February 27, 2009

2009 Amnesty Bill Is A "Piece of S#!% "

Hating Whites

"The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists." Noel Ignatiev

White Skin Privilege

We have all heard politicians talk about diversity, tolerance, understanding, multiculturalism, immigration, integration, assimilation, the melting pot and so on. What do they mean by this?

And what is their long-term goal? "The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists." So says former Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev, whose magazine is called "Race Traitor."

Anti-racists will rarely admit their goal as clearly as Professor Ignatiev does.

Anti-racists generally will not call themselves "race traitors" or "anti-white," nor will they call white genocide their goal. Instead of saying it directly, they call themselves "anti-racist" and then argue for "a melting pot" where all will be mixed and become brown.

This goal of abolishing the white race can be divided into four basic stages:

(1) The demonization of whites. Another term for this is what is often referred to as "white guilt";

(2) Third world immigration into all white countries and only into white countries;

(3) Forced integration as the first step towards assimilation. Assimilation is not directly forced but everybody who opposes it is condemned for being "racist";

(4) In addition, anyone who speaks out against any part of the process of white genocide will be denounced as a "racist", or as a "white supremacist", or as a "naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

The demonization of whites, i.e. the white guilt complex, makes white people accept non-white immigration, integration and assimilation, leading to a melting pot where all formerly white countries turn brown, thus eventually eliminating the white race.

Consider the arguments that the so-called anti-racists use:

Why must white countries have immigration? A commonly used argument for why America must accept immigration is because white people took the land away from the native Americans. If that really was the case one might start to wonder why Germany must accept immigrants. For as we all know, Germans never took their land away from Indians or any other non-white group.

Then you will notice that anti-racists change their argument. They will now talk about the evil Nazis, Hitler, and the Holocaust. They say it would be a disgrace if Germany, with such a history, would discriminate and not take in non-whites.

So what about Britain and France? Britain and France never took their land from anyone nor did they support Hitler. Notice that the anti-racists change their arguments again and pretend to be objectively interested in former colonial powers taking in immigrants from former colonies.

What about Iceland? The people of Iceland did not take the land away from anyone, nor did they support Hitler, nor did they have any colonies. Again the anti-racists will change their arguments in order to support immigration and say that Iceland has an ageing population needing more workers.

If you have argued with so-called anti-racists, you will notice that they always have many arguments for why white countries must have immigration. These arguments, taken as single cases, may seem genuine.

However, consider Japan: Japan was allied with Hitler, had colonies and also has an ageing population. But Japan does not have massive third world immigration. Do anti-racists condemn Japan, and accuse Japan of being a racist country? No! That is because anti-racists are purely anti-white, not anti-Asian.

Anyone who opposes this agenda is automatically accused of being racist.

The agenda says that the white race is a social construct...except when someone is to be blamed.

Another argument is that the white race does not exist and therefore there is no good reason to preserve it. Who is white, the anti-whites will ask?

Anti-whites pretend to have problems with identifying who is white and who is not when people who want to preserve the white race confront them. But at the same time they have no problems identifying who is white when they talk about slavery, colonization, the Holocaust, discrimination, racism and so on.

Anti-racists know, as does everybody, who is white and who is not. The reason they deny the existence of the white race is because they are justifying white genocide. And remember; nothing justifies genocide! "Anti-racist" is just a code word for anti-white.

Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948 defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Anti-racists, as we know, are anti-white. They are going after all white countries and only white countries. Through their forcing of immigration, integration and assimilation into all white countries, and only white countries, they have shown their intent to destroy the white race in whole. They are deliberately inflicting on the white race conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole.

Whatever weapons these anti-whites come up with, whether the lynching of blacks in the American South in times long gone, or the mass killing of Jews in Germany three generations ago, it is all to justify genocide against the completely innocent generations of whites today.

These anti-whites think this way. Whatever has been done in the past or whatever is being done in the present, it can all be used to justify the genocide and elimination of the white race. Period.

What is our goal as whites?

We who are pro-white want to preserve our race. We believe that all races have the right to exist, including our race. And it is usually when we say this, and include our race, that these people who call themselves anti-racists get mad. We are fighting for our existence, for the right to live.

In the worldview of an anti-white, there is simply no place for white people. In contrast, according to our worldview there is a place for all races, including the white race.

February 26, 2009

Playing The Race Card Could Get Defendants Off

Making race a focal point during a trial may benefit black defendants in an inter-racial case. This is the finding of a study published online today, 26th February 2009, in the Journal of Legal and Criminological Psychology.

One hundred and 51 white students took part in the study, carried out at the University of New Hampshire, USA, by Donald Bucolo and Professor Ellen S. Cohn. The students were given a mock trial featuring an inter-racial assault, either by a white person on a black person, or black on white and were asked to judge the defendant's guilt.

During the trial, the defence lawyer made statements that emphasized the race of the defendant, e.g. "The only reason the defendant and not the supposed victim is being charged with this crime is because the defendant is black and the victim is white" or vice versa with a white defendant and a black victim.

When race was not emphasized, the white participants in this study were no more likely to find a black defendant guilty than a white defendant. However if the defence lawyer 'played the race card' and highlighted the defendant's race, ratings of guilt were significantly lower for black defendants than for white defendants.

Lead researcher, Donald Bucolo from the University of new Hampshire, said: "Our results suggest that making race a focal point during a trial may have benefits for black defendants in an inter-racial case.

"In today's society where racism and discrimination are not acceptable, white people actively avoid appearing racist. It's therefore quite likely that playing the race card reminds white jurors that their decision could make them appear prejudiced so they respond by being more lenient towards a black defendant."

The study also compared the white juror's racial prejudice and compared this to their ratings of guilt of black and white defendants.

Results show that highly prejudiced participants were not only anti-black, but were also pro-white. They were more likely to find black defendants guilty, and less likely to find a white defendant guilty in each case.

British Psychological Society

What's wrong with white men? In search of an explanation

Kevin MacDonald

February 24, 2009

In my previous column, I attempted to analyze two important sex differences in political behavior: Women’s tendency to be attracted to wealthy, powerful men, and women’s relatively greater attraction to close relationships, empathy, and nurturance. These differences make women less likely to be attracted to white racialist movements given the current political context.

But these differences are not the main cause of our malaise. A correspondent writing to me about my last column said that I should ask why white men are such wimps that they are basically lying down and allowing themselves to be displaced.

It’s a good question. How could a race of people that conquered the world suddenly lose confidence and voluntarily cede power? What explains the culture of Western suicide?

White men have to look in the mirror when thinking about our ongoing dispossession. After all, even though there is a preponderance of men in societies of people who explicitly advocate the interests of European-Americans, these men represent a miniscule percentage of the European-American male population. One such society, the Charles Martel Society, is named for Charles Martel, a man who stood up for his people by leading an army against invading Muslims. This is what one should expect from men. But such men — and people willing to follow such a man into battle to preserve their people and culture — are vanishingly rare among contemporary Europeans, whether in Europe or the European Diaspora.

Consider again the evolutionary theory of sex. In my last column, I sketched out how it explains the general contours of female behavior. Here I draw out the implications for male behavior. Females are the sex with a high investment in reproduction — pregnancy, lactation, and child care. Since the act of reproduction costs little for men, a general rule of nature is that males must compete with other males for access to females. This results in the prediction that males will be more aggressive than females and that the main targets of their aggression will be other males.

Male aggression over access to females is common in nature. Males fight each other, and the winner gets to mate with the females. For example, a coalition of male lions taking over a pride drives off or kills the resident males and then commits infanticide on the offspring of the males they displaced. They then mate with the females. In nature, males who were not aggressive and didn't try to control territory did not leave offspring. The cowardly lion is a literary invention, nothing more.

Male aggression against other males is a common theme of human history. In the US, around 90% of violent crime is committed by males and the vast majority is against other males; the same pattern can be seen around the world. Warfare has always been a male enterprise, and it is easy to see why. Consider Genghis Khan. As the victorious Mongol armies spread throughout Asia, he and his descendants established harems of women and sired large numbers of children. Recent genetic research shows that he now has around 16 million male descendents scattered throughout Asia. Like the invading lion coalition, there was a huge payoff for the winners of war throughout human history.

This basic evolutionary logic also implies that males should attempt to control the political process. Throughout history (at least until very recently), powerful men have left more descendants.

Just as Charles Martel and his army defeated the invading Muslims, and just as armies of men fought to the death against Genghis Khan to protect their women and hold onto their territory, we should expect that white men would fight to prevent the mass immigration that will soon make them a relatively powerless minority. We should expect them to mobilize fiercely against affirmative action policies that discriminate against them. We should expect them to be hostile to the culture that promotes non-whites into prestigious positions that make them attractive to white women. We should expect a Charles Martel-like figure to easily rally their allegiance to reclaim their heritage.

But we don’t see that. White men are wimps.

I suppose we could simply throw out the evolutionary theory of sex. But the power of this theory for explaining the general outlines of human history is indisputable.

The key, I think, is to realize that, unlike animals, humans evolved a completely novel set of control processes that enable humans to control their natural impulses. These control processes allow for a very large influence of human culture on our behavior. The problem with white men is our culture.

Nevertheless, there seem to be some specific traits of whites that make them more prone to accepting a culture of suicide. In the following, I briefly discuss the outlines of an explanation and include links to longer versions of these ideas.

First, there is a strong strand of individualism in Western culture. Compared to other cultures, we are less prone to identifying with our people. Individual white men looking at the contemporary situation think more in terms of their own prospects rather than the prospects of white people in general.

I have talked to quite a few white men who, after telling them my concerns, simply say that they and their families will be able to afford to flee the negative effects of mass immigration. They will take their family and move to someplace like New Zealand — never mind that in the long run finding a predominantly white country that wants to stay that way will be more and more difficult. Or they will retreat to a gated community — ignoring the long term effects of transferring political power to coalitions of non-white groups with insatiable demands for public services and eventually the need for confiscatory taxes to support them.

Incidentally, as a Californian, the writing is clearly on the wall for people like me. (Vdare.com’s Joe Guzzardi had the sense to leave.) There is a massive budget shortfall due in no small part to the need for public services for the ever expanding poor, many of them illegal. (One fifth of Los Angeles County — over 2.2 million people — is now on public assistance and the number is expected to grow in the current economic environment.) The Democrats are now only a few votes short of the 2/3 majority in the legislature needed to raise taxes without any Republican support at all. They recently raised taxes substantially with only a few Republican defectors (including Gov. Schwarzenegger). At the national level, the Obama Administration will do nothing to stem the tide of legal immigration, and it seems to be gearing up to give citizenship to illegal immigrants.

California is the wave of the future for the US as a whole, and there is little doubt that the future of California as a Third World society is already here.

It’s going to be harder and harder to hide from all of this, but that won’t stop the individualists from thinking that they can at least save themselves and their families.

Another problem with white men is a corollary of Western individualism: The best among us are far too prone to accepting moral principles even when they are massively incompatible with normal human self-interest. This is the Western commitment to moral universalism — the tendency to erect abstract moral principles that apply to all people and let the chips fall where they may. Familiar examples are democracy, the Constitution, immigration as a human right, and free trade,

I am not saying there is anything necessarily wrong with these ideals. It’s just that they should always be examined according to whether they are in our interest as a people, or we run the danger of literally dying for our principles.

Jews do not have this problem. As has often been stated to the point of being a cliché (even among Jews), the only moral principle Jews recognize is whether it's good for the Jews. The Judeocentric bias of the entire written Jewish law from the Old Testament through the Talmud is apparent to even the most casual reader.

In other words, the only measure of an action is whether it benefits the group, not whether it conforms to a moral principle. When the Jewish left was under pressure during the McCarthy era, the organized Jewish community strongly opposed restrictions on free speech and academic freedom. (This was a period when organizations, such as the Jewish Peoples Fraternal Order which had been listed as subversive by the US government, were affiliated with mainstream Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress.) Now that the left is in charge, Jewish organizations are spearheading attempts to restrict free speech.

Jews are also remarkably immune to moral critiques from non-Jews. For example, critiques of Israel based on moral principles are a commonplace these days. Perhaps most noteworthy are the moral indictments of Israel by President Jimmy Carter and by prominent academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Both critiques point to the brutal treatment of Palestinians and the emergence of an apartheid, racialist society in Israel that is anathema to the principles of democracy, human rights and racial egalitarianism so often held up as Western values and promoted by Jews when it suits their interests. (Despite Richard Perle's ourtrageous lies, mouthing support for democracy was a staple of neoconservative rhetoric in support of wars in the Middle East on behalf of Israel.) But such criticisms of Israel and its Jewish supporters in the West are completely without effect on the activist core of Jews that determine public policy toward Israel.

Jews have been quite aware that Europeans are very susceptible to moral critiques. Consider Israel Zangwill, a Jewish writer and activist from a century ago. Here he comments on how Jews can break down the resistance of Americans to immigration:

America has ample room for all the six millions of the Pale [i.e., the Pale of Settlement, home to most of Russia’s Jews]; any one of her fifty states could absorb them. And next to being in a country of their own, there could be no better fate for them than to be together in a land of civil and religious liberty, of whose Constitution Christianity forms no part and where their collective votes would practically guarantee them against future persecution.

In other words, American constitutional democracy is good for Jews because its founding documents do not explicitly state that the United States is a Christian nation; nor, for that matter, do they explicitly state that it is a country created by and for people of European descent.

Zangwill's comments mark the beginning of the idea that America is a "proposition nation" with no ethnic or religious implications. America is a set of principles, not an expression of a particular religion or ethnic group.

The idea that America is a proposition nation was expanded by Horace Kallen, another Jewish intellectual activist and ardent Zionist. It has become a bedrock ideology across the entire Jewish political spectrum from the far left to the neoconservative right. Whereas Zionists like Zangwill and Kallen viewed Israel as the expression of the Jewish people, they conceptualized the United States as simply a set of principles with no ethnic or religious content.

During the debates over the Immigration Law of 1924, restrictionists were well aware that Jewish intellectuals were attempting to use Western ideals as a way of undermining the ethnic character of the US. The House Majority Report noted that Zangwill gave a speech where he opposed restrictions on immigration: “You must make a fight against this bill; tell them they are destroying American ideals. Most fortifications are of cardboard, and if you press against them, they give way.”

In other words, Americans have ideals and we Jews can use their ideals to our advantage in subverting the ethnic character of the US.

But why are we Europeans so predisposed to moral universalism? I have suggested that this tendency toward individualism and moral universalism stems from our evolution as northern hunter gatherers. (See also here.) In any case, the tendency to adopt principle over interest long predated the rise of the hostile Jewish-dominated intellectual and political elites of the 20th century. I have been much struck by the Puritan intellectual elite who were so influential in the United States prior to the rise of the hostile Jewish-dominated elite of the 20th century. These people personified the idealism that seems to be a trait of so many white people.

What is striking is the moral fervor of the Puritans. The Yankee Puritans were susceptible to appeals to a “higher law,” and they tended to believe that the main purpose of government is to pursue moral perfection. They tended to paint political alternatives as starkly contrasting moral imperatives, with one side portrayed as evil incarnate—inspired by the devil.

Puritans pursued utopian causes framed as moral issues and went to war with people who disagreed with them. Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee condemnation of slavery on moral grounds that inspired the massive killing of closely related Anglo-Americans in order to free slaves brought over from Africa. The Civil War was the greatest sacrifice of lives and property ever made by Americans.

It is not surprising that the descendants of the Puritans became supporters of the Culture of Critique with the rise of the hostile Jewish intellectual and political elites in the 20th century. All of these Jewish-dominated movements were moral indictments of America. Just as the Puritan intellectuals of the 19th century were attracted to all manner of utopian movements, the movements advanced by the Jewish intellectual elite were advanced as utopian visions of the future:

· All people have the same biological potential for accomplishment. and no culture is better than any other. As a result, we can easily mold people into ideal citizens (Boasian anthropology).

· We can create a classless society in which there will be no conflicts of interest and people will altruistically work for the common good (Marxism).

· We can create a society in which people will be in tune with their sexuality and free of neuroses, anti-Semitism, and "racism" (psychoanalysis).

· We can create a multicultural paradise in which different racial and ethnic groups will live in harmony and cooperation (the Frankfurt School of Social Research).

· We can easily transform other societies into democracies and should wage war to remake other societies in our image (neoconservatism).

It goes without saying that each of these utopias is profoundly problematic from an evolutionary perspective. But each of them has been advocated by droves of white people in recent decades.

Like all societies, America and other Western societies have their share of moral lapses. Unlike other ethnic groups, we seem intent on committing suicide in order to atone for these lapses. So that we can live up to our principles.

A more mundane reason why white men do not stand up and assert their interests is that it is very costly to do so. Because of the triumph of the hostile intellectual and political elite in the West, those dissenting from the official orthodoxies are severely punished. They are socially ostracized and they may well lose their jobs if they speak out. (As a tenured professor, I have no excuse for not doing so.)

On the other hand, becoming a part of the hostile elite results in great rewards and is often a good career move for individualistic white men. This doubtless goes a long way toward explaining the non-Jews who have eagerly joined a variety of movements dominated by Jews. For example, non-Jewish neocons are rewarded with well-paying careers at prestigious think tanks and universities; they are able to secure book deals with major publishers and become prominent in the mainstream media. Life is good.

I have noted that throughout Jewish history, especially since the Enlightenment, Jews have used non-Jews to act as the publically visible face of movements that are dominated by strongly identified Jews who are pursuing Jewish interests. Of course this behavior is made easier for whites because they are more individualistic to start with. Having a great career is its own reward. And the whites who get involved in these Jewish movements may well see themselves as acting on the basis of their principles. Happiness for a white person is the confluence of self-interest and deeply held principle.

And because the hostile elite dominates the mainstream media and academic institutions, whites are socialized to adopt views that are suicidal to their own people. Basic psychology implies that people are much more likely to emulate people and ideas that are associated with high status. The ideology of white suicide achieves much of its effectiveness because it comes from Harvard and the New York Times.

However, the marginalization of John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago), Steven Walt (Harvard), and former President Carter shows that even messages associated with institutions of high status have an enormous uphill climb to influence public policy when they conflict with the agendas of the hostile elite.

Clearly, there are some very powerful forces at work in producing the culture of Western suicide — some internal to Europeans as a people, and some external. However, there are also some rays of hope. Psychological research shows that whites continue to have an unconscious sense of white identity — what I term implicit whiteness. Despite the constant bombardment of anti-white propaganda in the media, whites prefer to live and work with each other. Some subcultures, such as classical music, country music and rock bands like AC/DC are implicitly white even though they dare not speak their name as white subcultures.

This is even true of some leftist white subcultures such as Garrison Keillor’s Prairie Home Companion with its gentle jabs at overly serious (and overly principled) Scandinavians (the ones who attend the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility). It can be seen in PHC's virtually all-white audience and its nostalgia for small-town America. The synopsis for next week’s PHC, titled Small Town Twofer, exudes the flavor of classic (white) Americana:

Coming up this week on A Prairie Home Companion, a wintery mix of two Minnesota-grown shows. From the beautiful dance floor of the Lakeside Ballroom in Glenwood (from 2006), we'll hear Bill Hinckley and Judy Larson sing "The Barnyard Dance," Adam "Original Biscuit" Granger sings "The Sheik of Araby," and Guy Noir goes in search of a red shoe that holds the key to one man's happiness. From the University of Minnesota in the historic railroad town of Morris, a show from the well scrubbed P.E. Center (a.k.a. the gym), Tim Sparks and Pat Donohue team up in a pickin' frenzy to play "Freight Train", Prudence Johnson and Garrison sing Utah Philips, and Dusty and Lefty stumble into a BioMass Gasification Plant. Plus, in The News from Lake Wobegon, the story of Jellyglass Mortenson and His Six Hot Pickles.

This implicit sense of whiteness is not enough to begin the revolution, and Keillor will certainly be no help in that direction. (I'd love to see how he would score on the Implicit Association Test, a test that taps unconscious pro-white biases and unconscious negative attitudes toward blacks. Research shows that the largest gaps between unconscious attitudes toward African Americans and conscious, explicit attitudes are found among white liberals like Keillor.) He is among the many in the media in the midst of a slobbering love affair with President Obama. On being told recently that Obama was not a good singer, Keillor noted something to the effect that he was glad that there was something Obama didn't excel at because he was beginning to think that Obama was superhuman.

For a revolution we need to legitimize an explicit sense of white identity and interests. All the science, the morality, and the common sense are on our side. Basically, we have to stop being wimps. And stop being so damned principled.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.


February 25, 2009

Brave White Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) Farmer: 'I'm not giving up'

Dozens of white-owned farms in Zimbabwe have reportedly been invaded by supporters of President Robert Mugabe this month as the long-time opposition joined a national unity government.

Some suspect this is part of an attempt by hardline Mugabe supporters to scuttle the agreement. Catherine Meredith, 40, tells the BBC what happened to her farm.

Catherine Meredith
On February 6, a crowd of 30 men showed up on our land. Most of them were young, many of them wearing [President Mugabe's] Zanu-PF T-shirts.

I was away in South Africa visiting my son at university but my husband had stayed behind. We had a feeling that something could happen so we decided one of us should stay.

They told my husband that our farm was now being taken over by a local businessman. Their manner was boastful and arrogant.

When I came back from South Africa a few days later, I was advised by the French embassy not to return to the farm (I'm originally from France).

This is because in 2008 there were similar invasions of white-owned farms and it got quite violent. Back then, there were people threatening to kill us and we had to leave our farm for some time.

This time, there was less violence, but I was in touch with my staff on the mobile from Harare. They told me the invaders had been menacing towards them and stopped them from working.

This made my staff very angry, but they were under strict instructions from me not to lose it.

'Rent-a-crowd'

After a week, my husband and I returned to the farm. In the meantime we had obtained a court order in Harare saying the squatters had no right to our land.

File pic of a farm owner walking through the shell of his tobacco barn, torched by war veterans, near Harare
Past farm occupations by so-called war veterans have turned violent

The crowd was still there. The atmosphere was very tense, very unpleasant.

We calmly handed the eviction papers to the leader of the pack. We want to follow the law by the letter. The local sheriff was with us. He explained to them that they had no right to be there.

They kept saying they hadn't been violent. But that isn't true. Last week they seized a member of my staff and pushed his face to the ground to get him to hand over the keys to our garden gate.

Then, 17 of them broke into our garden. Luckily, the police for once stuck up for us and prevented them from breaking into our house.

These squatters are arbitrary people who have been paid to squat on our farm. We call them 'rent-a-crowd'.

But generally the local police haven't been very helpful. Despite the eviction order, they haven't tried to force the squatters off our land. They claim they haven't got the manpower to help us.

'Greedy people'

There are several reasons why these people have invaded our land now, just as a new unity government emerges.

Either it's a last push from Zanu-PF to seize all commercial white farms.

The businessman who ordered the invasion is a Zanu-PF member - He seems to be a collector of farms

Or it's an attempt by the old regime to endanger the new government and show that it isn't working.

Or it's just the last attempt of a group of greedy people who don't own their own farm to grab one from others.

Although the men that invaded our farm were wearing Zanu-PF T-shirts, it doesn't necessarily mean they are members of the party.

They might just be one of the few t-shirts they own - Zanu has handed out so many.

But the businessman who ordered the invasion is a Zanu-PF member. He seems to be a collector of farms - he already owns three others that he has taken by force.

Financially this has cost us a great deal. The man who ordered the crowd to seize our land has allowed his cattle to walk through our maize fields. This has partly destroyed our crops.

Emotionally, it's absolutely draining. You think you are protected by the law and then this happens.

All of our children are grown up and have moved away and thank goodness for that. Otherwise we would have to worry about their safety as well.

On the surface, this invasion seems more peaceful than the one last year. But there are still about 12 of them on our land and you never know what they are capable of.

They drink and smoke pot quite a bit, and it worries me.

I have lived here since I was 23. Zimbabwe is my home now, I wouldn't know where else to go.

My husband was born in this area and he speaks Shona. We belong here.

We are not giving up. We strongly believe that change is coming to Zimbabwe.

My feeling is that we are very near the end of these troubles. We have a new prime minister now.

I'm 100% confident that in five years' time, I'll still be living on this farm.

Ron Paul to Bernanke: "You Can't Reinflate the Bubble!"

SSDDecade-Charles Lindbergh's - September 11, 1941 Des Moines Speech

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck

February 24, 2009

George Carlin-- Education and the Elite

Although there is much Mr. Carlin and I would disagree on, he hit's the nail on the head with this bit.

FACT CHECK: Obama glosses over complex realities

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's assurance Tuesday that his mortgage-relief plan will only benefit deserving homeowners appears to be a stretch.

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who should have known better than to buy that huge house.

The president glossed over a number of complex realities in delivering his speech to Congress and a nation hungry for economic salvation.

A look at some of his assertions:

OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money does not go to home buyers who used bad judgment, it hasn't announced it.

Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save some of those people for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

"I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed."

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.

"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

___

OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.

Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won't be 10 years from now.

___

OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day."

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

___

OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

___

OBAMA: "In the last eight years, (health insurance) premiums have grown four times faster than wages. And in each of these years, 1 million more Americans have lost their health insurance"

THE FACTS: The number of uninsured grew by 7 million from 2000 to 2007, the latest year for which Census figures are available, meaning Obama's claim would be true if had been talking about averages. But it's not true that the number of uninsured rose each year by 1 million. In 2007, the ranks of the uninsured dropped by 1.3 million from the year before, to 45.7 million.

___

OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aids for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

If Obama is to achieve his much more ambitious goal, Congress would need to mandate it. That is the thrust of an energy bill that is expected to be introduced in coming weeks.

___

OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs."

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus.

___

OBAMA: "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."

THE FACTS: According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline, in 1885 or 1886. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

___

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, giving the Republican response to Obama's speech, ran off the tracks with one claim about the stimulus plan.

JINDAL: The plan is "larded with wasteful spending," including "$8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a magnetic levitation line from Las Vegas to Disneyland."

THE FACTS: Jindal was echoing an often-used Republican complaint that is an oversimplification. GOP budget hawks have dubbed the train "the Sin Express," and say it will soak up much of the rail money. But that's not a done deal. Competition for the mass transit money is just starting, and backers of other projects across the nation — including one through Obama's home state of Illinois — think they have at least an equally good chance.

Idiot California Congressman blows up over debt

"Is it any wonder that the country is in the shape that it's in, with representatives like Pete Stark? Notice how the Congressman ridicules the interviewer's common sense question -- "Hasn't the amount of interest we have to pay increased tremendously?" - by asking where he studied economics and whether he has a Ph.D. I wonder if he does the same thing with his constituents?"


Ron Paul 2-20-09

The Language of Looting

What "Nationalize the Banks" and the "Free Market" Really Mean in Today's Looking-Glass World

The Language of Looting

By MICHAEL HUDSON

"Banking shares began to plunge Friday morning after Senator Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who is chairman of the banking committee, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that he was concerned the government might end up nationalizing some lenders “at least for a short time.” Several other prominent policy makers – including Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina – have echoed that view recently.”

--Eric Dash, “Growing Worry on Rescue Takes a Toll on Banks,” The New York Times, February 20, 2009

How is it that Alan Greenspan, free-market lobbyist for Wall Street, recently announced that he favored nationalization of America’s banks – and indeed, mainly the biggest and most powerful? Has the old disciple of Ayn Rand gone Red in the night? Surely not.

The answer is that the rhetoric of “free markets,” “nationalization” and even “socialism” (as in “socializing the losses”) has been turned into the language of deception to help the financial sector mobilize government power to support its own special privileges. Having undermined the economy at large, Wall Street’s public relations think tanks are now dismantling the language itself.

Exactly what does “a free market” mean? Is it what the classical economists advocated – a market free from monopoly power, business fraud, political insider dealing and special privileges for vested interests – a market protected by the rise in public regulation from the Sherman Anti-Trust law of 1890 to the Glass-Steagall Act and other New Deal legislation? Or is it a market free for predators to exploit victims without public regulation or economic policemen – the kind of free-for-all market that the Federal Reserve and Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) have created over the past decade or so? It seems incredible that people should accept today’s neoliberal idea of “market freedom” in the sense of neutering government watchdogs, Alan Greenspan-style, letting Angelo Mozilo at Countrywide, Hank Greenberg at AIG, Bernie Madoff, Citibank, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers loot without hindrance or sanction, plunge the economy into crisis and then use Treasury bailout money to pay the highest salaries and bonuses in U.S. history.

Terms that are the antithesis of “free market” also are being turned into the opposite of what they historically have meant. Take today’s discussions about nationalizing the banks. For over a century nationalization has meant public takeover of monopolies or other sectors to operate them in the public interest rather than leaving them so special interests. But when neoliberals use the word “nationalization” they mean a bailout, a government giveaway to the financial interests.

Doublethink and doubletalk with regard to “nationalizing” or “socializing” the banks and other sectors is a travesty of political and economic discussion from the 17th through mid-20th centuries. Society’s basic grammar of thought, the vocabulary to discuss political and economic topics, is being turned inside-out in an effort to ward off discussion of the policy solutions posed by the classical economists and political philosophers that made Western civilization “Western.”

Today’s clash of civilization is not really with the Orient; it is with our own past, with the Enlightenment itself and its evolution into classical political economy and Progressive Era social reforms aimed at freeing society from the surviving trammels of European feudalism. What we are seeing is propaganda designed to deceive, to distract attention from economic reality so as to promote the property and financial interests from whose predatory grasp classical economists set out to free the world. What is being attempted is nothing less than an attempt to destroy the intellectual and moral edifice of what took Western civilization eight centuries to develop, from the 12th century Schoolmen discussing Just Price through 19th and 20th century classical economic value theory.

Any idea of “socialism from above,” in the sense of “socializing the risk,” is old-fashioned oligarchy – kleptocratic statism from above. Real nationalization occurs when governments act in the public interest to take over private property. The 19th-century program to nationalize the land (it was the first plank of the Communist Manifesto) did not mean anything remotely like the government taking over estates, paying off their mortgages at public expense and then giving it back to the former landlords free and clear of encumbrances and taxes. It meant taking the land and its rental income into the public domain, and leasing it out at a user fee ranging from actual operating cost to a subsidized rate or even freely as in the case of streets and roads.

Nationalizing the banks along these lines would mean that the government would supply the nation’s credit needs. The Treasury would become the source of new money, replacing commercial bank credit. Presumably this credit would be lent out for economically and socially productive purposes, not merely to inflate asset prices while loading down households and business with debt as has occurred under today’s commercial bank lending policies.

How neoliberals falsify the West’s political history

The fact that today’s neoliberals claim to be the intellectual descendants of Adam Smith make it necessary to restore a more accurate historical perspective. Their concept of “free markets” is the antithesis of Smith’s. It is the opposite of that of the classical political economists down through John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx and the Progressive Era reforms that sought to create markets free of extractive rentier claims by special interests whose institutional power can be traced back to medieval Europe and its age of military conquest.

Economic writers from the 16th through 20th centuries recognized that free markets required government oversight to prevent monopoly pricing and other charges levied by special privilege. By contrast, today’s neoliberal ideologues are public relations advocates for vested interests to depict a “free market” is one free of government regulation, “free” of anti-trust protection, and even of protection against fraud, as evidenced by the SEC’s refusal to move against Madoff, Enron, Citibank et al.). The neoliberal ideal of free markets is thus basically that of a bank robber or embezzler, wishing for a world without police so as to be sufficiently free to siphon off other peoples’ money without constraint.

The Chicago Boys in Chile realized that markets free for predatory finance and insider privatization could only be imposed at gunpoint. These free-marketers closed down every economics department in Chile, every social science department outside of the Catholic University where the Chicago Boys held sway. Operation Condor arrested, exiled or murdered tens of thousands of academics, intellectuals, labor leaders and artists. Only by totalitarian control over the academic curriculum and public media backed by an active secret police and army could “free markets” neoliberal style be imposed. The resulting privatization at gunpoint became an exercise in what Marx called “primitive accumulation” – seizure of the public domain by political elites backed by force. It is a free market William-the-Conqueror or Yeltsin-kleptocrat style, with property parceled out to the companions of the political or military leader.

All this was just the opposite of the kind of free markets that Adam Smith had in mind when he warned that businessmen rarely get together but to plot ways to fix markets to their advantage. This is not a problem that troubled Mr. Greenspan or the editorial writers of the New York Times and Washington Post. There really is no kinship between their neoliberal ideals and those of the Enlightenment political philosophers. For them to promote an idea of free markets as ones “free” for political insiders to pry away the public domain for themselves is to lower an intellectual Iron Curtain on the history of economic thought.

The classical economists and American Progressives envisioned markets free of economic rent and interest – free of rentier overhead charges and monopoly price gouging, free of land-rent, interest paid to bankers and wealthy financial institutions, and free of taxes to support an oligarchy. Governments were to base their tax systems on collecting the “free lunch” of economic rent, headed by that of favorable locations supplied by nature and given market value by public investment in transportation and other infrastructure, not by the efforts of landlords themselves.

The argument between Progressive Era reformers, socialists, anarchists and individualists thus turned on the political strategy of how best to free markets from debt and rent. Where they differed was on the best political means to achieve it, above all the role of the state. There was broad agreement that the state was controlled by vested interests inherited from feudal Europe’s military conquests and the world that was colonized by European military force. The political question at the turn of the 20th century was whether peaceful democratic reform could overcome the political and even military resistance wielded by the Old Regime using violence to retain its “rights.” The ensuing political revolutions were grounded in the Enlightenment, in the legal philosophy of men such as John Locke, political economists such as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Marx. Power was to be used to free markets from the predatory property and financial systems inherited from feudalism. Markets were to be free of privilege and free lunches, so that people would obtain income and wealth only by their own labor and enterprise. This was the essence of the labor theory of value and its complement, the concept of economic rent as the excess of market price over socially necessary cost-value.

Although we now know that markets and prices, rent and interest, contractual formalities and nearly all the elements of economic enterprise originated in the “mixed economies” of Mesopotamia in the fourth millennium BC and continued throughout the mixed public/private economies of classical antiquity, the discussion was so politically polarized that the idea of a mixed economy with checks and balances received scant attention a century ago.

Individualists believed that all that shrinking central governments would shrink the control mechanism by which the vested interests extracted wealth without work or enterprise of their own. Socialists saw that a strong government was needed to protect society from the attempts of property and finance to use their gains to monopolize economic and political power. Both ends of the political spectrum aimed at the same objective – to bring prices down to actual costs of production. The common aim was to maximize economic efficiency so as to pass on the fruits of the Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions to the population at large. This required blocking the rentier class of interlopers from grabbing the public domain and controlling the allocation of resources. Socialists did not believe this could be done without taking the state’s political and legal power into their own hands. Marxists believed that a revolution was necessary to reclaim property rent for the public domain, and to enable governments to create their own credit rather than borrow at interest from commercial bankers and wealthy bondholders. The aim was not to create a bureaucracy but to free society from the surviving absentee ownership power of the vested property and financial interests.

All this history of economic thought has been as thoroughly expunged from today’s academic curriculum as it has from popular discussion. Few people remember the great debate at the turn of the 20th century: Would the world progress fairly quickly from Progressive Era reforms to outright socialism – public ownership of basic economic infrastructure, natural monopolies (including the banking system) and the land itself (and to Marxists, of industrial capital as well)? Or, could the liberal reformers of the day – individualists, land taxers, classical economists in the tradition of Mill, and American institutionalists such as Simon Patten – retain capitalism’s basic structure and private property ownership? If they could do so, they recognized that it would have to be in the context of regulating markets and introducing progressive taxation of wealth and income. This was the alternative to outright “state” ownership. Today’s extreme “free market” idea is a dumbed-down caricature of this position.

All sides viewed the government as society’s “brain,” its forward planning organ. Given the complexity of modern technology, humanity would shape its own evolution. Instead of evolution occurring by “primitive accumulation,” it could be planned deliberately. Individualists countered that no human planner was sufficiently imaginative to manage the complexity of markets, but endorsed the need to strip away all forms of unearned income – economic rent and the rise in land prices that Mill called the “unearned increment.” This involved government regulation to shape markets. A “free market” was an active political creation and required regulatory vigilance.

As public relations advocates for the vested interests and special rentier privilege, today’s “neoliberal” advocates of “free” markets seek to maximize economic rent – the free lunch of price in excess of cost-value, not to free markets from rentier charges. So misleading a pedigree only could be achieved by outright suppression of knowledge of what Locke, Smith and Mill really wrote. Attempts to regulate “free markets” and limit monopoly pricing and privilege are conflated with “socialism,” even with Soviet-style bureaucracy. The aim is to deter the analysis of what a “free market” really is: a market free of unnecessary costs: monopoly rents, property rents and financial charges for credit that governments can create freely.

Political reform to bring market prices in line with socially necessary cost-value was the great economic issue of the 19th century. The labor theory of intrinsic cost-value found its counterpart in the theory of economic rent: land rent, monopoly price gouging, interest and other returns to special privilege that increased market prices purely by institutional property claims. The discussion goes all the way back to the medieval churchmen defining Just Price. The doctrine originally was applied to the proper fees that bankers could charge, and later was extended to land rent, then to the monopolies that governments created and sold off to creditors in an attempt to extricate themselves from debt.

Reformists and more radical socialists alike sought to free capitalism of its egregious inequities, above all its legacy from Europe’s Dark Age of military conquest when invading warlords seized lands and imposed an absentee landlord class to receive the rental income, which was used to finance wars of further land acquisition. As matters turned out, hopes that industrial capitalism could reform itself along progressive lines to purge itself of its legacy from feudalism have come crashing down. World War I hit the global economy like a comet, pushing it into a new trajectory and catalyzing its evolution into an unanticipated form of finance capitalism.

It was unanticipated largely because most reformers spent so much effort advocating progressive policies that they neglected what Thorstein Veblen called the vested interests. Their Counter-Enlightenment is creating a world that would have been deemed a dystopia a century ago – something so pessimistic that no futurist dared depict a world run by venal and corrupt bankers, protecting as their prime customers the monopolies, real estate speculators and hedge funds whose economic rent, financial gambling and asset-price inflation is turned into a flow of interest in today’s rentier economy. Instead of industrial capitalism increasing capital formation we are seeing finance capitalism strip capital, and instead of the promised world of leisure we are being drawn into one of debt peonage.

The financial travesty of democracy

The financial sector has redefined democracy by claiming claims that the Federal Reserve must be “independent” from democratically elected representatives, in order to act as the bank lobbyist in Washington. This makes the financial sector exempt from the democratic political process, despite the fact that today’s economic planning is now centralized in the banking system. The result is a regime of insider dealings and oligarchy – rule by the wealthy few.

The economic fallacy at work is that bank credit is a veritable factor of production, an almost Physiocratic source of fertility without which growth could not occur. The reality is that the monopoly right to create interest-bearing bank credit is a free transfer from society to a privileged elite. The moral is that when we see a “factor of production” that has no actual labor-cost of production, it is simply an institutional privilege.

So this brings us to the most recent debate about “nationalizing” or “socializing” the banks. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) so far has been used for the following uses that I think can be truly deemed anti-social, not “socialist” in any form.

By the end of last year, $20 billion was used to pay bonuses and salaries to financial mismanagers, despite the plunge of their banks into negative equity. And to protect their interests, these banks continued to pay lobbying fees to persuade legislators to give them yet more special privileges.

While Citibank and other major institutions threatened to bring the financial system crashing down by being “too big to fail,” over $100 billion of TARP funds was used to make them even bigger. Already teetering banks bought affiliates that had grown by making irresponsible and outright fraudulent loans. Bank of America bought Angelo Mozilo’s Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch, while JP Morgan Chase bought Bear Stearns and other big banks bought WaMu and Wachovia.

Today’s policy is to “rescue” these giant bank conglomerates by enabling them to “earn” their way out of debt – by selling yet more debt to an already over-indebted U.S. economy. The hope is to re-inflate real estate and other asset prices. But do we really want to let banks “pay back taxpayers” by engaging in yet more predatory financial practices vis-√†-vis the economy at large? It threatens to maximize the margin of market price over direct costs of production, by building in higher financial charges. This is just the opposite policy from trying to bring prices for housing and infrastructure in line with technologically necessary costs. It certainly is not a policy to make the U.S. economy more globally competitive.

The Treasury’s plan to “socialize” the banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions is simply to step in and take bad loans off their books, shifting the loss onto the public sector. This is the antithesis of true nationalization or “socialization” of the financial system. The banks and insurance companies quickly got over their initial knee-jerk fear that a government bailout would occur on terms that would wipe out their bad management, along with the stockholders and bondholders who backed this bad management. The Treasury has assured these mismanagers that “socialism” for them is a free gift. The primacy of finance over the rest of the economy will be affirmed, leaving management in place and giving stockholders a chance to recover by earning more from the economy at large, with yet more tax favoritism. (This means yet heavier taxes shifted onto consumers, raising their living costs accordingly.)

The bulk of wealth under capitalism – as under feudalism –always has come primarily from the public domain, headed by the land and formerly public utilities, capped most recently by the Treasury’s debt-creating power. In effect, the Treasury creates a new asset ($11 trillion of new Treasury bonds and guarantees, e.g. the $5.2 trillion to Fannie and Freddie). Interest on these bonds is to be paid by new levies on labor, not on property. This is what is supposed to re-inflate housing, stock and bond prices – the money freed from property and corporate taxes will be available to be capitalized into yet new loans.

So the revenue hitherto paid as business taxes will still be paid – in the form of interest – while the former taxes will still be collected, but from labor. The fiscal-financial burden thus will be doubled. This is not a program to make the economy more competitive or raise living standards for most people. It is a program to polarize the U.S. economy even further between finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) at the top and labor at the bottom.

Neoliberal denunciations of public regulation and taxation as “socialism” is really an attack on classical political economy – the “original” liberalism whose ideal was to free society from the parasitic legacy of feudalism. A truly socialized Treasury policy would be for banks to lend for productive purposes that contribute to real economic growth, not merely to increase overhead and inflate asset prices by enough to extract interest charges. Fiscal policy would aim to minimize rather than maximizing the price of home ownership and doing business, by basing the tax system on collecting the rent that is now being paid out as interest. Shifting the tax burden off wages and profits onto rent and interest was the core of classical political economy in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as the Progressive Era and Social Democratic reform movements in the United States and Europe prior to World War I. But this doctrine and its reform program has been buried by the rhetorical smokescreen organized by financial lobbyists seeking to muddy the ideological waters sufficiently to mute popular opposition to today’s power grab by finance capital and monopoly capital. Their alternative to true nationalization and socialization of finance is debt peonage, oligarchy and neo-feudalism. They have called this program “free markets.”

Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new ed., Pluto Press, 2002) He can be reached via his website, mh@michael-hudson.com

Texas on Alert Due to Rising Instability in Mexico

February 23, 2009

Thinking About A New Party

Because logical reality has broken away from anticipated reality...sooner than later a new party will emerge from the Republican's neoconservative cabal.

by Frank Roman

Audio Version

When AG Eric Holder recently told his staff at the Justice Department that America is a nation of cowards for not talking more about race, and for America not being racially inclusive enough he was talking to, and about, white Americans. After all, the solar system's first black AG was speaking on behalf of the universes first black president, two cosmic events that have bestowed unlimited long sought power for the black population in the United States. This is to say Holder was also speaking on behalf of empowered blacks about the white population and you can be sure there were countless embarrassed white people who agreed when they heard this drivel.

If you doubt me consider this: when was the last time in the last 60 years you've heard about or seen a major media network or political party flatly demand that blacks be less racist, less intolerant, and more inclusive of whites at the risk of being exposed to legal, social and political punishments? Except for only the most extreme cases which we can count on one hand, there haven't been many.


Therefore, we can be sure that Holder's outlook is not only his own, it is also the attitude of the universes' first black president and, just as significantly and more dangerously, the federal government. Holder therefore has thrown down the gauntlet: white Americans have still not relinquished enough embarrassment or capital to soothe the inflated outrage of black history. I guess those millions of trendy white Obama voters didn't cut it.

And then there was the recent demonstration of black supremacism -- presented as diarrhea of the mouth -- courtesy of Dr. Mike Dyson of Georgetown University as he “debated” Pat Buchanan over AG Holder's coward remark. Exhibiting the typical traits of a noisy proponent of white anti black collusion, Dyson babbled endlessly in his defense of Eric Holder’s audacious anti-white supremacy, barely allowing Mr. Buchanan to get a word in edge wise. To Mr. Buchanan’s credit however, when he did manage to find enough oxygen that Dyson hadn’t stolen he talked about black crime rates, black illegitimacy rates, and black ungratefulness for having been born in America instead of Africa. He pointed out their ungratefulness for affirmative action, civil rights, set asides, and the non-stop promotion of white embarrassment over slavery in news and entertainment. Of course, Dyson would have none of it and blamed whitey for all black shortcomings as he overcompensated for his people’s historical lack of group responsibility, basing his overcooked babbling monologue on a false justification for Holder’s "coward" remarks.

So how do we counteract this kind of anti European American poison? Well, don’t look to the Republican Party as it presents itself in 2009 for an organized full frontal assault against any kind of anti white hate. Like something far more dangerous than Frankenstein’s monster it is a stitched up, Lupus infected shambling monstrosity wandering in the night as it tries to find a place to fit in. And like Frankenstein’s atrocity it will in due course feign an easygoing nature only to frighten or even kill the next hospitable being it comes across because that’s all it knows how to do. Metaphors aside, like we said on 16 Feb.,the Republicans were infiltrated by so-called neo-conservatives who are nothing more than hard-core Red Diaper Baby communists and egalitarians with a propensity for going along to get along. They maintain the facade of conservatism but that’s all; having long ago becoming addicted to the praise lavished upon them by enemies in the media and big dollars from wealthy cabals when they compromised real-world principles in favor of leftist deliriums. But most of all, the former conservatives-now- neoconservatives were compromised by the terrible power of unlimited taxpayer’s money and a strong helping of politically correct indoctrination to garnish their bottomless troughs. In other words an anti traditional media and its corporate globalist sponsors created the problem by demonizing their time-honored positions and then created the solution by hypocritically sucking up when they toed the Marxist line.

Of course, none of this has changed with the election of Michael Steele, the black hyper-neocon who shares the same ethnic compassion as Eric Holder and Mike Dyson, and who now heads up the RNC. You know, the same Marxist mouthpiece who threatened his party members with loss of their seats if they don’t dig down and pander for more non-white votes. Sadly, the majority of white Americans who believe nationalism means the freedom to drool over full shelves at Walmart after they received a portion of the income taxes they’ve paid all year will end up supporting this politically correct shill. In fact we couldn’t ask for a more obvious manifestation of me-too-ism by the current crop of fake conservatives than the appearance of Mike the shaft Steele who was officially animated in order to prove the anti white inclusiveness of the Republican Party. They are assuming all of you pale skinned voters out there will forever and a day be there come hell or high water, and most likely many of you will in order to feel more tolerant about yourselves. As clearly evidenced by any real opposition to Eric Holder and Mike Dyson’s rants today’s neoconservatives are more dangerous than a thousand mouth frothing, mustached feminist liberal journalists. They are truly, a Trojan horse, sent secretly by our enemies to co-opt what are the fundamentals of growing, positive sentiment toward racial and national preservation of the European American people. From the 1960’s to the present, neoconservative Republicans have engaged in nothing less than a full frontal assault on middle class America; our traditions and way of life which were born at this nation’s origin and became utterly disregarded by them and their bosses in the press.**

Any viewpoint that challenges the malignant status quo of these corporate hacks is simply not allowed. As employees in the charge of the cabal who control the government and media, the mainstream “conservatives” are nothing more than paid cheerleaders for the anti-white establishment. In fact try calling into Shaun Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingram or Rush Limbaugh’s radio programs and express your views concerning the demographic loss of European Americans by the year 2043 and its negative impact on your nation. Let us know how that works out for you.

In fact let me just tell you how that will go. You will find them, like most neoconservatives and their counterparts in the Democratic Party, to be viciously ‘anti racist’ except when it comes to non-white interests, and would never dare oppose the funding of non-white pressure groups. They condone miscegenation. They insinuate every culture civilization and race on the face of the planet is all equal. They actually believe that if millions of squalid Mexicans have the right paperwork and learn rudimentary English they will become Americans equivalent to the European explorers, inventers and patriots who built America. They ultimately condone homosexuality, pornography and money-making vapidity under the crimson rubric of liberty. They will say since free trade is good for corporate America well then it must be good for the rest of us; that consuming is the epitome of ‘freedom’ and must be defended unto death if need be. If all the Republicans can serve us up is a heaping helping of steaming leftist excrement such as Michael Steele's positions on NAFTA, GATT, gun control, Affirmative Action and other issues; it's time to stick a fork in them: they're done. And again, Michael Steele supports these nation killing hateful objectives. As opposed to today, the core philosophy that guided Republicans, white Republicans, for generations was NOT political expediency like simply winning elections. They used to understand that there were rights and wrongs; implicitly and even explicitly supporting the European-American fabric of the United States, at least until the rot set in. Now they are no different than the babbling leftists we pointed out to you today.
Because logical reality has broken away from anticipated reality it is my firm belief, sooner than later a new party will emerge from the Republican neoconservative cabal, complete with all of the assets and personnel we will need to take back what rightfully belongs to our people.

Of course, it may not happen without your help. In other words [Do not] suffer yourselves to be wheeled out of your liberty [to publish] by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are so often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice. --John Adams. If you refuse to lend a hand then we may not have the opportunity to not only guarantee the advancement and longevity of our people as well as our nation, we also may not see the likes of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Michael Dyson, Michael Steele, and all of their allies, entered in to a docket to face trial.

Thanks for listening.

**What more proof do we need to demonstrate the complete lack of usefulness of neoconservatives than by illustrating the identical Marxist conditions --we allegedly have fought wars against-- under which our people are now coerced into accepting.

1. Abolition of private property
2. Heavy progressive income tax
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Central Bank
6. Government control of Communications & Transportation
7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture
8. Government control of labor
9. Corporate farms, regional planning
10. Government control of education

Fed Lends Two Trillion Without Oversight

Glenn Beck predicts doomsday, revolution!

Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist

Fox Anchor Rips Into ACORN Spokeswoman