by Alexander Baron

Here is a layman’s guide to the real reason for the forthcoming cuts in public spending. Before any of us were born – 1913 in the United States and a long time before that in the UK – the governments of the “Free World” allowed a cartel of bankers to hijack our financial system. Instead of the Treasury minting coin and printing notes, and creating credit for public works to spend into circulation debt-free, the cartel would create the credit and sell it to our respective governments at interest. When credit is created at interest it is by definition irredeemable, so our governments would periodically renew these loans by returning cap in hand to their masters. As long ago as September 1921 the following was directed at the Lloyd George Government: “Does he, and do his colleagues, realise that half a dozen men at the top of the five big banks could upset the whole fabric of Government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury bills?”

If Lloyd George did, Call Me Dave doesn’t, although the boys in the Treasury do. They have obviously pointed out to him that the British Government, and indeed the governments of every European nation are now restrained by law, for example:

Overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the ECB or with the central banks of the Member States (hereinafter referred to as ‘national central banks’) in favour of Community institutions or bodies, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of Member States shall be prohibited, as shall the purchase directly from them by the ECB or national central banks of debt instruments.

Article 104(1) of the Maastricht Treaty

... from financing their deficits by printing money or by creating credit. This latter is to be the privilege of the banks, and only of the banks.

One would have thought this monopoly of credit would have been sufficient to keep the bankers in clover, but give them a cent and they’ll take a dollar; after periodic depressions including the so-called Great Depression and Black Monday in the 1980s, there came the Credit Crunch/Meltdown or whatever you want to call it. This resulted from the banks selling what Max Keiser and others have called empty boxes. Trillions of dollars disappeared into the abyss, and as the Presidential election approached, all the players, including the so-called candidate of change, bowed to a plan to “save” the economy – or save the world in the case of Gordon Brown – by underwriting with real money the debts the banks had created with imaginary money.

In effect, our governments stole this money from us; it was done without any sort of mandate, without even any meaningful consultation; the banks simply told the governments of the “Free World” what to do, and they did it, including the United States – the world’s so-called remaining superpower.

Now, because the British Government in particular doesn’t understand that it has both the right and the duty to create credit both interest-free and debt-free, it has decided to reduce the so-called deficit by cutting public spending. The pretence is being continued that the government has to borrow money from foreign creditors, and it is these creditors who are being repaid, whereas it is the banks who are being not repaid, but paid again – in short they are being rewarded for their dishonesty and incompetence.

The truth is that the real credit of this nation, of any nation, is based on the goods and services its people can supply.

Because the British Government in particular refuses to face up to this unpleasant reality, we will see cuts in public services including and especially for children, the elderly and the vulnerable, and the scapegoating of other innocent parties such as those on benefit, the “rich” (ie, smaller business people and entrepreneurs) who have real money to invest and jobs to create, and indeed anyone except the real culprits.

Huerta de Soto at the LSE, Thursday 28th October 2010

READ MORE...

by PF

There is an interesting paradox involved in human responsibility. On the one hand, asking someone to be responsible is asking them to do something that is nearly impossible in our unconscious waking state. On the other hand, holding people to responsibility is what we do, and it is not entirely clear how an alternative mechanism could take the place of it.

When judging someone, it is very interesting which perspective set you choose to view them through. Take Hitler, for example. There are sympathetic perspectives from which to view every action taken by the Nazis in WWII. You could call to mind their awareness of the Soviet threat, the threat of Communism. You could note the various examples of British malfeasance and provocation - or rather those actions of the British which, you would then note, would necessarily have to be seen this way in the eyes of Germans. You could note the intense humiliation at Versailles and the high jinx of the Weimar governments, and get a good feel for why German man wanted to lash out in various directions at that time period.

Putting yourself into other peoples shoes isn’t a new game for me, so I am utterly underwhelmed when, after going on an Easter egg hunt for all the sympathetic perspectives that can be wielded to reflect favorably on Nazism, they turn out looking quite vindicated. Their position actually makes a great deal of sense, once you adjust your own view for how they were viewing it.

READ MORE...

This article is cross-posted from the British Democracy Forum, and is my response to the setting up of a new nationalist political party, the British Freedom Party, to challenge the BNP.  It’s my usual plaint - politics follows philosophical thinking, and the failure to recognise this, while understandable given our dire situation, is part of the small circle in which political nationalism travels in Europe.

I thought I would craft a quick response to the emergence of the British Freedom Party, which I will cross post to my own blog.

Strategically, I think the new development is premature. The next European Parliament election will be in June 2014, and quite probably the Westminster poll will be held on the same day. An electoral horizon of four years bar a few months would allow for a couple of years over which the racial-preservationist struggle could be redefined and programmatised as a national movement - we have an example before us in the EDL trying to do something similar (and doing it rather badly) - and then a bare minimum of two years could be devoted to developing the politics.

I do not say such a two-tier approach would be easy to execute. But it would be advisable to try, and the reason is obvious - the BNP is a monopoly business and it will certainly defend that monopoly by placing an electoral block on the new party, standing against it wherever it retains the human capital to do so.

But the BNP has a great weakness. It is ghettoised morally and politically because it is defined not by itself but by its opponents. The objective of a non-BNP nationalist caucus should have been to define itself, not to chase after a negatively-defined political inheritance. The first two years of its existence should have been devoted to that necessary goal.

By way of the sort of thinking that might lead to a self-defined broad movement of restoration I direct your attention to this:

Are minor parties a waste of time?

… which is BGD’s suggestion for a pressure group. I think we should incorporate that but also aim higher, and I did, in fact, suggest on another BDF thread a self-descriptive name that circumvents legal difficulties without sacrificing exclusivity: “Our Land”.

But it doesn’t matter now because the decision has been taken to launch the BFP, and all the concentration remains on stealing away the BNP’s brand and trying to detoxify it.

I want to close with a few words about the real size and nature of this task, and about the limitations that attend all political developments which are essentially nearsighted, reactive and utilitarian.

Freedom is a fine goal, even the particular freedom which is meant in the terms of the BFP. But it is not the goal. Our objective is to save our people from the immediate danger of race-replacement, and to restore to them in perpetuity all the rights that attend sovereign peoples in their own lands.

Now, this is a substantial endeavour - just how substantial bears some consideration. For example, it’s not like saying Man will return to the moon. That’s easy. It’s been done already, and with the appropriate resources could be planned in a few months and executed in a very few years. It’s not even like saying Man will journey to Mars … or the stars. It is harder than these things. It stretches beyond what the ordinary political eye can see. It is about changing history for an entire people and, to be realistic, an entire race of men. It involves the replacement of three hundred years of liberal and, latterly, neo-Marxist thinking with new and fundamental nationalist thinking - and I am not talking about utilitarian panaceas, to quote Arthur Harris, like Lee’s culturism. It involves reversing everything that has been done to us these last sixty years. It involves changing economics, changing the global zeitgeist, changing how people live, what they think, what they value, what they love. It involves our people becoming truer to themselves and living life accordingly, so that their politics will be as organic as every other aspect of their lives. There is genuine freedom in that.

No petty political movement can generate this. But this can generate a very great political movement.

In an email a few days ago a co-blogger wrote to me:

The idea that our entire civilization has failed is a terrifying thought to most every sane man, it may be the most terrifying thought I’ve ever had. People deal with this through denial and scapegoating, they don’t want to recognize just how serious and tragic the problem is nor do they want to put their own lives under the microscope. Fit the problem into a neat little box and then get to work, if only it were that easy.

It isn’t that easy. That is the lesson that awaits all political nationalists in modern Europe. I don’t say that piecemeal thinking, partial solutions, accomodationism can achieve nothing. But they can’t achieve everything, and it’s everything that we need.

by I. Bismuth

October 10: Rose and I were at my uncle’s house today. His cantankerousness is as great as his antiquity, so we space our visits to him as widely as my nephewly sense of obligation will allow.

After keeping us waiting guiltily in his front room, which overlooks the shaggy lawn of his widower’s Surbiton semi, he returned from the kitchen and at last we could take delivery of the tea and cake he had promised us. The delay was caused by his insistence on doing it all without any bipedal help from us, for he has been tetchily independent on wheels for ten years. Before that, he did the Douglas Bader balancing act, both his legs having been in Belgium since 1944.

In fact, it was war that was the source of the trouble during the second cup of tea. Somehow the topic of the distant death daily in the news came up, and Uncle O felt we needed a slice of his opinions to supplement the chocolate sponge.

“What are all these wars for?” he said. “Our being in them makes no sense. The disputes of alien races may be interesting to us, but they ought not to be important to us. If they are, something is wrong. That something is either that we are intervening in their affairs or they are intervening in ours. A third and equally unhygienic possibility is that each has a finger in the other’s pie.”

“I’m sorry, that is a complete—” I began, only to be kicked in the shin by my ever-peacekeeping wife.

“You certainly knew what you were fighting for in the Second World War,” she said, fancying she was putting us back on safe ground.

“We thought we did,” said Uncle O, looking grimmer than ever. “War is a gamble. But not a normal gamble. In a normal gamble, you know what you will win if you win and what you will lose if you lose.”

“Have you done any more paintings recently?” said Rose, getting a little shrill, I thought.

READ MORE...

Irwin Stelzer can be justly proud of his career.  As his entry at Wikipedia makes clear:

Irwin M. Stelzer (born 1932) is an American economist[1] who is the U.S. economic and business columnist for the Sunday Times, the Courier-Mail, the Guardian and a contributing editor of the Weekly Standard. He is also an occasional contributor to the Daily Telegraph. He resides in London and the United States. Stelzer has served as a managing director of the investment banking firm of Rothschild Inc and was co-founder and president of National Economic Research Associates, Inc which became NERA Economic Consulting and which was subsequently sold to Marsh & McLennan, Inc. He is a signatory of the Henry Jackson Society, a senior director and fellow of the Hudson Institute and has edited and introduced a book on neoconservatism. He is a visiting fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford ...

... he is someone whose writings are taken seriously by powerful men on both sides of the Atlantic, and who is no doubt on first-name terms with many of them.  Today, in the Daily Telegraph, he offered them his view on How to make immigration work in Britain’s interests.  I won’t bore you with the details.  He is, as a man of the Establishment, concerned that “hostility to migrants is sweeping Europe”.  He has a plan.  “Britain can do little to reduce the flow of immigrants” from the EU, he says.  “Immigrants possess skills that are in short supply here, and add billions of pounds to national output,” he says.  But the losers who see their job prospects taken away by immigration and their neighbourhoods transformed could be paid off.  “How so?, he says ... “By requiring employers to bid for the limited number of entry permits, the proceeds to be remitted to the communities on which the immigrant imposes costs, or to HM Treasury.”  He says.

No doubt, “powerful men” will read the column, welcome Stelzer’s little scheme (with reservations, of course), and file it away for some opportune moment when the minister is in melt-down and the briefing paper for tomorrow’s Cabinet is still to be written.  But what of those damned losers in the migration game?  The indigenous, as they seem to be calling themselves these days.  Are they grateful for Mr Stelzer’s ingenuity?  Are their fears and hostility calmed?  Are they looking forward to selling-out to race-replacement for a few thousand quid?

Well, I’ve never seen a thread like this one in any English national daily.  Never.

READ MORE...

Smooth-moving Trevor Phillips, that beacon of tolerance and decency and all round racial lerve who (mis)manages the £70 million, 400-strong mega-quango, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has shocked the nation ... yes, shocked it, I tell you ... with his latest report, How fair is Britain.

Now, you might think it a bit odd that Trevor, although a Guyanan and not one of those purpley-black, ultra-other central African tribal types, is concerned for the declining incidence of fair skin in cool, cloudy Britain.  And you would be right.  He isn’t.  Not in the slightest.  Indeed, the “fairness” for which egalitarian Trev yearns is precisely more of this decline - accompanied, as always, by official attention to his own victim group.  So it is absolutely no surprise that the EHRC’s three-yearly report on “fairness” in my benighted land finds that:

On average, five times more Black people than White people are imprisoned in England and Wales, where 1 in 4 people in prison is from an ethnic minority background.

... There is now greater disproportionality in the number of Black people in prisons in Britain than in the USA.

Over the next few days a small but clamorous industry will be spawned in “evil white racism” advocacy.  Official reponses will be drafted for ministers by people whose career prospects do not allow them to mention the word “biology”.  Committees will be formed deep down in the dry gulch that is the Home Office, where the Prison Service meets the Crown Prosecution Service meets the Met.  Third sector tit-suckers will whip out their favoured causes and brandish them at Whitehall policy-makers like ageing tarts whose New Labour clients have suddenly deceased.  Lefty journalists will spin the facts, confident that nobody will require them to research any further than Das Kapital.  Here is how the Guardian newsdesk has already been spinning:

READ MORE...

Well, not really. It was not written or approved by Dr Duke in any way, manner, shape or form; it may be construed as satire, although from my limited contact with the man he would largely approve of its sentiments.  Its inspiration was the open letter Abraham Foxman sent to Roger Waters. Foxman is a man who could find anti-Semitism in an egg cup, and in fact he does find it and its causes everywhere he looks.  Except of course, in his bathroom mirror.

Alexander Baron

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Dear Mr Waters,

I write to you both as an American and as a citizen of the world who is concerned for peace. As an American I am particularly concerned with your use of the dollar sign - $ - conflated with a Star of David in your show The Wall.

As both a non-American and as a man who devotes the bulk of his working and leisure time to music, you are probably unaware of the deep sense of unease and indeed revulsion this will cause to many Americans, Jews as well as Christians.

Although the Star of David is first and foremost a religious symbol, it was hijacked several decades ago by one of the most ruthless, fascistic ideologies on the face of this planet, that of International Zionism, a philosophy of racial supremacy. If I may quote from ZIONISM: its European origins, a December 1973 publication of the British & Irish Communist Organisation, page 3: “Its essence is that a ‘chosen people’, the Jews, are superior to everyone else and can and should trample on the rights of other peoples”.

This quote actually first appeared in an editorial in the left wing newspaper Socialist Worker, October 20, 1973.

You will see from this that the true nature of Zionism has long been recognised by most left wing and progressive people in Europe if not throughout the world.

As I am sure you know, the dollar sign - $ - has come to symbolise not just our currency, but capitalism and indeed what many people worlwide interpret as American Imperialism.

It is my concern that by using the dollar sign in conjunction with the Star of David, you are inadvertently conveying to the rest of the world the erroneous and dangerous belief that the people of the United States are complicit financially and in other respects with the crimes perpetrated by the Zionist entity against the Palestinian people, and more recently against the entire world in the shape of the Gaza Flotilla Massacre.

You should understand that in the area of foreign policy with particular relevance to the Middle East, the actions of the American Government do not reflect the will of the American people, that the outrageously partisan behaviour of successive Administrations both Democratic and Republican is indicative not of any malice of the American people towards the Palestinians, the Arabs, Islam, or the rest of the world, but of the hegemony of Zionist Jewry over US foreign policy.

There are many Zionist organisations in the United States, but two are worthy of particular mention: AIPAC and the ADL.

AIPAC is an overtly Zionist organisation; among other things it peddles the myth that Israel is a strategic asset to the United States, even more so since the inception of the War On Terror, conveniently ignoring the fact that but for US support of Israel there would have been no War On Terror and no 9/11. Its website has the temerity to claim that Israel is a defender of free speech, among other things. This commitment does not of course extend to challenging the perceived wisdom of the persecution of Jewry during World War Two, a subject on which there is total freedom of speech in Iran, and none at all in “democratic” Germany due primarily to Zionist influence.

Unlike AIPAC, the ADL is not on the face of it a dedicated Zionist organisation, but scratch the surface, and its real agenda shows through, for behind the mask of civil rights lies unconditional support for both repressive laws at home disguised as “protection” from “hate speech” etc, and for the continuation of Israel’s genocidal policies against the Palestinians. Last year, the ADL’s National Director Abraham Foxman applauded the mass murders in Gaza, and earlier this year both the ADL and AIPAC called on the US Government to brand the Gaza Aid Flotilla organisers terrorists, thereby spitting on the corpses of those martyrs murdered in cold blood by the IDF.

As this moment, both AIPAC and the ADL are lobbying openly and even more so behind the scenes not only for even harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran but for the United States to bomb or even invade that country, a crime which would cause enormous bloodshed in the Middle East, and sow bitterness and hatred lasting for decades in addition to that which we already have. A lot of their lobbying consists simply of the recycling of long proven lies, such as the claim that Iran’s President threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

In view of all of the above, I would ask that you do not associate the dollar sign - $ - with the Star of David in any of your shows. I, and the great mass of the American people, do not wish either our currency or our once great country to be associated in any way, manner, shape or form with the bigotry and hatred that is generated by the Zionist entity, its apologists, supporters and ideologues.

Yours Sincerely,
David Duke PhD.

October 9, 2010

by PF

Nietzsche said that after euroman lost Christianity, he would go searching for other things.  Big N propounded the Overman as a conduit for his effort, dreaming, and aspirations.

In the West we had less teleological furore to become an archetype of greatness and accomplishment, I think it was Germany’s scatteredness, comparative powerlessness and unsuccessful self-assertion that kept these fires burning so brightly there.  But in the west we had the beginnings of a different kind of cult: the religion of the end of suffering.  Its a kind of noblesse oblige which, as best I can imagine, began to form in western Europe after it had become clear that we had ‘beaten the game’ - i.e. enjoyed centuries of technological and cultural flowering.

It coincides with man turning inward, and a forward development in sensibility. The question is posed if a society can concentrate on these things without losing its ability to weaponize, etc.  Its an open and many-sided question.

But there is no doubt that we have an incipient religion which is the religion of the end of suffering.  According to this religion, the bounty of white sociobiology and technological progress should be not just used but used up, if required, to heal the ills of everyone.

The belief is that suffering is unnecessary and has no place in the world, that it has no lesson to teach us.  Suffering is “a wrong outcome” and is just that: simply wrong.  Starving in Africa?  Wrong.  People not able to afford things which you view as being prerequisites of human existence?  Wrong.  People living with a lower living standard than you could tolerate?  Wrong.  Disease?  So wrong.  Dying children?  Utterly wrong.

To me the arrogance of it is pretty breathtaking since, to my mind, suffering is a part of life that is as meaningful and has as much to teach us as happiness does.  Potentially much more.  Suffering is a lesson for man.

But rather than critique, I just want to hold up for your perusal one of the most beautiful expressions of this religion.  It is Pink Floyd’s song On the Turning Away:

READ MORE...