things:
The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.
The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.“
Well, there we have it. The State Department official was not named, but he or she appears to be appallingly ignorant or simply trying to be insulting to the British.
I suppose if one is, say, half-Kenyan, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii, one might not think there is anything special about Britain. However for many of us, and for traditional America, Britain is special because it is our mother country. America would not exist without Britain. Many of us have roots in England; not all of those who have such roots are aware of it, sadly, but many have Anglo-Saxon origins.
Just as a reminder of our traditional relationship with England, I will give you some excerpts from an 1882 lecture by Edward A. Freeman. titled ‘The English People in its Three Homes.’
…You will bear with me while I speak of your newer England as the child and colony of my older England, if I speak of my own older England as itself the child and colony of the oldest England of all. That oldest England sent forth her sons to the shores of the Isle of Britain, as in after-times the Isle of Britain sent forth her sons to the vaster mainland of America.
In the general history of our race, as part of the general history of the world, while I call on you not only here in Massachusetts and her immediate neighbours, but through the whole length and breadth of your vast Union to look on yourselves as men of a New England. I cannot claim the name of Old England for the land which I ask you to look on as a motherland and to look on her sons as brethren. The island from which I come, the island from which your fathers came, is, in the general history of our folk, not Old England, but only Middle England.
For Old England, in the strictest sense, for the oldest England of all, for the first land in which we know that men bore the English name and spoke the English tongue, you must, when you have crossed the Ocean to come to us, cross that narrower arm of Ocean which parts the great Teutonic island from the older Teutonic mainland. In the true historic map of the English folk, between the Old England on the mainland of Europe and the New England on the mainland of America, lies that England which is the child of the one, the parent of the other, the Middle England in the isle of Britain.
You are well pleased, and rightly pleased, to tell the tale how your fathers came from the isle of Britain to plant the first germs of the mighty fabric of this New England on American soil. And so we of the Middle England must not forget, and along with us you of the New England must not forget either, how our forefathers, your remoter forefathers, came in the like sort from the continent of Europe, from the oldest England of all, to plant the germs of the Middle England, and thereby of the New England also, upon the conquered shores of Britain.
[...]
And we must remember that in crossing the sea, in seeking Britain, if they founded the great settlement of the English folk in our European island, they founded also, as a germ that was to bear fruit after many ages, this vaster settlement of the English folk on your American mainland.
[....]
The English people, in its three homes, is, after all, but one member of a greater family; we are not a race, but only part of a race. Wider than the bond which binds together all speakers of the English tongue, narrower than the bond which binds together all the nations of Aryan Christendom, comes the bond which binds, or should bind, together all the many branches of the Teutonic race. Of that race, we are one great division, or rather, in truth, we are a division of a division.
[...]
But if we do not belong to the same nation, I do hold that we belong to the same people, or rather, to use a word of our own tongue, to the same stock, that we speak the same tongue, that we have a long common history and a crowd of common memories. I mean, in short, that we are one folk in all things except that local and political separation which the hand of nature and the facts of history have wrought. And these ties of blood and speech and memory surely rise above the lesser facts of local and political separation to make us feel ourselves in the highest sense one people.We dwell in different quarters of the globe, but we are surely more to one another than dwellers of the same corner of the globe who do not come of the common stock, who do not speak the common tongue. Let me say that the words ”foreign” and “foreigner” are words which should never be spoken between men of the English folk in Britain and men of the English folk in America.
[...]
How can we be strangers and foreigners to one another, how can we be other than kinsfolk and brethren of the same hearth, when we think that your forefathers and mine may have sailed together from the oldest England of all in the keels of Hengest or Cerdic, that they may have lurked together with Alfred in the marshes of Athelney, that they may have stood side-by-side in the thick shield-wall on the hill of Senlac, that they may have marched together as brethren to live and die for English freedom alike on the field of overthrow at Evesham and on the field of victory at Naseby?I surely need not remind you that the whole heritage of the past, the history, the memories, the illustrious names, which belong to the earliest days of the English folk in Britain, are yours as well as ours. They are in the stricter sense your own. The men who piled up the mighty fabric of English law and English freedom were your fathers, your brethren, no less than ours. In the long line of hero-kings who built up the kingdom of England they were building up the commonwealth of America. If yours is the king who lurked in Athelney, yours too is the king who won the fight of Brunanburh. Yours are the king who waged the year of battles with the Dane and the king who waged the day of battle with the Norman. And if the kings are yours as well as ours, so are the men who curbed the power of kings. Yours are the men who wrung the Great Charter from the kingly rebel; yours are the men who dictated the Provisions of Oxford and the men who gathered round the victor of Poitiers on the nobler field of the Good Parliament. Your share is alike with ours in every blow struck on behalf of freedom, from the day of Lewes to the day of Marston.
And if we boast that we won to ourselves the men of other lands, if we changed the Dane and the Norman into Englishmen as true as if their forefathers had first seen the shores of Britain from the keels of Hengest, the work was yours as well as ours. The strangers whom we made specially our own, they whose names we rank alongside of the noblest of our native worthies, the men who came from the beech-clad isles of Denmark, from the deep Alpine valley of Aosta, from the Strong Mount that guarded the land of France against the Norman, to become Englishmen on English soil, Cnut the King, Anselm the Bishop, Simon the Earl, they are yours by the same law of adoption that makes them ours.
And when the course of our history parts asunder, when the English people become two nations instead of one, if the history which you have wrought in America is no longer ours, if the history which we have wrought in Britain is no longer yours, in the same sense as is the common history which we wrought together in earlier times, still we have a common interest, a common fellow-feeling, the feeling which follows the deeds of friends and kinsfolk with a different eye from that with which it follows the deeds of strangers, in all that men of English blood have done on American soil since the older and the newer English blood parted asunder.”
[Emphases mine.]
It would appear that our common interest and common fellow-feeling with our British cousins is being purposely undermined, which makes sense in a country in which people of Anglo-Saxon descent are being turned into men without roots and without an identity, and essentially men and women without a country.
March 14, 2009 Leave a Comment
Friday, March 13, 2009
Three people have been arrested and four others are being sought in connection with a home-invasion robbery in a quiet North Berkeley neighborhood in which the victims were tied up, pistol-whipped and cut with a knife, police said Thursday.
The robbery happened about 8:20 p.m. Feb. 24 at a home on the 600 block of Santa Barbara Road. A group of young men accosted an undisclosed number of victims, some of whom were tortured by being cut, said Officer Andrew Frankel, a Berkeley police spokesman.
The assailants tried to sexually assault at least one victim and cut the home’s telephone line so no one could call for help, authorities said. They fled with the victims’ credit cards.
A break in the case happened at 1 p.m. Monday, when El Cerrito police Sgt. Scott Cliatt spotted a car at San Pablo and Potrero avenues that matched the description of one the attackers used, Frankel said. Buk Khansuwong, 46, of Richmond was arrested and charged with two counts of robbery.
On Wednesday, Berkeley police served search warrants at locations in San Pablo and Richmond, and Fairfield police served a warrant in that city, Frankel said. Arrested were Tien Vo, 19, of San Pablo and a 16-year-old Richmond boy, whose name was withheld because he is a juvenile.
Police are still searching for Vern Town Saelee, 21, and his cousin Vern Sio Saelee, 18, both of Fairfield; Anthony Ray Douglas, 18, of Richmond; and another 16-year-old boy.
Anyone with information is asked to call Berkeley police at (510) 981-5742.
E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com
March 14, 2009 Leave a Comment
The Feb. 21 attack on police headquarters in coastal Zihuatanejo, which injured four people, fit a disturbing trend of Mexico’s drug wars. Traffickers have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals.
The proliferation of heavier armaments points to a menacing new stage in the Mexican government’s 2-year-old war against drug organizations, which are evolving into a more militarized force prepared to take on Mexican army troops, deployed by the thousands, as well as to attack each other.
These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.
“There is an arms race between the cartels,” said Alberto Islas, a security consultant who advises the Mexican government. “One group gets rocket-propelled grenades, the other has to have them.”
There are even more ominous developments: Authorities reported three thefts of several hundred pounds of blasting material from industrial explosives plants in Durango during a four-day period last month. Authorities believe the material may have been destined for car bombs or remotely detonated roadside devices, which have been used with devastating effect in Iraq, killing more than 1,822 members of U.S.-led forces since the war there began nearly six years ago. The Mexican army has recovered most of the material, and there has been no reported use of such devices.
Grenades or military-grade weapons have been reported in at least 10 Mexican states during the last six months, used against police headquarters, city halls, a U.S. consulate, TV stations and senior Mexican officials. In a three-week period ended March 6, five grenade attacks were launched on police patrols and stations and the home of a commander in the south-central state of Michoacan. Other such attacks occurred in five other states during the same period.
At least one grenade attack north of the border, at a Texas nightclub frequented by U.S. police officers, has been tied to Mexican traffickers.
How many weapons have been smuggled into Mexico from Central America is not known, and the military-grade munitions are still a small fraction of the larger arsenal in the hands of narcotics traffickers. Mexican officials continue to push Washington to stem the well-documented flow of conventional weapons from the United States, as Congress holds hearings on the role those smuggled guns play in arming Mexican drug cartels.
There is no comprehensive data on how many people have been killed by heavier weapons.
But four days after the assault on the Zihuatanejo police station, four of the city’s officers were slain in a highway ambush six miles from town on the road to Acapulco. In addition to the standard AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles, the attackers fired at least six .50-caliber shells into the officers’ pickup. The vehicle blew up when hit by what experts believe was a grenade or explosive projectile. The officers’ bodies were charred.
“These are really weapons of war,” said Alberto Fernandez, spokesman for the Zihuatanejo city government. “We only know these devices from war movies.”
U.S. law enforcement officials say they detected the smuggling of grenades and other military-grade equipment into Mexico about a year and a half ago, and observed a sharp uptick in the use of the weapons about six months ago.
The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years, in contrast to 59 seized over the previous two years.
The enhanced weaponry represents a wide sampling from the international arms bazaar, with grenades and launchers produced by U.S., South Korean, Israeli, Spanish or former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Many had been sold legally to governments, including Mexico’s, and then were diverted onto the black market. Some may be sold directly to the traffickers by corrupt elements of national armies, authorities and experts say.
The single deadliest attack on civilians by drug traffickers in Mexico took place Sept. 15 at an Independence Day celebration in the central plaza of Morelia, hometown of President Felipe Calderon and capital of Michoacan. Attackers hurled fragmentation grenades at the celebrating crowd, killing eight people and wounding dozens more.
Amid the recent spate of attacks in Michoacan, federal police on Feb. 20 announced the discovery of 66 fragmentation grenades in the fake bottom of a truck intercepted in southern Mexico, just over the border from Guatemala. The two men arrested with the cargo told police they were transporting the grenades to Morelia.
Grenades used in three attacks in Monterrey and Texas were linked to a single Monterrey warehouse, packed with explosives and high-caliber guns, reportedly belonging to the Gulf cartel. Mexican authorities raided the warehouse in October and seized the cache, which contained South Korean-manufactured grenades similar to the American M67 fragmentation grenade.
Grenades from the same lot were used in a Jan. 6 attack on the Televisa television station in Monterrey, which caused damage but no injuries, and during an Oct. 12 attack against the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey. The device at the consulate did not detonate.
Late on the night of Jan. 31, a Saturday, a man tossed a grenade into the El Booty Lounge in Pharr, Texas. Three off-duty Texas police officers were there, though authorities would not say whether they were the target. The explosive, which did not detonate, was traced to the Monterrey warehouse.
Traffickers using M203 40-millimeter grenade launchers last year attacked and killed eight Mexican federal police officers in Culiacan, the capital of Sinaloa state. In the northern border city of Nogales, the Sonora state police commander was killed Nov. 2 in an ambush by purported traffickers firing AK-47s and lobbing grenades. He had been returning from a meeting with U.S. authorities in Arizona to discuss gun smuggling.
In the western state of Durango, three people, including a 3-year-old child, were killed in a grenade attack in January.
The firepower has gone beyond grenades. Armed with light antitank weapons, would-be assassins went after the nation’s top counternarcotics prosecutor in December 2007. The assailants were intercepted before they reached Jose Luis Santiago Vasconcelos, who was not hurt. The weapons seized were linked to the notorious Sinaloa cartel.
“They were betting on being able to escalate with a spectacular strike precisely to terrify society,” Santiago Vasconcelos said at the time. (He was killed in November in a plane crash.)
Beyond the weaponry, drug gangs for several years have demonstrated the ability to form squads and employ military tactics, including the use of assault rifles, hand grenades, grenade launchers and fully automatic weapons to pin down army forces. This has enabled them to attack army patrols frontally, as they did with lethal results Feb. 7 in the central state of Zacatecas, killing one sergeant and critically wounding a colonel.
“At this stage, the drug cartels are using basic infantry weaponry to counter government forces,” a U.S. government official in Mexico said. “Encountering criminals with this kind of weaponry is a horse of a different color,” the official said. “It’s not your typical patrol stop, where someone pulls a gun. This has all the makings of an infantry squad, or guerrilla fighting.”
The fear of guerrilla warfare was compounded in February when 270 pounds of dynamite and several hundred electric detonators were stolen from a U.S. firm in the state of Durango. On Valentine’s Day, about 20 masked gunmen, led by a heavyset man wearing gold rings and chains, stormed the warehouse of a subsidiary of Austin Powder Co., an industrial explosives manufacturer, according to official accounts. They overpowered guards and emptied the warehouse. Two similar thefts were reported within four days in the same area.
Although the Mexican army recovered most of the dynamite, the incident augurs an even bloodier trend, officials said.
“There is only one reason to have bulk explosives,” said Thomas G. Mangan, spokesman in Phoenix for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “An improvised explosive device. A car bomb.”
In addition to grenades, high-powered guns such as the .50-caliber Barrett sniper rifle have become a weapon of choice in narcotics traffickers’ arsenals, Mangan said. Unlike grenades and anti-tank weapons, the .50-caliber guns can be obtained by ordinary citizens in the U.S. and smuggled easily into Mexico, like the tons of assault rifles and automatic pistols.
Mexican law enforcement, such as the police in Zihuatanejo, is grossly outgunned. Officers have protested, seeking better protective gear, weaponry and pay.
Shortly after the Zihuatanejo attacks, police officers staged a brief work stoppage outside their headquarters, where scars from the grenade attack were still visible. One of the blasts left a cereal bowl-shaped divot in the stone pavement and pockmarks on the front of the police building. It went off 100 feet from the nearest street, prompting some officers to suspect that the assailants employed a grenade launcher.
Police have piled sandbags 4 feet high around the compound and security is tight. Commanders have bought 10 bulletproof vests, but say they need at least 280 to equip the city’s 343 officers.
The police commander, Pablo Rodriguez, said his officers are terrified. They are armed with semiautomatic .223-caliber rifles made in Italy, Germany and Mexico. The rifles, with folding stocks, are snazzy, but they are no match for the weapons being stockpiled by the drug cartels.
“They are good weapons, but to counteract the types of weapons they’re using against us, they’re not equal,” Rodriguez said.
His officers know they don’t stand a chance. Not five days after the highway attack that blew up the police truck, Rodriguez had jobs to fill. Twenty-two of his cops had abruptly quit.
March 14, 2009 Leave a Comment
China “worried” about US Treasury holdings
|
|
Email this Story
Mar 13, 6:21 AM (ET)
By JOE McDONALD
|
|||
p {margin:12px 0px 0px 0px;}
Premier Wen Jiabao noted that Beijing is the biggest foreign creditor to the United States and called on Washington to see that its response to the global slowdown does not damage the value of Chinese holdings.
“We have made a huge amount of loans to the United States. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I’m a little bit worried,” Wen said at a news conference following the closing of China’s annual legislative session. “I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets.”
Wen’s comments foreshadowed possible appeals to President Barack Obama, who will meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao at a London summit of leaders of the G-20 group of major economies on April 2 to discuss the global financial crisis.
|
Analysts estimate that nearly half of China’s $2 trillion in currency reserves are in U.S. Treasuries and notes issued by other government-affiliated agencies.
Washington is counting on China to continue buying Treasuries to fund its $787 billion stimulus package. Last month, visiting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to reassure Beijing that government debt would remain a reliable investment.
“They are worried about forever-rising deficits, which may devalue Treasuries by pushing interest rates higher,” said JP Morgan economist Frank Gong. “Inside China there has been a lot of debate about whether they should continue to buy Treasuries.”
The comments come as finance ministers and central bankers of the G-20 gather in London this weekend to discuss the crisis and possible remedies.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is pressing for a new coordinated stimulus but European governments are reluctant to take on more debt before they see how current plans are working. The Europeans want to emphasize the need for greater regulation of markets, including a crackdown on tax havens and increased control over hedge funds.
|
In Beijing, Wen expressed confidence China can emerge from its slump “at an early date,” and said the government is ready to expand its 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus to boost growth in the world’s third-largest economy.
Communist leaders worry about rising job losses and possible unrest amid a trade slump that saw Chinese exports fall 25.7 percent in February from a year earlier. They have promised to spend heavily to create jobs and boost exports.
“We already have our plans ready to tackle even more difficult times, and to do that we have reserved adequate ammunition,” Wen said. “That means that at any time we can introduce new stimulus policies.”
In nearby Japan, Prime Minister Taro Aso called Friday for a fresh stimulus to help lift the world’s second-largest economy out of “an unprecedented economic crisis.” The comments helped spark a rally in Japan’s stock market, where the Nikkei 225 stock index surged 5.2 percent.
China’s Wen and other officials point to rising bank lending, power demand and other signs the stimulus is taking effect. But growth in retail sales is weakening, suggesting it has yet to spur private sector spending and investment, which analysts say will be key to its success.
|
Wen said Beijing can meet its 2009 growth target of 8 percent, despite skepticism by private sector economists, who expect as little as 5 percent. That would be the strongest of any major country but could lead to more waves of job cuts.
“I really believe we will be able to walk out of the shadow of the financial crisis at an early date,” he said. “After this trial, I believe the Chinese economy will show greater vitality.”
The premier promised to focus on job creation and give more help to smaller companies, which he said generate 90 percent of Chinese new employment.
“We will pay all attention possible to this issue and we will never overlook this issue,” he said.
Wen said Beijing wants the London summit to focus on the plight of poor countries.
“We must see to it that we show concern for developing countries, and help developing countries – the least-developed ones in particular – become an important topic on the agenda,” he said.
March 14, 2009 Leave a Comment
Despite Obama’s later denials, he was most serious when he cavalierly told Joe the Plumber he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” We’ve seen it born out in his policies so far and in the promises of those to come.
He will restore the Clinton tax hikes on higher-income earners, but there is so much more. He’ll reduce the effective charitable gift deduction, thus reducing charitable giving. This is no surprise, though, because he believes “charity” is the province of government — not the private sector.
He’ll impose a cap and trade tax on corporations under the pretense of making them “greener,” raise the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, reverse welfare reform, and nationalize health care.
He’ll eliminate the ceiling on payroll tax contributions, which is presently about $110,000. This will be a major hit to those earning more than $110,000, not that Obama cultists will have any sympathy for those greedy beneficiaries of life’s lottery, to borrow from the Al Gore vernacular.
Some might argue that this is only fair because the entire income of lower-income earners is subject to that tax. But to make that argument surrenders any illusion that this tax funds Social Security. If you eliminate the ceiling, higher-income earners will pay exorbitant amounts into a mythical fund (it’s never been segregated from general revenue) with no expectation of getting appreciably more back on retirement. Fairness? Only if you believe the wealthy should be punished.
Funny you should mention that, because it’s precisely what our president appears to believe, which brings me back to Henninger, who took the trouble to read the president’s budget summary for lay readers, “A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise.”
Henninger directs us to a chart on Page 11, crafted by French economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez (“rock stars of the intellectual left”), which purports to show that beginning with the Reagan era, the top 1 percent of income earners in the United States have received an increasing share of the national income pie.
Obama regards this trend as necessarily sinister, as indicated by his empathically articulated verdict that the financially successful must have broken the rules. On Page 5, Obama says, “While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not.” “Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care, and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected.” “There’s nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. … It’s a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it.”
Some economists dispute the Piketty-Saez graph and contend that marginal tax cuts have given higher-income producers less reason to shift their income into tax shelters, thus accounting for some of the higher taxable income shown in the graph.
But a more important point is that Obama is ratcheting up his class warfare to levels that would make Marxists blush. This self-professed uniter is sowing distrust and divisiveness among Americans by demonizing groups of people and appealing to our baser instincts of envy and jealousy, in defiance of God’s commandments against coveting.
Obama is sending unmistakable signals that he has an unconventional notion — to say the least — about the American dream. It’s as if he’s saying, “It’s fine to aspire to financial success, but only to a point, beyond which you’ll incur the punitive wrath of the federal government.”
It’s one thing to maintain that upper-income earners should pay higher tax rates because they are better able to shoulder the burden for essential government services. But it’s constitutional blasphemy to claim that the tax code should be used as a weapon against the wealthy and that the state should be the tyrannical arbiter of how income is distributed.
It’s hardly surprising that Obama degenerated into incoherent babbling when unconvincingly denying his socialism to a New York Times reporter. But given his war on capitalism and achievement, isn’t it time we brought this subject out in the open instead of closing our eyes and pretending we all accept America’s free market traditions?
Or would you prefer not invoking the politically incorrect terms “Marxist” or “socialist” until Obama’s statist policies have worked their magic to bankrupt America and spread the misery among Americans in a reverse trickledown effect?
March 12, 2009
Marie Jon, RA analyst
On Nov. 5, 2008, Americans woke up to a very real Marxist coup — although most didn’t realize it. I sat down and cried while a huge crowd gathered and were cheering. I intuitively knew something was very wrong. After watching Barack Hussein Obama destructively pursue his agenda as president, I now understand why.
Most Marxist coups rely on deception — and that was certainly true of this one. Just about everything Obama said during the campaign was a calculated lie. His handlers and key supporters were equally willing to lie and deceive to gain advantage.
Once Marxists seize power through deception, manipulation, exploitation, and corrupt interference with the political process, they never give it up. It is entirely possible that we will never see the end of the current regime of Marxists in America. In 20 years, the President of the United States might still be a man named Barack Obama. At the very least, we can expect Obama and his fellow conspirators to do everything in their power to ensure that outcome.
Failure equals success
Initially, the objectives of Marxism center in undermining the status quo — for only after the existing order is sufficiently weakened can it be dismantled and a thoroughgoing socialist system installed in its place.
We shouldn’t be surprised, therefore, that Obama has no intention of strengthening or improving our country. His deeply-held Marxist beliefs will drive him to create chaos, disruption, economic collapse, and moral corruption — accompanied by the silencing of his critics — so that from the ashes of American civilization, a socialist nation will arise to lead in collectivizing the world.
The vision of Marx — that from the utter destruction of Western civilization, a world order of near-total communalism will emerge — has never been proven to work, for the theory can’t be tested in advance. Thus, ideologues like Obama are foolishly willing to risk everything of value for a theoretical dream. Unfortunately, that dream is completely false and morally bankrupt. Only persons who lust for extreme power over others would buy into the unfounded premises, evil methods, and unmatched threat that we call Marxism.
Sleight of hand
The scale of Obama’s deceptive folly is nothing short of horrifying. After all, this pretender is in many ways the embodiment of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a demagogue who has long preached class warfare, social chaos, and loathing for America. In fact, I believe Obama may have taught Wright a thing or two. Each day he is in the Oval Office, American jobs are slipping away, while many Americans have lost a lifetime of hard-earned savings that will never be recouped.
Despite liberally casting good money after bad, the president has done nothing to help Wall Street or Main Street. As reflected in the stock market, everything is worsening because Obama’s stimulus bill makes no economic sense. His propaganda produces extreme fear among Americans. Meanwhile, our liberties are disappearing before our very eyes. We’ve been had by a smooth-taking, teleprompter-dependent politician from Chicago, where corruption thrives.
Our newly elected president is not fit to lead this nation. Obama is not a reasonable, decent man, and I’m not afraid to say it. He’s the most extreme, most left-leaning president in our nation’s history. He will continue destroying our country because — as a committed Marxist — he believes it’s his duty to do so. He hates our country’s guiding principles, and wants to change our nation to please his own radical ideology.
Cloward-Piven strategy
Forty years ago, two far-left Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, wrote an article for the radical magazine The Nation. Published in 1966, the article laid out a plan for dismantling the American free-market system by increasing demand on government programs to the point of collapsing the economy. This would open the door to implementing socialism by nationalizing private institutions. We are witnessing just such a takeover of our country — while no one raises a hand to stop it.
Excerpts from the Oct. 15, 2008, Washington Times, “The Cloward-Piven strategy — Using the poor to tear down capitalism,” by Robert Chandler:
“There is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crash. Yet, there is a distinct odor of the shadowy Cloward-Piven strategy as the taproot of abusive practices that triggered the crisis. The strategy’s goal is to bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading and undermining government bureaucracy.
“Its supporting tactics include flooding government with impossible demands until it slowly cranks to a stop; overloading electoral systems with successive tidal waves of new voters, many of them bogus; shaking down banks, politicians in Congress, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for affirmative-action borrowing; and, now, pulling down the national financial system by demanding exotic, subprime mortgages for low-income Americans with little hope of repaying their loans. These toxic mortgages are an important source of the foul smell engulfing the entire financial bailout.
“Developed in the mid-1960s by two Columbia University sociologists, Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, much of their strategy was drawn from Saul Alinsky, Chicago’s notorious revolutionary Marxist community organizer. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) succeeded the National Welfare Rights Organization in the execution of the Cloward-Piven grand tactics of using the poor as cannon fodder to tear down the capitalist system. It was low-income, mostly black and Hispanic people, who were used by ACORN guerrillas to take subprime toxic mortgages.
“An Obama campaign dispatch on October 6 had the right perspective in observing that ‘the backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like any other major financial crisis of our time.’ True enough.
“The root causes for the 2008 financial panic were sown some 40 years ago when the Institute for Policy Studies, the notorious ‘Think Tank of the Left,’ held socialist seminars geared toward undermining the American capitalist system. Beginning in 1964 and continuing to the present day, the Institute for Policy Studies has used seminars especially scoped to influence congressmen and their assistants to support the ‘progressive,’ that is to say ‘socialist,’ viewpoint. A 1969 ‘Housing and Property’ seminar, hosted by the Institute for Policy Studies, for example, treated Capitol Hill denizens to mind-stretching leftism. Bringing together speakers from big-city tenants councils, neighborhood legal services, FHA insurance, savings-and-loans entities, and the Shannon and Luchs Realty Company, the Institute for Policy Studies “plinked” the first domino that led to the current crisis.
“At about the same time that the Institute for Policy Studies was holding the 1969 ‘Housing and Property’ seminars, it was also conducting ‘Experimental Education’ seminars in January-April 1969, for federal legislators and their aides that included Bill Ayers, an Obama confidant and Weatherman terrorist, as a guest speaker. According to the Senate Subcommittee on Investigation, 4,330 bombings occurred in the United States, about nine a day, from January 1969 to April 1970.
“The socialist test case for using society’s poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial ‘shock troops,’ in accordance with the Cloward-Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, bankrupting the government. As a consequence, New York state also teetered on the edge of financial collapse when the federal government stepped in with a bailout rescue.
“The 2008 financial crisis has all of the earmarks of a Cloward-Piven strategy assault against the capitalist system. Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center recently explained that ‘community organizers’ (1) ‘intimidate banks into making high risk loans to customers with poor credit,’ (2) ‘occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes,’ and, through these thuggish tactics, (3) compel ‘financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.’ ‘In other words,’ Mr. Kurtz explained during a presentation at the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, ‘community organizers help to undermine America’s economy by pushing the banking system into a sink-hole of bad loans.’” Full article
Prescription for havoc
Cloward and Piven said in their 1966 Nation article that the ruling classes were using welfare programs to control and weaken the poor, thus suppressing the fires of rebellion. Cloward later told the New York Times in 1970 that the poorest people among us can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them.”
Cloward and Piven wrote in the Times that rather than merely pacify the poor with government hand-outs, dedicated activists should seek to sabotage the welfare system itself by overburdening it. Then the poor would revolt and force “the rest of society” to accept their demands. Are we just going to wait until all havoc erupts before we speak out and try to stop this madness?
The Cloward-Piven strategy has been heavily financed and supported by radical socialist billionaire George Soros, the moving force behind the “Shadow Party” that dominates our nation’s left wing. And today, the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to be used by the anti-American left. What else lies ahead for our embattled nation? May The Almighty help us.
When you hear people such as Rush Limbaugh say that they do not want President Obama to succeed, now you know why. They want America to remain a republic with a free market system — not a socialist state. They want Americans to succeed while experiencing the self-respect and dignity that come with being an achiever. The freedom that comes with achievement restores the human soul.
Too long, minority groups have been told by the Democrat Party that they need big government to rule over their lives. Conservatives want all people to reach their dreams by genuine accomplishment — not by the sweat of another’s brow.
Related Readings:
Chavez calls on Obama to follow the path of socialism
U.S. is going in the wrong direction
Worldview Matters with Brannon Howse — March 9th, 2009
Citizens across the U.S. are organizing and are taking to the streets. Their theme is reminiscent of the Boston Tea Party. People are protesting Obama’s stimulus package. The Tea Party idea began with a challenge by Obama critic Rick Santelli — an analyst for CNBC, speaking on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade — to have a Chicago Tea Party next summer. Please visit the Official Chicago Tea Party website. More information about this can be found here.
Please go to www.americasrevival.com/forum/ for more information. Help America remain the land of the free and the home of the brave. Become involved by organizing your own state Tea Party. A good way to start taking action is to sign the “Pledge for America’s Revival.”
© Marie Jon
View Larger Image
Blacks See Leprechauns
March 18, 2009 by guywhite
You can’t make this stuff up. If it wasn’t a news report from a legitimate TV station, I’d have thought it was Onion-TV.
The funny thing is that we are so used to Mexicans seeing Virgin Mary in their potatoes that we no longer pay any attention to that.
Posted in News Commentary | Tagged leprechaun, race, race realism, racialism, racism | No Comments »