The Race Is On

The Race Is On

You’ve been told that this is a “subprime” mortgage crisis.

Do you understand the difference between a “subprime” and a “prime” mortgage crisis?  You’d better bone up on the difference:

At this point there is a race on between the deviant global financial elites posing as “investment houses” who are borrowing trillions of dollars basically for free and the rest of us who are paying usurious rates on a relentlessly growing debt load which we cannot service.  The race is simple:  Who gets to buy up all the bankruptcy assets?  Right now, the enemy is buying them up for pennies on the dollar and more are coming on the market all the time as money is withheld from the citizenry, causing a continuing cascade of bankruptcies.

Compare the above graph to this graph of the subprime foreclosure history and you’ll notice prime loan foreclosures are now where subprime foreclosures were just prior to 2005:

Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, August 27, 2009

What it is to be human, part 1

What it is to be human, part 1

OK, I said I wouldn’t do this.  But, well … you know.  This is the first of two posts on an alternative to the politics of spiritual regeneration – always assuming that the reader understands (a) that some systemic replacement for liberalism is necessary, and (b) that the current American empirical offerings lack motive power.

The second part will carry forward some of the arguments here and sketch out a model of Mind as a contribution, I hope, to the search for a new and syncretic founding theory.

Instead of the old metaphor of individuals as discrete entities like billiard balls, we need to think instead of them as nodes in a relationship network.

With these words Madeleine Bunting, the occasionally sensible but mostly Moslem-mad Guardian Woman, signposts the left’s remaining recourse in a world made hostile by neuroscience.

Moslem Maddie’s problem, you see, is that she has heard the rumours that the eponymous self of liberal self-authorship fame does not, in fact, exist.  “This”, she says, “is the kind of stuff which challenges almost everything you’re used to thinking about yourself.” And about your politics, if you are a radical individualist as she is.

She writes:

… the point about this new explosion of interest in research into our brains is that it exposes as illusions much of these guiding principles of what it is to be a mature adult. They are a profound misunderstanding of how we think, and how our brains work. They are fairytales, about as fanciful and as implausible as goblins.

That’s a rather dramatic way of putting it, of course.  The constant flow of affirmations of self are wholly legitimate from an evolutionary standpoint.  The illusion of self exists even if self does not, and it is no less a product of evolution for that.  Genes for “self-ishness” and self-preservation are privileged for the fitness gain they offer.

So, what now for the left?  Cue the decampment, perhaps, from the half of the liberal project that pursues the unfettered will into the egalitarian and social democratic half?  Well, that may not be necessary.  A strange and unnerving synthesis of the two halves, of a self-authorship and a state-mandated compassion that were never entirely reconciled in the past, may just be coming down the turnpike:

The second area of astonishing discoveries is in the plasticity of the brain. We talk of “hardwiring” (computers have generated many misleading metaphors for the brain) but in fact, the brain can be changed. Parts of the brain can learn entirely new tricks. Neural pathways are not fixed, and even much of the damage done by deprivation in childhood can be repaired with the right circumstances of example, support and determination. We can shape our own brains to create new habits that we might have thought we were not capable of – it’s a long, hard process but it is possible.

… Jon Cruddas has a habit of startling audiences by arguing that the regeneration of the left requires a convincing new account of what it is to be human. Are human beings self-interested creatures or are they collaborative? … Put crudely, we are social creatures with an inbuilt tendency to co-operate and seek out each other’s approval and that is probably more important in determining day-to-day behaviours than narrowly conceived self-interest.

This struggle for ideological survival is entirely characteristic of the thinking left, and rather brave given its visceral rejection of sociobiology and its uneasiness with human bio-diversity.  But I find it impressive in a way.  You understand, I am talking about the struggle, not any theories it may incubate.  These guys are only concerned to preserve their own Weltanschauung, which is in error.  But give them this: they are facing the empirical enemy’s gun positions and maneuvering to advance on them and capture them.  They haven’t worked out their line of attack yet, and doubtless there are many conflicting voices about that.  But it won’t be long before someone whose name ends in witz or berg or ski comes forward with a neurologically valid, post-postmodern account of “what it means to be human”.  Something about the New Sociological Ego, perhaps.  And then we shall see whether such syncretism is doable on the left.

Meanwhile, what are we doing?

Well, beyond MR not many are contemplating a synthesis of our divide: the empirical and the mythic … truth and beauty … being and becoming, and so on.  That is certain.  A large majority of those who think at all take one look at evolution <> creationism and conclude that synthesis is superfluous and downright unlawful in the naturalistic sense.  Some of the most influential commentators have persuasive critiques of the empirical and do not connect its contributions to “what it is to be human” with revolutionary nationalism.  On the contrary, they tell us that our way, forward is to dream totemic dreams of the European spirit and the European destiny.  These will stir our brothers from their torpor, they say, whereas debating race-realism, the JQ and IQ, and human bio-diversity in general most assuredly never shall.

Now, I have not rejected the construction of a racial-national myth.  I’ve argued two things.  First, that myth – real myth – has not moved the European expansions of the past century and a half.  Self-interest has.  Second, that if you’re going to have a myth, it’s gotta be b-i-g … big enough, perhaps, to move not just white America but the entire English-speaking half of the European world.  Politics do universalise, after all.

But here’s the bottom line.  A political myth is not a thing in isolation.  It is not merely a strategy for a one-time limited goal.  That’s not how it works.  Ideas hang together.  Even in America, where so few seem to understand what sweeping away postmodernity really entails, a partial revolution cannot sustain.  If it comes at all the political package must come complete, or it will not be coherent.

Mythicisation, when done properly and not messed about with in an ineffectual way, firmly belongs to the continental philosophical tradition.  That, in an extreme reactionary form, generally expresses as neo-religious Traditionalism or, secularly, as palingenetic nationalism.  The lines of argument which lead to mythicisation have, at their foundation, the same assumptions that underpinned the entire 20th century European revolt against liberal democracy.

We are entitled to ask if that is what, as an end-game, we really want.  Perhaps it’s only because I lack the power of words to make myth myself, or perhaps it’s because, as CC succinctly puts it, Germans (and Celts) yearn while the English turn to the practicalities, but my answer is that I don’t.  Myth-wise and life-wise, I do not want to see nationalists in the English-speaking world binding my people’s fate to the long-shot of a spiritual regeneration … a recycled Fuerher strategy for the 21st century.

Of course, the truly holistic – and, therefore, truly revolutionary – alternative is also a long-shot.  As with Maddie’s leftist model of a syncretic long-run intellectual regeneration, it does not exist.  Yet.  If we at MR fail to distill some basics for a wider take-up it probably never will.

But even in its absence, I can still remind myself that an ontological politics has as much primal power as any other.  I can believe in the ground beneath my feet and the world my senses, feelings and thought reveal.  I can believe in my English blood and English soil because they are real … they are self-evident to me.  They are me and they are mine.  No totem, no dream is necessary to model or mediate them for me.  I know them and love them.  I will fight for them, kill for them, die for them, or just be useful to them if that is all that is needed of me.

It’s all rock-solid to me, and not that far off a political proposition for a nationalist party.  Here are its 14 words:

* To re-Europeanise our blood

* To reclaim our lands

* To take custody of our future

It is ironic, given her liberal ambitions, that the new realism of Madeleine Bunting stands in closer proximity to radicalism of this magnitude than Michael O’Meara’s misty and idealistic totemism.  That is to say, we really are here to change the neural pathways of the liberalised mind … to re-shape brains … to create mental habits that some might have thought would never be seen again.  It will be a long, hard process but it is possible, by God!

The next post will venture in that direction.

Race: Reality and Denial

Race: Reality and Denial

By
Richard McCulloch

(A shorter version of this article was published in the Winter, 2002 issue of The Occidental Quarterly at http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html)

In July of 2001 I went to see the movie Cats and Dogs. I arrived early enough to see the advertisements that are shown before the previews, and was surprised by one that boldly stated, “Wake up. Race is a myth. Racism is real. www.endracism.org.” The effect was surreal. How could this Orwellian falsehood be on the screen? I had encountered examples of racial denial for almost a decade, but mostly on the fringes, in places not noticed by the masses, in obscure publications and websites. But seeing it on the silver screen made it seem so mainstream, so acceptable, so normal.

As an American of Northern European (Nordish) ancestry who loves my race and wants it to be preserved, I have long been concerned by its declining prospects. But sitting in that theater the continued existence of my race seemed more uncertain than ever, for nothing is more certain than that the political purpose of race denial is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy and cause the end, if not of every race, most certainly of my race. How can it be that the existence of that which I love and wish to preserve is being denied in this mainstream setting? How can it be possible that this mid-American audience is being given a powerful message that the object of my love and devotion does not exist, is not real, and that it is not acceptable to believe that it does exist?

If this message is now appearing on the screen of a movie theater, what is the message in the education system? The current “politically correct” teaching on the subject of racial reality is represented by the highly acclaimed 2003 PBS documentary series Race: The Power of an Illusion, and its matching website at http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm, produced by Larry Adelman and widely distributed and used throughout the education system. The essential message of this series is found in its ten points, or “quick facts,” which are discussed in order below. The title of the series reveals its conclusion and message, that race is an illusion, not real, and a harmful illusion at that. In its December, 2003 issue Scientific American had an article on the subject which essentially supported the now “politically correct” position. The deceptive nature of this semi-orchestrated campaign is symbolized by the cover illustration. Of the six female faces supposedly representing individuals from different races only one face is real, a real person, the one of the Nordish blue-eyed blonde in the upper right corner. The other five faces are computer-generated modifications of the real face and not real examples of any race, although they are represented as such. The deceptive effect is to minimize the real differences of race by “nordicizing” all the races, making them appear to be much more similar to the Nordish race than they actually are.

How did all this come to pass? The denial of racial realities is nothing new. It has been around at least since the time of Franz Boas. It is the degree of denial that is new. Denying racial reality has taken many forms over the last century, escalating in degree as the cultural dominance and control of its promoters has grown. There has been denial of many racial differences, especially the mental differences that cannot be seen. There has been denial of the scope and magnitude of racial differences in an attempt to minimize them. There has been denial of the consequences of multiracial conditions, particularly racial intermixture and its racially destructive effects. Now it is the very reality and existence of the different races, of tangible things that can be seen, that is denied.

Given the history of escalating race denial over the preceding century, we should have expected this development. We should have seen it coming. Perhaps when we each first came across a claim that races were not real we dismissed it as incredulous nonsense not worthy of concern or response, as something no one would take seriously. But we should have taken it seriously. Now it is approaching a position of politically correct dominance in the media and academia, with all that this means. The very belief in the existence of different races is now in some quarters being equated with racism, and from there reductionist logic and causation link it ultimately with genocide. In such quarters they beg their argument by explicitly stating that the reality of race must be denied in order to end racism and prevent genocide. [Note #1]

It is a sad commentary on our worsening situation that the reality of race is even doubted, much less increasingly denied by the dominant culture. The denial of race is actually just the latest escalation in the efforts by the currently dominant multiracialist power structure to preempt, block and prevent consideration of Nordish racial interests and the real issues that confront the Nordish race, including the ultimate issue of racial preservation or survival. We have long been familiar with other tactics used for the same purpose which include, but are not limited to:
1. The minimization or trivialization of racial differences to portray them, and race itself, as having no meaning, importance or value, and thus as not worth preserving. The claim that race does not exist, or is not real, is the ultimate form of this tactic.
2. The claim that the Nordish race is already mixed. This is asserted both for the Nordish race as a whole and for specific individuals who do not appear to be mixed, although these claims are usually not specific or substantiated by evidence. These claims are presented as proof that racial mixture does not harm the Nordish race or its existence in any way, so it is not a threat and opposition to it is unjustified.

These tactics are really a cover or smokescreen to evade the real issues of Nordish racial interests, especially racial preservation. I have found that, when pressed, those who claim the Nordish race is mixed are those who want it to be mixed, and those who deny race are those who do not want race to exist, or at least do not want the Nordish race to exist. For it is the Nordish race, the race and racial type and traits of the peoples of Northern Europe, that they are specifically concerned with, and that is the central focus of their promotion of racial denial and mixture. The Nordish race is the race that the race deniers really do not want to exist, whose existence they want to destroy, and whose existence they therefore deny, even to the extent of denying the existence of race in general.

But these assertions are more than just wishful thinking by those who wish the Nordish race did not exist. They are also a means of wish fulfillment, a self-fulfilling prophecy, by preventing consideration of ultimate Nordish racial interests, for the traits that are minimized, trivialized, demeaned and denied, and by these tactics threatened with destruction, are the traits of the Nordish race. It is really the existence of the Nordish race that is being minimized, trivialized, demeaned, and denied, and the purpose of all these tactics is to prevent, evade and avoid consideration of the fact that the Nordish race is threatened with destruction. Denying the reality or existence of a race, or a people, greatly facilitates their destruction and reduction to non-existence.

I have been involved in many discussions, debates or arguments concerning the reality of race since my website (www.racialcompact.com) went on the internet in early 1998. Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European extinction. [Note #2] More recently my involvement in these arguments has tended to be indirect, as visitors to my site who have used the material they found there in their own exchanges with race deniers have sought my advice and assistance.

These arguments usually follow a similar pattern. The race denier begins with attempts to discredit the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of all one’s physical traits. Next they attempt to discredit the traditional racial divisions that are based on these methods of classification. The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity and uncertainty about race. A definition of race is usually lacking from their argument, either because they do not know how to define it, or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute their argument. Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity has been created, they deny the reality of race. But if you press the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality of races — the apparent focus of their argument — but the issue of racial preservation, and especially the issue of Northern European racial preservation. So when all is said and done, the ultimate issue for them is the same as it is for me, the preservation of the Northern European peoples and their racial types. The difference is that they are against Northern European preservation and I am for it.

A common tactic of the race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of race, without setting a standard of what would constitute sufficient proof. This is related to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race. Proof begins with an accurate definition, and it is the key to an effective refutation of the race denial argument.

So, what is this thing called race? To start at the beginning, the word race refers to the different geographic populations of humanity that share a common ancestry and can be distinguished from each other by an inherited combination of morphological traits, i.e., by genetically determined physical appearance or phenotype. Race thus refers both to populations and to the phenotypes that are associated with these populations and by which they are identified. These populations and phenotypes existed for many thousands of years before the word race became the common term to refer to them. Thus the definition of the word race is, quite simply, those populations and phenotypes to which it refers. This is, admittedly, circular logic, like Gertrude Stein’s “a rose is a rose is a rose.” But the existence and reality of things that are tangible, material, physical, and visible, that are clearly obvious to operable senses, is normally accepted as self-evident and not requiring external proof, as the proof is self-contained, in themselves. Reasonable people do not question their existence, or require proof of their reality based on some arbitrary standard. If the existence of something is denied, and the object is presented, its existence must be admitted. To deny the existence of something that is visibly present is unreasonable. The object that is denied by race deniers, race, is visibly present in abundance, both as individuals and as populations, far beyond any reasonable requirement.

The Evidence for Racial Reality

But if more proof is asked for, what kind of proof is required for the reality of race? What standard of proof is reasonable? If concrete proof is not enough, and the proof of abstract logic is required, the best proof is a convergence of proofs — proof from different and independent lines of evidence that converge in mutual and consistent support for the same conclusion. Among the convergent lines of evidence that are consistent in mutually supporting the reality of race are geography, history, phenotype, evolutionary theory, forensic science and, most recently, genetic studies.

Races are geographically real. They are geographical populations, with a geographic distribution. They are, or were until recent times, geographically separated from other races. Their origin and existence is connected to a specific geographic region they have historically inhabited. The connection of geography and race is seen in the strong correlation between the degree of racial difference and the geographic distance separating the original habitats of the different races. The geographic connection occurs because races are breeding populations forming a common gene pool and stable racial environment over many generations, and before modern transportation advances this required that the native homeland of the race be geographically limited and compact. The continuation or preservation of the race also required geographic separation from other racial elements to prevent intermixture or replacement that would alter or destroy the race. This meant that other races had to be excluded from its geographic range, that its possession of its native homeland had to be racially exclusive. This exclusivity did not have to be total or absolute, but sufficient to create and preserve the race. Although migrations of racial elements outside of their original homelands have occurred, especially in the last five centuries, often intermixing with other races to create intermediate forms, the populations that remain in the original homelands act as control groups or standards of reference for racial classification and study. Emigrant populations that expanded the geographic range of their race into new habitats, and restricted their reproduction within their own race, continued to be of the same race as those in the native homelands, and in their racial heritage and origins they remained identified with those homelands. These geographic populations are facts on the ground, existing in the real world, in their own part of the world exactly where one would expect to find them, there for all to see. They are facts that can be observed and measured as part of objective reality, marked by their distinguishing physical characteristics or racial phenotype. National Geographic magazine, in its long history of publication, has published countless articles that irrefutably document the geographic connection, distribution, and reality, of race.

Races are historically real. The major races of Europe, Asia and Africa that we know today, as well as many of their subraces, are documented in the written historical record from its beginning over three thousand years ago, and in the artistic record over a thousand years earlier. The races of the Americas, Australia and the Pacific enter the historical record from the moment when the first Western explorers found them. From the dawn of history to our own time the existence, geographic location, distinguishing physical features and movements of these races have been a recognizable part of the historical record. Races are also prehistorically real. Modern pre-historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have pushed our knowledge of the modern races back thousands of years before the beginnings of written history. It is clear that the races we know today have existed, in a continuum of generations, for many thousands of years.

Read the rest at:

http://www.racialcompact.com/Race_%20Realityand%20Denial.html

OBAMA AND HILLARY SHOW LOVE TO COMMUNIST THUGS!

OBAMA AND HILLARY SHOW LOVE TO COMMUNIST THUGS!

posted by ANGRY WHITE DUDE 9:57 PM

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

MANUEL ZELAYA – HONDURAN COMMUNIST FRIEND OF OBAMA AND HILLARY

President Hussein Hopenchange and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton don’t like to lose. When they do, they are sore sports. What they do like, however, is communist thugs in Latin America…namely Honduras and Venezuela. Ousted President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya is an amigo of Venezuela’s thug dictator Hugo Chavez and was thrown out of office for trying to change the Honduran constitution. Like any commie thug, he wanted expanded powers and the right to stay in office for life. The entire Honduran congress voted to expel Zelaya. The Supreme Court concurred. Zelaya was put on a plane in the middle of the night to neighboring Costa Rica.

Good for Honduras, right? Not so fast says Hussein. In keeping with his love of communists, Obama demanded that Honduras reinstate the would-be dictator. Honduras has stood it’s ground. Recently, the anti-American Organization of American States came up with a plan to reinstate Zelaya but would protect constitutional powers. Again Honduras said no. So today the US State Department cut off visas to Honduras. Heaven forbid Obama allowing Hondurans to protect their laws and select their own leaders!

The obvious question is why would an American President and State Department support a communist dictator breaking his country’s rule of law? Why wouldn’t a President and State Department side with democracy and the will of the Honduran people? Would anyone dream an American President would side with Hugo Chavez, Bolivia’s idiot communist President Evo Morales and Ecudor’s terrorist supporting thug Rafael Correa? AWD is still shaking his head over this administration’s embracing of America’s enemies. Bravo to Honduras! I hope you will continue to stand your ground…even as Uncle Sam…err..Stalin puts pressure on you. I am so ashamed of my government.

CHINESE FRAG TO FRY OVER THE WHITE HOUSE??

CHINESE FRAG TO FRY OVER THE WHITE HOUSE??

posted by ANGRY WHITE DUDE 10:51 PM

Thursday, August 27, 2009

OUR BANKER’S FLAG TO FLY OVER WHITE HOUSE?

The newspaper China Daily is reporting the People’s Republic of China’s flag will fly over the South Lawn of the White House on September 20th to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the PRC. In an article dated July 13th, reporter Long Duk Dong reported:

Chinese associations in the United States had applied to hold a ceremony in front of the US President’s residence to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of PRC.

Chen Ronghua, chairman of Fujian Association of the United States, told reporters that their application was approved not only because of the sound Sino-US relations but also because China is a responsible country.

“Many Americans admire China due to the success of last year’s Beijing Olympics,” said Chen.

More than 1,000 people will attend the ceremony and the performances held after it, according to Zhao Luqun, who will direct the performances.

This has a strong odor of bullsh*t around it. I disagree with about 100% of what Obama is doing but I don’t think he’s stupid enough to allow something like flying the ChiCom’s flag on the White House lawn to take place! As for their Olympics, they can shove it sideways because they have proven to be a cheating bunch of little yellow bug-f*ckers. China’s athletes are a over-trained group of yellow robots who are so brainwashed and tortured to perform that they cannot even smile when they win….often through cheating! As for China being a “responsible country,” I again have to call big-time BS. The world’s biggest polluter has most of it’s citizens living like dogs while they continue to build a monster military with heavy offensive capability. Not to mention anyone who tries to voice an opinion over there gets a 9mm headache or a few decades in prison!

If this story of the PRC flag is true, I wish they’d move it to September 12th when a half million American patriots take to the streets of Washington! Like I said, I have severe doubt about this story. If it is true, Obama better start packing his bags…he won’t last out the year.

Here’s the article..what do you think?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/13/content_8422505.htm

ATLANTA BLACKS SHOULD VOTE FOR BLACKS ONLY!

ATLANTA BLACKS SHOULD VOTE FOR BLACKS ONLY!

posted by ANGRY WHITE DUDE 1:06 PM

Saturday, August 29, 2009

VOTE FOR BORDERS – SHE’S BLACK LIKE YOU!

The race that once pined for a colorblind society sure has a hard time focusing on anything other than pigment these days. In this post-racial period in America, we now are bombarded daily with news stories having to do solely with race and charges of racism. Those who dreamed of never again hearing about race if a black president was elected have awakened to a nightmare of more issues of race than ever! Why is Angry White Dude not surprised?

In Atlanta’s mayoral race, a black advocacy group has sent out a memo calling for the city’s blacks to vote for a black person. Go figure! A group known as the Black Leadership Forum called for blacks to consolidate their support around Lisa Borders, president of the Atlanta City Council and one of several black candidates. The group believes Borders has the best chance to beat Mary Norwood, a white devil who could become the first white devil to be mayor of Atlanta in decades. The memo says:

“For the last 25 years Atlanta has represented the breakthrough for black political empowerment in the South,” read the memo. “In order to defeat a Norwood (white) mayoral candidacy we have to get out now and work in a manner to defeat her without a runoff, and the key is a significant Black turnout.”

For the last 25 years, corruption has been a common theme under the various black mayors. So has race baiting. The current black mayor said before her election “voting for the white guy would be like going back to being hosed down with water hoses.” So it is no surprise black leaders encourage blacks to vote for blacks….it is what they do. It keeps blacks in office and keeps Atlanta blacks suffering at the hands of high crime, weak economic opportunities and corrupt government.

Ever notice that the mainstream media doesn’t criticize black racism? Kind of like how Hamas and other Muslim terrorist groups are not criticized for hating and killing Israelis or Americans. Maybe it is because the MSM believes blacks and Muslims cannot rise above their monolithic view of the world in terms of race or religion. Whites are held to a much higher standard. We must love, appreciate and honor cultures that often create the majority of the world’s problems. Angry White Dude detests the ghetto culture of many black people. I hate the ignorance, crime and overall problems it creates in the United States. Yet I can support a black man (conservative Michael Williams) to replace Kay Bailout Hutchinson as US Senator if she steps down to run for Governor. Martin Luther King’s dream of a colorblind society was naive. It is impossible to overlook a small percentage of US population creating the majority of violent crimes if their skin color is the same. However, white people as a whole have succeeded in judging a person on their character than any other race. Think not? Did 96% of white voters vote for the white man?

Liberal black leadership has proven to be a disaster in nearly every American city it has occurred. From Detroit to Atlanta, New Orleans, Birmingham, and Washington, DC, these cities have been rife with corruption under black mayors. A good argument could be made concerning President Obama after his 8 months of bending the Constitution at his will. We cannot even disagree with his 10 year deficit of $14.4 trillion without being labeled racists!

White Americans are tired of the double standard that political correctness imposes on us. We are tired of being painted into a corner while other races and cultures can openly do or say anything without criticism. Just read the memo sent out by the black advocacy group in Atlanta and change “black” to “white.” Any white advocacy group (that would be racist) would be condemned publicly by the MSM and any white politician in reach of a microphone. But this black group? Hah, just another day in the life.

Here’s a great article written about the corruption in Atlanta over the years. It’s a few years old but you’ll get the picture:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis74.html

The Monkey Who Wants To Steal Health Care

Caution: Extreme language protected by the Freedom and sovereignty of the individual may be posted here, if you are unable to handle the truth please for all that’s good in the world DO NOT READ any Further.

The Monkey Who Wants To Steal Health Care

The nigger says he wants the United States government to take over health care.

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. They have had 234 years to get it right. It is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935. They have had 74 years to get it right. It is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They have had 71 years to get it right. It is broke.

The War on Poverty started in 1964. They have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor.” (Read blacks and illegal aliens.) It hasn’t worked.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. They have had 44 years to get it right. They’re broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. They have had 39 years to get it right. It is broke.

Trillions of dollars in the massive political payoff called the TARP bill of 2009 shows no sign of working. That money has simply disappeared, much of it probably spirited away out of the country to repay George Soros for the half billion dollars that mysteriously appeared off the internet and into the banks accounts of Barack Hussein Obama during the fraudulent 2008 election campaign.

And finally, to set a new record: “Cash for Clunkers” was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009!

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that “services” the government shoves down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system? 15% of our economy? Are you crazy?

And what does this say about the bird-brained stupid voters who put a nigger in the White House, on Black Tuesday, November 4th, 2008?

True, the Democrats rigged the presidential election using Soros’ money and organizations such as ACORN to register millions of ineligible and non-existent “new voters” for Obongo, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that entirely too many White people with nothing but pork fat between their ears actually voted for a bubble-lipped mulatto with a booming voice and the brain of a chimpanzee to sit in the chair of Thomas Jefferson.

Well, now you’re paying the price, morons.

Faggots and Televangelists -The Lone Haranguer

Faggots and Televangelists

After a hard day today, I made myself a cold iced tea and sat back to catch a flick. I flipped the channels and stopped on the new series “Mad Men”. The first scene I saw was two men swapping slobbers. I almost gagged with rage and disgust. The damned liberals just won’t let up with their new pet project, which is “normalizing” faggots in society.

There was a History Channel show on the 1938 Olympic games as well, and as we have all come to realize, the History Channel is now just another venue for liberals to twist history to fit their political agenda. The announcer was saying that back then, Germany “oppressed” homosexuals and practiced “ruthless intolerance,” as if these perverts deserved anything less then a bullet in the ass.

I have met a lot of fags living here in Mexifornia, and I have never met one that wasn’t creepy and sick, and had a thing for children. I don’t know of a single queer that wouldn’t cornhole your kid if he had the chance.

Homosexuality is a sickness, a perversion that goes against nature and the laws of man. I’ve heard all the arguments about it being genetic (which was recently totally disproven,) and that they are just “born that way,” which is a load a crap. For those of us that believe in the supernatural and can sense certain things, to us they’re demon possessed. To others they’re simply perverted. To me they’re both.

They chose the path they’re on. It’s nobody’s fault but their own. The liberals are always screaming that it’s an “alternative lifestyle.” Nothing could be further from the truth. You have to always keep in mind that liberals would rather lie when telling the truth is easier. A lifestyle is one hell of a lot different from an obsession.

But the liberal/Jewish goal for white America is complete degradation of our morals and culture. Normalizing homos is a large step in that direction. History tells us that the final act of every great civilization just before it fell, was the acceptance of homosexuality in there society. Rome, Greece, Athens, Samaria, Sodom, even Pompeii. What makes anyone think we’ll be immune? Well, we won’t.

Normal couples have sex when the mood hits, and only when it’s appropriate. They have thousands of other important interests in life, and sex (for most of us) is way down on this list of our priorities.

Not so with homos. To a faggot, there is nothing more important than the next perverted sex act. It’s all they think about day and night. They look at each and every man they see and lust after him, regardless of what he looks like.

Monogamy is almost unheard of with fags as well. This is why police are called out so often to fag houses on domestic disputes. And if there’s one thing all cops hate, and they’ll all gladly tell you so, it’s answering a call to a fag’s house. That’s because fags are extremely violent, far, far more violent than any other segment of society. They are capable of fits of rage going off into homicidal mania. Any person that’s ever fought a fag will tell you that you have to knock them out to keep them from killing you. Fags don’t have limits.

A fag will literally gobble anything in underwear. It’s a pure, insane, perverted obsession with them, and it makes them dangerous to have around your kids or anyone that tempts them sexually. Like starved dogs, they’ll attack if the opportunity presents itself.

This is not an “alternative lifestyle”, it’s a perversion of the mind and spirit. They never, ever get enough. This is why AIDS decimated the fag population. They screw each other like a rooster on crack. If it’s got a hole, they’ll plug it in. They don’t call them “Rump Wranglers” for nothing.

If I ever caught a fag within 50 feet of one of my kids, I’d make sure the only thing he could screw again would be a light bulb. I’d use his testicles for wind chimes. The liberal-controlled media is pumping homo acceptability down the public’s throat like it was Gospel, when it’s the sickest, vilest practice imaginable.

And now even the Lutheran Church is seriously considering ordaining faggots to their ministry. Already a lot of denominations have fallen, and millions of people have left those churches because of it. But the churches don’t care because fags have money, and the new revenue they’re getting from homos is far more than they ever got from straights. Homos are willing to pay through the nose for respectability. And like it or not, the hard truth about most modern churches is that they’re no different from corporations. They’re in it for the money. They’re about as Christian as my cat. Can I get a amen?

If there’s one thing I despise, it’s TV preachers. Every other breath is about “tithing” to them. They lay guilt trips on old ladies on Social Security, telling them to send in their cat food money, while the bastards fly around in Lear jets and live in mansions. And these same pricks that railed against faggots are now turning the other cheek and preaching “tolerance” because suddenly faggot millions are flooding in. It’s amazing what money can buy, isn’t it?

Our society has become so corrupt that it reeks to heaven like a rotten corpse. There’s not much left of America that I deem worth saving. In fact the only thing I’m truly concerned about is the survival of those of my race that have been strong enough to separate themselves from all this corruption, and stuck to the standards that made our people great.

Though I can always hope for a reborn America, reality tells me that the best we’ll be able to do is establish a few outposts of freedom on this perverted and polluted continent, like HAC’s proposed Northwest Republic, and that under the best of circumstance we’ll have to protect it by force from here on out once it’s established. That’s because corrupt people have this deep psychological need to corrupt everyone else around them. And our very existence will remind them of their own lack of character. Until we find a way to eliminate them from this planet, they’ll never leave us alone. Ever. We all must reconcile ourselves to this grim fact.

The politically correct agenda of the liberal elite was designed to do one thing; destroy you and yours. Never be tolerant of liberals, politicians, blacks, wetbacks, faggots, Jews, other muds, or propaganda. It’s a slippery slope. Once you begin to tolerate one thing, the next is easier, until one day you discover you’re as worthless and corrupt as those around you. Or like my late father used to say,”If you wallow in shit, you’re going to get some on you.” Sage advice.

-The Lone Haranguer

A Liberal Perspective On How Political Pressure To Boost Minority Homeownership Helped Blow Up The Economy.

Alyssa Katz’ Our Lot: A Liberal Perspective On How Political Pressure To Boost Minority Homeownership Helped Blow Up The Economy.

By Steve Sailer

Our Lot: How Real Estate Came to Own Us by Alyssa Katz, [Email her] a liberal journalist and NYU journalism professor who writes for Mother Jones, is the best book yet on how the sacred cause of “diversity” merged with pedal-to-the-metal capitalism to bring us the Great Mortgage Meltdown.

The book hasn’t garnered the attention it deserves—probably because it makes clear the bipartisan responsibility of both her opponents on the Right and her friends on the Left.

Our Lot focuses equally on the misdeeds of both capitalists and leftists. But I won’t give the boiler room boys as much attention in this review because they’re a more familiar tale, while Katz’s reporting on the role of her side is compelling “testimony against interest”.

Katz is remarkably frank about how government programs and political pressure to boost minority homeownership helped blow up the economy. She’s particularly good at explicating how leftist housing activists, such as ACORN and Gale Cincotta, the godmother of the Community Reinvestment Act, worked with Democratic politicians such as Bill Clinton, HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, and Jim Johnson, CEO of Fannie Mae, to lay the groundwork for the Bubble and Bust.

Katz doesn’t devote quite as much depth to the Bush Administration’s culpability (which, to my mind, is even greater). Perhaps she lacked Republican contacts to give her the kind of inside story she got on her own party’s mistakes.

Still, Our Lot makes clear that on housing policy, the Clinton-Bush years form a single continuum with one overarching plan: boost the minority homeownership rate by lowering credit standards. I call it the Era of Multi-Culti Capitalism.

And there’s little reason to think that its lessons have been learned yet.

Katz begins her book in 1972, in the collapsing Austin neighborhood on Chicago’s Far West side, where Gale Cincotta was a Greek-American housewife.

Fortuitously for me, Our Lot fills in the political backstory of my own in-laws’ lives. My wife grew up in Austin, which had been a peaceful, densely populated working class where small children could play safely on the crowded sidewalks. Suddenly, in the late 1960s, middle class blacks began buying into the neighborhood.

Friends warned my late father-in-law, a classical musician and union leader, to flee, that underclass blacks would follow. But he and my late mother-in-law, a schoolteacher, resolved to show that integration could work.

After my future wife was mugged twice and her younger brother once, however, my in-laws finally sold in 1970—losing half their life savings. They moved 63 miles out of Chicago, to a dilapidated farm where they lacked running water for their first two years. (And my father-in-law started voting Republican.)

How did this disaster hit Austin? Katz demonstrates that it was the direct result of a 1968 change in the Federal Housing Administration, which set off a bubble and bust in America’s inner cities, like a smaller precursor of this decade. As in 2005,

“In 1972, in Chicago and in every other city in the nation, almost anyone could get a home mortgage, including borrowers who didn’t earn enough to pay them off, on just about any house, for any reason. … And just like the recent adventure in lending beyond any rational limits, the mortgage disaster of the early 1970s was born from a lofty ideological conviction that enabled the basest of crimes and most foolish of gambles under its cover, insulated from almost any scrutiny until the damage was already done.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt had started the Federal Housing Administration to insure home loans, and Fannie Mae to buy loans from lenders. Together, these agencies created the familiar template of 30-year-year fixed rate mortgages with a moderate down payment that underpinned the growth of home-owning suburbanites after WWII.

FDR’s FHA, however, was reluctant to back loans in black neighborhoods—a practice that Cincotta later dubbed “redlining”. Eventually, in 1968, liberal Illinois Republican Senator Charles Percy and the Johnson Administration revamped the FHA in a more politically correct direction. Katz explains:

“The FHA was now, in effect, a front in the War on Poverty. … Under the new regime, homebuyers living in Chicago and other inner cities weren’t just eligible for loans. Lenders who signed up to sell FHA-insured mortgages were asked to do everything they could to make sure the buyers got them.”

Of course, the results of the Federal government’s encouraging mortgages with down payments of never more than $500 were absolutely predictable:

“Across the country, neighborhood destruction became a booming business, financed by the federal government. In Chicago they called it ‘panic peddling.’ In New York, it was ‘blockbusting.’ … The FHA-insured loans threw gasoline on that smoldering fire. … Indeed, the insurance made it profitable to seek out the most impoverished and unreliable borrowers, since the sooner a borrower defaulted on a loan, the more quickly the lender would get paid back in full by FHA.”

In Chicago, Gale Cincotta started a national coalition of “community activists”, who helped pass the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Cincotta remains a heroine to the author, although she can’t quite make clear Cincotta’s logic. If the feds encouraging lending to minorities had destroyed Austin, how was more hair of the dog that bit you supposed to fix Austin?

Sadly, Austin remains unfixed. On a visit to Chicago earlier this month, my wife drove by her old house. Her former home had no doorknob, just an empty hole in the front door. But at least it was still standing, unlike two large apartment buildings on her old block, which are now just crabgrass-covered vacant lots.

Cincotta died in 2001—across the municipal border from Austin in Oak Park. In telling contrast to Austin, that prosperous suburb that had succeeded in saving its famous district of Frank Lloyd Wright homes (where my father was born in 1917) by limiting the number of blacks allowed to move in through its notoriously illegal but effective “black-a-block” quota.

Katz notes that Cincotta’s organization of the left, combined with the invention of mortgage securitizing by investment banker Lewis Ranieri in 1983, made possible the disasters of this decade.

Cincotta began siccing her “pushy capitalist radicals” on Fannie Mae, which remained reluctant to buy the dubious mortgages of likely deadbeats. Still, Katz writes, “The reality was that to meet its growth objectives, Fannie Mae needed these poor people as much as the poor people needed them.”

Looking back from 2009, Katz asks:

“How did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac … turn into the world’s biggest funders of Wall Street-backed subprime mortgages? … It all started with the best of intentions, with … the activists who demanded bank loans for the poor and urban.”

Democrat Jim Johnson took over as CEO of Fannie Mae in 1991. He soon came up with a nice round number as a goal: one trillion dollars to lend by 2000 to ten million incremental homeowners. Katz writes:

“Jim Johnson only needed to point to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s [Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative series] The Color of Money to show that he was embarking on nothing less than a civil rights crusade. …”

Fannie Mae wanted to raise the homeownership rate to 75 percent, which meant, Katz notes, that “Consumers would have to borrow more and pay less up front.”

Johnson, whom Barack Obama had put in charge of vetting his Vice-Presidential candidates until it was revealed that he had snagged a cheap mortgage as a “Friend of Angelo” [Mozilo], quickly found a private partner:

“By 1993, he’d made a deal with [Mozilo’s] Countrywide to buy $2.5 billion in loans for lower-income and minority borrowers. Financially, these homebuyers would be a motley lot, with no money in the bank, other debt to deal with, and less than stable employment. … Fannie Mae targeted much of its advertising budget to Black Entertainment Television and made a sponsorship deal with Univision, the dominant Spanish-language TV network. … The advertising campaign explicitly targeted young families, new immigrants, and single parents.”

Katz points out the culture-changing role that Fannie Mae played:

“More than anything, Fannie Mae made working people comfortable with the idea of taking on vast debt as the price for participating in the American Dream. From 1989 to 2004, mortgage debt for low-income people increased by 46 percent, compared with just 15 percent for upper-middle-income and 5 percent for high-income.”

Johnson, to his credit, retained important limits on debt, such as 3 percent minimum down payments. But George W. Bush would go to war against down payments in 2002.

Meanwhile Johnson’s allies in the Clinton Administration decided to goose the homeownership rate to at least 67.5 percent. But who was left to lend to? Katz comments:

“The reality was that the consumers the [mortgage] industry had depended on … were spoken for. More than nine of every ten suburban middle-class white households owned their homes. If the industry were going to grow, it would have to tap new borrowers, and HUD’s research team concluded that those were going to be urban, black (only 43 percent were homeowners), Latino (41 percent), and people under age thirty-five (just 38 percent).”

So Clinton decided to enlist the real estate and financial industries in Fighting Racial Bias for Fun and Profit. Katz quotes him from a 1994 speech to the National Association Of Realtors Conference:

“ ‘I want to target new markets, underserved populations, tear down the barriers of discrimination wherever they are found,’ he proclaimed to cheers at the Realtors’ annual convention.”

Did Clinton really believe that in 1994 lenders were passing up profits out of prejudice? This theory was always economically illiterate. As Gary Becker’s Ph.D. thesis (based on a suggestion by his adviser, Milton Friedman) pointed out, if firms were irrationally discriminating against minorities, it would be profitable for nondiscriminators to enter the market and cash in. The much-hyped 1992 Boston Fed report that claimed to prove discrimination existed was easily refuted at the time by Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer in Forbes Magazine, when they demonstrated that it had misunderstood the meaning of mortgage default rates. But no-one wanted to hear that.

Still, if you had doubts about discrimination claims, Clinton had another argument for you: his National Homeownership Strategy would transform dissolute renters into respectable middle class citizens through the responsibility-generating magic of owning a home.

Unfortunately, this theory was based on the usual social engineer’s misperception that correlation equals causation. Katz writes:

“Eventually, scholars found that once they set aside the various traits that tend to determine whether someone chooses to own or rent one’s home, the homeowners and tenants really aren’t all that different.”

And, it turns out, some people just aren’t responsible enough or capable enough to buy a home.

Hiring “diverse” mortgage brokers only exacerbated the situation:

“The experience in neighborhoods confirmed what Fannie Mae’s market research was also discovering: Borrowers who were new to home buying, especially if they were members of minority groups, tended to care more about how they were treated by the person selling them a loan than about the financial soundness of the loan itself. If it were a friend or a family member selling the mortgage or property, so much the better.”

Subprime lending grew—but as long as Fannie and Freddie wouldn’t bless it, the problem might remain chronic rather than critical. However, under Clinton the mandates were already in place that were pushing Fannie and Freddie to covertly back subprime mortgages. Katz:

“Remember what [community activists] won back in 1991: By now, nearly half of the loans financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to go to low-income borrowers and urban communities. … “

But where can you find enough borrowers who are both poor and prime? Fannie and Freddie couldn’t. So they started buying mortgage-backed securities that mixed some subprime in with prime. Katz explains:

“By buying prime-heavy portions of the securities as investments, Fannie and Freddie could meet Congress’s quotas for the number of loans they had to finance for low-income borrowers. … But because the riskier parts of the pools consisted almost exclusively of subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were effectively putting their billions into financing subprime lending…”

Momentum was building: “Under HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo, the Clinton administration gave a parting gift to the burgeoning subprime industry”: Cuomo raised the government-sponsored enterprises’ quotas for lower-income borrowers from 40 percent to 50 percent.

Most of the pieces were now in place for the foolhardy Bush Administration to push to a cataclysmic conclusion. That didn’t stop Bush from adding his special flavor, though:

“To this brew, George W. Bush added something quite peculiar for a conservative: a racial quota. Under pressure from the Bush administration, which had launched an investigation into their financing practices, in 2002 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together committed to finance $1.1 trillion in loans specifically for minority borrowers. … By the time George W. Bush left office, HUD decreed, three out of every five mortgages financed by the government loan funds would have to go to the poorer half of America …”

Katz doesn’t give Bush as much of a drubbing as he deserves. But she does tell the story of a Mexican carpenter in Arizona, Jorge Sotelo, who was employed doing the jobs Americans just won’t do (namely, building houses Americans just can’t afford). This immigrant had such a bad credit history that he couldn’t qualify for even a subprime mortgage. So he had to have his uncle to sign for it:

“Sotelo thought it was a joke when, in March 2004, his boss at a construction firm told him to prepare to meet the president, not of the company but of the United States. Jorge Sotelo would appear with George W. Bush as an exemplar of minority homeownership. … ‘No tienes que estar nervioso. Esto va a ser muy sencillo y muy divertido,’ President Bush reassured Sotelo backstage… [‘No need to be nervous. This is going to be very simple and very fun.’]”

By the way, Katz runs into the same problem I’ve had finding coherent quotes in transcripts of Bush’s speeches: he always mangled key phrases:

“‘There is a minority homeownership gap in America,’ Bush shared with the audience in the vast hangar. ‘Not enough minorities own their homes. It seems to me’—he paused to thump his palm on his chest, confessionally—‘like it makes sense to help all people own their own homes.’ Bush peered down to a lectern to locate the number he was looking for. ‘Five point five new—million new minority homeowners into homes over the next five years.’” [Transcript]

The President invited Sotelo and his wife to a White House Christmas party that year, but the expense left them short of cash. And they wanted two new cars.

“So they were grateful when they started getting offers for home mortgages that would let them get cash back in the transaction. In the two years since Jorge Sotelo’s convergence with George W. Bush, Jorge had turned from a pariah into a desirable customer.”

Sotelo extracted $246,000 out of his home equity—which is a lot more than the house is worth today. But don’t worry:

“Sotelo’s got it all figured out. With a low enough mortgage payment, they could cover the bills by renting the Avondale house to a tenant. He’d move his family out to a new place.

They’d be renting that home, right?

“‘Oh, no,” says Sotelo, surprised at the question. ‘We’ll own it.’”

Katz sums up this decade:

“This was everything Gale Cincotta had fought for—and a worse nightmare than she could have imagined.”

The Mortgage Meltdown, and the Diversity Recession that it has precipitated (if we’re lucky), are worse nightmares than any of us could have imagined.

Unless we look frankly at the causes, it will all happen again.

Alyssa Katz goes at least some way to doing that.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

Dear White Liberal America

August 25, 2009

Dear White Liberal America

By Lloyd Marcus

Thank you very, very much. You see us poor helpless inferior blacks (oh forgive me, I must be politically correct, “African Americans”), and you want to help us using your superior intellect. After all, we could not possibly succeed in this racist, homophobic and greedy country without your assistance.

I first met you guys in the 70s when I attended the prestigious Maryland Institute College of Art on a scholarship. A black kid from the ghetto, I found myself amongst white kids from well to do families. I worked a part-time job to cover my books and art supplies. You guys did not have to work.

And yet, I remember many conversations about how you would never bring a child into this “freaking world” and how “freaking screwed up” this “freaking country is”. You told me how “freaking selfish” your “freaking parents” were and how they only cared about “freaking money”. Then, you drove off in your convertible given to you be your “freaking parents” as I stood at the bus stop.

I can not thank you enough for the numerous times you shared your expensive premmo weed with me. While I enjoyed the free weed (of which I’ve long ceased to indulge) and rebellious chicks, in all honesty, I could not figure out what you were so p-o-ed about.

So, now you former hippie boomers are in total control of government, colleges and public schools, still selling your Utopian message of peace and love. Thanks for getting rid of black dads in the home via your welfare programs. I mean, everyone knows dads are cruel chauvinists who beat and molest their kids.

Oh, and thanks for encouraging schools to accept black kids speaking Ebonics rather than English. It would be racist to expect us simple minded colored folks to learn to speak English correctly. And besides, we don’t want our black kids sounding too white. Authentic blacks must sound like the hood, love rap and Kentucky Fried. I would never trust any black that eats “sushi”; which is probably what those traitors, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas eat. If Justice Thomas would have answered his phone with a “What up!” and a heartfelt “A-muri-ka sucks”, the NAACP would have championed him as a true brother faithful to his blackness. Sadly, Rice and “Uncle Thomas” as we call him, chose the character, education and hard work route to success. How disgusting!

Yes, you libs are soooo good to us. I really appreciate “b” actresses like Janeane Garofalo putting that Uncle Tom, RNC Chairman, Michael Steele in his place when she said he suffered from Stockholm Syndrome. How dare he not view himself as a victim of white America. How dare he empower young blacks with the knowledge that they can achieve without liberal intervention. What an ungrateful, well, you know the word I’m thinking. It begins with an “N”.

In closing, you libs, please keep up the good work. With your continued diligence, we minorities and most Americans will not have to work or be responsible for anything. Your president is in the process of confiscating the wealth from those greedy rich white SOBs and redistributing it to us. Right on!

Now, if I can just figure out how to tie my shoes all by myself. But if I can’t, I know you libs are there for me. Fighting back tears of overwhelming gratitude, again, I thank you.

Cordially yours,

Lloyd Marcus

The Race Idiots

The Race Idiots

By Selwyn Duke

With relativistic people, there is no such thing as a true axiom, yet you’d never know it listening to our modern mantras.  We hear things such as “Our strength lies in our diversity,” “Religion has caused all the wars in history,” and “Everything is a matter of perspective” proclaimed with theological assurance.  Of course, the last supposition is contradictory, and embracing it renders moral supposition itself meaningless.  Regardless, it’s natural for man to make sense of the world by “profiling” elements of reality.

Many of our assumptions pertain to race, and one is always uttered in the wake of stories such as the recent Henry Louis Gates affair.  What happens is that, referring to race, people will reflexively say something akin to the following, “Well, we still have a long way to go.”  Even conservatives pay homage to this self-evident provisional “truth,” only, they add a qualifier so it goes something like, “We still have a long way to go, but . . .,” with the caboose being “we’ve made great strides,” “we’ve come a long way” or some variation thereof.  It’s obligatory, after all.  It’s how you polish up you credentials as a person who “understands the problem.”

It’s also reflective of a hang-up.  Oh, this isn’t to say I believe we’ve achieved perfection in racial attitudes, perish the thought.  It is to say, however, that seeing a failure to achieve perfection in an area as a characteristic problem is far more of a problem than what ostensibly needs invasive and aggressive remedy.  It usually yields a cure worse than the disease.

Understand that bigotry is simply a manifestation of one of the Seven Deadly Sins: wrath.  It is not the end-all and be-all, the source of all our woes.  It is not, relatively speaking, even a major problem (although, it waxes when we let the Sharptons, Jacksons and Obamas of the world stir the pot).

If this statement raises eyebrows, perspective is needed.  If we were otherwise perfect and called the ether home, any extant bigotry would rightly stick out like white sheets at a Black Panther meeting.  Yet we are far from perfect.  We exhibit not just one element of wrath but also its other manifestations and the rest of the deadly sins — greed, lust, sloth, pride, envy and gluttony — to varying degrees.  So the question is not whether bigotry exists and is a problem, as this is true of every sin.  It concerns whether it is a characteristic problem.

In other words, if we were to constantly lament our lacking math ability, it would imply one of two things.  It either stands out in reality, making us pay it some mind, or it stands out only in our minds, in which case we are detached from reality.  If the former, it would have to pale in comparison to the mathematical achievement of other nations or to our ability in other areas, such as English and history.  So the question is, does our obsession with bigotry meet one of the last criterion’s two elements?

No rational person can make the case that we rank high on the world’s bigotry scale, not on a planet in which racial and ethnic patriotism reign supreme.  Many don’t realize that this is in fact man’s default state, but the irony is that it’s because they’ve fallen victim to something they might be wont to preach against: “ethnocentrism.”  The fact is that man is tribal by fallen nature, and there is little in the way of political correctness outside the Western world.  In fact, far from being taught that it’s wrong to discriminate, many groups are taught that it’s wrong to not place your “people” first.  Such a thing can make you a pariah.

The reality is that we kill ourselves talking about bigotry, but much of the world kills others because of it.  We’ve all heard about this, from the Balkan ethnic cleansing in the 1990s to the Ruandan genocide in which hundreds of thousands of Tutsis were murdered by Hutu tribesman, who happened to refer to them as “cockroaches.”  Oh, I should mention that no hate-speech charges are in the offing.

But, okay, we’re better than the monster in another country, but maybe bigotry is the worst monster roaming our countryside.  Except that, well, believing this requires the most incomplete of moral compasses.  Let’s now contrast this manifestation of wrath with the rest of our national sins.

It’s obvious where we should start.  Given that we have sexual imagery and innuendo everywhere, classes in pornography and “sexology” in colleges, and stories of children re-enacting Caligula’s court in schools, can we really make the case that bigotry is a greater problem than lust?  What about greed?  Well, given the Bernie Madoffs of the world, the recent Wall Street woes, rapacious government officials and the long-accepted maxim about the lust for money being the root of all evil, it just may rank a bit higher as well.  Sloth?  Our welfare state and handout-and-entitlement mentality.  Envy?  Class warfare.  Gluttony?  We have more obese people than the rest of the world combined.  Pride?  Given how people are loath to admit error — think Obama and his refusal to apologize to the Cambridge police — and the super-size egos that abound, this trumps bigotry also.

This lack of perspective is no small matter, as it leads to much destructive social engineering.  Just think about race-based quotas, affirmative action and set asides.  Consider the assumption that relative racial homogeneity within a business or organization equates to racial animosity in its leaders’ hearts, or how largely white neighborhoods are targeted with “low income” housing because, well, we all know there just must be unjust discrimination.  And think about how Obama, Gates and so many others will just assume that white police are bigoted because “We still have a long way to go.”  All the while we have schools teaching perversion, profligate government spending, illegal aliens “undocumented” into legitimacy, criminals who go unpunished, slackers who are rewarded, heroes who are derided and traitors who are exalted.  We have caricatured virtue and vice, exaggerating some parts to grotesque proportions while ignoring others.  The result is that we misdirect our scalpel during “corrective” surgery, slicing off healthy tissue while allowing cancerous tumors in our midst to grow unfettered.

Not only does this selective moral blindness numb us to our real national sins, it also allows the reprobate the illusion of righteousness.  In fact, while the stereotype of the self-righteous oaf is of a rightist religious zealot, a far more fitting candidate is the loopy leftist lunkhead.  He is the one who will parade about defining favored vices as virtue, worshipping sex and mammon, secure in his own saintliness because he utters nary a racial joke and bears nobly that newly-minted white man’s burden.  The modern leftist is as blind as a Nazi who thinks he is good because he is hygienic and punctual.

Yet this leftist conception of virtue is as shallow as it is narrow; its definition of goodness doesn’t seem to involve love for what one defends as much as equal-opportunity hatred.  As to this, I have long observed something: liberals treat blacks like people; the problem is that they don’t treat people like people.  That is to say, they treat blacks like everyone else, but they treat everyone pretty shabbily.  With Torquemada-like zeal they advance the dogma that we must treat all people equally, but much is missing from that prescription.  Equally at what moral level?  You can treat people equally by killing them all with the same expedition and ferocity.

So here is the implied standard: you may curse people out generically for five minutes with seething hatred, just don’t utter one racial epithet.  You may let everyone starve, just don’t give one race a morsel of food another cannot digest.  You may corrupt all races with vile hip-hop anti-culture, just don’t imply that it is more corruptive than anything else.  This is our national hang-up, our racial Puritanism.

Leftists don’t realize it, but with their obsession, they are reminiscent of a group from the past whom they view with utter contempt and mockery.  While it’s generally not true that authentic Christians were hung-up on sex, the people in question could be thus described.  These are individuals who would, and I’ll be delicate, affix mechanical devices to boys to prevent a certain normal physiological reaction.  (No, this was not medieval times but those of the “Enlightenment,” and the instigators were at least as likely to be physicians and scientists as churchmen.)  I guess they figured that they “still had a long way to go.”

Now, people weren’t wrong to preach chastity just as we aren’t wrong to preach charity.  But among the legitimate moralists of the day were those who caricatured the virtue, thereby perverting it, just as we do today with racial brotherhood.  The question is, will you and I be voices of reason or, in obeisance to the age, insist that all racial talk is “dirty”?  If the latter, then we will be deserving of the mockery when people two centuries hence laugh at how “repressed” we were.

Contact Selwyn Duke

on “The Race Idiots“

Larry Flynt: Common Sense 2009

// Your request is being processed…

Larry Flynt

Publisher of Hustler magazine and free speech advocate

Posted: August 20, 2009 08:15 PM

Common Sense 2009

//

The American government — which we once called our government — has been taken over by Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich. They are the ones who decide our fate. It is this group of powerful elites, the people President Franklin D. Roosevelt called “economic royalists,” who choose our elected officials — indeed, our very form of government. Both Democrats and Republicans dance to the tune of their corporate masters. In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, corporations are the government.

This was never more obvious than with the Wall Street bailout, whereby the very corporations that caused the collapse of our economy were rewarded with taxpayer dollars. So arrogant, so smug were they that, without a moment’s hesitation, they took our money — yours and mine — to pay their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses, something they continue doing to this very day. They have no shame. They don’t care what you and I think about them. Henry Kissinger refers to us as “useless eaters.”

But, you say, we have elected a candidate of change. To which I respond: Do these words of President Obama sound like change?

“A culture of irresponsibility took root, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street.”
There it is. Right there. We are Main Street. We must, according to our president, share the blame. He went on to say: “And a regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th-century economic crisis — the Great Depression — was overwhelmed by the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st-century global economy.”

This is nonsense.

The reason Wall Street was able to game the system the way it did — knowing that they would become rich at the expense of the American people (oh, yes, they most certainly knew that) — was because the financial elite had bribed our legislators to roll back the protections enacted after the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

Congress gutted the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial lending banks from investment banks, and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed for self-regulation with no oversight. The Securities and Exchange Commission subsequently revised its rules to allow for even less oversight — and we’ve all seen how well that worked out. To date, no serious legislation has been offered by the Obama administration to correct these problems.

Instead, Obama wants to increase the oversight power of the Federal Reserve. Never mind that it already had significant oversight power before our most recent economic meltdown, yet failed to take action. Never mind that the Fed is not a government agency but a cartel of private bankers that cannot be held accountable by Washington. Whatever the Fed does with these supposed new oversight powers will be behind closed doors.

Obama’s failure to act sends one message loud and clear: He cannot stand up to the powerful Wall Street interests that supplied the bulk of his campaign money for the 2008 election. Nor, for that matter, can Congress, for much the same reason.

Consider what multibillionaire banker David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 memoirs:

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Read Rockefeller’s words again. He actually admits to working against the “best interests of the United States.”
Need more? Here’s what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” They’re gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.

Journalist Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, notes that esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith laid the 1929 crash at the feet of banking giant Goldman Sachs. Taibbi goes on to say that Goldman Sachs has been behind every other economic downturn as well, including the most recent one. As if that wasn’t enough, Goldman Sachs even had a hand in pushing gas prices up to $4 a gallon.

The problem with bankers is longstanding. Here’s what one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about them:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father’s conquered.”

We all know that the first American Revolution officially began in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. Less well known is that the single strongest motivating factor for revolution was the colonists’ attempt to free themselves from the Bank of England. But how many of you know about the second revolution, referred to by historians as Shays’ Rebellion? It took place in 1786-87, and once again the banks were the cause. This time they were putting the screws to America’s farmers.Daniel Shays was a farmer in western Massachusetts. Like many other farmers of the day, he was being driven into bankruptcy by the banks’ predatory lending practices. (Sound familiar?) Rallying other farmers to his side, Shays led his rebels in an attack on the courts and the local armory. The rebellion itself failed, but a message had been sent: The bankers (and the politicians who supported them) ultimately backed off. As Thomas Jefferson famously quipped in regard to the insurrection: “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Perhaps it’s time to consider that option once again.

I’m calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful.

Let’s set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn’t effective — if the politicians ignore us — we do it again. And again. And again.

The real war is not between the left and the right. It is between the average American and the ruling class. If we come together on this single issue, everything else will resolve itself. It’s time we took back our government from those who would make us their slaves.

Grim Thoughts, Grimmer Facts

Grim Thoughts, Grimmer Facts

I got totally disgusted this morning watching Fox News. It showed a large demonstration outside the White House, with thousands of people demonstrating and picketing. But they weren’t there just to say no to ObamaCare. There was also a large crowd of idiot liberals there, picketing in support of that damn nightmare! There were also demonstrators against all kinds of silly crap as well.

But the largest crowd there? Tourists waiting in line to go inside the White House! I kid you not! Americans are like silly, stupid little children. More interested in being entertained than surviving or fighting for their freedoms. The NEA and liberal propaganda have done their job well. “Sheeple” is an apt term, and more often than not these days, I’m ashamed to be associated with my fellow Americans.

CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS, all now comprise what I call the National Bullshit Network. They all spew the same lies, right down to the adjectives. This morning, CNN displayed a graph that “proved” that over 75% of Americans approved of Obama’s healthcare reform. That’s the biggest lie they’ve told this year, and that’s saying something. The majority of Americans are violently against that bill. But I make a prediction: That evil bill will pass, just like that bitch Sotomayor getting confirmed. These creeps don’t care what the public says. And why should they? Soon we’ll be in camps and can do nothing to stop them. Time is rapidly running out for people to act, folks. Because once the hammer falls, it’ll be a hundred times harder to resist these bastards. And they know it.

All of you need to sell out now, organize into cells and move into the tall weeds where you can have a base from which to hide–and fight. We need to establish codes, lines of communication, and swap addresses, numbers, and any other means of communicating with each other. And we’d better do it now! The time when I, and those like me can post to you, is rapidly coming to an end. This regime will clamp the lid down on us very soon now.

If you have loved ones and friends you care about, you had better do your level best to convince them of the very real danger heading their way. Because once this government goes into action, the blood will flow like water. Arm yourselves. Buy weapons and ammo now! I don’t care if you have to sell granny’s gold. Do it.

And tell no one, not even your spouse that you have the stuff. Goons will easily pry information out of females, no matter how much she loves you. Women are the weaker vessel, and can’t take torture or stress. They will squeal and get you all killed. But they can’t tell what they don’t know.

Women have this almost psychotic need to know everything that you’re doing. If you have a secret and won’t tell them, they’ll go nuts trying to wheedle it out of you. It’s in their nature, God bless them. So make sure you leave no clues that will get them snooping. You must protect them from themselves.

The regime is planning on manufacturing a national crisis sometime in the next few months that calls for mass quarantine of civilians. Oh, they’ll reassure the public that their government loves them, and that it’s for their own protection. But once they’ve got you inside, you’re screwed Jack. You and yours had better be long-gone by then.

And get rid of all your bank cards, credit cards, and bank accounts. Destroy all paper trails! Get a PO box for mail, in a town you don’t live in. Tell no one exactly where you live. Not even your own mother. The only people that should know are cell members and allies in the front. That’s all. Savvy?

Destroy all cell phones and house phones but one, and hide that sucker good, so your stupid kids or lonely wife doesn’t call her girlfriend and lead them right to you. That phone should be for communicating with other cells at set times..only! The rest of the time, remove the battery so they can’t track it. And when you call, you have 45 seconds before they track you. Remember that. never use if from your base! Drive a long way off before you call, in case you are tracked. They’ll only know where you were, not where you are.

Stock up on can goods, dry goods, water, meds, bandages, coats, boots, batteries, radios, headphones, knives, a good sharpening stone, and black clothes for skulking. Get a short wave radio. Even a cheapy will do. You’re all going to be enemies of the state until we take those bastards down. These pricks are planning genocide. Understand this, and believe it. You are on the menu.

This plan has been in the works for a very long time. I knew it was imminent when I saw those liberal politicians in New York refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Why stand for a dead country? They didn’t care about the ramifications because those that could nail them for their treason will soon be either dead or in camps. Politicians are cowards, and they care about votes. They couldn’t give a rat’s ass less about this country, but to prevent losing an election, they pretend. Not anymore. All pretense is dropped. They’re commies and they’re proud of it.

I’ve been warning people for decades that this was coming. I’ve been called every name in the book, threatened, followed, jailed, attacked, spied on, tailed, etc., but I kept after the truth anyway. Now it’s time for you people to stand on your own and carry the fight to our enemies.

They deserve no mercy because they will give you none. You and yours will get either imprisonment or death..or both if you fail to act. They are coming. Only a complete moron would fail to see the truth.

I wish this country hadn’t fallen to the low it’s currently at, and it never would have if people had listened to men like Metzger, me, and a hundred others that have worked for years to warn people that these bastards were working toward our destruction. But everyone was too busy going to the beach, or the game, or the ski slopes to give a rat’s ass. If they only knew the level of carnage and cruelty that’s coming…God in Heaven.

I wish I had better new guys. No, I can’t tell you exactly when all this will go down. All I can say is that it will be soon now, probably this winter, during the flu season, though any crisis will do. This has been in the works for a very long time.

You have a choice now, and no one can make it for you. You can ignore me and hope things continue, or you can get moving. You have more than enough data and hard proof to know the score. Now it’s up to you. Either way, the soft life we had is over. It’s now only a matter of whether or not you want to wait until the lights go out and they come for you, or if you want to resist.

Either way, life is going to suck big-time. But at least if you fight you have hope..and revenge.

-The Lone Haranguer

The Republic Must Awaken

The Republic Must Awaken by Warren G. Harding

About this file Download file Use player: Native browser support (selected) Cortado (Java) QuickTime No player Close More… Listen to this text (help | file info or download)

My countrymen, the surpassing war of all times has involved us, and found us utterly unprepared in either a mental or military sense. The Republic must awaken. The people must understand. Our safety lies in full realization the fate of the nation and the safety of the world will be decided on the western battlefront of Europe.

Primarily the American Republic has entered the war in defense of its national rights. If we did not defend we could not hope to endure. Other big issues are involved but the maintained rights and defended honor of a righteous nation includes them all. Cherishing the national rights the fathers fought to establish, and loving freedom and civilization, we should have violated every tradition and sacrificed every inheritance if we had longer held aloof from the armed conflict which is to make the world safe for civilization. More, we are committed to sacrifice in battle in order to make America safe for Americans and establish their security on every lawful mission on the high seas or under the shining sun.

We are testing popular government’s capacity for self-defense. We are resolved to liberate the soul of American life and prove ourselves an American people in fact, spirit, and purpose, and consecrate ourselves anew and everlastingly to human freedom and humanity’s justice. Realizing our new relationship with the world, we want to make it fit to live in, and with might and fright and wrathfulness and barbarity crushed by the conscience of a real civilization. Ours is a small concern about the kind of government any people may choose, but we do mean to outlaw the nation which violates the sacred compacts of international relationships. The decision is to be final. If the Russian failure should become the tragic impotency of nations — if Italy should yield to the pressure of military might — if heroic France should be martyred on her flaming altars of liberty and justice and only the soul of heroism remain — if England should starve and her sacrifices and resolute warfare should prove in vain — if all these improbable disasters should attend, even then we should fight on and on, making the world’s cause our cause.

A republic worth living in is worth fighting for, and sacrificing for, and dying for. In the fires of this conflict we shall wipe out the disloyalty of those who wear American garb without the faith, and establish a new concord of citizenship and a new devotion, so that we should have made a safe America the home and hope of a people who are truly American in heart and soul.

DANGER! URGENT ALERT! WHITE PEOPLE NEED TO AWAKEN TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THEIR SITUATION!

by Val Koinen
January 13, 2009

WAKE UP, WHITE MAN…

We White Americans are rapidly being dispossessed in this, the country our ancestors founded, pioneered, and built. More than dispossessed — we are being “genocided” out of existence. Our literal survival as a human (sub)species is in peril.

And the situation is even worse for White men. They, during the course of that dispossession, and thanks primarily to the media-controlling Jews and other aspects of organized Jewry, are being culturally emasculated — rendered irrelevant socially, politically, and even biologically (as appropriate mates for their White women).

Oh, sure, young White men still chase the girls, and thanks to some extent to the girls’ lax morals, also due in large part to Jewish media efforts; there is plenty of sex. But instead of getting married and fathering and supporting White babies in a wholesome family environment; all too many young White men spend most of their free hours (when not pursuing and having casual sex) doing “weed” and other drugs, wearing backward baseball caps and baggy pants, listening to “rap,” worshipping Negro sports figures, and being loud and obnoxious sports “fans” (in the true spirit of the word’s derivation from “fanatic”) while sitting in a “sports bar” or on the living room couch, swilling their beers. And that is no way for men to propagate a civilization or to hold that civilization and its underlying culture together.

Make no mistake — our situation is deadly serious — we are in dire straits, and things are getting worse by the day. Much worse, in a rapid and accelerating manner. It’s a “clear and present danger” if there ever was one.

White people are just barely reproducing themselves in America and worldwide (in some places the White birth rate isn’t even doing that well). Along with those low birth rates, our White women are increasingly mating with blacks and mestizos. Selfishly motivated birth control and abortions are all too common in White America these days, oftentimes so our women, having succumbed to Jewish-inspired “feminism,” can pursue careers in competition with their men rather than devoting and dedicating themselves to motherhood and homemaking. Quasi-legal non-White immigration is filling our cities and farming areas with members of the darker races; and illegal immigration by mestizos (alien invasion, actually), mostly from Mexico but also from the Caribbean, has brought tens of millions of those non-Whites into our country in recent years. In less than 40 years, White people will become just another minority in America.

“How can that be?,” you ask. “How could those things have happened?” Well, let me tell you, it’s not by accident, or mere happenstance. And it’s not a natural development or progression of some kind. It’s by design. It’s conscious, calculated, deliberate, and premeditated, and is being done with malicious intent.

The big questions are — “How is it possible that so many of our people either don’t know about this situation (or for some reason can’t see it)?” Or, worse, “how can so many of them see and understand it to some extent but just not care?”

The answer? As already mentioned above, we have been for so long, and so vigorously and relentlessly, propagandized and brainwashed by the “organized Jews” (mostly the Jewish-controlled media but also Jew-influenced schools and government).

Of course, the problems we face aren’t limited to the reproductive, race-mixing, and non-White immigration issues. There is also a good deal of largely Jew-inspired, destructive, and anti-White activity in such areas as: racial preferences for non-Whites; denigration of White history and culture when teaching our children (accompanied by false enhancement of non-White contributions to society); the “negrification” of popular culture, especially with regard to the exaggerated presence of Negroes on television and in movies, and the Negroid so-called “music” promoted and sold to our children; restrictions on expressions of racial pride and self-promoting associations and activities that apply only to Whites; punishment for so-called “hate speech that is, again, essentially targeted exclusively on White people (“thought-crime” punishment); and on and on to the point of absurdity. All these things are contributing significantly to the weakening, and eventual demise, of our people.

Check it out for yourself. Do your own research. You will see, if you are of even average intelligence and intellectually honest and not hopelessly consumed with bogus “white guilt” or self-hatred, that it is true “in spades,” as they say. Consider it a challenge.

I’m confident — you will soon realize that I am not just being an alarmist (at least not without good cause), and that I am telling you the truth. Then, if it matters at all to you, and for the sake of your children and grandchildren, join your racially aware and Jew-wise White kinsmen in the effort to take our country back! Do something! Something legal; something smart. Even if just a little something. At the very least, comport yourself as a responsible member of the greatest race of people that ever existed on this planet. And then take the time to learn the truth and then “talk the truth” whenever a good opportunity presents itself. But do something — because if you and a good many others of our people don’t, we as a “people” are doomed!

Fear Comes to the Russian Heartland It may be too late for Putin to avoid trouble in hundreds of rust-belt ‘monotowns.’

Fear Comes to the Russian Heartland

It may be too late for Putin to avoid trouble in hundreds of rust-belt ‘monotowns.’

Traces of the boom years linger in Magnitogorsk, a steel town of nearly 500,000 straddling the Ural River, about 900 miles east of Moscow. Boutiques, beauty salons and sushi bars remain open along grimy downtown avenues named for Lenin, Marx and Engels. A vast poster of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin—until recently the symbol of the nation’s prosperity and stability—covers the façade of a brand-new shopping mall, overshadowed by the Magnitogorsk Metallurgical Plant. But prosperity and stability are vanishing fast in Magnitogorsk. World steel prices have fallen by half since last summer. Four of the city’s eight giant steel smelters have been shut down, their workers placed on indefinite leave. In Magnitogorsk and other hard-hit cities across the Russian heartland, Putin is becoming a symbol of something else: the Kremlin’s failed promises.

While the global economy was pushing oil prices to new highs, Putin could do no wrong. Many Russians only shrugged as he crushed democratic opposition and strangled the independent media. Now serious unrest seems imminent despite those autocratic moves. “We are expecting mass unemployment and mass riots,” says Gennady Gudkov, a former KGB colonel and current chairman of the Duma’s Security Committee. “There will be not enough police to stop people’s protests by force.”

The biggest threat lies in cities like Magnitogorsk—company towns that are dominated by a single industry. Russia has an unusually high number of them: a quarter of the population is estimated to live and work in one of roughly 1,500 “monotowns,” as they are called. They’re relics of the old Soviet-era command economy, dating back to Stalin’s efforts to create an industrialized nation overnight. They are especially vulnerable in this frightening global downturn. “Our plant has been the main employer in this city for 80 years,” says MMK (the steel plant’s Russian initials) spokeswoman Elena Azovtseva. “When this plant stops, everything here stops.”

//

The fear is that the slowdown may have only begun. “Every second ruble earned in this city is made at the metal plant,” says Boris Shtelter, a consultant for small businesses in Magnitogorsk. “The plant also provides most of the heating, electricity and water supplies for the city.” Workers in hundreds of one-company towns are protesting job losses, inflation, government corruption and unpaid wages. The anger is spreading. In December, riot police had to be flown to Vladivostok, on Russia’s Pacific coast, to crush demonstrations against new taxes on imported cars. Within the past two weeks, thousands have taken to the streets in Moscow, Vladivostok, Novosibirsk, Volgograd and Ulan-Ude. In Vladivostok they stood, shouting anti-Putin slogans, in temperatures of close to zero Fahrenheit.

The Kremlin evidently sees worse trouble ahead. In December it shelved plans to retire 280,000 Army officers (part of a sweeping military reform). A long-expected reduction in the number of Interior Ministry troops was also abruptly canceled. At the same time, the Interior Ministry set up a special command center in Moscow, packed with surveillance equipment designed to deal with street unrest. The Duma, on Kremlin instructions, added seven new articles to the criminal code. One expands the definition of high treason and espionage to include advisory “and other” assistance to foreign and international organizations; another makes “participating in mass disorders” such as the one in Vladivostok a “crime against the state.” More sinister still, defendants accused of the new crimes can only be tried by a special court of three judges, not by a jury—a system reminiscent of the Stalin-era troika courts that sent millions to the Gulag. “This is a very dangerous development,” says Lyudmila Alexeyeva, a veteran human-rights activist and head of the independent Moscow Helsinki Group. “It returns the Russian justice system to the norms of the 1920s.”

Putin isn’t relying solely on brute force. The government has handed out more than $13.5 billion in soft loans to Russian companies since October. Last month Putin unveiled an additional $7.6 billion bailout plan aimed at nearly 300 of the biggest monotowns. Major beneficiaries of both handouts include oligarchs like MMK’s owner, Victor Rashnikov, and Russia’s current No. 1 billionaire, Oleg Deripaska, owner of the AvtoVaz auto plant. But those efforts are fatally mired in corruption, says Gudkov. “We already hear angry towns complaining that bureaucrats are demanding kickbacks in exchange for aid,” he says. “In a country where everybody steals, the government should not be pumping cash into the monotowns.” Instead, he suggests, the funds would be more wisely spent on tax cuts and cheaper credit.

The question may be academic. Moscow’s rescue plans depend on money saved up from the boom years, but there’s too little left to go around. The ruble has lost more than 25 percent of its value since August, while foreign-currency reserves have plunged from more than $700 billion to less than $400 billion. The country’s 2009 budget would balance if oil were $70 a barrel, but the current price is closer to half that. Worse, the government is now reallocating some $40 billion of the bailout money to save hundreds of banks from failure—and even then, the Central Bank says up to half the country’s private banks will be gone in a year’s time. Though most small depositors’ savings are government guaranteed, many businesses are set to suffer, as will confidence in the banking system in general.

It may be too late anyway to avoid real trouble in the monotowns. The government is planning to raise utility prices for all homeowners this year. A similar increase was the cause of the last serious round of social unrest in 2005. This past November the only two industries in Verkhny Ufalei, a town of 70,000 not far from Magnitogorsk, stopped paying salaries. Workers who protested were told they were lucky to have jobs at all. “All it takes is one spark for the entire Urals to catch fire,” says Magnitogorsk labor activist Sergei Vasilyev. Yuri Babylyev, an activist with the Magnitogorsk City Organization of Workers, reports that the authorities’ indifference to the plight of laid-off workers is fueling resentment and driving more and more onto the streets. “The plant’s managers treat us like domestic animals, like slaves,” he says. “Their corruption is pushing us toward massive public protests.” In a recent poll by the Moscow-based Levada Center, 20 percent said they were ready to join public protests in the coming months. “The time has come for us to act,” says Vasilyev. “Our employers force us to sign papers saying that we quit our jobs voluntarily. The courts are corrupt, and nobody defends workers’ rights. Putin cares for oligarchs and their pockets more than for us.”

Economists have warned for decades that Russia’s system of company towns was dangerously vulnerable to market fluctuations. Even so, the Kremlin failed to help them diversify while times were flush. Some residents worried that the boom wouldn’t last. Bulat Stolyarov, director of the Institute of Regional Policy in Moscow, says leaders in several monotowns, including Chelyabinsk, Krasnoyarsk and Magnitogorsk, sought permission from the central government to use budget surpluses to create citywide stabilization funds—but Moscow refused.

//

Sometimes even ordinary people could sense how fragile their prosperity was. Vitaly Polishuk, a window-frame maker in Magnitogorsk, says he consciously took comfort from the sight of the steel mills’ smoke-belching chimneys. “We could see our breadwinner breathing,” he recalls. Now half the chimneys in town have fallen idle. “When the smoke disappears, fear comes,” says Polishuk. It’s coming to millions across Russia who face unemployment and poverty. And it’s coming to the Kremlin, which fears that all its troops and rescue funds won’t be enough to control angry people who believed in their leaders’ promises of wealth, national greatness and political stability.

© 2009

The Kremlin Vigilantes

As anti-immigrant groups grow more violent, they get more explicit support from Russian authorities.

By Owen Matthews and Anna Nemtsova | NEWSWEEK

One day this winter a trainload of migrant workers from Uzbekistan arrived at a railway station in Moscow where they were greeted by a crowd of 100 people waving placards that said things like ILLEGAL ONES, GET OUT OF HERE! and AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IS A THIEF. Behind the demonstration: the Young Guard—the youth group of the ruling United Russia party—which says its mission is to help fulfill Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s plan to rein in the number of migrant laborers coming into the country. “The party is responsible for executive and legislative policy,” says Andrei Tatarinov, deputy director of the Young Guards’ central headquarters, “and we are responsible for taking that policy onto the streets.”

Such a policy represents a big turnaround for Russia, which until very recently has officially welcomed immigrants if not with open arms than at least with grudging acceptance. Since the fall of the Soviet Union there have been no restrictions on travel between most of the former Soviet states, though the number of work permits issued has varied from year to year. Russia’s massive building and retail boom fueled by years of steady economic expansion created millions of largely semiskilled jobs that workers from Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Moldova and Kyrgyzstan rushed to fill, with official blessing. As a result, Russia last year was the second biggest immigrant destination in the world (after the United States), with nearly 7 million migrants, 2.8 million legal and about 4 million illegal.

But as the Russian economy craters, its immigrant community looks set to suffer most as a backlash against foreigners—Russia’s time-honored scapegoats from tsarist times—gathers pace. Over the last year, the number of attacks on foreigners has risen sharply. Sova, a Moscow NGO that monitors hate crimes, reports that 96 foreigners were killed and 410 wounded as a result of racist attacks in 2008—an increase of nearly a third over the year before. Aleksandr Verkhovsky, head of Sova, says racist gangs of armed vigilantes are “walking the streets, their faces wrapped in black scarves” and assaulting and terrorizing immigrants. The police do virtually nothing to stop them, he says.

// <![CDATA[//

Almost every illegal immigrant has a horror story to tell. Boria Zhan, a 26-year-old from Tajikistan, says he spent 18 days last fall building a dacha for a rich Moscow family 150 kilometers out of town. When he asked for the promised 20,000 rubles ($843), his employer threw him out on the road penniless. In a spate of particularly horrific incidents, the head of a Tajik laborer was found in a Moscow trash bin in December, and in October a gruesome video of two immigrants being decapitated by masked Russian-speaking men began circulating on ultranationalist Web sites. Alberto Andreani, who heads the European Union-funded Prevention of Human Trafficking Project in St. Petersburg, estimates that 300 people become victims of forced labor every day in Russia.

Official Russian policy toward immigrants has also lurched toward anti-immigrant populism. With unemployment expected to soar as the economic crisis takes hold, Putin announced in December that quotas would be cut in half in 2009, from 4 million to 2 million permits a year. Russia’s State Organization for Migration complains that corrupt police and officials are now routinely shaking down foreign workers. “‘Russia is only for Russians’—that’s what I hear more and more from nationalist movements, even from members of the government,” says Igor Yeleferenko, leader of the United Russia faction in the Moscow city Duma.

A key bellwether of official anti-immigrant sentiment is the government’s attitude toward the ultranationalist Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI). In the summer of 2007, police arrested DPNI thugs after they roughed up foreigners in St. Petersburg. But last summer the DPNI was allowed to stage several marches in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Now the movement’s leader, Aleksandr Belov, boasts that “finally, we have been heard—the ruling party supports our concerns about the number of illegal immigrants in Russia.” Like members of the Young Guard, he now says he plans to train vigilante groups to “help the police” by seeking out illegals.

Aside from the human toll, there is an economic cost. Last year immigrant labor comprised 6 percent of Russian output, and demand for foreign labor is only expected to grow. Russia’s working population has been falling steadily as a result of soaring death rates and disastrously low birthrates through the late 1980s and ’90s. The State Statistics Service estimates that the country’s workforce will fall by some 8 million people over the next seven years. In August, President Dmitry Medvedev was talking of Russia’s “labor famine.” “This problem is greater than any other facing us over the next 10 years,” says economist Yevgeny Yasin.

But the damage is already done. Research last year by the International Organization for Migration showed that 76 percent of immigrants had no intention of staying in Russia for more than a few years, or bringing their families there. In the hostile new climate, the exodus of workers is likely to be as dramatic as their influx—and those remaining are likely to reap more of Russia’s anger at growing unemployment and poverty.

//

© 2009