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

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!

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??

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!

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.]