02 March 2015

So it's not about "stimulus"?

This is why the Fed is so obsessed with creating inflation: because it renders these gargantuan debt loads more serviceable. In simplest terms, the Fed must “inflate or die.” It will willingly sacrifice the economy, and Americans’ quality of life in order to stop the bond bubble from popping.

This is also why the Fed happily talks about stocks all the time; it’s a great distraction from the real story: the fact that the bond bubble is the single largest bubble in history and that when it bursts entire countries will go bust.

This is why the Fed NEEDS interest rates to be as low as possible… any slight jump in rates means that the US will rapidly spiral towards bankruptcy. Indeed, every 1% increase in interest rates means between $150-$175 billion more in interest payments on US debt per year.[1]

Hundreds of billions of dollars later the economic "recovery" is still anemic, saving is for suckers, stock market gains are anything but an indicator of health, further Fed inflation is apparently inescapable, youth unemployment is sky high, and low-skill third-worlders are being imported to compete with Americans for the diminished number of jobs that there are. This is the genius of the Obama administration for all to see.

Clearly, the Fed is in panic mode. A slight rise in the interest means more borrowing or taxation. How close are we to the saturation point on that? No one in power will admit that there's a systemic crisis developing. Tea Partiers seems to be at the root of all our problems.

Derivative markets exploding probably would harm some deserving speculators. I don't understand the ramifications of that at all. Maybe that would be a loss in some kind of "artificial" economy as Bemused Observer argues in the comments to the source article.

Savers are real enough and they've been driven into speculative stocks just to try to avoid the inroads of inflation. Pension funds are exposed because of ZIRP and consequent low return on investments in bonds. Kids go nowhere because government policy is about importing and coddling foreigners not creating or maintaining the fundamentals of a healthy economy. The unemployed are being hammered by competition from those foreigners and the rest of us suffer because of the presence of millions of unwanted foreigners who bring with them the pathologies of their home countries that impoverished them and otherwise degraded their lives. These don't strike me as interests that can be harmonized with smiles all round.

As I wrote recently, our country isn't being lifted up or protected. It's being sabotaged and mocked by a hostile government. Our own. And every other Western country is in the same boat.

Notes
[1] "The $100 Trillion Reason the Fed is Terrified of Deflation." By Phoenix Capital Research, Zero Hedge, 3/01/15.

The failure of Democrat/black leadership.


H/t: Eagle Rising.

Once you factor out the possibility of decency and patriotism from Democrat policies, you arrive at the issue of control. The left impoverishes blacks to keep them subservient to the Democrat machine.

"Structural racism" and "Black lives matter" are just garbage invented to control blacks.

The question on everybody's lips.

Rudy Giuliani caused a stir by articulating the most basic fact about Barack Obama, namely, that he does not love this country. He didn't rely on any word ending in "ism" to make his point. No spreadsheets or regression analysis. He just gave voice to the thought that any observant American has had since before the 2008 election. Rob Miller similarly cuts through the media protective fog:
In short, if, say, President Barack Obama didn't care all that much for the America he was elected to lead, if he thought that there was no such thing as 'American exceptionalism', if he thought America needed to be somehow punished for what all his closest associates for decades have told him are America's sins....

What exactly would he be doing differently?[1]

There's a childish simplicity to the words propounded by Giuliani and Miller but the legacy media use every ounce of their education, intelligence, and vast financial resources to paint Obama as a sincere and caring patriot, constitutional scholar, the greatest of the great. Obama hostile to America, to whites? Preposterous!! Four-alarm racism alert! Defcon "Hater" all sectors. [Klaxon. Klaxon.]

In January of last year, his mommy right hand woman, Valerie Jarrett, stated that Americans are "'hungry' for Obama to take unilateral action, bypassing Congress whenever he can to get things done."[2] Her qualification that this will be done within the limits of Obama's executive authority can be seen for the sophistry that it is.

Thus, in a nation that has treasured the thought that we enjoy hitherto unknown freedoms under the protection of even our currently eviscerated Constitution, this closest of Obama advisers mouths patent banana republic nonsense.[3] But this is nonsense that strikes at the heart of the American political scheme, at least as it was initially conceived. Unlimited and arbitrary executive discretion? In what way does this show that Obama and his joined-at-the-hip mouthpiece have any regard for even the basic legal structure of the nation?

This would be comical if this freakish, communism-besotted, Islam-besotted, race-besotted crew didn't today control the executive power of the U.S.A. Surely even Gwyneth Paltrow and Woody Allen are now rethinking their previous longing for a kindly American dictator who can make the trains run on time.

Notes
[1] "Is President Obama A Christian? Does He Love America?" By Rob Miller, JoshuaPundit, 2/24/15 (contains impressive list of Obama outrages accomplishments).
[2] "Valerie Jarrett: Americans 'hungry' for Obama to act like an imperial president." By Joe Newby, examiner.com, 1/28/14. The word "hungry" is a direct quote of Jarrett. The rest of the quoted language is that of Mr. Newby.
[3] Letter of apology and explanation by courier to Swedish ambassador soonest. Swedish banana republic status still at least five years out.

01 March 2015

Ok. This is some dark stuff.

As much as I hate to discard the theory that our elites may be sons of bitches but they're nonetheless our sons of bitches, it's pretty much demanded by any somewhat sober interpretation of the behavior of contemporary Western governments.

Which this isn't. Did someone say "mojito time"? Why, yes, I believe they did.

Just whose side are these people on? No longer are they entitled to a presumption that they are acting with the interests of their own people in mind. Moreover, they're clearly impervious to voter outrage.

Charles Hugh Smith has definitely come up with a startling theory that tries to explain this amazing phenomenon of elites hostile to their own people.

His theory is that Western governments (and their financial controllers) initially exploited colonial peoples with the aid of military conquest. Then, when they were forced to give up their colonial empires after WWII, they attempted to subjugate their former colonies financially. However, even the "economic pillaging of former colonies has limits" and the same techniques of exploitation have to be turned on one's own people to keep the profits flowing. In this final stage of rapacious exploitation of every person on the face of the planet, the real rulers taketo fleecing the fringes of the home territory.

Such as with, Greece. On the periphery of the European empire.

If this strikes you as being a bit "out there" well, I'm with you but, when it's as clear as a bell that Western elites are both traitorous and certifiable ("'We' can never have too may Arabs/Chinese/Somalis/Mexicans in America/France/Germany/Sweden"), it's an intriguing theory. Economics as exploitation by a financial elite.

Life is good in the U.S. and Europe for the most part but it's easy to see how colonial peoples thought that the people who controlled their countries did not have their interests uppermost in their minds. The idea that nations represent one people, that the ruling class defends it, and that domestic disputes get worked out by the historic peoples of each nation is passe in modern advanced thinking. State of the art thinking now is that a nation should import discord, parasitism, disease, and foreign competition for jobs and if money can be made by financial manipulation of one's own people then what's not to love about that?

"Greece and the Endgame of the Neocolonial Model of Exploitation." By Charles Hugh Smith, Of Two Minds, 2/19/15.

Revised 3/2/15.

British (and Western) reality.

That the British have invaded practically every country in the entire world over just the last 200-300 years, and have not been invaded themselves since about William of Normandy, never seems to register. [jj]
What is really most often missed is that they have been invaded, British elites having taken pity on the wretched of the earth and invited them to accomplish demographically what they never could militarily. The spectacle of flamboyant racial self-abnegation accompanying the process obscures the fact that British living space has been invaded and that as long as that invasion carries on the ineluctable result is the erasure of British people from the earth. At this point this seems the most likely result, for as long as the issue remains unaddressed – even lowly Sweden, posterchild of loonie leftism, has demonstrated more resistance (albeit inchoate) to dispossession – the British can do naught but keep speeding manically towards the exit ramp of history. [ss][1]
As for who played a major role in bringing this about in Britain see here.

How is it that voters with free access to just about the sum total of all human knowledge – what knowledge, that is, that has survived after Muslims burned libraries, smashed observatories, and made obscurantism into a religious obligation – found it within themselves to pull the lever for such scum as Blair (see link) is beyond me.

Rapid takeover.
Can I say "scum"?

I rarely miss an opportunity to point out the massive, unopposed inflow of foreigners to Western nations is without historical precedent. In all previous centuries, a massive inflow of foreigners always, always, always involved a catastrophic failure of the armies or warriors of the nation or tribe. And the results were just that. Catastrophic.

Given that human nature has not changed in a million years, the leftist idea that a gradual takeover of the nation will be beneficial for the historic peoples thereof is simply delusional. But it is the reigning, operative, controlling, and mandatory view of virtually all Western governments.

Notes
[1] Reply of silviosilver to comment of jimbojones at "They Really Did Start It." By Peter Frost, 2/21/15.

Christian fanaticism, inter alia.

The season of fasting is upon us. No more high living. It’s time to cinch up our belts … to put on a gaunt face and a smug look. Alone among friends and associates, we will keep Lent.

So neglected is Lent that even Google has forgotten about it. When we did a search it proposed “lentil soup.” Lent is meant to rehearse the 40 days and nights that Jesus spent fasting in the desert before going public.

We remember the lean days with prayer, meditation and self-denial. No alcohol will cross our lips from Ash Wednesday till Easter Sunday. (Except on Sundays. And saints’ days. And national holidays. And days that begin with the letter “T” or that have a date that is a prime number.)[1]

That bit of choice humor is enjoyable in its own right. However, it begins a very interesting article on moral rot underlying the debasement of our currency. Can every contract entered into contain an unstated provision that the parties can diminish their obligations thereunder by 2% each year? The words of any party "promising" full performance would be unreliable by definition. All parties would adjust their behavior accordingly but the essential point would be that anyone purporting to give his or her word would be dissembling. Just a teeny amount, it's true. But dissembling nonetheless.

So ours is a dissembling currency and if we use it we dissemble ourselves, even though it can be fairly pointed out that we have little power to do otherwise, any more than we have the power to require that our borders be sealed and protected.

Electoral politics is a mug's game even though the people as a whole theorectally could rise up and demand change. But, alas, in the absence of congressional proposals to institute human sacrifice for the losers of any year's Superbowl contest, that is just axing too much of human beings that they give up short-term advantages that are expedient.

Still and all it's healthy to have the essential dishonesty involved kept in the forefront of our minds. As we should the stark truth that modern electoral politics are a mechanism whereby money can be extracted from one's fellow citizens by a vote of the majority of the legislature when to do so as an individual with a gun would be a criminal act. For the sake of "fairness," of course.

Notes
[1] "The End of Honest Money." By Bill Bonner, Acting Man, 2/27/15.

Foolish hobgoblin.

"Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they would have occasionally made a mistake in our favor."
~ James Forrestal, first U.S. Secretary of Defense.

At Gulag Bound.

26 February 2015

The iron laws of arithmetic.

Both the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago are in dire financial condition. Illinois’s unfunded pension liability stands at $111 billion. It owes another $56 billion in unfunded retiree health-care obligations. Chicago itself faces $35 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. The total liability for all local government obligations adds up to as much as $83,000 per household.[1]
When all the socialist, Democrat, redistributionist, "social justice," racial justice, fairness, public service, diversity, reparations, white privilege crap is gift wrapped and delivered to every moron voter south of Milwaukee, the iron laws of arithmetic eventually get their chance at the polling place. The Black Death is more popular but that vote always gets cast.

It's always a write-in vote and the name written in is always "Mr. I Told You So."

Notes
[1] "Rahm’s Runoff. Chicago’s problems run deeper than many in the city want to acknowledge." By Aaron M. Renn, City Journal, 2/26/15 (links omitted).

Indecent designs.

One of the lessons of the last century is that civilian disarmament is the harbinger of indecent designs on the peoples’ liberty.
Robert Pinkerton comment on "Oppression Instead of Admission, Part IV." By Takuan Seiyo, Gates of Vienna, 2/23/15.