Intellectual honesty requires that one address the strongest, not weakest, arguments of one’s opponent. It is called “Devil’s Advocacy” or “Giving the Devil his Due” but it is not really advocacy, nor really even viewing one’s opponent as “the Devil”.  It is simple intellectual honesty.  Now, admittedly, we live in a very intellectually dishonest world—a world in which we are routinely demonized by a theocratic supremacy utterly uninterested in the truth or freedom—so there is very little reciprocation earned from us.  That is the strongest position of those who would not give the Devil his Due:  Why bother with intellectual honesty?

The answer is simply, that we seek the truth.

With that preliminary out of the way, let me address something that has been bothering me for some time about those who continually go on about the Federal Reserve “creating money out of thin air” as though they are counterfieting.  First, the money they create is backed by the threat of punishment—if you don’t obtain their money for payment of taxes, the government will throw you in prisons to experience “sexual awakening”—hence not “out of thin air”.  Now, everyone who uses the phrase “out of thin air” will more or less agree that this “backing” by a promise not to punish you if you present the Federal Reserve tokens is real but, they will object, there is no point in discussing such fine distinctions.

Yes there is.

There is a relatively strong argument from the supporters of fiat money and fractional reserve banking that gets trotted out for the favored few journalists, economics majors and politicians who are trained to ignore the rest of us.  We, the “Paranoid”—We, the “Kooks”—We, the “Extremists”—We, the People, are not exposed to it—until now.

Imagine a world in which people have taken a step up from barter to issuing IOUs for their goods or services—IOUs which can circulate.  Farmer John issues IOUs that say: “I, Farmer John, owe the bearer of this note 1 dozen eggs.”  Tailor James issues IOUs that say:  “I, Tailor James, owe the bearer of this note 1 fitted suit.”  These IOUs are traded around the community and a monetary system is established where the currencies have backing that is as real as the credibility of their issuers.  They are “debt money” in the sense that the issuer has made a promise to the bearer but they do not bear interest to anyone in particular.

Now comes the Banker:

The typical argument you hear from the opponents of Fractional Reserve Banking is that the Banker will have a store of gold that he represents with gold certificates that circulate in the community, and that he issues more certificates than he has gold in a blatant act of fraud.  But let’s go back to Farmer John and his eggs for a moment:  Farmer John doesn’t have the eggs.  He has chickens who lay eggs on a regular basis.  If Farmer John has a “run on the henhouse” by the holders of his IOUs, he’ll be accused of having “created IOUs out of thin air” because he won’t be able to service all the demands for his eggs in a timely manner.

Now is it true that the Banker’s main monetary service is the storage of gold for people, hence issuing tokens for more gold than he has in storage is fraud?

No.  That is not the Banker’s main monetary service.

The Banker’s main monetary service is to simplify the monetary system by accepting the IOUs from others and performing 3 services:

1) Evaluate the credibility of the barter tokens issued by Farmer John and Tailor James, etc.
2) Evaluate the liquid value of the goods and/or services offered by Farmer John and Tailor James, etc.
3) Issuing the bank’s IOUs in exchange for IOUs from Farmer John and Tailor James, etc. so that the community has a single currency.

It’s that simple.

Now, one may ask, where does the banker legitimately charge interest here?

Simply:  Sometimes Farmer John fails to provide eggs.  Sometimes Tailor James fails to fit suits.  The banker needs to charge what amounts to an insurance premium based on the credibility of Farmer John’s promises and another premium based on the credibility of Tailor James’s promises, etc.  Hence, the Banker is merely attempting to do what any honest insurance man does:  Cover his, and your, risks in participating in the monetary system under his responsibility.  No Gold need be involved at all.

Now that we better understand the legitimacy of a “central bank”, let us focus on the real problem:

When the bank links up with the tax collecting agencies, as happened in 1913 with the simultaneous passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, it has acquired the government as collection thugs—thugs who will “break your kneecaps” if you don’t pay up.  At some point—and it isn’t well defined exactly when this occurs—the promises for delivery of goods and services cease to be the primary backing for the banker’s notes and the threat of punishment becomes the primary backing.

That’s the real problem with the Federal Reserve.

When I wrote my post about the Bielski brothers, who are lionised in Edward Zwick’s 2008 film, “Defiance”, I mentioned that a Polish-American reader of this blog had provided me with much of the background material.  The same source has now sent me a chapter from a book by a Polish national hero, Stefan Korbo?ski.  The book is The Jews and the Poles in World War II, and this fifth chapter is titled The Jews in postwar Poland.

In the decade up to 1955 Poland somehow acquired Jewish overlords not only in government and the communist party but in the secret police, in the adminstration of justice, in the machinery of political indoctrination, and so on.  It was the darkest period of the communist era, the period of “the midnight knock at the door, arbitrary arrests, torture, and sometimes secret execution”.  Korbo?ski does not dwell on the horrors that were committed during this time, but explains where political power and responsibility lay.  He leaves us to supply motive.

This is by no means dead history.  The political and legal architecture of the communist state was very different, of course, from the Western democratic model.  But in terms of its ethic nepotism and sheer tribal aggression, Jewish engagement in the “dictatorship of the proletariat” demonstrates how unchanging is the character of Jewry and how singular its interest in the monopoly of power.  As Korbo?ski noted somewhat reservedly of Stalin’s appraisal of Jews, they were “cosmopolitans whose loyalties would be to Zionism rather than the country of their residence.”

I reproduce below the entire Chapter V from The Jews and the Poles in World War II.

THE JEWS IN POSTWAR POLAND

READ MORE...

.. on Léon Degrelle and the heroic in popular culture.  The first 5 min 30 sec are given over to an interesting explication of the London New Right.  I am indebted to reader Anarcho Anglo who kindly provided the link to this video.  He mentions two others that are posted thusfar, and I will embed those and any further videos of this speech as I find them - or someone else kindly does so and supplies the URLs.

And thanks to Texan and Anarcho Anglo here are the next five videos:

READ MORE...

Nick Griffin has appeared on this morning’s Andrew Marr Show in what Simon Darby had built up as ground-breaking television. 

(That is the full extent of the interview.  Anyone in Britain who wants to see the whole show, however, can view it over the next seven days on the BBC i-Player here.  The Griffin interview runs from 34 min 12 sec to 42 min 22 sec.)

Obviously, there is always going to be a difficulty with media-stereotyping of the BNP.  The prigs need only make up an entirely fictional story about the party or any of its officers, as they so love to do, and then that is picked up by every subsequent interviewer.  Result: no substantive engagement with the too-too awful fascists.

Marr accorded Griffin a little over eight minutes of programme time.  But he invested almost all of it in the customary exploration of the press’s BNP myths.  Griffin defended himself without difficulty, not least because Marr himself was not overtly hostile.  In addition, though, Griffin uttered a few ameliorative policy noises (with which I do not agree).  More importantly, he also spoke fundamental truths that the public needs to hear, specifically:

“... to point out that Trevor MacDonald is not Welsh or English is not to do him down and say he’s not British.  If Trevor MacDonald’s English then the English are nothing, and that’s a racist position and it’s wrong.”

And:

“... we had to fill in a Census Form.  I had to describe myself as white British.  I’m not white.  I’m English.  But I’m not allowed to say that.”

And he managed to say that the alternative to stopping the current wave of African migration to southern Europe is:

“...  accepting that Britain, eventually, is going to end up like Africa.  And the liberal elite have no right to impose or to allow that to happen when the British population do not want it to happen.

He did well.  He doesn’t possess the qualities of a truly inspirational leader, the sort who might come along perhaps only once in three or four decades of the nation’s political life.  But I agree with Sean Gabb’s assessment that he is clever and not less competent than his opponents in the mainstream parties.  Good luck to him, and may he find it possible in the future to talk much more about the fundamentals, and less about the lies.

by Dan Dare

Readers may recall the brouhaha that erupted several months ago when Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, announced his intention to commission a study of the economic aspects of an amnesty for illegal or ‘irregular’ immigrants.  Hundreds of thousands such migrants are suspected to be present in London, as well as Britain as a whole. Boris was roundly scolded for his troubles by political leaders across the spectrum, including his own party leader, David Cameron. Nevertheless Boris pressed ahead and the study, prepared by specialists at the LSE, appeared in final form on June 16th.  It is titled “Economic impact on the London and UK economy of an earned regularisation of irregular migrants to the UK”.

Unsurprisingly, the report reaches the conclusion that the overall economic effect is positive, and recommends that Boris and the GLA should just get on with their plan. More interesting than the anodyne conclusion, however, is the additional light that the investigation sheds on the scale of illegal immigration into Britain. It indicates that there were between 417,000 and 863,000 irregulars present in Britain as of 2007, with a central estimate of 618,000.  The report states that around two-thirds of this estimate consists of around 400,000 failed asylum seekers, which can actually be confirmed through inspection of the Home Office’s quarterly statistical reports on asylum.

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

The Ideological Caste in the broad sense - the corporate, banking and political classes, intellectuals and academics, media personnel, and so forth - are in league with people who are engaged in taking our country off us and taking our children’s futures from them.

Enoch once stated that immigrants are swaggering around our cities like conquerors. More people every day are also starting to see it as it becomes clearer what is really going on. I have written before that our elites are surrendering us to Islam by allowing them to take over.  At the highest levels, bankers and politicians make deals to get money from people like the Saudis, who finance Wahhabism, to conquer the West through a pincer movement of violence and cultural infiltration. The Prime Minister and Lord Mandelson asked the Saudis to put money into the IMF and offered them and other Gulf states more influence in global institutions in return. Barclays Bank, has had nearly £6 billion invested from Abu Dhabi and Qatar.

This has consequences in ordinary life.

READ MORE...

It is four years ago today that I sat down to write a brief post under the heading Seven Seven, and followed it up a few days later with a longer account of my own tangential and highly tenuous contact with history.

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since that day.  If we are to believe our rulers, there have been scores and perhaps even hundreds of Islamic terrorist attacks that our (it is said) brave and professional security services have disrupted.  Suspiciously few of these, however, have resulted in a prosecution.

In fact, suspicion seems to be the lasting product of 7/7.  On the day that the memorial to that event was consecrated, more or less, the Daily Mail, having picked up yesterday’s snippet in the Guardian, was shouting from the rooftops that:

Far-Right extremists ‘are plotting spectacular terrorist attack in UK’, police warn

Neo-Nazis are plotting a ‘spectacular’ terrorist attack on Britain to fuel racial tension, Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism officers fear.

Senior officers have increased their surveillance of suspects to monitor their ability to carry out a deadly attack aimed at causing a ‘breakdown in community cohesion’.

The chilling warning comes after last month’s startling gains by the BNP in the local and European elections which many fear may ‘embolden’ violent Far-Right extremists.

Commander Shaun Sawyer, from the Met’s specialist operations wing told a meeting of British Muslims last night: ‘I fear that they will have a spectacular ...

‘They will carry out an attack that will lead to a loss of life or injury to a community somewhere. They’re not choosy about which community.’

...  Sir Norman Bettison, the chief constable of West Yorkshire, said: ‘The big bad wolf is still the Al-Qaeda threat.

‘But my people are knocking over right-wing extremists quite regularly. We are interdicting it so that it doesn’t first emerge into the public eye out of a critical incident like an explosion.’

There is vanishingly little information given to back up the claim.  A Hitler-idolising fruitcake named Martyn Gilleard, who was jailed last year, is the best they can come up with.  Does that wash with the British public?  Take a look at the recommendation figures on the comments to the Mail article.

For their part, Nationalists are deeply vexed.  Nationalist bloggers have been quick to pour scorn on the story, and point out that it bears the imprint of the ubiquitous Gerry Gable of Searchlight, the Community Safety Trust, which is where the British Board of Deputies meets Mossad, and the Muslim Safety Forum, which is the interface for “British” Muslims with the police.  But the worrying possibility exists that it signals the start of an aggressive police campaign against Nationalists.  We shall see.

READ MORE...

The Observer reports on an obscure mayoral election in Hénin-Beaumont, and the anticipated resurgence of FN under Marine Le Pen.

Le Pen’s daughter scents victory for resurgent far right

With a cheery “OK, let’s go,” Marine Le Pen leads her troop of activists down the steps of their campaign headquarters, through the narrow streets and into Hénin-Beaumont’s weekend market. Bottle-blond hair, white stilettoes clicking on the pavement, white jeans a sharp contrast to the tracksuits around her, the 40-year-old former lawyer and far-right politician offers handshakes, leaflets, smiles and encouragement in her smoker’s rasp.

By her side is Steeve Briois, the local boy and Front National (FN) candidate who she hopes will be the mayor of this depressed former mining town in northern France when the final count from the second round of Hénin-Beaumont’s municipal election is known at around nine o’clock tonight .

... For the Front National and Le Pen herself, a victory in Hénin-Beaumont would be “the start of a new era”. The FN would be running a municipal authority again for the first time in several years and for the first time in the blighted post-industrial political landscape of northern France.

Also, a first critical step will have been taken to reverse the steady decline since the heady days of 2002 when Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie, the former paratrooper who founded the FN in 1972, made it to the second round run-off in national presidential elections with a countrywide vote of 18%. And finally, Le Pen fille will be established as the unchallenged “leader in waiting” of the party once her father, now 80, retires as promised next year. Le Pen and her team are confident. In the first round of voting a week ago the FN scored well above 40%, twice as many as the nearest challenger.

... In Hénin-Beaumont, run by the Socialists since 1953, things could not be much worse. This weekend’s poll follows the imprisonment of the serving mayor on wide-ranging charges of systematic corruption and the resignation of virtually all his colleagues. The fraud is reported to have cost the town colossal sums, leading to local taxes rising steeply while schools’ grants are cut. To make up the losses, taxes will have to rise even further or deep cuts be made in the municipal budget or both. To make things even easier for Briois and the FN, the local Socialists have split.

... First, Roget said, came unemployment and the crisis of the welfare state. “The kids in France have got no jobs at all and we are all being asked to work longer and have our pensions and benefits cut.” Then came the politicians and the Paris elite who “don’t give a stuff about ordinary people” and simply spend money on “fast trains or big planes”. They never listened to any “ordinary people”.

Third, there was globalisation and, specifically, the Chinese. “We had jobs in Hénin,” Roget said. “But now everything is made in China. We can’t compete with them. They have factories where it is slave labour. What are we going to do? Work like slaves ourselves?

... The strategy of hunting for votes on the left as well as the right has split the FN and the debates have mirrored those in the British National party. Three years ago Marine Le Pen persuaded her father to ditch the hardline anti-immigration language and tone down the borderline racism and implicit antisemitism. Instead, she argued, the FN could break the barriers placed in its way by traditional parties by becoming “respectable” and gain support by adapting its key message. “We have put the economy, the preoccupations of ordinary people, in the foreground. I’m happy to see that my strategy has worked.” The extremism of her father, who dismissed the Holocaust as a “detail of history” and called the Nazi occupation of France “relatively humane”, was part of the past, she said.

“It’s true that we have sometimes given our opponents a stick to beat us with but ... as regards immigration ... my father was a visionary, far ahead of his time, and was attacked because of the truths he told. Immigration - economic, humanitarian, of relatives, because of global warming - is going to be the number one issue in the 21st century.

Whatever works, I guess.

UPDATE 06.07.09

READ MORE...