The Failure of the Neoliberal Model For Developing Countries

On the 60th Anniversary of Chinese Liberation post, James Schipper says that I should compare China to Taiwan and South Korea instead and see who did better. I pointed out that a book on China by the reactionary Time-Life Corporation in 1962 at the height of the Cold War noted that Taiwanese miracle was not reproducible in China. They wished it was, but there was no way to do it. For one thing, one thing that helped create the Taiwanese miracle was a flood of US aid. In order to China to receive a concomitant amount of aid, China would have to have received an unheard-of figure that was simply not possible to achieve at that time, or even now. Further, there was the problem of feeding the people and rural poverty. Taiwan solved this, mostly by doing a land reform, but Taiwan is a little island, and feeding the island was not an insurmountable task. The book pointed out that the main problem facing China was feeding the population. Only 2 Everywhere on Earth, US imperialism has always fought the imposition of any kind of national health care, state involvement in the economy and especially land reform. Many nations have been overthrown by the CIA and other agents of US imperialism for attempting even those most meager reforms. Indeed, all Hugo Chavez seems to be doing is trying to create some sort of social democracy in Venezuela. Yet in Taiwan and South Korea, the US agreed to national health care, massive land reform, trade barriers, heavy state involvement in the economy, the whole works. This is because I believe that the US knew that all of these were necessary to develop an economy. Taiwan and South Korea were intended by imperialism to be “showcases against Communism”, to be sparkling examples of what “capitalism” could do better than say North Korea or China. It’s really amazing how cynical imperialism is, but if imperialism has to do a bit of a socialist dance to fight Communism, then that’s what it will do. The sad thing is that if the North Korean, Soviet and Chinese “threats of a good example” did not exist, there would be no reason for imperialism to create these “anti-Commie showcases” and the model for those countries may well have been the Philippines, Thailand or Indonesia instead. I would like to point out a few other things, mainly that we are comparing one socialist country to another, since I consider Taiwan at least to be a socialist country and South Korea to be a partly socialist country. As I’ve said on this site, I support all kinds of socialism. The main thing is that we are not comparing a socialist China to a neoliberal capitalist South Korea or Taiwan. Taiwan at least is a very socialist country. They did a land reform, and they have universal health care that even includes dental care! I don’t know much about South Korea, but I know that they did a land reform. It’s important to note how essential that land reform was developing those two nations. Neoliberal dumbasses never seem to figure that out. You have to deal with the problem of feeding your people and take care of the problem of rural poverty by doing a land reform, and then you can think about becoming a developed country. Until then, the best you can hope for is some backwards clusterfuck wreck like Brazil or Equatorial Guinea. Also, neither Taiwan nor South Korea are examples of neoliberal capitalism. Both were very heavily state-directed, state-guided and even state-involved economies. The state was pretty much setting economic policy and telling the corporations what to do. The state and the business sector were very much tied together. It was almost a “national socialism.” Also both countries protected their budding industries with huge trade barriers until they got big enough to compete with the big guys. All developing countries need to protect their budding industries from competition with huge economies – otherwise you are never going to develop. Of course all of this – land reform, national health care (including dental!), heavy state involvement in the economy, trade barriers to protect budding industries until they are big enough to compete – are anathema to the neoliberal agenda that holds sway over the entire world, mostly due to US imperialism. Neoliberalism never developed one undeveloped country ever, and probably never will.

60th Anniversary of the Liberation of China

Very nice article sums up very well the great changes that occurred in China on October 1, 1949. The author finds that almost every Chinese woman he meets his joyous about the Chinese Revolution. Why? It was the greatest movement for he liberation of women that has ever occurred in the history of the world. On that day, for instance, Mao issued a decree forbidding forever the binding of feet, a practice that was rampant under Chiang’s Nationalist government. Arranged marriages were ended and women received 1/2 of their husband’s property. As Mao put it, “China stood up.” Indeed. Were the Revolution never to have taken place, surely Chinese women would still have bound feet, would get screwed (literally in marriage) and would suffer form arranged marriages. In the rural areas, education and health care would be rare to nonexistent, just as it is in India today. Mao also tried to stop wife-beating, an ancient tradition in China. His methods were ingenius. Mao ordered women all across China to order the men in the villages to stop beating women. If they did not stop, there would be consequences. Many men did not stop, so party cadres in the villages told Chinese women to gather up their farm implements and raid the houses of the beaters and beat them up with farm tools. So all across China, in 100’s of thousands of villages, women armed with hoes and shovels stormed into houses and beat up men who were beating their wives. Wife-beating quickly dropped to a low level, though unfortunately it still continues today. The Chinese government is said to be capitalist, but that is not really true. The latest government educational decree sent teachers to all villages with over 200 residents. In the 3rd World, capitalist countries don’t do things like that. The reigning neoliberal model says the less the state spends on education, the better, as it is regarded as a waste of society’s money that would be better spent by the public sector. Instead, private schools are encouraged. The US “liberal”mass media cheers the closing of schools in the Third World and government issuance of nonpayable school fees. When the Sandinistas were thrown out of office in 1990, the entire US media stood up and cheered. Nearly all legislators of both US parties (the “liberal” Democrats nearly more than the Republicans) roared their approval for the defeat of the Sandinistas. The ultra-reactionary Violeta Chamorro got down to business very quickly. One of the first things she did was to close health clinics all over Nicaragua. Next she issued a $30/year fee that parents had to pay for every student in the public schools. This was unpayable for huge numbers of parents, so swarms of students all over Nicaragua quickly dropped out of school. I assume that that’s still the case today. It is for such things that the entire US media cheers. Floods of students being thrown out of schools all over the land because they can’t pay the bills. Countless health clinics closing all over the land, leaving poor 3rd Worlders with no medical treatment. Both parties, “liberal” Democrats and Republicans, roar their approval of such atrocities. The World Bank and the IMF, both of which are controlled both by US imperialism and also by World Jewry, imposes similar conditions all through the 3rd World. In order to get a loan, government spending must be slashed to the bone, especially health and education spending. Subsidies to poor for anything, for food, transportation, utilities, anything, are ordered to be slashed or ended altogether. Prices for food, utilities, transportation, you name it, rocket upward and taxes are raised on the poorest of the poor. At the same time, taxes on business and the rich are gutted or eliminated and poor country must be opened up to economic colonization by corporations from the rich nations, often US corporations. Careful studies have shown that IMF/World Bank policies have resulted in declining education and health figures across the board. The best estimates show that these sanctions have killed millions over the past couple of decades, and possibly continue to kill millions every year. So US imperialism and World Jewry are probably deliberately killing millions every year in the 3rd World through structural adjustment alone. So any government that massively increases education to its people in these days must be a socialist nation, since capitalist countries by their nature do not do such things. In the US, on Wikipedia and among reactionaries everywhere, there’s a new line out: the Chinese Revolution failed. Next time someone tells you that, think again.

Libertarianism – The Enemy of all Non-Human Life on Earth

As several posts on Occidental Dissent make clear, libertarianism (and its mainstream congener, neoliberalism) is utterly incompatible with the preservation of any non-human and non-domesticated or non-utilitarian life forms. Libertarians like to throw up weird scenarios whereby preserving wildlife, wild spaces and wild places would somehow be more economically viable than exterminating them, exploiting them, and devastating them. The problem is that this never works out in praxis. Even when we environmentalists produce reports showing that preserving forests and meadows is worth way more than chopping them down or ruining them with cattle, 10 Since neoliberalism is just libertarianism, neoliberalism also can never support environmentalism. Market-driven environmental policies must be some kind of a cruel joke. They can never work. In strict economically rational terms, it is either never or almost never economically rational to save species, habitats or places. Destruction and extermination is where the money is, and in neoliberal theory, maximum return is the only variable we are allowed to consider. Libertardarians now argue that humans (I guess maybe those of White European stock) now care enough about environmentalism that we can zero out government, privatize everything, and everything will still be hunky dory for the bighorns, the spotted owls and timber wolves. Yeah right. In the first place, this would only work with White people, because only Whites can be environmentalists at the moment, and only more advanced Whites in North America and Europe need apply even here. That’s because Whites in Latin America and Russia have proven to be utterly capable of taking care of the environment. Native Americans and Siberians can probably preserve things too, but they don’t run any states. Let’s test out the libertarian theory on most liberal-minded of the more progressive Whites on Earth, the ultra-liberals in California (though not a White state anymore, nevertheless, California is one of the most pro-environmental states in the nation). The argument that humans now care enough about species to preserve them is proven wrong here in the West. Even here in ultra-liberal California, the glorious salmon are nearly extinct. The striped bass fishery in the Delta and Bay has also been ruined. The vast herds of Tule Elk that roamed all over the valleys and coastal areas of our state have been decimated and only exist on miniscule preserves that look like petting zoos. Fishers and spotted owls are being driven extinct by the timber industry as we speak. A lot of CA endangered species are not real celebrities, but salmon would seem to have quite a bit of worth. Yet the salmon fishery in CA and up and down the West has been decimated. And even the ultra-liberal CA senators like Dianne Feinstein insist that we have not creamed the salmon enough, and need to take them out once and for all now. Feinstein’s mostly doing this for one of her rich Jewish buddies, Stewart Resnick of Beverly Hills. So much for liberal US Jews! The notion that humans (Anywhere!) now value wildlife enough to be trusted with preserving them in a libertarian society is seriously wrong, and we can prove it right here in California. In the 3rd World, humans are so bestial, venal, animalistic and backwards that they indeed are well on the way to extrerminating everything non-human, non-domesticated and non-utilitarian in sight. An excellent argument in favor of White superiority (which I agree with) is, as I noted above, that Whites are really the only humans on Earth (who run states) that care about non-human life enough to preserve it.* Virtually every other race and ethnic group of man will gladly exterminate every single non-domesticated species and non-utilitarian species in its land at the drop of a hat. Preserving species is something only Whites can do. And it’s something that only White governments can do, the White private sector haven proven endlessly to have failed at this endeavor. *I honestly wish that non-European states were capable of not exterminating everything in sight, but I doubt it. The Middle East is an environmental catastrophe. The only environmentally decent place is Israel, but that’s populated by White people. The only environmentally progressive place in Latin America is Costa Rica, but once again, that’s a White country. It seems that all Arabs and mestizos can do is destroy. Asians seem like a nightmare in environmental terms. They aren’t even capable of tender feelings towards cats and dogs, which they massacre for sport and food, so how can they possibly be trusted with non-domesticated things. The Japanese have been some of the worst scofflaws in international fishing and their bestial exploits in whaling have earned them the scorn of the planet. True, in some ways, Koreans and Japanese seem to want to preserve what’s left on their lands, but environmentally, those places are pretty much human-nuked anyway, mostly by overpopulation. A preservationist impulse isn’t worth much if there is nothing left to preserve. The hunter-gatherers of Southeast Asia never had the caretaker mindset of American Indians, instead opting for the more primitive mindset of “kill everything that moves.” The extinction process in SE Asia is very advanced and the state does very little to stop it. Environmental consciousness is extremely low. Probably Vietnam is one of the more standout states. China is just now starting to develop an environmental ethic, but it doesn’t seem to be very advanced, and in a lot of ways, environmentally, China looks like America 1890. I’m amazed that anything non-human and non-bovine is still walking around in India, where the extinction process is quite advanced, the state is extremely weak, and poachers are everywhere. Russians have always been some of the most backwards and barbaric of the Whites, and environmentally, that’s still the case. Since the collapse of the USSR things have really fallen badly apart. Market hunters and poachers stalk the land. In Siberia, the poacher harvest of salmon is the same size as the legal harvest. The Amur Leopard and the Siberian Tiger are hanging on by their bare claws, and I expect them to go extinct soon. Africa has to be one of the worst places on Earth to be a species of wildlife. Africans are primitive people, and primitives tend to kill anything that moves, usually for food. The only reason that there were still huge wildlife populations 50 years ago is due to White colonists, who forbade the Africans from wiping out the animals. With decolonization, Africans quickly set work slaughtering anything that moved. That they had not done so in centuries past was due only to the crudity of their weapons. You can’t kill many animals with a spear. In 1965, Africans with firearms were a threat the animal population of the continent. The large megafauna were only saved when the former White colonists were called back in by concerned Africans to save the animals. Many of the large animal populations still exist, but poachers and bush meat hunters take a devastating toll. I don’t see anything positive in the future. Africans don’t seem to be capable of not exterminating animals. One argument is that non-Whites do these things because they are poor. Equatorial Guinea now has a PCI of $21,000/year. Anyone seen any nice environmental initiatives coming out of there? Has the wealth of the Japanese prevented them from killing whales? Has Korean wealth prevented them from waging mass pogroms against dogs and cats? Has the relative wealth of Brazil and Argentina prevented environmental devastation in these places? The Gulf Arab countries are extremely wealthy, but my understanding is that they are environmental wrecks. So much for the “they do it because they are poor” line.

Why Was The Bankster-Destruction of the World Economy Necessary?

According to Libertarian (Libertardarian) theory, or neoliberal theory, the recent blowup of the US economy by the FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) sector was absolutely necessary, or at least was absolutely normal. Any attempts to regulate US capitalism to try to prevent such economic ruin in the first place would have been and would be catastrophic. It’s important to note that Libertardarian theory and neoliberalism are essentially the same thing. Neoliberalism rules the West, especially the US. It’s firmly in place in much of the Third World. And since Thatcher, it’s made major inroads even in socialist Europe. Almost all US Economics departments have been colonized by neoliberal crazies. If you go anywhere in the US to study Economics, you come out a wild-eyed neoliberal nutcase. Nearly the entire US mass media has been intellectually colonized by Neoliberal Madness, including all of the major US dailies, the major US newsweekly magazines, all major US network TV, and most of the paid intellectuals at US intellectual policy foundations. The Republicans have been a neoliberal party for decades now, but the Democrats are not far behind. The “socialist” Obama is no such thing. On the FIRE question, he’s as insane as George Bush or Milton Friedman. Obama’s administration is littered top to bottom with bankster and FIRE crooks, from Larry Summers to Robert Rubin to Tim Geithner to Robert Reich. Much of the blame for the horrific destruction to the US and world economy can be laid at the feet of the Clinton Administration, who tried to out-reactionary the Republicans in deregulating the FIRE sector. The recent G20 summit solved nothing, Obama’s braying aside. Despite a lot of loose Obama talk, little to nothing has been done to regulate the FIRE sector. The banks are back gambling again in the same way they did before, the same way that ruined the economy of the planet, and no one is going to stop them. The next blow-up is probably going to be even worse. Libertardarianism is ridiculous. It’s never been attempted anywhere, really, and the only places where it’s been de facto in place, such as the Third World and pre-civilized America, ended up or end up pretty well wrecked. The only people who have fun in these places are the rich people. Everyone else gets screwed. A lot of White Americans think that Libertardarianism is tres cool. What they really mean is it’s good for White people. A bunch of White nationalist retards recently got on board for supposedly the same reason when they supported the Ron Paul campaign. Libertardtarianism is behind the recent blowup of not just the US but the world economy. Qui bono? Almost no one. White people? Get real. Upper middle class or middle class Whites? Not really. Basically what happened is that the banks and FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) sector robbed the national economy blind. They had to be bailed out to $10 billion, which came out of our savings from our taxes, out of Social Security and Medicare. SS and Medicare are pretty well nuked now, but that was the project all along. The economy is screwed. Income has been flat since 2001, and wages have been flat since 1980. My friends in Europe are moaning. The economy there is ruined by the US bankster-crooks. It’s gone for all the rest of the year and all next year. My friends were White Europeans with good incomes living very well. Their incomes and lifes have been screwed hard, and so have the lives and incomes of millions of other European Whites. So you’re an upper middle class White in the US. You made out? Dubious. You probably lost your corporate job, you may have lost your house, your car, God knows what else. How many American Whites have been screwed like this by this Banker Ripoff? My Mom bought her house 4 years ago for $130K. It’s now worth $48K. She’s a normal, elderly White woman, who’s worked her whole life. Why did she need to get fucked like this for some lying Banksters? This blowup has screwed the US economy. A lot of companies are hurting bad or out of business altogether. How did this Bankster Ripoff Scam benefit US business, or US capitalism? It didn’t. All it did was blow a hole in the safe and make off with a ton of loot and leave us holding the bag. The Republicans won’t reform the FIRE criminals, and neither will the “socialist” Obama. Why not? He’s not a socialist! Both parties, even the “liberal” Democrats, are 10 Can anyone even give me a pro-capitalist, pro-business or pro-White argument about why this Greatest Bankster Robbery even needed to happen in the first place? I don’t get it. It was bad for business, bad for capitalism, bad for Whites. Yet Libertariantards not only justify but champion such Free Market Fundamentalist Mumbo-Jumbo.

European "Socialists" Agree To Drive Bluefin Tuna Extinct

Repost from the old site. Environmentalists who insist that socialism or social democracy will save the environment have always worried me. Canada’s been ruled by social democrats for a long time, and it’s horrible on environmental issues. Interestingly, the radical rightwing US Bush regime proposed a reduced quota to keep the bluefin tuna from going extinct, and the far rightwing governments of Guatemala and Panama amazingly agreed to it. So who shot it down? A bunch of “socialists” in Europe, in particular the leftwing Spanish government. Looks like the Arab governments of Mediterranean (presumably including “socialist” Qaddafi and the “Socialists” in Algeria) are the ones who really shot it down. 9 The impetus? Protect the local fishing trade, which is big money. But once the bluefins go extinct, and they will under this plan, the amount of money the industry will make off the bluefin trade will be $0 per year. The job loss will be a nice round 10 Extraction industries under capitalism have always been like gays on a condomless months-long group sex binge in San Francisco. Fun now, pay bigtime (die) later. Over and over, fishermen have deliberately driven fish species to commercial or actual extinction, and that’s just recently. Extraction industries are ultimately suicidal. They never get it. They’re like Peter Pan and age. They never think the stock is going to run out. Extraction industries will destroy everything in their path – fish, wild animals for furs or food, forests for wood, range for cattle or sheep, you name it. Foresters will always choose to cut down every last tree and then stand around bewildered like a drunk who wakes up on Saturday morning and realizes he blew his check at the bar. Ranchers will always destroy range, especially if it’s public range that they don’t even own. How? By running too many cows or sheep on it. After decades of that, they can hardly run one ungulate on the land anymore, but like a wiped-out gambling addict running to the casino with his latest paycheck in hand, they never seem to get it. Extractive industry is run by perpetual children masquerading as adults who are not able, due to the nature of their industry, to think or behave rationally. All voluntary regulation, deregulation, minimal government (Republican, conservative and rightwing) solutions will always fail. If there’s one aspect of the capitalist economy that will always need adult supervision, it’s the extractive clowns. Problem is the state is typically in bed with the extractive problem gamblers. There are no easy solutions, but socialism is surely a false hope. From flooding the West with immigrants, legal and illegal, to support for suicidal extractives on “national economy” grounds, modern socialism will always fail the environment. The solution is Deep Ecology. Deep Ecology is divorced from the capitalism vs. Communism thing and always puts the environment first.

Oil Speculators Account For 50% of Oil Trades

New study here. I don’t understand economics very well, but this seems ridiculous. What is the point of this? Why are 5 This seems absurd to me. People who are rewarded in society are people who are producing or distributing a product. Even artists selling schlock are producing something that someone wants to buy. Overpriced pituitary cases on basketball courts seem silly with their multi-million $ salaries, but they are producing a product, professional sports, which millions want to pay for in various ways. All of these strike me as socially useful types of production. Hell, even dope and porn are products that folks are willing to fork over bucks for. Production need not be socially beneficial, but I would suggest that production or distribution itself ought to be a requirement for any socially useful type of economic activity. I have no beef with folks who are either buying or selling oil, or any other commodity for that matter. That’s a product. Buying and selling is part of the function of the market in a market society. But sheer gambling seems to be completely extraneous to any social benefit. No product is produced, no product is purchased, no product is sold. This seems to me very much a useless, leech, “parasitic” type of economic function. Just gamblers in a casino called a Commodities Market. Well, it turns out that these gamblers blew up the cost of gas to $4.50/gallon last year. Similar gamblers serving no useful social function whatsoever blew up the housing market and screwed the economy of the whole damn world. Various arguments are offered. The typical one is, “They will make money and invest it.” First of all, that’s not really true, and second of all, that’s trickle down economics, which can be used to justify the most outrageous kind of economic inequality on the basis that the rich will somehow share the wealth in some funny and hard to see way. Various other neoliberal arguments were offered that I did not understand, with these capitalists suggesting that speculation plays an essential role in markets and in the economy. The assumption being that if you get rid of the speculators, the whole economy collapses, but no one cries “Chicken Little” like a capitalist. Anyway the speculators themselves are already collapsing the damned economy. How could things get worse if you reign the leeches in? These arguments were found on a liberal site I go to. It’s amazing how many “liberals” are hardcore, radical, neoliberal free market capitalists. One wonders, since economics is out of the question, what exactly their liberalism is all about? Clicking on their profiles reveals guys, some Jewish, always with lots of money, who are members of groups called “Progressives,”Left This”, “Left That”, “Fight the Right”, “Stop Rush”, “Obama Supporters”, etc. They’re main concern is “world peace,” which will never occur in my lifetime. I guess some of them want to save the whales or the fucking baby seals. As commenter Lafayette Sennacherib suggests, when you take Economics out of the Left, there’s nothing left. You have a bunch of greedy capitalist bastards living in mansions yelling about gay rights or feminism or baby seals or snail darters or “White racists.” What about the workers? What about economics? What about a fair and just system? Silence from these guys, as they try to count their uncountable piles of cash and write a check to the Democratic Central Committee. If this is “Obama liberalism”, Hell, just take it out and shoot it in the field in the back and put it out of its misery. I want no part. One final note on the oil commodities market: a reasonable regulation would be to require these speculators to at least take possession of the oil they are buying. Hardly any will do that, so that will kill the parasites right there. Reasonable, right?

Liberals Ruined American Blacks, and Other Republican Lies

This comment was posted on the Liberal Race Realism Starting To Grow post by a conservative who blames liberals for the problems of Black folks in the US:

As what passes for a conservative in Massachusetts, I have to find this article amusing. You think that now that you’ve applied rational thought to one issue, you know it all? There’s a lot more coming.The fact is, the whole mess was made by liberals, starting with Kennedy and LBJ. Liberals were the ones that concluded that blacks weren’t smart enough to be helped to stand on their own two feet, and so created affirmative action to get them results without effort. When Blacks took the philosophy behind affirmative action to heart, and themselves concluded they couldn’t make it on their own, liberals were the ones who set up a welfare system that perpetuated the Black cycle of poverty. And it’s liberals who set up a taxation system that provides major disincentives to work harder for Blacks who manage to break that cycle, just as it does for Whites and everyone else. Don’t blame the Blacks, blame yourself. If you ever understand what’s really going on, you’ll finally understand why the conservative agenda – the tough love of workfare and further limitations on welfare, lower taxation and uncapped child care deductions to let actual working people keep what they earn and have kids as easily as welfare families, and elimination of affirmative action and the racist prejudice that underlies it – is necessary if the problems of race in the U.S. are ever to be solved. But you’ll never be able to do anything about it by voting for Democrats. We’ll see if you are smart enough to allow your brain to vote, instead of your liberal reactions.

This bit of Republican nastiness is particularly vicious because it masquerades as anti-racism when in reality, it’s going to have some real bad effects for Blacks once it’s put into practice. In this reworking of the world, reality is turned on its head, anti-racist liberals like Johnson and Kennedy (and me) are now the Liberal KKK, and racist Republicans like Reagan are the Republican MLK. This allows Republicans to peddle an objectively anti-Black under the guise of anti-racists while painting the opponents of the project, who work for Black interests, to actually be nasty racists like Bull Connor. This is sort of the Starr Parker – Clarence Thomas line about Blacks. Many Whites have cynically latched onto this, and a few Black idiots have too. Parker and Thomas are two of those morons. Thomas and Parker are cynically used by frankly racist White conservatives to further the rightwing project which has nothing to do with helping Blacks and is all about conservative ideology and helping out the wealthier classes, which all conservatism is ever about really. Conservatives, even Republicans, are racists because every time a Republican President gets in office, he defunds the Civil Rights Department. Prosecutions for discrimination in housing and employment plummeted under Reagan and Bush Sr. There’s no reason for any self-respecting, non-masochistic  Black person who cares anything about their people to be a Republican. This won’t solve anything. It will just make things worse. Blacks do best under a socialist system. The more socialism, the better they do. The more free market pure capitalist with wide variables in wealth, the worse Blacks do. Lower taxes always hurts workers. It doesn’t help them. Because you have to cut services when you cut taxes, and workers are the ones who use all the services. The only people helped by lowering taxes are people who make lots of money and have no need for government services, so taxation is a ripoff for them. If you make that much money, taxes are no disincentive to having kids. In my entire life, I have never heard one family say, “We want kids, but we can’t afford it due to taxes.” As far as workfare, it’s Republicans who always killed that. Liberals wanted it. Republican “workfare” is some kind of a sick joke. Go find yourself a job, if you’re lucky with 9. OTOH, we liberals supported a workfare whereby you would get some government make-work type job (could be anything really) and then along with it, medical care for you and your kid and daycare for your kid. You can stay on it as long as you like, as long as you have dependent kids. As is, the jobs that welfare recipients are likely to find will not pay enough for daycare for the kids, and will not have medical care for the kids or for the Mom. It’s just a disaster. Welfare “reform” has completely failed. We need to get rid of it and put back in some real workfare proposition. Getting rid of “racist” affirmative action won’t help Blacks. What’s hilarious about Republicans characterizing AA as racism is that this is the only time they ever use the word “racism.” When it hurts White people. To Republicans, the only kind of racism that exists is anti-White racism. All the other kinds are illusions. This is the rightwing lie: affirmative action told Blacks that they were helpless and incompetent, so they acted the part. Yeah right! So, we get rid of affirmative action, and Blacks will no longer believe that they are lame and incompetent, and will rise to the top like baking yeast! I would laugh except so many rightwing idiots actually believe this idiocy. It’s sort of understandable that idiots would fall for this crap, since it does have a nice ring to it, that is, until you actually sit down and think. It’s true that affirmative action is at times unfair, but no way will getting rid of it help Blacks. Bottom line is getting rid of it is going to be bad for Blacks. How bad is a matter of debate. In this nasty Republican lie, we liberals who set up AA are racists because we think, in a racist manner, that Blacks can’t cut it, so they need quotas to compete. Well, the truth is that if you look at test scores in schools and on tests to get into various occupations, Blacks can’t cut it. They don’t do as well. So, getting rid of AA will mean not as many Blacks will get hired. Some will, sure, but many others won’t. I suspect that the Republican liars who made up this lie actually know this and know that Blacks can’t compete on a level playing field, but they just say this because it feels so good. All right-thinking people want to believe that Blacks really can compete. Problem is, they can’t. Level the playing field, and many fewer Blacks will get in. So…Blacks (in actuality, hardworking Blacks who have been enervated by liberalism) are just dying to get off welfare and get a real job and stand on their own two feet for once, but once they consult the local tax attorney and learn about the US tax code, they say, “Screw this! I’m staying on $400 a month welfare!”? Yeah! It’s so much more profitable than working for a living, what with the 1 This line is “Liberals made Black people poor!” LOL, come on man, please. Good God, conservatives are stupid. Either they are stupid, or they are just vicious cynical evil, and don’t believe a word of this obvious nonsense that they just feed to their Glen Beck cattle. Seriously, I don’t even think that Jared Taylor believes this crap, but I haven’t asked him yet. He may be conservative, but Jared’s not stupid.

PC Lunacy on Immigration and Other Things

The quote at the end of the post is from a middle class Black commenter who took tremendous offense at this rather moderate post, accusing it of sounding like the neo-Nazis on Stormfront. He also took issue with my description of this site as anti-racist (In my opinion, it is, and that is one of the foundational themes of this site), and said instead it was a racist site. He has now been banned because you don’t get to call this a racist site, and if you come here and spout PC anti-racism at me, I will soon tire of you and ban you. So this fellow was banned. He objected to many things in the post. One objection is that a Black state in the US would not be a miserable failure. I’m quite sure it would be a disaster, and that is why you hardly see any Blacks crazy enough to advocate for this. In particular, he objected to my saying that all of the Blacks in the US could take off tomorrow, while it would be painful in some respects in that we would lose a lot of quality workers and citizens, I’m confident that on balance, Whites would be better off. Obviously, professional sports would be hit very hard, but White men have been shooting hoops, throwing footballs and catching fly balls for a long time now, and I’m sure they could go back to it. Baseball’s practically a Caribbean Latino sport now anyway. We no longer need Blacks for cheap labor, as we’ve imported millions of illegals to do that. The crime rate would obviously plummet, many of our ruined cities would become quite a bit more livable again, music and other entertainment would become less obviously sociopathic, many of our social pathologies would ameliorate, and perhaps most significantly, we would be free of a lot of racial friction generated by a perpetually grievanced group (Blacks) that many Whites are getting increasingly tired of. Granted, since the 1960’s, Blacks have resembled a bunch of angry people locked out of a really cool party hanging out on the sidewalk and yelling that they want in. Inside, we Whites are partying it up. Whenever you see a scene like that, you know how painful and ugly it is. Well, Obama got elected, and to me that meant that Blacks finally got invited into the party after all this time. Instead of being grateful or happy, they seem just as pissed off as ever. They’re inside the party now, and everyone is having fun, but they still act like they are out on the sidewalk. Many Whites, including me, are exasperated. There is a sense of, “What more do we need to do, anyway, before you all settle down, relax and try to be happy?” What I am saying is that the culture of grievance gets old. US Blacks are the richest, the best educated, the most politically powerful, the most intelligent and the most cultured Blacks on Earth. Despite the ghettos and all, they live quite well here compared to just about any Black or heavily-Black country. Sure, you can find some other White countries that are maybe better for Blacks, but once again, you come back around to the original argument that White cities, regions and states are great places for Blacks to live in. Blacks agree. They vote with their feet. Once a city gets too Black, the most functional Blacks start taking off too, usually to a Whiter area. I’m not a White nationalist or a Back to Africa idiot or any of that. I just note that Whites do not particularly need Blacks in the US, while the converse does not seem to be true. Blacks need Whites. If all the Whites left tomorrow, this country would rapidly turn into the usual Black and mestizo Latin American type country. It would not be a better place for Blacks. So I’m not making any argument for ethnic cleansing or saying Blacks don’t have a right to be here. But this is why quite a few Whites are enthusiastic about a White ethnostate in the US, while almost no Blacks are keen on the idea of a Black ethnostate. Whites look at the White ethnostate with no Blacks and ask, “OK, why is this a problem?” Blacks look at a Black state with no Whites and probably think, “Uh-oh. Detroit. Black Belt. Count me out.” Blacks benefit in the present integrated system to some extent in that Blacks in the US are fairly spread out and diluted and further that many of the victims of Black criminals are non-Blacks. In a Black ethnostate, all of the Black criminals would be concentrated together, and there would be no non-Black victims to dilute the victimhood. Blacks would be seriously hammered by Black criminals in a Black ethnostate as Black criminals turned all of their antisocial fury on the only victims available, other Blacks. Anyway, all the above is surely insulting for a lot of Blacks to think about, so they are going to be pretty defensive about it. On immigration, this guy spouted the standard PC line, which is quite common nowadays. You hear it across the board by the entire US elite. Immigrant advocates are also parroting this nonsense. It’s interesting that the modern version of Political Correctness is really Marxism stripped of class analysis and focusing solely on race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and other nonsense. Many of the folks pushing this Leftist line on race are in fact marrying it to explicitly free market economics and reject anything smacking of a Left view of economics, at least according to a friend of mine who is currently taking a syllabus called “Multiculturalism” – mandatory at California state universities now! He calls it “Anti-White Studies.” Considering the Cultural Leftism these folks were pushing, I assumed that they were liberals or even Leftists. But this Cultural Marxism, according to my friend, is married to an embrace of “the free market” and a rejection of most to all government intervention and regulation of economies. This really is the same pro-corporate globalism that is being pushed by the corporations. Our modern corporations feature, along with diversity advisers, multicultural seminars and crazy hate speech and anti-harassment codes, the standard conservative pro-corporate economics. So Political Correctness often nowadays is a bizarre mix of the worst – Right neoliberal madness of the kind that is blowing up our economy mixed with brain-dead stupid and White-toxic Leftist Cultural Marxism. There’s nothing in this for any principled progressive White person. Economically, it’s just conservative gunpowder and matches. The only Left part of it is objectively hostile to Whites and frankly working class folks of all races, as it demands that White nations be flooded with the entirety of the Third World in the name of redress for supposed White crimes and evils. So working Whites get the double-whammy. First we get hit by the Rightist Hurricane Neoliberal side of this template. Next we get hit by Leftist toxic anti-White hate propaganda combined with a tsunami of Third World non-White immigrants driving wages into the gutter and turning once-livable cities into Third World hellholes. There’s nothing here for us. Check out this standard PC line on why mass Third World immigration is necessary for all White countries:

Some Whites will always talk about how we don’t “need” these non-Whites and such and such, but the fact is, if they weren’t needed, they wouldn’t be there in the first place. First off, White countries don’t even reproduce at replacement level, thereby making it imperative to have to bring in non-White immigrants just to keep their rapidly-aging societies from having a labor shortage and to be able to support the social security benefits of Whites retired and soon to be retired. The situation is even more accelerated in Europe with it’s even lower white birthrate than in America. So go ahead and cut off the spigot of non-White immigration, and the White countries will eventually vanish off the face the planet based on their low birthrates alone. You ought to be thankful there are non-White workers coming in to make up the slack for your low-fertility rates. I guess next someone will be blaming Blacks for white low fertility rate since you know, Blacks are responsible for everything bad in the universe.

Does anyone reading this blog actually believe this tripe? Yet this is what passes for standard and unquestioned wisdom by the PC Mafia and entire right to left political spectrum of US elites.

Pakistan Adimst the Ruins

Note: Repost from the old blog. Pakistan amidst the ruins. Read those figures over and tell me that she does not need socialism, and socialism, now. If the word socialism gives you the shivers, how about at least the socialism of Sri Lanka, which has managed to produce spectacular figures in all areas that Pakistan has so lacked. How can anyone possibly look at these kind of figures and tell me that capitalism works at all in the 3rd World? They are just starting? Hell, they have had 60 years to practice. Enough already. Capitalism in South Asia is killing at least 8 million people every year, year and year out, no exceptions. That right there is an excellent reasons for Maoists across the subcontinent to take up arms to overthrow the existing system and put in whatever they choose. Anything that kills fewer than 8 million a year is better than the status quo, right? So why worry about killing a few here and there? Is it worth killing a few to save a million? Of course it is, always was, always will be. Let us see the red flag fly over South Asia, not just Nepal.

By 2100, All Coral Reefs on Earth Will Be Gone

A terrifying fact. That’s hard to believe, actually. I do not write much about global warming because it is so damned depressing, and it seems like the morons who run the world (capitalists) are refusing to do anything about it. Honestly, the capitalist system, by its very nature, mandates that we must allow global warming to occur to the fullest extent possible. Why? Because putting a reign on global warming is bad for profits and bad for capitalism. It is a law of capitalism that capitalists will oppose anything that gets in the way of their profits or reduces them. If they have to kill millions of people, start wars, or even ruin the environment of the planet, the capitalist will simply go right ahead and do it, come Hell or high water. He will deny and refuse the negative consequences of not dealing with the problem, because he must deny these things. In this sense, capitalism is honestly unsustainable. It contains the seeds of its own destruction, as Marx said, and like an addicting drug or a personality disorder, blinds the affected entity to the fact that it is ill. The illness proceeds anyway, and tremendous damage is done to the entity, including, in many cases, death. Therefore, capitalism, by its nature, is simply incapable of reform. All reform of capitalism in the name of human good comes from anti-capitalist forces. This is because all positive reform of capitalism comes from forces that impair capitalist profits. Everything that impairs capitalist profits is by its nature anti-capitalist. There is the very real possibility that world capitalism may cause untold damage to the very environment of our planet in the coming decades. Fortunately, I will be dead before the worst of it happens. This brings up an extremely important question. If capitalism is going to blow up the world environment and there is no way to stop it within the capitalist system, can we really afford capitalism? Even if socialism does not yet very well (This is a fact) is it still necessary since at least socialism is not mandated by economic laws to blow up the planet? Think about it.

Race, Crime, Genes, Culture, Capitalism, Urbanization: Some Puzzles

A commenter notes that genes provide a range of behaviors, and culture may not be able to move group performance much outside of that range. The suggestion by that commenter was that genes will predispose some populations to relatively high crime, and culture can only make it lower or higher, but it’s never going to be all that low. Allow me to differ on that for a moment. Check out my post on the Moriori. In a nutshell, the Polynesians are widely regarded as extremely violent people. They were violent as Hell on contact, and their oral histories indicated a culture of extreme violence dating back as far as we can tell. They seem to have been some of the most violent folks on Earth. The Maori were some of the most violent of all of the Polynesians. To this day, they have very high rates of general instability, drug abuse, domestic violence, and all sorts of crime, including violent crime. They are are regarded as having hair trigger tempers and for being highly aggressive. They have all of the social pathologies of US Blacks, though their IQ’s seem to be higher. (IQ = 91). The Moriori were a Maori subgroup that colonized the Chatham Islands in the 1600’s. They started out being typically maniacal Maoris, but after a while of that, it become clear that they were going to massacre each other. A leader came unto them and saw God. He became a religious leader, and all of the people followed him. He ordered them to renounce all violence. For the next 300 years, they were possibly one of the least violent people on Earth. Homicide was basically unheard of, and so was rape. Conflict was settled by a twig as wide as your index finger. At the first blood it was over and done with, and the conflict was buried. Around the 1830’s, the Maori came to the Chatham Islands. They attacked the Moriori and the Moriori were so pacifist they would not even fight back. They were quickly massacred, enslaved and cannibalized. Few survived. Now, how does the most violent tribe on Earth become the most pacifist tribe on Earth? It’s clear to me that Polynesians are genetically primed for violence and aggression, but it’s also clear that a strong culture can completely overcome that. Genes provide the clay, culture is the sculptor. Now, the question is, how can these profound gene-warping cultures work? Sadly, I think they work best in small tribes and villages. In large cities and big societies, I don’t think these super-cultures can take hold. They just get washed out by the genes. So in large cities and with huge populations, genes will predominate, and maybe culture has limited effects. In very small populations, culture can be a super-warper. There is also the possibility that some races are more “plastic” than other races. Polynesians may be a “plastic race” that is highly susceptible to cultural effects. Amerindians may be another one. There are Amazonian tribes right near the “most violent people on Earth”, the Yanomamo, that, like the Moriori, are some of the pacifist people on Earth. A problem with Blacks is that they seem to commit lots of crime just about everywhere. I am willing to entertain the possibility that Blacks may not be as “plastic” or as effected by super-culture, as, say, Polynesians and Amerindians are. The Dyula are an exception, and they are Blacker than people Robert LindsayPosted on Categories Aborigines, Africa, Amerindians, Anthropology, Arabs, Blacks, Capitalism, Caribbean, Crime, Criminology, Cuba, Cultural, Dominica, Dyala, East Indians, Economics, Hispanics, Intelligence, Inuit, Islam, Left, Maori, Marxism, Melanesians, Moriori, Mozambique, New Guinea, Papua New Guinea, Polynesians, Psychology, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Roma, Russia, Socialism, Sociology, South Africa, Whites33 Comments on Race, Crime, Genes, Culture, Capitalism, Urbanization: Some Puzzles

Blacks and Crime: An Examination

Repost from the old site. Note: This post has been accused, as usual, of racism. See here for my position statement on racism. Black crime rate in the US is approximately 8.1 times greater than the White crime rate. It is about 36.8 times higher than the US Asian rate, which itself is 4.6 times lower than the White rate. It is even 4 times higher than the US Amerindian and Polynesian (mostly Hawaiian) crime rates. It is also 2.4 times higher than the extremely high Hispanic crime rate. These rates are young Black males, and that Black males around 30-45+ have often got it figured out, no matter what they were like as kids. If they settle down, have some kids and own or rent a home, they often relax and are fairly peaceful and easy to deal with. I say this because my car has broken down a couple of times in the heart of the Los Angeles Black ghetto, and both times Black males around this age came out and worked on my engine to try to get it going again. Blacks have .3 standard deviation excess in aggressiveness across surveys (actually, that is not a tremendously elevated rate of aggression), including Interpol. Sailer points out that there is no discrimination involved in higher black suspension rates in schools. I would agree with that, and add, as a former teacher who taught in Black inner city schools for years, that the only discrimination is probably that far fewer Black students are suspended than ought to be. I would also add that Black 11th and 12th graders, even in the ghetto, are exceptionally well-behaved, all of the idiots being out of school, in jail, juvey or boot camp, or dead, by then. In death row sentencing, Sailer notes that the only bias is towards White inmates and this applies even to the South. What Sailer means by that is that Whites are actually more likely than Blacks to get the death penalty for the same crime, even in the South. Obviously, the days of White racist hanging juries are pretty much through in this country, even in the South. Gene Expression (not my favorite blog at all), quoting Le Griffe Du Lion (not my favorite White racist academic at all) on violent crime: Le Griffe messes around with some figures and comes up with a .84 correlation of I must point out that Le Griffe Du Lion is an academic lab coat racist, and a true White Supremacist, with a stated agenda of getting rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws in the US. Yet Black crime rates are not adequately explained on a global basis merely by presence of Blacks. For instance, the Miami Herald (dead link) quotes the World Health Organization saying that Latin America, with a mixed Caucasian-Amerindian population, has a higher homicide rate (27.5 per 100,000) than even Black Africa (22 per 100,000), lily-White but organized crime-overrun Eastern Europe (15 per 100,000) and Industrialized nations – generally speaking, the West (1 per 100,000). Furthermore, other studies show that the mixed Caucasian-Amerindians of Latin America, with only 8 percent of the global population, account for 75 percent of the world’s kidnappings. Clearly, there is something other than pure genetics at work in high Latin American crime rates. I know it’s heresy in these free market times to mention this, but perhaps, could an insane gap between rich and poor, among the worst on Earth, have a might bit to do with this? Gini coefficient map for Latin America. Oh no, of course not, capitalism doesn’t cause any problems, and all societal problems are caused by too much socialism. How do I know this? Wikipedia told me 10,000 times so far, and Wikipedia is God, you know. Shall we end this on a upbeat tone? Please do. Given the genetics that Blacks bring to the table, Black crime rates can either be relatively higher or relatively lower, depending on societal variables. A recognition that Blacks bring a different genetic set to the table, which may make them more susceptible to crime, is essential in devising societal actions to reduce Black crime. What works for other races with different genetic sets may not work for Blacks with their own mental toolbox. This is why race realism or racialism is so important. One suggestion I would like to make as a socialist is that socialism seems to dramatically reduce Black crime. Dominica, an island in the Caribbean, has a homicide rate 5 In Mozambique in the 1980’s there was a Communist regime under one of my heroes, Samora Machel. The crime rate was almost nonexistent. They were all poor together. According to a resident, anyone, male or female, native or foreigner, could walk across the all-Black capital city, Maputo, in the middle of the night, with scarcely a worry. Abiola Lapite, one of my least favorite human beings on Earth, does note that there is a tribe called the Dioula in Burkina Faso who have a homicide rate of 1.3/100,000, nearly as low as Japan’s rate of 1.1/100,000. Why don’t we get some Western criminologists over to Burkina Faso to study the very Black Dioula? Until there is a recognition of the existence of race as a salient variable in human diversity, and that races may differ genetically and biologically on behavioral outcomes, this will never occur. Genetics provides the clay. Culture or society is the sculptor. No Black population anywhere is doomed to an insane crime rate. If the Dioula can do it, so can any Blacks anywhere.

More on the Fake "Holodomor"

This just never ends. Ukraine is considering filing genocide charges against Russia for the fake Holodomor that never happened in 1932. The Holodomor is a Ukrainian word for a man-made famine, the hallucinatory man-made famine of 1932 that was supposedly directed at the Ukrainian nation for their resistance to collectivization. But there was no Holodomor. It never happened. There was no man-made famine. There was a famine, but no Holodomor. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. There was a famine harvest in the USSR in 1932. Famine harvest means the crop failed. That’s what happened. Now, we can argue about why the crop failed, but the truth is that it failed. One of the reasons was a wheat rust epidemic that spread through the area all the way to Bulgaria. The crop failed all over the country, and people starved all over, including 1 million in Siberia. The USSR took less grain from the Ukraine than they have ever taken before or since. The state faced a terrible choice of whether to feed the cities of the villages. It’s true that there was more starvation in the Ukraine than in most other places, but that is because the crop failed worse there than anywhere else. Anyway, there was just as much starvation in the Lower Volga. The starving there were Russian peasants, and they had not been resisting collectivization. Do the Holodomor liars wish to say that the evil Communists deliberately starved Russian peasants in the Volga. What on Earth for? Further, the Ukrainians killed 5 Most people died of disease, not starvation. They were weakened by lack of food. People started fleeing the famine zones, and it is true that after a while, the state tried to stop them from fleeing, because they needed people to stick around to harvest the grain crop the next year. If they would have let everyone flee the famine zones, there would have been no one around to harvest the crop in the next year. It was damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The next year, the crop was good. Figures of 7-10 million dead in the Ukraine alone are routinely tossed around by the Ukrainian liars. It was a terrible time to be a Soviet citizen. As noted, many people died, mostly of disease, not starvation, but they died nevertheless. The 7 million figure was invented after World War 2 by Ukrainian nationalists, many of whom had fought with the Nazis and killed many Jews by participating in the Holocaust. The 7 million figure was invented by these people to be higher than the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler in the Holocaust. In other words, Stalin was worse than Hitler, and Hitler was right to go to war against Judeo-Bolshevism. Get it? Also, the Ukrainian Nazis (Excuse me, Ukrainian nationalists!) to some extent wash their hands of their own evil. Ukrainian Nazis (Oh, I mean Ukrainian nationalists, why do I keep confusing them!) especially the exiles, are notorious for their rank anti-Semitism and pro-Nazi sentiment. The correct figure may never be known, but 5.5 million may have died across the USSR of the famine and its effects. 1 million died in Siberia. There even many deaths in Moscow. I guess this is because evil Commies were trying to kill urban workers or something. Whatever. The death toll was very high in the Lower Volga. I don’t know how many died in the Ukraine. Possibly 3.5 million? With the opening of the Soviet archives, tens of thousands of pages have been diligently sifted through. Nowhere, not even a footnote on a single page, is there any mention of any orders given for a man-made famine in the Ukraine. These were people who wrote everything down, crossed every i and dotted every t. The Ukrainian liars and their buddies keep searching the documents for the evidence they can never find, and they keep coming up empty handed, even though they pull up fake evidence all the time and wave it around, assuming we are idiots. That’s because there’s nothing to find. The Holodomor never even happened. You can’t find evidence for an even that never occurred. Compare to the Nazi archives, where huge piles of evidence documenting the Holocaust have been uncovered, despite the Nazis’ determined efforts to cover it up. One would think that if a deliberate famine was ordered in the Ukraine, evidence would be available in the archives. It is true that there was a Civil War going on in the Ukraine at the time over collectivization. At one point, Ukrainians were carrying out up to 20 armed attacks a day. They raided collective farms, destroyed crops, killed livestock and killed collective farmers. They also raped a lot of women. The counterinsurgency was ferocious and horrible, some would say downright evil. Millions of Ukrainians were deported to Siberia, and there were many executions. When it was all over, 390,000 Ukrainians were killed by the state. If you want to argue that’s a genocide, be my guest. But there was no artificial famine. I’m really getting tired of writing about this, but the Ukrainian liars and their buddies the anti-Semite liars just won’t shut up about this. One man, Robert Conquest, probably did more than anyone else to popularize the Holodomor lie. Conquest now says that there was no Holodomor, no intentional famine. He still tries to blame the state for causing the famine by screwing up, but he admits there was no intention to starve people. Here is a good source of material on the latest, most up to date scholarship on the fake Holodomor. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

No Jail For Subprime Crisis Criminal Scum

Let’s get one thing straight here. The crooks who engineered the Subprime Crisis are criminals! They are criminals the same way that your average street ghug is a criminal. It’s only that the financial crooks are regarded as “successful men” in the sickening capitalist system, rewarded with all the beautiful women (pussy), money, social status, political power and everything else that capitalism rewards financially successful men with. I am by no means arguing that all financially successful people in capitalism are as low as the dirtiest street thug garbage, though it is certainly an interesting argument! Let’s leave it for another day! Surely the Subprime crooks are crimanals. If what they did wasn’t against the law (and it most cases it apparently was) it should have been. No decent or moral society (Yet another argument! Can a capitalist society ever be either? How and why? And give sources.) would allow allow to be legal the moral crimes that the Subprime Crooks committed, whether proscribed by law or not. The real news is that the Subprime Crooks are off the hook. The FBI has said so, and they said so many months ago. Late last year, the FBI said that there would be few to no arrests in the subprime affair. Because almost all US politicians were intwined with them? Not only that. But as the FBI said, a huge section of the FIRE (Finance, insurance and real estate) had broken the law and the FBI simply lacked resources to go after all them. Not enough agents, not enough money, not enough federal prisons. Almost all of the financial criminals would have to go free, even though they are surely as worthless as your average Black thug who holds up a mini-mart with ski mask and a .38. In other words, they would have to throw probably half of Wall Street in jail. Clearly this cannot be done, but I for one think it would be pretty cool!

Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank

It’s a great idea, and not only that, but the anti-Semites might even love it too! How often can you promote a great progressive project and get most of the anti-Semites on board too? Not too often. In other words, chance of a lifetime for an Alliance Made In Hell. Truth is, Jewish domination of the Federal Reserve makes no sense from any progressive standpoint. What benefit does International Jewry get from it (and there is an ethnic network, almost synonymous with International Zionism)? I don’t know. Maybe someone can clue me in. But Jews are Gentiles can’t be Fed Reserve governors? Why not, we are too stupid? C’mon. What does your average Jew get out of Jewish domination of the Federal Reserve? Does he get a check from Jewish Central Control every month? C’mon. So why support it? Ethnic nationalism, ethnic loyalty? Why? If you don’t get a cut, and it isn’t really “good for the Jews” anyway, why bother? Jewish domination of the Fed does one thing very well. It sends the anti-Semites into a mad feeding frenzy and gives them tons of solid evidence to back it up. Put the Jews in charge of all the money in the US! Great job! What’s the point, from the Jewish POV? How is putting the Jews in charge of the US money supply good for Jews? It’s good for the anti-Semites, no doubt, but is it good for the Jews? Jewish readers, have the Federal Reserve Jews issued you a check yet? Ok, so why support them? Aside from the whole nauseating Jewish thing, there is an excellent progressive argument for just nationalizing the whole Fed anyway. The Fed is up to their stinking armpits in this latest mass corruption/Organized Crime Spree called the Subprime Crisis, and there are some excellent reasons for nationalizing the Fed, a quasi-nationalized, but not nearly nationalized, institution.

Nationalizing Cancer

Nationalizing the banks, at this point, is like nationalizing cancer. Nevertheless, it’s looking more and more like it needs to be done, at least with some of them. How would it work? Like this. The government buys the ailing bank loaded down with the toxic subprime garbage loans. The government then splits the bank into two different banks, Good Bank and Bad Bank. All of the garbage loans are unloaded onto Bad Bank, which is allowed to fail. The remains of the institution are in Good Bank, which is presumably a reasonably solvent institution by now. At the point at which Good Bank is ready to fly again, it can be reprivatized. Bank nationalization has been done in many Western countries in recent years, with generally positive results. Who hates it? Capitalists and especially bankers. Stockholders do get creamed, it’s true. Once the government takes over the bank, the remaining stockholders are all wiped out. But who cares what the capitalists think? Who cares what the bankers in particular think. This is the scum that got us into this mess in the first place. Another big resistance to bank nationalization is that in the US this is seen as “socialism.” Despite the fact that we have many socialist aspects our economy, capitalist propaganda has pummeled away at Americans for many decades with S-word to the point where many, possibly most, Americans think socialism is the most evil thing on Earth. Unfortunately, this includes a lot of Democrats. Democrats are not so much afraid of the S-word in and of itself as they are afraid of being called socialists by the capitalists and their party, the Republicans. Nevertheless, the radical right S-word crowd took a serious pummeling in this last election and they may not be electable for some time, if ever. If the Republicans want to win future elections, I think they need to move to the Left a bit or die. Bank nationalization would be much better than Geithner’s “cash for trash” project using taxpayer money to buy up the garbage loans from the banks. On the very far Right, exemplified by the libertarians like Steve Sailer and Ron Paul, some very irresponsible folks are pushing the “nothing is too big to fail” line. I can’t emphasize strongly enough how irresponsible this is. If you can’t figure out why, just think about it. You think this economy is bad now, let those big banks crash down and see how you like the view from the ruins.

The Citibank Mafia

This article was written a year ago. How prophetic. And Citibank has been wallowing in the mud like this since 2001. The chickens are finally having a Homecoming party. As of today, Obama is seriously considering nationalizing this organized crime gang disguised as a corporation. Robert Rubin and Sandy Weill (photo) are more than anyone else responsible for destroying this bank and the collateral damage to the US and world economy. Anti-Semites may wish to note that they are both Jewish. As I noted earlier, I’m not into this Jewish Bankers Blew Up the World Economy thing, but the tribe is clearly not innocent, and they do have a role in the US banks, that, while not central, is less than trivial. We ought to distinguish here between investment banking and commercial banking. The Jewish role in US commercial banking is not prominent. However, they do play a significant role in US investment banking. With the insane destruction of Glass-Segall, investment banks and commercial banks can now be one and the same, the firewall having been torn down. I would like to ask you “Jewish bankers” critics just one thing. Sure, a lot of these Jewish bankers are a bunch of no-good crooked scumbags. But, honestly now, do you really think that Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, Joe Biden and Phil and Wendy Gramm are any better? The whole damn financial “industry” (a classic parasitical industry in the true sense of the word because they create no real wealth) is up to their necks in this mess. The Gentiles are just as wicked as the Jews; no way are they any better. Anti-Semites please prove to me that your average US top Gentile banker is a smidgen less black of a soul than the Jewish bankster criminals. One’s as bad as the other, admit it.

Contra: Capitalism Always Improves Our Lives

Let us examine for a moment the unexamined notion prevalent in the US that capitalism automatically improves our lives. We examined earlier how US capitalism seems to be predicating its growth on forced and unnecessary upgrades of technology. If you don’t want to upgrade to the latest TV, you won’t be able to watch TV at all. In a later post, we suggested that US capitalism, increasingly desperate to sell to increasingly savvy consumers, is resorting to the only way to fool an educated, savvy consumer – outright lying, fraud, trickery, scamming and frankly theft, exemplified by the subprime crisis. Hence, US capitalism is becoming increasingly parasitical on the consumers it relies on. The “coercion principle” so beloved by libertarians seems to be inoperative in US capitalism anymore. If I can’t watch TV without being forced to buy the latest and greatest, that’s coercion. A thieving, fraudulent con is always coercive, as coercive as a pickpocket. Libertarians talk a great game when they are pining away on their blogs, but I haven’t yet heard any libertarians, except maybe Left Libertarians, attack the parasitical, coercive and nearly thieving aspect of present day US capitalism. When it comes time to apply arid theory to meatspace, libertarians are no-shows, which implies to me that their moralistic theorizing is a bunch of hot air. Some capitalist inventions are definitely improvements. Take for example stain-free and shrink-free garments. This is actually a good product. Capitalists are manufacturing something that humans actually want to buy and use, not only that but a useful product that will improve our lives. But look at how capitalism deals with this improvements. Let’s get real. A whole lot of capitalists are going to get hurt by the new garments described above. The dry cleaners industry will go out. Not only that, but staining and shrinking is one of the annoying methods of planned obsolescence built into the garments we buy. It’s these destructive processes that force us into continual and usually unnecessary upgrades of our garments. If people are buying fewer garments because they last longer, that’s bad for the garment industry. So a lot of capitalists are going to hate these new developments. Fortunately for us, capitalists are greedy and lack solidarity, so there will always be renegade capitalists who would go ahead with shrink-free and stain-free clothing even though it’s going to be bad for a lot of other capitalists. But capitalism has a very creepy tendency at least here in the US. Huge corporations watch the patent offices like hawks. Whenever a new product is patented that could improve things for consumers and possibly compete negatively with their products, in particular something that might cut into the planned obsolescence of their products, and typically if the inventor is a small fry, the corporation will try to buy out the improved technology. Then they will shove into a drawer and try to bury it forever! This happens all the time in US capitalism, but we don’t talk about it all that much. There is a clause in US patent law that says you cannot sit on a highly useful patent and refuse to market it to the public. This is sometimes applied to small inventors. The courts have forced small inventors to make their highly useful patents available to the consuming public in cases where silly inventors chose instead to stick the patent in the drawer and forget about it. If the guy refuses to sell the patent, the court decides what it is worth and demands a sale of the patent for that price. Hardline freemarketeers decry this Commie-style intervention in the market, but I think it’s a great thing. Use it or lose it. I feel the same way about copyrights. You can’t just let your songs, movies and books go out of print. If you do and someone wants to republish them, the courts can and do force you to license out your artistic creation to someone who wants to publish it. The courts have fallen down on the law in terms of software though. There are all sorts of idiot software patents, and the whole concept is highly abusive. IBM has been one of the worst at this. You see those little windows that fly up in so many of your software programs? I believe that IBM has a license on that tech and anyone who makes a program with a window in it, has to pay off IBM. This is ridiculous. You can’t patent intellectual property – forget it. That’s like patenting intellectual ideas. Can I patent the intellectual notions that I come up with here on Robert Lindsay. Great idea! Let me patent all these ideas I come up with on this blog and sue everyone who tries to say anything even remotely similar for patent infringement. You can see right now how stupid patenting intellectual property is. There are also cases where corporations have written some really great programs that were offered for sale. Then they took the product off the market. Not only that, but they refuse to sell it. Sad thing is that there are computer users who really want to use those programs. Forget that. Sell it or give it away! If you won’t sell your product, then you need to give it away. If you won’t sell it or give it away and it’s useful, I figure we have a right to steal your product. I’m talking software programs here. The whole idea that you can write a killer app and shove it in your drawer forever is nuts. So what you have here in the US is that US capitalism buries great products all the time, and I think that when corporations do it, the courts don’t seem to do much. Does this benefit our lives? Of course not. It hampers our lives and deprives us of much-needed technology to improve our lives, while saddling us with inferior junk that wears out or breaks or doesn’t even work. Why? So the capitalist can continue to rake it by selling us crap. So let’s bury once and for all the all the notion that capitalist products automatically improve our lives. Suppose someone invents a car that runs for 500,000 miles, rarely breaks down and gets 100 miles to the gallon. My understanding is that prototypes are already available that get anywhere from 50-300 miles to the gallon. There is solar car technology with a solar roof that gets all its energy from the sun and goes up to 55 mph! Clearly, all these cars are really bad news for lots of capitalists, from car repair shops, to auto parts stores and plants, to gas stations and oil companies. There are all sorts of huge industries that want to kill these ideas before the even see the light of day. And it would be interesting to see why cars that get 50-300 mpg are not on the market. There have been issues with making these hypercars safe in crashes (they are often quite light) but one would think that at least a few prototypes could be made. Speaking of forced upgrades, you know that US capitalists must truly hate radio. I can go find a radio from the 1920’s and maybe with a few repairs here and there, it will pick up every local station around. The tech still works. Not only that, but horror of horrors, it’s actually free. It really isn’t free because it’s supported by advertisers and we “pay for it” by having to suffer through commercials,  but we definitely don’t have to pay $50/month to turn on the radio like we do with the damned TV. This sends capitalists up the wall. They hate free anything. If capitalists could figure out a way to charge us for breathing air, they would buy up oxygen and start charging us right away. They are already trying to buy up the water and charge us for choosing to inject H2O in order to stay alive. They haven’t figured out a way to charge us every time we pee or crap, but I’m sure that capitalists would love to charge me 2 cents a leak and a nickel a dump if they could get away with it. The fact that capitalists pine for a world where virtually nothing is free anymore shows that capitalists have a strong parasitical streak that is not related to producing quality useful products that improve our lives. In some ways, capitalists are just like blood-sucking vampires. Capitalists already tried the cable TV scam with radio. The scam was to set up an alternative radio called digital radio (radio is now analog), put all the good programs over on digital and leave analog with almost no programs and a crappy signal, and soon everyone who wanted to listen to anything decent on the radio would have to shell out $30/month to Vultureco or whoever. Digital radio, exemplified by Sirius Radio, has been a total failure. The industry has a mountain of debt has yet to make a nickel. In other ways, new capitalist tech takes old older tech that is still quite useful. Though I love the Internet, I must say that I am sad about newspapers and magazines being taken out. Net nerds say what the heck, let the newspapers and magazines all go on the web. There are problems with this. First of all, we need to know what is taking the print media out. It’s advertising. No way can a paper or magazine make it on subs alone. Even with a steep sub price, they need to fill it up with ads or run it at a loss. Rolling Stone is pretty nice, but probably a good 5 I think the reason that the Net ads are taking out the print ads is that print ad sellers actually sell their ad space (their product) for a fair price. Ads in newspapers and magazines are not exactly cheap. As someone who has delved into the world of Internet ads for a while (we used to carry them on Robert Lindsay), I must say that I have hardly met a tighter bunch of bastards. Compared to what you pay for print ads, advertisers or ripping off online publishers something awful. It’s a buyers market, and the sellers are being taken to the cleaners. Not only can online publishers barely survive, but the advertiser tightwads are cleaning out the print media too. Keep in mind that there are advantages to print tech and that if we lose newspapers and magazines, we lose a valuable consumer reading experience. Can I take my computer with me to the bathroom, the next room, across the street, or in my car to the next city? In general, no. I can thumb through Time Magazine quickly and get a feel for about every article and decide if it’s worth reading or not. Can I digitally thumb through the online Time edition? Forget it. It takes so long it’s not even worth it.

Liberals Forced Kind, Loving Bankers to Give Loans to Niggers and Beaners

Evil, scummy Big Government Liberals forced kind, loving, sweet, puppy-cuddling ultra-rich White bankers to loan out their hard-earned White cash to deadbeat idiot niggers and beaners, knowing full well that the loans would never come back, all in an insane Commie effort to help the undeserving genetically inferior minorities buy homes that they could never afford. So the lie goes. This is another of the big fat lies that the racists like Sailer, the Republicans and the White Nationalists are pushing. Now, once again, if it was true, that would be one thing. Hey, the government does all sorts of stupid stuff, including liberals in government. I blast liberals on here all the time. But this time the  charge is just flat out wrong. It’s a great big fat WN and Republican lie that affirmative action government folks demanded that minorities be given homes they did not deserve. It never happened. There is a government program that banks can enroll in that is designed to reduce the discrimination that minorities face in housing. The banks in this program have a much lower foreclosure rate than the banks that were not enrolled in this program. No one can force a bank to give a loan to someone who does not deserve it, and the government has never done this. The banksters gave out these loans not because they are sweet, kind and lovable and the evil liberal government forced them to, but because they could give out loans, make a bundle off each one, and not give a damn if the loan was going to go bad or not. That’s why this whole mess occurred. Moral risk was eliminated in those who loan money for homes. It didn’t matter to them whether the loans went bad or not, and they made a ton of money off each loan, so they deliberately gave out bad loans to lots of people who could not afford to buy a home, further with the use of fraudulent and loan-sharking balloon payments that for all intents and purposes made the loans unpayable to many buyers. It is true that liberals, including Democratic Party liberals, specifically multibillionaire real estate mogul Penny Pritzger of Chicago, the woman who more than anyone else made Barack Obama the politician and groomed him for power, were deeply involved in the very creation of these maddening subprime vehicles which should never have been marketed in the first place, but that is another matter altogether. Pritzger may have played a larger role than anyone else in devising the mad, fraudulent formulas that bury the subprime balloon payments in the principal itself and make it nearly impossible to figure out without a Degree in Finance. Other Democratic Party fat cats like Robert Rubin of Citigroup, his protege Lawrence Summers, both Cabinet officers under Clinton, and the catastrophic Timothy Geithner under Obama, are up to their necks in this catastrophe. Not that the Republicans ever raised a little finger in opposition. It’s probably true that Clinton did more to create this mess than Bush by deregulating the banks. Bush just clapped and cheered after the fact and took advantage of the Clintonian deregulation. Especially important here was the horrible destruction of Roosevelt’s Glass-Segall Act. However, Republican Phil Gramm (and his Korean wife Wendy Gramm) is the point man here for financial deregulation here, having played the starring role for three decades. Anti-Semites may wish to ponder that Rubin, Summers and Pritzger (photo here) are all Jewish. I don’t believe in the Evil Jewish Bankers Blew Up the Economy bit, but the Tribe is definitely not innocent in this matter. In particular, the bankster Jews around Clinton more or less deregulated the banking sector all by themselves, with the help of the Gentile Gramms and to the cheers of the Wall Street Gentiles. Further, the programs that attempt to address the still significant discrimination in selling homes to minorities, especially Blacks, date all the way back to the 1970’s. These laws have never created any economic problems or excessive foreclosure rates. The laws stipulate that the minorities still must be credit worthy and able to pay off their loans. The explosion in foreclosures, some of which do involve minorities it is true, began quite recently, just a few short years ago. In order for this nutty theory to work, the 1970’s laws have to work as some sort of weird time bomb and have effects for 30 years before they suddenly destroy the economy. Yeah right. It’s shameful that this racist swill is still being peddled, but I guess racists will believe just about anything about the people they hate.

The Recession and the Stimulus Bill

This is one nasty recession, the worst since the Great Depression. Truth is we are probably heading into a real Depression, not simply a recession. A Depression is when unemployment rises above 1 One thing we can do is what Hillary suggested earlier, an interest rate freeze. Why should we allow these criminal, fraudulent interest rate balloon payments to go on? It’s loan sharking. Loan sharking is illegal, or it ought to be. In the comments section, James Schipper suggests nationalizing the banks. This is an excellent idea, and even Alan Greenspan and prominent Republicans are advocating nationalizing some banks. Either that or do what FDR did, and declare a bank holiday with going to back to work only on certain conditions. It wasn’t really a holiday; FDR just shut down all the banks. Then he said if you want to re-open, you need to agree to the following regulations. As it is, we are shoveling something like $10 trillion at these banks (according to Katherine Austin Phipps and Greg Palast) and we are getting almost nothing in return. According to Palast, one bank was given $25 million of our money and almost immediately blew $15 billion of it on speculation. Would you give a gambling addict your life savings with no guarantees on how it would be spent? That’s what we are doing here. The stimulus bill is good, but it’s not nearly enough – it will only tide us over until October or November when things will really hit the fan. Commenter Iceman notes that tax cuts are no good in a deep recession, since people will probably sock the money away as savings instead of spending it. That’s probably a good analysis. On the other hand, taxes on the rich can surely be raised. The top end of the tax burden could be lifted from 3 Commenter David Kelsey notes that Republicans cut most of the mass transit money out of the bill, so some lines will probably just have to shut down. Great thing to do in the middle of a recession – shut down mass transit lines. I do know that something must be done soon. A friend of mine in Italy says his business is off by 7

Niggers and Beaners Caused the Recession, Continued

Lies are funny things. No matter how matter times you demolish them, the liars just keep on resurrecting them with new flimsy excuses. I don’t have anything against racist theory, fact or even science that makes, say, Blacks and Hispanics look bad; after all, facts are facts. But I do wonder what the utility of it is. It seems no one but a bunch of racist assholes cares about most of this. Most everyone else doesn’t want to hear about it. The race realists protests that facts must be discussed. Oh really now? You know, I take craps just about every day for my whole life now. That’s over 50 years worth of shits I’ve taken, and I’ve neglected to document them for posterity. Yet historians couldn’t care less about my negligence. I could have taken pictures, conducted studies, made drawings and paintings, written non-fiction, poetry, song lyrics, short stories and Hell, even novels all about my glorious Robert Lindsay turds. Actually, I’m fascinated about my shits like most neurotics, and I probably could write a novel about them (Hmm, well, they aren’t that interesting, so maybe a novella). But who would want to hear about it? No one in their right mind. Are my shits not factual events, and their documentation a matter of science? Sure. Same things with racist stuff that makes Blacks and Hispanics look bad. For the most part, this stuff says that their sub-par genes are making them screw up or act bad in this or that way. So there’s nothing useful to be gained out of this. If it was something that Blacks and Hispanics could change, there would be a point to it. We could publish it and urge them to change. But it’s set in their genes and there’s nothing to be done. First of all, Blacks and Hispanics don’t want to hear about this, no matter how true it is. They don’t want to hear about it now, and they won’t want to hear about it in the future. The Steve Sailers of the world preposterously wail about this, but that’s just the way people are. Most White people don’t seem to want to hear about it either. Hardly anyone other than a bunch of racist shits wants to hear about it. So what’s the point of it? There isn’t any. That doesn’t stop racists like Steve Sailer (Yes, he’s a racist all right.) from pushing their crap. One of the worst lies lately is the Blacks and Hispanics Caused the Recession Lie. All of the racialists and White Nationalists across the board are pushing this lie, which is not surprising considering their low moral level, but I was surprised that more mainstream types like Sailer and even the Republican Party and Wall Street Journal would try to sell this racist sewage. The point is that the foreclosure rates by ethnicity simply do not matter, but allow me to explain why they don’t matter. This is what the debate hinges on. Supposedly Blacks and  Hispanics have higher foreclosure rates, though maybe they do not. The figures seem to be contradictory and confusing. Let’s assume for a moment that the racists are right and Blacks and Hispanics do have higher foreclosure rates. According to the racists, this is because (Genetically!) stupid and irresponsible minorities deliberately took out loans that they knew full well that they could not pay. Then they stuck the poor, innocent, angelic, mostly-White, ultra-rich bankers with the bill. The result has been disaster for the super-rich White bankers. Some have even had to sell a few of their spare yachts. There seems to be no end to the depths of the tragedy. Look, dammit. This is the truth. I don’t have figures for Hispanics, but for Blacks, 7 The racists’ argument is that the dumb niggers and beaners, excuse me, the minorities, were supposed to be smart enough to figure out the loan terms. But the truth is that the loans were being peddled almost exclusively by criminals. When a criminal offers you a deal, he’s often pretty dishonest about it. If what the mortgage lenders did wasn’t against the law, it should have been. The terms of the subprime mortgages were so confusing you nearly needed a degree in Economics to figure them out, and even then, you might get fooled. The subprime loans were a flat-out scam, a case of fraud, whether legally provable or not. The formula was so maddeningly complex that the balloon interest rates (and that’s what they were) that were set to blow up in your face in the next few years were somehow factored into your principal. That’s right, your interest was somehow stirred into the casserole of your principal to such an extent that you couldn’t even see it anymore. Those who were genius enough to figure out the balloon interest rates were nearly always assured, “Oh, don’t worry. We’ll just refinance your loan before that happens, so you won’t have to worry about it.” This was fraud, scamming and frankly loan-sharking on a massive scale. Huge corporations like Countrywide (Why are they still in business?) were really just criminal organizations, and most or all of their loan officers were criminal foot soldiers of some sort, like the foot soldiers of the Mafia. It’s appalling that people like Sailer want to blame scam victims for getting scammed, especially when the scam was so complex that it was almost impossible to figure out. Why did the bankster-crooks do this? Because there was no longer any risk in loaning money. Normally, banks had to be concerned that the money was going to come back. If it wasn’t repaid, the bank took a nasty hit and lost money. Now, the work was farmed out to mortgage loan companies, who were separate from the banks. That way the banks cut their risk out of it. The loans were then repackaged as securities (This crap has been going on for about 40 years now, and probably ought to be illegal.) to Wall Street, thus taking the mortgage loan companies’ risk out of it. Wall Street took them, and with the help of a bunch of criminals called accounting corporations, who gave these garbage loans repackaged as securities AAA bond ratings, sold them to investors all over the world, thus taking Wall Street’s risk out of it. The investor-suckers were then left holding the bag. Corporations like AIG then sold insurance policies on mortgage loan securities (That probably ought to be illegal too.) so the buyers of the painted turds took out insurance policies on the securities in case they went bad. Go bad they did, as anyone with half a brain could predict, and the holders of the insurance policies rushed to AIG to cash in their policies. Insurance operates on the basis that the company will fail if everyone tries to cash in their policies at once, since they don’t have the capital on hand to cover the claims. AIG did not have the cash to pay out all of the claims, so it was about to go under. That’s why AIG got $300 billion from the US government is now a socialist institution owned by the USA. It’s important to note that everyone along each and every step of the way here made a massive bundle of money, except maybe the investors at the held who were holding the bag. The FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector of the economy had an outrageous wild party for a decade or so while this crap was going on, and any tears shed for these crooks are just wasted.

Finally, the Left Attacks H-1B and Outsourcing

Unbelievable, although the author is actually a conservative, not a liberal, Counterpunch is an insanely liberal leftwing website. In this piece, Paul Roberts attacks corporations for their rampant abuse of the H-1B (Hindu 1-B) program, one of the most disgusting corporate outrages around.

Every single year, IT corporate whores, sociopaths like Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Scott McNealy from all over the industry march off to Washington DC and testify that there is a desperate shortage of US IT workers and that they need to up the already outrageous limits in the H-1B program. They’re lying through their teeth.

There is such a horrible shortage of IT workers that IBM is busy replacing its “redundant” US IT workers with outsourced IT staff at its shops in India, and offers its US IT staff to move to IBM shops in China, India, Russia, the Czech Republic, and the UAE if they are willing to work for the low wages offered there.

The shortage of US IT workers is so acute that big US IT companies just announced the layoffs of thousands of these scarce programmers. They’re so scarce that we are laying them off by the thousands!

In Congress, it seems that only socialist Bernie Sanders and Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa (cheers for him) have taken this issue on. The banks receiving bailout money have already been caught doing this.

The US Chamber of Commerce (Roberts points out that the C of C  is no longer a US institution – I go further and call them open traitors to America) promptly went to work to shoot it down.

Later, amendments were offered to the stimulus that required those receiving money to purchase US made iron, steel and textiles. Assuming that there is enough US iron, steel and textiles to buy, this seems like a reasonable amendment.

The Chamber of Commerce, the equally treasonous National Association of Manufacturers and the traitors who run the US newspapers all immediately stampeded all over themselves to attack the amendment and defeat it.

Ultra-traitor John McCain, the man the so-called nationalists in the White Nationalist movement overwhelmingly favored in the Presidential campaign, offered dubiously that the amendment “would cause a second Depression.” The US C of C insanely said that buying foreign products was “economic patriotism (!).”

A perfectly reasonable amendment was attached to the stimulus package that demanded that those receiving stimulus money use E-Verify (a program that is 99.

The US Chamber of Commerce quickly went to work on this, and quietly, in committee, super-traitors Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid stripped this out of the bill. As the stimulus is now written, 10

It now appears that the Obama Administration is going to allow the E-Verify program to lapse and not renew it. The Congressional Black Caucus is absurdly leading the pro-illegal immigrant charge. Considering that US Blacks are probably hammered worse than any other group by illegals, that position is seriously absurd and means that on this issue, the Congressional Black Caucus is objectively anti-Black.

I thought that the prospect of the worst economic downturn since the Depression would lead to some sanity on H-1B visas and illegal immigration, but I guess not.

White Nationalists and the anti-immigration crowd are increasingly calling for a third party, a nationalist party. I’m leery about why the WN’s want one, but the party offered by the anti-illegal crowd, the California American Nationalist Party, seems like a good start.

It’s sad when a Leftist is reduced to supporting a nationalist party, but there seem to be few to no US patriots in either major US party anymore.

Oh, and the Libertarians you commenters love? Never was a more treasonous US party created.

The Digital TV Scam

Soon we all have to upgrade to digital TV here in the US. This is one of the most evil scams ever perpetrated on the ever-suffering American consumer. There’s a real problem here in the US. Too many losers like me refuse to fork over $50 a month for TV that I hardly ever even watch. A while back, TV was free. It still should be free. TV was free for the same reason radio was and is free. It was supported by ads. Then something evil happened. The cable companies, some of the most diabolical capitalist monstrosities of our age, were born. TV was going to go cable. At the beginning, it was about $30/month and you got Showtime, HBO and all sorts of other goodies. After a while, I got tired of paying $30/month to some capitalist cable TV scum, so I turned into a “criminal”. My friends dug up the cable TV box and jerry-rigged it somehow (don’t ask me how) so I got the cable for free. I got free cable for years that way. I don’t consider it a crime because it ought to be legal for ordinary citizens to steal from criminals (cable companies). One day the cable TV repairmen came out and at some point they dug up that box. The worker looked at me and gave me a funny look like, “Boy, you sure are smart,” and then put the box back in. I kept on getting cable for free. Sometime in the 1990’s, the price went up. Now, if you want even the most very basic, sucky cable, you have to pay like $50/month. That’s got to be one of the biggest ripoffs around. I bought some rabbit ears instead and demanded some free TV, as one of my rights as a US citizen. Most stations come in poorly, but I don’t really care, as I hardly watch to idiot box anyway (I might watch more with clear signal). What particularly infuriating is that those are the public airwaves. We own them. I own them. Those are my airwaves, dammit! The government took my damned airwaves, auctioned them off for pennies on the dollar to the lowest capitalist garbage on Earth (the cable companies) and didn’t give me one nickel of the proceeds. My property was given away to criminals who then turned around and charged me out the wazoo to access my very own property again. It’s like a criminal steals your car and then forces you to lease it in order to drive it to work and back, and if you complain, the cops take you to jail. People need to know that the cable companies are all monopolies, legal monopolies. There is nothing worse than a legal, unregulated monopoly. The local phone companies and electric companies are also legal monopolies, but they are regulated, so in general, they behave halfway decently. If they were not regulated, they would quickly degenerate into rats too. It’s amazing that the Chicago School defends monopolies are economically rational. They are surely not rational for the consumer. It must be an economic maxim by now that as monopolization increases, the consumer is increasingly shafted. The only way out of that argument is through lying, which I assume must be the Friedmanite position on monopolies. Anyway, here it is in the year 2000’s, and it’s $50/month for the most basic, sucky array of cable channels. Keep in mind that when the government first auctioned off the cable spectrum, there were a lot of worries about screwing the consumer. The cable companies were adamant that they were going to charge bigtime for the service. Well, in return, consumer advocates asked, I assume we get few to no ads, right? If consumers are paying for cable, there’s not much reason anymore for ads, and if cable is full of ads, it may as well be free or nearly free like the only ad-supported TV. The cable company scum assured us that there would be few to no ads on cable. This was touted as one of the awesome benefits of the New Cable World. Hurrahs went up across the land. Here it is 2009. Turn on most cable channels, and you will quickly be hit by a nearly-fatal mudslide of ads. There’s at least as many ads on cable as there are on my free rabbit ears TV. Somebody’s making a Godddamn killing. Now comes the forced upgrade to digital TV. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we need to do this. The only thing that I can think of is that American capitalism has become so sick and evil that one of the only ways it can figure out how to continuously grow is through endless forced and unnecessary upgrades. Everything that worked just fine 30 or 40 years ago, or, Hell, 10 years ago, has to go, no matter how useful it was or still is. We have to force everyone to get rid of their working-fine “outdated” stuff and replace it with new technology that is frankly unnecessary. Hence, after we spent a fortune on LP’s and the finest turntables, we were told they were out and we needed to move on to CD’s. Our vast 8-track collections and 8-track players were useless, and we had to upgrade them to cassettes and fancy cassette players. Then our mountains of cassettes and top of the line cassette players became useless, and we needed to move on up to CD’s. I still haven’t bought a CD player. After the 8-track player, the turntable and the cassette player I threw up my hands, sold all my media and players to my friends and my brother and switched to FM radio. My videotapes are useless and so is my VCR. I did upgrade to a DVD player (bought from some Norteno gang members, probably stolen, for $45), but I don’t have any DVD’s to play on it. So now we all need to move on up to digital TV. Why? Too many idiots like me are still on rabbit ears. So the forced upgrade is coming. But lots of jerks like me are going to refuse to fork the $300 for the digital TV. Not that the digital TV itself would be good enough anyway. Ever noticed that so many of the movies now are coming out in HD-only format? Try to play that DVD on a non-HD digital TV and you have a funny picture with big black spaces at the top and bottom of the screen. Those big black spaces are US capitalism’s way of screaming at you, “You loser! Why can’t you afford $800 for an HD-TV?!” That must be painful. Well, the government will sell you a box for about nothing that enables you to get a digital signal on an analog TV. But here’s the catch! It won’t work very well. Wink wink. The analog signal would work way better. If for some reason, the signal is weak, on an old analog box it just comes in fuzzy. But it’s watchable. Remember all the fuzzy signals you watched as a kid? Well, with the analog box and digital signal, it won’t work that way. It will either gome in great or it won’t come in at all. If it doesn’t come in all the way, you get a blank screen and a message that says, “Poor signal.” Or you will get pixellated blocks of nothing on the screen, blowing out whatever was there, and leaving some signal intact. But that  signal will be frozen, so the people on the TV show will be frozen in whatever position they were in when the signal went fuzzy. And when the signal goes a little bit bad, you might still get a decent video, but the audio is going to go clean out. No sound. Frozen screen with no audio. Hell, that’s not watchable at all, not on any drug. That’s not even watchable on PCP. One of the advantages of the new digital BS is that there is going to be something like 1,600 channels. I can see it now. 1,600 channels and nothing good on any of them. Anyway, I own all those 1,600 channels, you, me and the rest of the schmucks (I mean ordinary citizens) in the US. Well, once again, the government kindly took my property and sold it to the highest bidder. Turns out that the cable companies, and only like 2 or 3 or them at that – I think Comcast, Verizon and ATT – bought almost all of those 1,600 channels. So don’t expect to be picking them up on your rabbit ears anytime soon. So if you want to watch anything decent on any of those new 1,600 channels, you need to shell out for cable at $50/month for the minimum crap, and lots more for anything more. Not only that, but if you stick with the rabbit ears TV, you will have a terminally screwed reception. Solution? Fork over $300 for a digital TV. Once you buy the digital TV, you will be endlessly frustrated trying to watch the HD-only DVD’s you keep renting. Solution? Buy the $800 HD TV. See how American capitalism grows the economy? One more evil via the cable companies. The cable companies now have a very interesting power. Monopoly consumer power, or monopoly distributor power. This is a very interesting power. In general, consumers simply do not have monopoly power. If I walk into a store and see an item priced at $50 and say, “Screw that! $50? I’ll give you $20, take it or leave it!” The store help will just wave and say goodbye. There will always be some guy after me who says, “$50? No problem! Give me three!” As long as that next guy exists, I have no monopoly power as a consumer. Monopoly power of consumers only exists in rare situations where there are a limited number of consumers, buyers or distributors for products. Hence the buyer is in the unusual position of dictating sales terms to the seller. The seller can’t really go elsewhere to find new consumers or buyers because there aren’t any. This is the position the cable scum are in. The cable scum buys its product from the producers of video content. So far, thank God, the producers and distributors are separate. God help us when they merge! So, the cable scum have been paying say Disney Channel, say $5/per time unit X for Disney Channel content. Well, just recently, all of the cable companies got together (Legal? Dubious.) and dictated terms to the content producers. Instead of paying Disney Channel $5/per time unit X, they would pay Disney Channel $2/per time unit X. They content producers could not say, “Fine, bye,” because there are only a tiny number of consumers or buyers for their product. A large number of buyers (free competition among buyers) is essential so that capitalists can get a fair price for their products and not be collectively driven out of business. This area of economics, buyer monopolies, seems little explored. Monopolies are just crap all around. Buyer monopolies, seller monopolies, distributor monopolies, they’re not good for anyone but the monopoly.

Thoughts on the Stimulus Package

Some thoughts on the stimulus package. First of all, it is a proven maxim of mainstream economics that government spending must go up in a recession. If not, you run the risk of a depression. During a depression, the state for sure needs to spend more money. Otherwise the depression never ends. I assume that these Chicago School freemarketeer morons have thrown all this out, and believe insane things like in a recession or a depression, you should slash government spending. That’s simply madness. The Friedmanites are the equivalent of religious fundamentalists. I would say that what they are preaching is unscientific, except that the dismal science is not much of a science in the first place. So the stimulus is a great idea. That the Republicans oppose it on the grounds of excess spending just shows how insane they are. All sane economists agree that a stimulus package is needed right now, and most think that this package is too small, if anything. As far as the tax cuts are concerned, I am getting really tired of all this tax cut crap. According to Republicans, tax cuts are always necessary. In good economic times, we need to slash taxes. We can’t possibly raise taxes in an economic boom! That would ruin the expansion. Truth is that all sane economists agree that an expansion is the one time that you can successfully raise taxes without causing problems. The Republicans are right that raising taxes in the middle of a recession or depression is a bad idea. So you don’t do it. Liberal economists agree with this too. So how to you increase government spending in bad economic times? Well, the state is supposed to borrow the money. The tax cuts in this plan are ridiculous. As a socialist, I have little interest in tax cuts. if you defund the state, there will be little money for the socialist programs that we socialists love so much. It’s impossible to promote any kind of reasonable socialist project while one is continuously cutting taxes willy-nilly. There won’t be any funds to pay for the project. Defunding the state via tax cuts is a de facto anti-socialist project. My main beef with this stimulus thing is that there needs to be a massive debt write-down. That’s all there is to it. This debt, in all of its forms, is simply unpayable. Some readers may not understand what a debt write-down is. Say you bought a home for $500,000. With the collapse of housing prices, it is now worth $300,000. Ballooning mortgage payments mean you can’t pay your mortgage and you are going to lose your home. In a debt write-down, the amount you owe on your home would be written down from $500,000 to $300,000. True, the bank loses money, or at least does not get as much money in the future as it would have otherwise. So the banks take a hit on any write-down of debt. So the debt now afflicting our society, in all of its multiple and nefarious forms, needs to be written down, particularly the mortgage debt. The banks hate writing down debt. They fight it with tooth and nail and never quit. They lose money in debt write-downs and banks have corporate charters that demand that they function as profit-maximizing organisms. Failure to do so can lead to stockholder revolts and replacement of the bank’s top management. So this stimulus, in not writing down debt, lets the banks off the hook. And unless a debt write down occurs, I’m afraid that the economy is going to go down hard. And take the world economy with it. So really, these bankers are maybe going to take down the US economy and after that, the world economy. And no, I don’t believe bankers = “Jews”. On the old blog we went over the notion of whether or not the Jews run the banks anymore. They no longer run the banks in Europe, where they ran them for 100 years or so. The Holocaust, horrible as it was, insured that the Jews no longer ran the banks of Europe. European banks are now run by a deracinated corporate class of European citizens, with no ethnic group predominating. Asian banks, also big players, are run by Asians. The Jews in the US did make a run for commercial banking in the 1920’s, but Gentile solidarity (anti-Semitism) stopped that plot in its tracks. Gentile bankers simply got together and decided to refuse to sell their banks to Jews. When Jews practice ethnic warfare in a society, the only way to fight back is Gentile solidarity, or anti-Semitism. I do not think that the anti-Semitism should go beyond the ethnic warfare of the Jews. If the Jews are not killing or physically harming Gentiles, Gentiles may not kill or physically harm Jews. So US banks are now a deracinated corporate mishmash of ethnic groups, with no group predominating. Why does the debt need to be written down? Because it is unpayable. And when people are busy paying down frankly unpayable debt, there’s no money left over to buy things, invest, etc.

2005 Nobel Prize in Economics Winners

Two nasty Nobel Prize winners. The two men, Thomas C. Schelling and Robert J. Aumann, won for Game Theory, but unfortunately, they applied much of their Game Theory to wars, especially the most immoral wars, cold and hot, of the US and Israel. Mr. Schelling was long involved in trying to win a nuclear war against the USSR, then with the collapse of the USSR, advocated for the overthrow of other nations the US wants to regime change, often through nonviolent revolutions. His theory was most recently used in the “color revolutions of Lebanon, Georgia and Ukraine. Mr. Aumann is most unpleasant. A Super-Jew and Super-Zionist, he opposed the withdrawal from Gaza and has long advocated the annexation of Gaza into Israel, although I assume that the Palestinians will not receive any state benefits, nor will they be able to vote. His game theory was used in the recent blockade of Gaza intended to force the Gazans to overthrow Hamas. Nice people, these Nobel Prize winners!

Where Did All That Wall Street Money Go?

The US economy, or the world economy, lost…What? Hundreds of billions? Trillions? …of dollars when Wall Street firms and banks went belly-up. Many are asking where the money went. Obviously, somebody raked in the loot. Who? The helpful commenters on Xymphora suggest…two guesses? The Jews! How did you guess? Leaving aside for the moment whether or not “the Jews” got rich off Wall Street getting its clock cleaned, we should deal instead with the issue of whether anyone at all got rich off the massive losses on Wall Street, or whether the billions or trillions of losses went into anyone’s pocket. My position is that no one got rich off the Wall Street crash and burn, as the money lost never even existed in the first place. You know, paper money, paper profits, all that. Any readers have any thoughts on this?

Some Thoughts on Central Planning

Project Cybersyn. Fascinating stuff.

It consisted of Telex machines located in workplaces communicating information in real time to a central control system.

It even had a control room! And supposedly it worked pretty well, too. Surely, with Moore’s Law and all and the advances in software and programming theory, not to mention various forms of AI, computing is now vastly more advanced than it was 36 years ago? Via Eastern Star, a link to a book called Towards a New Socialism (1993) by W. Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell. From the site:

Update on computer speeds: One of the themes of our work is that the speed of modern computers makes a real difference to the feasibility of efficient economic planning. In Socialist Planning After the Collapse of the Soviet Union, for instance, we assess the time-order of the calculations required for planning in detail a ten-million product economy. We use for reference the figure, at that time on the cutting edge, of one billion calculations per second for an advanced multiprocessor. Such figures date quickly. IBM recently announced (Feb 12, 1998) the signing of a contract with the US Department of Energy and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for the delivery, by the year 2000, of a computer capable of 10 trillion calculations per second — 4 orders of magnitude faster than our 1993 benchmark.

Their argument is that the new computer speeds means that the argument over the inefficiency and unworkability of central planning in an economy is now in a whole new ballpark. This is said to be an answer to the Economic Calculation Argument by Mises, Von Hayek, Friedman, etc. that says that a centrally planned economy can never work. The free marketeers actually have some interesting arguments to throw out there, and you can argue that they have history on their side. At the collapse of the USSR, it was said that Gosplan was only able to calculate prices for some 500,000 of the 3 million products (!) being produced by the “failed socialist state”. First, I wonder how a failed system even produces 3 million different products a year, but anyway…it’s clear that Gosplan was overwhelmed. Socialists who agree with the free marketeers’ argument have countered with “market socialism”, which I am not necessarily opposed to at all, except no one seems to know exactly what it is. One way of doing this, according to a journal article I read, is to devolve control of the workplaces to the workers, but with control over investment versus profit-taking left to the state. Plants that started losing money would simply close, thereby avoiding the problem of money-losing state firms. Control over workers’ investment decisions was necessary because the Yugoslavian experience showed us that workers, given the chance of reinvesting profits in plants versus taking them home in their pockets overwhelmingly preferred to take them home. This resulted in deinvestment in the plants and resulting breakdown of the infrastructure, eventually making the plant unable to function competitively, or at all. In the Mondragon Cooperatives in the Basque Country of Spain, plants are owned by workers technically, but actually they are owned by large regional banks. The banks make the decisions of whether or not to take home profits in workers’ pockets or to reinvest in the plant. This non-capitalist form of ownership has worked very well! My father always counters by saying, “Ok, so then why isn’t everyone doing it?” Hey! It’s a non-capitalist form of ownership. Capitalists run the planet. They don’t like non-capitalism forms. They can’t make money off them. Duh. In China, there is already something like this. The #3 producer of TV’s in the world is actually a Chinese publicly-owned firm , and it’s competing quite well, if I do say so myself. China has devolved many public enterprises to the level of local municipality and labor collective, the forms that actually run these plants. Much of China’s explosive economic growth in the 1980’s and early 1990’s was actually coming out of these publicly-owned firms. In China, I believe that Chinese firms still must technically be owned by the workers. This is described by Time Magazine as a “Maoist-era anachronism” (Mao insisted, evil bastard that he was, that workers actually own the firms – evil seems to know no limits) that the capitalist roaders (yes, that is what they are) in China are chafing to get rid of. I don’t want them to get rid of it. Worker ownership in China is a good thing. Now many plants are actually run by municipalities. Cities run them either well and make lots of money or poorly and don’t make much money, so there is competition within the socialist sector in China. The ones that do well can expand, pay and house their workers better, so workers flock from all over to these cities to try to get jobs with the firms that are doing well. In one city that was written up, control of profits versus investment was run by the municipality, and they required that workers plow back in 9 Cuba has recently found that there are some efficiencies (!) in large state farms for certain crops (sugar cane, potatoes, beef and poultry) versus having them grown by small farmers in plots of 10 acres. Cuba is now making plots of up to 10 acres available to any small farmers who wish to take them up, and there has been a flood of applications, but the small farmer way is not necessarily Utopian. Back to Cockshott and Cottrell’s book again, although they claim to have solved Hayek’s “calculation objection” (see the Economic Calculation Argument link above) which theoretically makes any planned economy doomed to failure. That’s a good step forward right there. C & C argue that socialism was able to overcome the calculation objection by the mid-1980’s due to the increase in computing power. Nevertheless, the planned economy still has problems, many of which are economic and hence nearly beyond the reach of the average reader. But we will go into them nevertheless. C & C offer no plausible solutions to any of the following dilemmas: The problem of lack of incentives in a socialist society remains. Che Guevara’s famous “moral incentives” crusade never really worked out very well. Innovation, lack of it, or lack of incentives for innovation are also a crucial problem in socialism (in my view, nearly fatal). I would argue that assuming that the state has to money to do so, persons making critical or groundbreaking innovations in society should be rewarded warmly – possibly with awards of say 1 years salary for each significant breakthrough. There is a problem in that economic planning and centralization seem to engender social planning and political centralization, making the planned economy almost automatically undemocratic in praxis. They offer a plan to allow regular citizen referenda on all sorts of things, done via touch-screen TV’s in every home. The problem of the nearly inevitable development of a capitalist black market in any planned economy remains. As does the problem of an inevitable brain drain of the best and the brightest to capitalist countries where the labor rewards are so much better.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)