Depression is caused by concentration of wealth to the point that family formation becomes unaffordable.

Concentration of wealth is reflected in the skyrocketing credit market debt to GDP ratio.

We have been in a managed depression for decades but we are now entering an unmanaged depression:

The only way to stabilize the system is unacceptable to our rulers:

Replace taxes on economic activity and virtually all government expenditures with a citizens’ dividend funded from a use fee for the net, in-place liquidation value of property rights beyond those that an individual would successfully defend in the absence of government (home and tools/weapons) —a use-fee equal to the risk free interest rate on said in-place liquidation value.

This stops depression by stopping centralization—centralization via private sector rent-seeking and centralization via public sector rent-seeking.  The closest we are likely to come to stability is if Obama is elected and imposes a net asset tax.  But this will merely trade private sector rent-seeking for public sector rent-seeking as there is no way Obama will let working whites have any of their patrimony back without walking hat-in-hand into their local government offices and/or precinct political meetings to genuflect appropriately.  Even then it will be very grudging and selectively doled out only to the most obsequious and “non threatening” of whites—which immediately disqualifies almost all working whites who don’t have biracial children.

As I wrote in 1992, prior to either this refinement of my net asset tax proposal or to becoming aware of the nature of Jewish virulence:

When the incentives for productivity become negative due to capital welfare in excess of the economic growth rate, wealth is structurally centralized at the expense of others in the economy. The absolute level of net assets owned by the general population actually decreases so as to increase the net assets of the wealthy.  This not only removes all incentives for production and entrepreneurial investment from the economy, but consumer demand collapses as credit is liquidated to pay for necessities.  Depression ensues.  It is under these circumstances that demands for socialist intervention in the economy via “public investment” take on an air of urgent legitimacy.

In such a desperate environment, Marx’s arguments in “Das Kapital” appear as rational and appealing as any made by Schumpeter, Laffer or even Adam Smith.  It is therefore critical to understand to what extent socialist criticisms of capitalism are valid so we can credibly argue against their fallacies—particularly when they are promoted during obvious manifestations of capitalism’s flaws.

The real reason the sole route to stability is unacceptable to our rulers is explained by a simple analogy:

Such pathological concentration of wealth is to civilization as opiate addiction is to neurophysiology.  Jewish virulence is to such concentration of wealth as pushers are to opiate addiction:  Such susceptibilities will occasionally manifest in the absence of their promoters but much more often with said promotion.  However, the last time in Western Civilization that Jews arguably did not play an important role was when Julius Ceasar crossed the Rubicon to “correct” the tensions between Patricians and Plebeians.  Even in this instance their importance in the slave trade may have acted as their current importance in immigration—contributing decisively to wage depression hence wealth centralization.

READ MORE...

Dr K R Bolton FCIS

The crisis among international finance is, I’m inclined to think at this stage, more a natural cyclic product of parasitism than a manipulated contrivance as in the 1930s Great Depression.

What is interesting is that parasitic finance, or what is historically called usury, operates in the manner of social Darwinism, where even the esteemed Lehmans Bank was not saved by its fellow parasites. Lehmans has historically been up the top of the global cabal of power manipulators beside the likes of Rothschild, et al; but Goldman Sachs, also among this globalist cabal, refused a bail out. A “newer comer”, Merrill Lynch has likewise gone to the wall.

As far as results go, however, the international financial system is becoming increasingly centralised, and you can be sure that none of this cabal will suffer. They will remain part of the world power game, as the interlocking directorates of banks and other corporations ensure the positions of every member of the globalist cabal.

An interesting sidelight is that the same cabal that has promoted Free Trade ideology since the 19th Century (while simultaneously backing Marxism in pre-industrial rural-based spiritual countries such as Russia, as part of a dialectical transition from traditional society to Marxism to parasitic capitalism) has resorted to appealing for state intervention to prop up certain entities, without which the financial fallout would cause wholesale collapse, and perhaps a rerun of the 1930s where Fascism and National Socialism emerged in rebellions against Free Trade and usury.

However, while the Great Depression spawned a variety of alternatives, including Fascism, Corporatism from Portugal and Austria to Brazil, Social Credit and Distributism; and other mass movements often inspired by Catholic social doctrine, such as Father Coughlin’s Social Justice; it seems that decades of ignorance and apathy will ensure that there will be no such upsurge in popular alternatives. Aberrations such as Ron Paul, who sought the Republican nomination for presidency, were quickly reduced to invisibility with the help of an obliging media.

Obama is presented as the man of the people to overcome crises, just as Roosevelt was, and both were backed by the same cabal.

Additionally, the Catholic Church, once a major factor in spawning mass alternatives to both capitalism and socialism, on the basis of Papal encyclicals and historic opposition to usury, has long since abdicated its role as offering any worthwhile alternative other than a banal crypto-Marxism called the social gospel. A notable exception is the Canadian based Pilgrims of St Michael, a social credit movement spawned in the 1930s, which has retained the old crusading zeal that has long since evaporated from all other such movements and parties.

Kerry Bolton is the editor of Restoration Magazine.

Several times over the last few months I’ve considered putting together a post about one or other jaw-dropping new development in the banking crisis.  But then I’ve realised how difficult answering any of the really big questions, as they will affect the lives of our people, really is.  So I restricted myself to one post on the politics of sub-prime and one on the privatisation of profit and the socialisation of risk (a polite way of saying “theft”).

Now, with the sudden acceleration of events to completely undreamt of levels of destructiveness, I think it’s time to at least acknowledge the moment.

Prior to the collapse, there were five truly global investment banks cum securities trading and brokerage firms in Wall Street.  Bear Stearns and then, in one momentous day, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch were despatched.  The remaining two seem to be taking on the appearance of dominos:-

“The fear is who is next,” said John O’Brien, senior vice president at MKM Partners LLC in Cleveland. “It almost feels like people scour the books and say who is the next likely target that we can put a short on. And that spreads continuous fear.”

Shares of Morgan Stanley and larger rival Goldman fell as much as 43 percent and 27 percent, respectively, even after both reported better-than-expected quarterly earnings on Tuesday.

“I’m assuming that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are lining up dancing partners. They don’t want to be ... this week’s victim,” said William Larkin, fixed income manager at Cabot Money Management in Salem, Massachusetts.

... “Seems like the SEC is a day late on the rule ... Morgan Stanley is clearly in the short-sellers’ sights,” said Andrew Brenner, senior vice president at MF Global in New York.

READ MORE...

This link will take you to the BBC-televised Q & A session held by the Mayor of London.  Basically, once every month Boris Johnson fields business questions from the twenty-five members of the London Assembly.  One of these is the BNP’s second-greatest “asset”, Richard Barnbrook.

He is evidently having a fairly torrid time in the Assembly, which is to be expected.  Bravery and doggedness, both of which Barnbrook possesses, are admirable qualities for, say, an army corporal or a even a warrant officer.  But other qualities are required in representative politics - all the moreso when one carries on one’s shoulders the burden of representing the truest interests of every native Londoner.

Click on the BBC link and slide the programme forward to precisely 2:16.07.  You will hear Barnbrook being called to ask his question of the Mayor.  But you won’t see him on the screen - presumably because he cannot bear to take his seat in the Assembly chamber without his party apparel (“banners, posters, materials, props”), although the consequences of doing so have been explained to him.

The question he wants to ask is an important one about the harm to London caused by the riotous, costly and dangerous Notting Hill Carnival.  This is the first mayoral questions since the Carnival, and no other Assembly member has the principle, never mind the political independence, to question it.  It is a right and proper use of mayoral questions to do so.  The aura of smugness of the political Establishment in London deserves to be elegantly skewered on this and a great many other issues.  But Barnbrook cannot do elegance.  He cannot even follow the precedent of the other Assembly members of all parties, and address the Mayor in a non-partisan way.  He cannot organise his own thoughts.  He quickly loses the thread, finishing without asking a proper question at all.  Naturally, he doesn’t engage Johnson for one moment.  He is easily ridiculed and very brutally despatched, to general laughter and applause.

He is a wire terrier by nature.  He will come back as game as ever, bristling with BNP indignation, having learned nothing from this or any previous encounter ... and certainly not having learned how to square up, within Assembly rules, to a class political act like Johnson.

The 130,714 Londoners who voted for the BNP on May 3rd deserve something better than this.  We all do.

Let us begin with the question ...

If National Socialism was Germany’s preferred answer to Versailles, Depression and inflation, the decadence of Weimar and the revolutionary Marxism of international Jewry, what is the answer to the globalised capital, power elitism, race-replacement immigration, hyper-individualism, racial self-estrangement, and Jewish ethno-aggression of today?

Now, the list of ills in either case - 1920’s Germany or the postmodern present - is open to debate.  Other factors that pressaged and pressage change may be added.  The order of significance - indeed, whether one factor is, alone, significant - may be debated, as we often debate here.  But what cannot be debated is that we, by which I mean all the European peoples of the West, do not face less mortal dangers than Germans did eight decades ago.  That is evident to anyone who can separate himself even a little from the zeitgeist.  But who will subscribe to the philosophical and political muscularity such disaster would seem to commend?

We have fallen a long way.  If the source of our woes is difficult to agree upon, how much more difficult the path back to a decent and free life for our children.

“Prejudice”, as it has come to be used, is frequently a Bayesian Prior Probability Distribution.

The reason it would be an insult to the prejudiced, in the old sense of that word, to lump them with folks who nowadays decry “prejudice” is that those who now decry “prejudice” are typically so irrationally devoted to their own Prior Beliefs that you can present them with an endless “conversation” which contradicts, with actual evidence, their Prior Beliefs, and they will hold firm.

The folks they decry as “prejudiced” on the other hand, usually have mountains of evidence backing them up with on-going evidence supporting their Prior Beliefs.

Beyond the apparent stupidity of such people, they are also hypocrites acting like morally vain Church Ladies of Holocaustianity, which makes them particularly insufferable.

Danish patriot and blogger, Balder, had circularised a very good and comprehensive piece on the racial and political street violence now on the rise in and beyond Copenhagen.  The addition of immigrant, mostly Moslem, gangs to the brew moves things a stage further than the old antifacist vs NF street violence in England that I blogged about here a few days ago.  So does the fact that “large numbers of young Danes are volunteering for the new movement, hoping that they will be able to contribute to the fight against the muslim invaders”.

GW

DENMARK: STREET WAR BETWEEN HELLS ANGELS AND IMMIGRANT GANGS SPREADING

Clashes in Denmark between bikers, hangarounds and patriots, versus immigrant gangs and left wing extremists.

The biker group Hells Angels seem to be coming back at the at the moment still dominating immigrant gangs, with their new support group AK81, which is increasingly gaining support from Danes who are not first and foremost interested in bikes or crime, but who have grown increasingly hostile to especially muslim immigrants, after ever increasing street violence, knife attacks, robberies and rape from the side of muslim immigrants.

The rates for violent crime and especially rape related cases have gone up dramatically with the increasing number of muslim immigrants. Large numbers of Danes, not otherwise interested in motorcycles or gang related criminal activity, are reported to sign up under the new banner of the HA support group AK81 ‘81? being synonymous with the letters HA), and AK probably referring to the famous AK 47 ‘Kalashnikov’ submachine gun, as well as meaning Always Ready [Altid Klar] in Danish.

For many years motorcycle gangs such as the illustrious Hells Angels and muslim dominated street gangs managed to exist side by side in relative peace, in the struggle for control of the market for illegal drugs, especially cannabis, but also other forms of crime.

The later years the ethnic Danish gangs such as Hells Angels were increasingly coming under pressure from the muslim gangs, who showed to be far more relentless in their methods, and much less afraid of the possible judicial consequences of their actions, besides being much more numerous, and able to draw upon support from much of the immigrant community not otherwise involved in similar crime.

READ MORE...

Back in 2005, the New South Wales Labor government attempted to bring in a religious hate speech law.  Former MR contributor Steve Edwards joined the campaign to thwart the plan with this article.  It was published in Policy, the journal of the right-liberal Centre for Independent Studies.

The campaign was successful, though Steve took the opportunity to write a further piece for Policy six months later, this time on the Danish Cartoons Affair.

The hate-speechers went away to lick their wounds.  But they are believers in the political ratchet, and they didn’t give up.  Now the proposal is back, prompting Steve to return once more to the pages of Policy.  Here is his new article.

GW

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

THE TROUBLE WITH RELIGIOUS HATRED LAWS

Religions and their followers should receive no special protection from spoken hostility, argues Steve Edwards

reedom of speech and conscience are invaluable and timeless principles. Thomas Paine summarised them crisply in the eighteenth century, in the introduction to The Age of Reason:

I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

Governments should play very little or no role in determining what people are allowed to say and hear, regardless of whether this may be ‘offensive’ to the traditional enemies of liberty—primarily religious fanatics—or to those of a weaker ‘moderate’ disposition who would passively give up ‘their’ freedom (and ours too) to buy a little peace and quiet. Yet today there are few legal or moral principles that have come under greater sustained attack.

Under the guise of maintaining ‘religious harmony,’ Western governments are being pressured by a worldwide coalition of United Nations bureaucrats, third-world tyrannies, and ‘progressive’ academics and think tanks into passing legislation with the aim of criminalising the ‘vilification’ and even ‘defamation’ of religions—mainly Islam—and their followers. The instigators of this global confederacy are not arguing for anything particularly new or interesting, yet their goal would reverse hundreds of years of intellectual development in the pursuit of an unnecessary and unattainable ‘social peace,’ signed on the terms of theist zealots. As freedom of speech and conscience arguably provided and still provide the foundations of limited, anti-despotic government—and indeed the necessary breathing space for some of the most important social advances in the past two centuries, with entire nations and even civilisations climbing out of obscurantism and penury—it could be argued that the Enlightenment legacy itself is now under threat.

The accused

The list of people who have been prosecuted or censored for various speech crimes against religion and religious believers has grown at an impressive clip in recent years.

In 2005 and 2006, British National Party leader Nick Griffin was twice placed on trial, at great expense to himself and to British taxpayers, for ‘inciting racial hatred’ through comments he made in a speech that Islam was ‘a wicked, vicious faith.’ In the wake of Griffin’s subsequent acquittal, then-chancellor Gordon Brown said ‘mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard made,’ and called for a tightening of Britain’s ‘racial hatred’ laws.(1)

In 2006, the Swedish foreign minister, Laila Freivalds, resigned after it was discovered that her department had pressured a web-hosting company into shutting down a site that was about to display a set of anti-Muhammad cartoons.(2)

In 2007, a demonstration planned to take place in Brussels to promote the ‘single aim of preventing Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe’ was banned by the city mayor, Freddy Thielemans, on the pretext that to allow the rally, organised by a coalition called Stop the Islamisation of Europe, to go ahead would ‘disturb public order.’(3)

READ MORE...