Depression, Wealth and Moral Depravity
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.
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.
One may say this much of such “correction by kingship”: At least kings—through taxation of wealth—occasionally keep the baronage from too much decadence, as did Henry the VII—by collecting to the royal coffers the economic rents of the realm into the hands of a family that represents the pinnacle of the genetic interests of the populace. Although this hoard of wealth does, itself, lay the foundation for court toadies to eventually corrupt the royal court’s blood and morals.
Unfortunately, it apparently does not go without saying that “bailing out the creditors” rather than distributing wealth to the people is only going to increase the debt loading on the people and will only exacerbate, via moral hazard, the tendency to prop up demand with ever-worsening credit scores. But the addict is facing cold turkey and is in no mood to recognize larger realities.
This already insufferable situation is made worse when those who are supposed to be on “our side”, like Martin Hutchison, don’t recognize economic collapse is due to the decreasing affordability of family formation.
The real cost of reproduction has risen by a factor of 4 since so-called “Greatest Generation” was siring the Baby Boom, but instead of drawing attention to the fact that this helped cause demographic collapse of whites, he participates in laying down a moralistic smoke-screen in statements (all of which are true but unrepresentative of the pressures against family formation visited upon the historically critical demography of the Baby Boomers) like:
Hell, even Warren Buffet isn’t this depraved. Despite his statement on CNBC of Mon. Dec. 4 2006 that:
Here he is, calling attention to the dainty little things of civilization while ignoring the gut-wrenching destruction of job and family stability in the face of exploding real estate prices. But even Warren “my son had 5 kids why can’t you?” Buffett, in November 26, 2006 had enough decency to touch the real issues facing his Midwestern employees:
Of course, no mention is made of wealth—net assets—property rights—the protection of which is the primary government service—a service for which there is no use fee or tax.
And, of course, it was immediately after he made this statement to one of the less virulent neocon Jews, Ben Stein, that the all-too-typical Jewish media moguls threw a buxom red-headed Jewess into a room with Buffett where he made his Hutchison-esque comment about young people living like Rockefeller.
Giving the devil his due: Clearly there has been a moral corruption as mass media has displaced the church, which itself displaced the father as the moral authority of his household and clearly this moral corruption has taken its toll on heterosexual white men as more and more indulge in sexual predation which places pressures on white women to become more independent.
But equally clear is that young women are immensely powerful in their influence on young men and that for all we hear about how irresponsible and immoral white male youth have become—especially from “conservative” elders—we hear almost nothing about the moral depravity of those elders in failing to recognize that turning over moral indoctrination of their children, sons and daughters, to mass media, “educators” and even their own pastors of their own churches was an abrogation of the most sacred aspect of the relationship between forefathers and sons and daughters. Moreover when those elders indulge in such after-the-fact moralizing as a smoke screen for their having participated in the extraction of wealth from their sons and grandsons via preemptive real estate speculation—and all-too-often—sexual exploitation of younger economically strapped and morally corrupted females—it is a monstrous moral depravity of those elders that must be subjected to just as much exposure as was Tom Brokaw’s opiate of the dying GI’s: “The Greatest Generation”.
Can we then, having put things in a little more perspective, stop this idiocy of intergenerational warfare and point instead to our common enemy that is dividing father against son: the elites that have fallen victim to their human weaknesses within the centralizing temptations of civilization, seduced by their Jewish “advisers”?
And can we recognize the historic pattern here is leading us to another crossing of the Rubicon: watchful not only for Ceasar’s moral depravity in failing to promptly distribute land to his men and repatriate the slave population to restore the Republic, but watchful also for the Patrician-serving Brutus who would pretend to take the Republic’s part against the tyrant?
Post a comment: