Dr. Tomislav Sunic delivered a speech at the British National Front meeting in West Bradford, UK on Sunday, September 13, 2009. The theme was nationalism within the context of contemporary Western societies, cultural hegemony, and political activism.
Topics of the speech include:
Tom’s experience with leftism as a youth, leftist discipline, and flaws among rightists
“Nationalism” and the different perceptions/usage between America and Europe
Reactive vs. proactive nationalism
Pride in one’s racial/national heritage and the psychology of leftist fears
The importance of working toward “cultural hegemony” and good presentation for political advancement
Disengaging from the mainstream through home schooling and grassroots social activity
How we identify ourselves (race/nation/tribe) the destructive nature of exclusive nationalism
Dealing with religious affiliation among the various groups of white nations and tribes
Egalitarianism, economism, and defining ourselves and the enemy
To find out more about the British National Front, visit their website (for NF history, how to join, activities, videos & articles, merchandise, how to donate, and much more) at http://www.national-front.org.uk.
In late June 1944, the Anglo-American troops were well entrenched in Normandy after successfully cutting off German supply lines from the north-eastern part of France. On their way to the borders of the Reich, the Americans GIs would occasionally capture small military units wearing German uniforms that they first took for Japanese soldiers. It turned out that these were Turkmen and Azeri soldiers fighting on the Western front under German patronage.
Bizarre interracial encounters not only occurred in the Pacific between the Japanese and Americans, but also in north-western Italy, in the province of Friuli, where it was common in April 1945 to spot retreating pockets of Asian civilians and slanted-eyed soldiers in German uniforms fleeing the incoming Soviet advance along with their German allies (Christopher Dolbeau, Face au Bolchevisme: 1917–1989, 2002, pp. 302–303; see also, Patrik von zur Mühlen, Zwischen Hakenkreuz und Sowjetstern, 1971).
In the last year of the war, National Socialist Germany, which over the last 60 years has been maligned for its real and surreal racist prejudices and practices, had hundreds of thousands of non-European volunteers fighting the global war against communism and colonialism. Many of those non-European troops had firmly believed that that NS Germany would provide them with independence from the rule of colonial France and England. The German Wehrmacht had thousands of Arab fighters, Indian fighters and even two black fighters from Guadeloupe fighting alongside with the Germans, such as the famous Louis Joachim-Eugène and Norbert Désirée!
Space does not allow recounting each individual event that took place after the end of hostilities. But although meagre, the literature on non-European fighters in the German Wehrmacht sheds a different light on the already highly complex picture of German racial policies in the Third Reich. However, what is clear today is that 70 years after the war, neither the winning side nor to the losing side benefited from the conflict. In fact as a prominent German historian Ernest Nolte writes (Der europäische Burgerkrieg 1917–1945 : Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus, 1987), this was the largest European civil war in history, substantially draining the White gene pool.
All subsequent events in the world up to the present, be they on the theoretical or institutional level, be they in the field of social sciences or world politics, are directly linked to this largest intra-White bloodshedding in history.
Race or Religion?
In the late 1940’s hundreds of prominent National Socialist dignitaries managed to escape to Egypt, Turkey and Syria. Most converted to Islam, married there and adopted Muslim names. A substantial number of them played a crucial role in early Egyptian politics under president Gamal Abdel Nasser, providing valuable intelligence to Egyptians and Syrians on the newly born state of Israel. Numerous ex-SS intelligence officers, academics and physicians, such as Hans Appler — alias Sakah Chaffar, Joachim Daemling — alias Ibrahim Mustafa, Ludwig Heiden — alias El Hadj, Aribert Heim — alias Tarek Hussein Farid, and many, many others are still warmly remembered in the Syrian and Egyptian intelligence community.
It is quite common among White nationalists in Europe and America to single out Muslim immigrants as the major threat to White Euro-American societies because their demographic growth is likely to turn Europe into an Islamic state. The United Kingdom, France, or for that matter the European Union as a whole, have a large number of South Asian and Arab Muslims. One study found that there were at least 15 million Muslims in the EU, and possibly as many as 23 million. This number does not include over 10 million White autochthonous European Muslims, particularly in the Balkans.
Yet a sharp difference must be made between race and religion. For example, only one third of Catholics in the world today are White, with two thirds being of mixed race living mostly in a Latin America and the Philippines. One need only take a walk in St. Peter’s Square in Rome to spot swarms of non-European Catholic seminarians. Unlike Judaism, which is a highly ethnocentric monotheistic religion, the other two monotheistic religions, also born in the Middle East — Islam and Christianity — ignore, at least in theory, the distinction between race and religion.
There are also double standards in depicting the deluge of Muslim non-European outgroups into Europe and America. These groups are unquestionably changing the racial profile of their White host countries. But while it is relatively safe to criticize the alleged violent nature of Islam in academic circles, one rarely hears that the violence against non-Jews in the Old Testament shows that Judaism is inherently violent.
And in the contemporary world, why criticize the violent nature of Islam while avoiding criticism of the violent nature of Zionism?
Many White nationalists are justly concerned about the inflow of non-European races. But many of these non-Europeans, such as Hindus residing in the UK, are extremely resentful of Islam. Ethnic and religious conflict in the future may well be a complex affair, as it already is in the United States, where Latinos have ethnically cleansed Blacks from some areas of Southern California (see here, here, and here).
The whole liberal hypocrisy on race was well described by Alain Brossat, who notes that in France making fun of Arabs or describing them as terrorists, obscurantists, or enemies of democracy and republicanism is considered protected free speech. On the other hand, making fun of rabbis or vehemently criticizing the politics of the state of Israel will result in draconian penalties.
To make the subject of race even more complicated, during different historical eras the Catholic Church endorsed highly promiscuous miscegenation policies, particularly in Latin America during Spanish rule. From the 16th to 19th centuries, a few Spanish White settlers and hordes of ordinary criminals from all parts of Europe found a safe haven in fertile Paraguay, only to be forced by the powerful Jesuit clergy to marry Guarani Indian women — simply because there were no White women around.
The Christian Gospel of “love thy neighbour” certainly played an additional role in the process of miscegenation all over Latin America. There has been a gradual depletion of the White gene pool caused by racial mongrelisation. This has often resulted in frequent coup d’états and poor economic growth, despite the fact that Latin America is rich in natural resources.
Moreover, the interplay of race and religion is further complicated by the fact that there are well over 10 million indigenous Muslims in Europe, mostly Bosnians and Albanians whose gene pool is relatively well preserved and who are often more European than White European Christians. Bosnian Muslims present a very peculiar case, being all of European stock with a high number of strikingly blond people. In the Middle Ages their ancestors were renowned as heretics known as “Bogumils,” with strong ties to French Cathars and Albingensians.
In the late 15th century with the onslaught of Turks against Europe, Bosnian Bogumils converted in droves to Islam — partly because of their hostility to the Vatican, and partly because their White race propelled them quickly into lucrative positions in the Ottoman hierarchy. The Ottomans offered them prestigious titles — “beys,” “pashas,” or “grand viziers.” Valued and praised because of their physical stature and race, Slavic Muslims, including the Albanians, who are of old Indo-European Illyrian stock, played for centuries an important role as elite soldiers known as janissaries who were posted as provincial rulers throughout the Ottoman empire, which in some periods stretched from today’s Algeria in the West to Yemen in the East, and all the way to Hungary in central Europe.
During WWII, many Bosnian and Albanian Muslims were highly regarded by NS Germany. The Catholic pro-fascist Croat leader, Ante Pavelic built a large mosque in the heart of the Croatian baroque city of Zagreb, while frequently referring to Bosnian Muslims as the “purest Croats.” In 1943, under the supervision of Heinrich Himmler, a Bosnian Waffen SS Handschar was established under German command.
The story of race and racism in the Third Reich is complex and endless in its scope. It still needs to be objectively written. Surprisingly perhaps, some “half-Jews” or “quarter-Jews” played a significant political and military role in NS Germany; many took part in the anti-communist campaign in the East. Among the famous “Mischlings,” or crossbreeds, was the famous German admiral Bernhard Rogge, Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Field Marshal Von Manstein (born Lewinski), the panzer general Fritz Bayerlein, etc. In his book, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, the Jewish American historian Bryan Mark Rigg estimates that between 120,000 to 160,000 Germans of Jewish extraction served in the Wehrmacht.
Heredity and race are crucial elements in someone’s political and social behavior. But a person possessing the highest qualities of his race — but without a culture that preserves and enhances his race — turns into a biological unit with a meaningless life. Culture must always come as the final veneer on a person’s racial make-up. Even among Third Reich scholars the most frequent word was not Rasse (race), but rather the word Ausbildung, which denotes character building (often wrongly translated into English as ‘education’). High IQ and other positive racial characteristics can in no way substitute for strong will and moral integrity. These traits are influenced genetically and they differ between the races. But there are strong cultural influences on these traits as well. The phenomenon whereby so many Whites have accepted the death of their culture and the surrender of lands they have held for centuries is the product of a pathological culture, not pathological genes.
It still remains a great mystery why the great White race, once capable of great deeds and daring adventure from Cape Verde to Patagonia and from the Arctic Circle to New Zealand, is now more and more inclined to a domesticated life with no risks, always ready to meekly accept its own cultural and political eclipse as a moral imperative. Must it wait for the real interracial warfare in order to retrieve its ingroup identity?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to criticize the U.S. during an address this week to the United Nations General Assembly. But in an interview with NPR, Ahmadinejad disputed that was his intention — up to a point.
Speaking to Steve Inskeep through an interpreter, Ahmadinejad said, “We do not have confrontations with anyone. The U.S. administration interferes, and we defend ourselves.”
Ahmadinejad said that diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States should continue to open up, citing a willingness to cooperate to uphold security in Iraq.
Asked what steps might help ease those relations, Ahmadinejad said, “We’ve never entered the United States and caused problems for the people here, but the American government has done that to us. So, our first proposal is that the government has to stop doing that.”
The Full Interview With President Ahmadinejad
NPR: I’ll get right to an important point: Is confrontation with the United States in Iran’s national interest?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: We do not have confrontations with anyone. The U.S. administration interferes, and we defend ourselves.
NPR: Clearly, there’s more than one viewpoint on that. There are efforts to get Iran to change its policies on nuclear fuel enrichment, for example. Why is that not a confrontation?
Ahmadinejad: It is us who doesn’t seek confrontation. But, as I explained it. It’s the U.S. administration that interferes regarding the rights of the Iranian people and we defend ourselves.
NPR: Is there nothing about Iran’s actions or rhetoric which can be seen as defiant and defying people in the world with whom you disagree?
Ahmadinejad: And who exactly are you referring to when you say the international community?
NPR: When I speak of the international community, I would speak of the United States; I would speak of European nations that have urged Iran to change its nuclear policies. I would speak of Russia, which has made proposals; I would speak of China, which has been involved. I could go on for quite some time.
Ahmadinejad: What right do they have to make such demands on us? Based on what legal system or what international regulation and law? Exactly where do they find the legal basis to demand such things from our people? Whilst they are enjoying nuclear energy, they are telling us not to?
NPR: You raise an interesting point. You have argued that Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium. Many countries in the world are concerned that Iran’s real purpose is seeking a nuclear weapon. You have denied this. You have said this is not your intent; people are not persuaded. What can you do? What can you offer to convince the world that your purposes are, in fact, solely peaceful?
Ahmadinejad: Well, first of all, the people of the world, the majority actually, support our stand. One hundred eighteen member states of NAM have declared their commitment to our program and supported it. The Non-Aligned Movement. And 57 member states of the OIC, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, too have supported our position.
Eight countries of the G-8 group have actually supported us. As well as the 15 countries of the Group of 15.
So, clearly, the people and the governments are supporting us. You are speaking of only three or four countries, led by the United States and with a couple of their European friends, and we don’t care about them, because they don’t represent the whole world.
NPR: Let me return to my original question. Is a confrontation with the United States in Iran’s national interest?
Ahmadinejad: What exactly do you mean? What is it that we should be looking for?
NPR: When there is talk of war with Iran, when comments are made about breaking hands or cutting hands if there is an attack on Iran; when there is rhetoric against Israel; when there is great concern around the world about the future of Iran and its relations with other nations in the world — that is the confrontation I’m asking about. Is such a confrontation, regardless of who’s responsible, in Iran’s interest? And is it in Iran’s interest to actively seek to resolve it?
Ahmadinejad: We do not have any confrontation with anyone. We seek relations based on respect and justice. Let me turn the question around and ask you, exactly where is the world that you are speaking of? Again, 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement are supporting us. Fifty-seven countries of the OIC. So the world that is concerned that you refer to, who is it? Which world? Is it really the U.S. administration and its group of friends?
NPR: I’ve named the United States; I’ve named Europe; I’ve named Russia; I’ve named China.
Ahmadinejad: Why is it that the U.S. administration and two or three groups that follow it allow themselves to speak for the world? We believe that that is the root cause of the confrontation. Simply because the U.S. administration and a few number of its European allies believe that they own the world. They want to interfere in anything that goes on around the world. I’d like to ask you, is it the Iranian army that’s around the territories around the country, or is it the U.S. troops that are around?
It is the U.S. troops around our borders. It is not ours around the American borders. So what exactly are they doing over there?
NPR: I think it is fair to say that there has been rhetoric on both sides. I think it is fair to say that you have spoken of wiping countries off the map, and chopping off hands. Does that rhetoric, when you speak that way — do you, in fact, play into the hands of President Bush? You give rhetoric that reinforces his case. He says you are a certain kind of leader, and you pose as that leader.
Ahmadinejad: You’ve asked a good question. I think that it’s necessary to open up a bit regarding the relations between Iran and the United States.
You are aware that 55 years ago, the U.S. government overthrew the national government of Iran through a coup, and imposed a tyrannical dictator on our people.
For over 25 years under the dictatorship, hundreds of thousands of our people went to prison and spent time there, whilst our oil was being looted by American companies. Our people were demeaned. Our independence was harmed.
Until the Iranian people rose [in] a popular and democratic event to create the Islamic revolution.
NPR: My time is short — be assured I am aware of the history.
Ahmadinejad: You know the history, but it has to be repeated to the people who are your listeners. While America was there, we had no elections in our country. Nonetheless, when the Islamic Republic came into being, the U.S. government rose against it with all its might.
NPR: Let me ask about that.
Ahmadinejad: Several coup attempts occurred. The eight years of war between Saddam [Hussein] and our country were actually supported directly by the United States. From Day 1, our people were — sanctions were imposed on our people. So who exactly is the provocateur? Who is the one who seeks war?
NPR: You’ve posed a question, you’ve posed a question — let me address it if I might. Because I need to — my time is short, your time is short. Please understand I mean no disrespect. Thank you, my question is this — coming back to now, history being what it has been, reality being what it is, do you feel any obligation — do you have any proposal that you can make to move the situation forward from what it is today in the real world, two countries that have been greatly opposed? Is there any small step that you can think of, to move forward?
Ahmadinejad: Well, yes. Of course, we’ve never entered the U.S. and caused problems for the people here, but the American government has done that to us. So our first proposal is that they have to stop doing that.
NPR: That is a proposal for them; what about for you?
Ahmadinejad: I’ve taken a lot of leaps forward in this respect. I sent a letter to Mr. Bush. That was a very good opening.
I even said that I am prepared to talk at the United Nations with them. We responded positively to the request made by U.S. government to extend a hand of cooperation in a joint security commission involved in upholding a security force for Iraq. So we did whatever we could. And we believe it’s time for the American government to act.
NPR: Is there a concrete proposal that you can make that would convince the government that Iran can enrich uranium peacefully, and provide some kind of guarantee, whether it be monitors or some other method; does your country, does your government that you represent have any proposal that it can make that would reassure the world when it comes to uranium?
Ahmadinejad: Again, it’s not the world people, it’s the American government that’s concerned.
NPR: I take it that’s a no, you’re not interested in proceeding.
Ahmadinejad: Of course we do have a proposal and that’s to advance law for everyone. That the U.S. administration extend at least the equivalent of one-tenth the cooperation we have extended to the [International Atomic Energy Agency]; we believe that the IAEA itself offers the best guarantee. And we believe that the American administration itself should cease putting pressure on the people who work at the IAEA.
Now how so is it that a country that possesses tens of thousands of nuclear bombs and has in fact actually used one against another nation is imposing its will on us, and we are a country that is simply seeking peaceful nuclear energy? There are a lot of good proposals that can be offered in this area.
NPR: That can be offered, but not by you.
Ahmadinejad: In fact, I’ve given many, many proposals. We just think it’s the policy approach of the U.S. government that’s been nonresponsive and must change. It is not our proposals that are going to fix the problem. It is something else.
NPR: Let me delve into two more areas. As you know, Mr. President, you are known in much of the world, and not only in the United States, as the man who wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” Are you?
Ahmadinejad: Is the problem of the U.S. government the Zionist regime? I believe the extremity to which the U.S. government has gone to extend support to the Zionist regime has caused the U.S. government problems around the world.
NPR: Do you accept the label of the man who wants to wipe Israel off the map? You’re not?
Ahmadinejad: Please pay attention to the fact that there are two issues that go side by side in this discussion. The first part is the proposal we have given to resolve the problem of Palestine. For 60 years, wars and killings have been going on over there.
Every peace proposal that has been put on the table so far has failed to give results. Why? Because it neglects the rights of the Palestinian people. Our proposal has been to offer the Palestinian people a free referendum. Everyone who lives in Palestine [should be able] to participate in a referendum to decide the future and the nature of its government.
Let me create an analogy here — where exactly is the Soviet Union today? It did disappear — but exactly how? It was through the vote of its own people. So therefore in Palestine too we must allow the people, the Palestinians, to determine their own future.
And then the second side of this same issue, and I’d really like to invite you to pay attention to it. Especially you — you must, because you are always being subjected to [the] unilateral sort of information that is coming from the administration here.
Let’s ask ourselves, where exactly did the Zionist regime come from? Palestine has existed historically with people who live there for thousands of years. Then at gunpoint several million of the indigenous people there were forced out of their homes and became displaced. And it didn’t stop there; others were brought from elsewhere in the world to replace them. How can you accept this regime?
NPR: If you will forgive me, the time is short.
Ahmadinejad: Well, everything is related to history. Imagine, somebody comes and occupies the United States, and say it’s history, don’t say anything else about it.
NPR: I’m not saying don’t say anything else; I’m saying our time is limited. You mentioned, Mr. President — you mentioned elections. You mentioned a referendum, which raises another question in my mind.
Iran’s democracy, Iran’s elections have a feature that is different from the United States, that we should explain.
In Iran, the government disqualifies many candidates, sometimes thousands of candidates, if they do not have what is considered to be the appropriate beliefs. They are not permitted to run.
Why do you not trust Iran’s people to make that choice, instead of the government making it for them?
Ahmadinejad: I, in fact, believe that elections in Iran are among the freest in the world. There’s at least 100 times more freedom in Iran than there is in the United States.
NPR: Why don’t you trust people to vote for everybody?
Ahmadinejad: We trust people! Elections are free in Iran!
NPR: After the candidate rolls are removed.
Ahmadinejad: It’s the restrictions here that exist — we have a law in Iran. According to the law, whoever possesses qualifications to become a candidate can run — for example for the presidential elections.
A clear example of the confidence we place in the people is I, myself. I didn’t belong to any party. I taught at the university.
NPR: And if your supreme leader didn’t want you to run, you would not run.
Ahmadinejad: No, not at all. There were seven other candidates…
Ahmadinejad: Eight candidates —
NPR: Who were permitted. In legislative elections, thousands were disqualified.
Ahmadinejad: From many different groups and parties. Even independents. Free assorted [indecipherable] campaigns. The national TV actually gave time to all of them equally. I was an independent candidate, without any party affiliations. Only the academics supported me. And I was voted into office. And now I’m the president. I ask you, can anyone in fact become a president without the support of either of the two parties here in the United States?
NPR: Anyone may put his name on the ballot in the United States.
Ahmadinejad: Are 300 million people here in America members of either of the two parties? No, not necessarily. People have no other choices here. You only have two choices. In Iran, at least, we have eight. Who is more free? Who has more confidence in its people?
NPR: Eight people in the political spectrum from about here to here, and I’m holding my finger an inch apart. If I may ask one more question, if I might, Mr. President.
Ahmadinejad: So then, you do agree there are restrictions, even farther here in the United States and elsewhere?
NPR: I do not agree. The United States — the American system has its own problems, which we may discuss in another interview. I would look forward to the discussion.
Ahmadinejad: Why do you assume that your system is better than everybody else’s?
NPR: I assume nothing, Mr. President, I ask questions. And my final question is this: Many visitors to Iran have remarked on an interesting trend.
Many Iranians listen to Western music, watch Western television, read Western books if they can get them, and appear to have disassociated themselves with politics. That raises a question of whether you have lost touch with many of your people.
Ahmadinejad: In fact, I’m one of the few people, one of the people who is, at all times, among the Iranian people.
I have links with everyone in Iran. The Iranian nation is a free one. And they elect freely. It’s always been the case. There are no restrictions for them. Why do you think that that’s a new trend? It’s the same mistake that the American government makes.
NPR: You say there are no —
Ahmadinejad: Just wait for three months, and on the anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution, you will see how people react on the scenes.
NPR: Haven’t the police confiscated satellite dishes?
Ahmadinejad: But that’s a different discussion, no! It’s a law. We are not addressing the law. The law was passed as a bill when it happened. There are other issues there. Sure, there are some problems, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Again, wait for another nine months, and you’ll see the vast turnover of the people in the presidential elections. Please remember that close to 98 percent of the people support the Islamic Revolution. I am in touch with people on the streets.
NPR: Do you read Western —
Ahmadinejad: There’s a lot of freedom in Iran. The example is our interview with you. Can you ask your own president these questions? Can you really so freely meet with him so easily? Never.
NPR: Do you —
Ahmadinejad: You cannot freely ask questions.
NPR: Do you watch any —
Ahmadinejad: But everybody asks questions from me freely.
NPR: Do you watch any Western television programs, Mr. President?
Ahmadinejad: Yeah, like everyone else!
NPR: What programs?
Ahmadinejad: People, after all, like movies and shows…
NPR: What’s something you’ve seen recently?
Ahmadinejad: Of course, very little, I mostly watch Iranian TV and listen to international news.
NPR: Any Western music that you listen to or books that you read?
Ahmadinejad: Sure, me too, like everyone else, but this isn’t what matters. That’s not how nations matter. People in Iran see everything, read everything, they don’t restrict themselves to one outlet.
NPR: The Beatles? Led Zeppelin?
Ahmadinejad: And it doesn’t basically put restrictions on itself. They use whatever they have! But that’s the Iranian nation. And they know how to defend their own rights, too. They won’t put up with force or with domination. Whoever, by whoever, please remember that.
NPR: Mr. President, thank you for taking the time today.
Ahmadinejad: Wish you luck and success. We’ll try to create the same ambiance for talks with your own president here, too.
Americans cannot get any truth out of their government about anything, the economy included. Americans are being driven into the ground economically, with 1 million schoolchildren now homeless, while Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke announces that the recession is over.
The spin that masquerades as news is becoming more delusional. Consumer spending is 70 percent of the U.S. economy. It is the driving force, and it has been shut down. Except for the super rich, there has been no growth in consumer incomes in the 21st century. Statistician John Williams of shadowstats.com reports that real household income has never recovered its pre-2001 peak.
The U.S. economy has been kept going by substituting growth in consumer debt for growth in consumer income. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan encouraged consumer debt with low interest rates. The low interest rates pushed up home prices, enabling Americans to refinance their homes and spend the equity. Credit cards were maxed out in expectations of rising real estate and equity values to pay the accumulated debt. The binge was halted when the real estate and equity bubbles burst.
As consumers no longer can expand their indebtedness and their incomes are not rising, there is no basis for a growing consumer economy. Indeed, statistics indicate that consumers are paying down debt in their efforts to survive financially. In an economy in which the consumer is the driving force, that is bad news.
The banks—now investment banks thanks to greed-driven deregulation that repealed the learned lessons of the past—were even more reckless than consumers and took speculative leverage to new heights. At the urging of Larry Summers and Goldman Sachs’ CEO Henry Paulson, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Bush administration went along with removing restrictions on debt leverage.
When the bubble burst, the extraordinary leverage threatened the financial system with collapse. The U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve stepped forward with no one knows how many trillions of dollars to “save the financial system,” which, of course, meant to save the greed-driven financial institutions that had caused the economic crisis that dispossessed ordinary Americans of half of their life savings.
The consumer has been chastened, but not the banks. Refreshed with the TARP $700 billion and the Federal Reserve’s expanded balance sheet, banks are again behaving like hedge funds. Leveraged speculation is producing another bubble with the current stock market rally, which is not a sign of economic recovery but is the final savaging of Americans’ wealth by a few investment banks and their Washington friends. Goldman Sachs, rolling in profits, announced six figure bonuses to employees.
The rest of America is suffering terribly.
The unemployment rate, as reported, is a fiction and has been since the Clinton administration. The unemployment rate does not include jobless Americans who have been unemployed for more than a year and have given up on finding work. The reported 10 percent unemployment rate is understated by the millions of Americans who are suffering long-term unemployment and are no longer counted as unemployed. As each month passes, unemployed Americans drop off the unemployment role due to nothing except the passing of time.
The inflation rate, especially “core inflation,” is another fiction. “Core inflation” does not include food and energy, two of Americans’ biggest budget items. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) assumes, ever since the Boskin Commission during the Clinton administration, that if prices of items go up, consumers substitute cheaper items. This is certainly the case, but this way of measuring inflation means that the CPI is no longer comparable to past years, because the basket of goods in the index is variable.
The Boskin Commission’s CPI, by lowering the measured rate of inflation, raises the real gross domestic product growth rate. The result of the statistical manipulation is an understated inflation rate, thus eroding the real value of Social Security income, and an overstated growth rate. Statistical manipulation cloaks a declining standard of living.
In bygone days of American prosperity, American incomes rose with productivity. It was the real growth in American incomes that propelled the U.S. economy.
In today’s America, the only incomes that rise are in the financial sector that risks the country’s future on excessive leverage and in the corporate world that substitutes foreign for American labor. Under the compensation rules and emphasis on shareholder earnings that hold sway in the U.S. today, corporate executives maximize earnings and their compensation by minimizing the employment of Americans.
Try to find some acknowledgement of this in the “mainstream media,” or among economists, who suck up to the offshoring corporations for grants.
The worst part of the decline is yet to come. Bank failures and home foreclosures are yet to peak. The commercial real estate bust is yet to hit. The dollar crisis is building.
When it hits, interest rates will rise dramatically as the U.S. struggles to finance its massive budget and trade deficits while the rest of the world tries to escape a depreciating dollar.
Since the spring of this year, the value of the U.S. dollar has collapsed against every currency except those pegged to it. The Swiss franc has risen 14 percent against the dollar. Every hard currency from the Canadian dollar to the Euro and British pound has risen at least 13 percent against the U.S. dollar since April 2009. The Japanese yen is not far behind, and the Brazilian real has risen 25 percent against the almighty U.S. dollar. Even the Russian ruble has risen 13 percent against the U.S. dollar.
What sort of recovery is it when the safest investment is to bet against the U.S. dollar?
The American household of my day, in which the husband worked and the wife provided household services and raised the children, scarcely exists today. Most, if not all, members of a household have to work in order to pay the bills. The jobs are disappearing, however—even the part-time ones.
If measured according to the methodology used when I was assistant secretary of the treasury, the unemployment rate today in the U.S. is above 20 percent. Moreover, there is no obvious way of reducing it. There are no factories, with workforces temporarily laid off by high interest rates, waiting for a lower interest rate policy to call their workforces back into production.
The work has been moved abroad. In the bygone days of American prosperity, CEOs were inculcated with the view that they had equal responsibilities to customers, employees and shareholders. This view has been exterminated. Pushed by Wall Street and the threat of takeovers promising “enhanced shareholder value,” and incentivized by “performance pay,” CEOs use every means to substitute cheaper foreign employees for Americans.
Despite 20 percent unemployment and cum laude engineering graduates who cannot find jobs or even job interviews, Congress continues to support 65,000 annual H-1B work visas for foreigners.
In the midst of the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, what kind of a fool do you need to be to think that there is a shortage of qualified U.S. workers?
In this show, the first in a series on the ethnic cleansing of Germans from post-WWII Eastern Europe, Dr. Sunic & Rev. Fischer discuss the destruction of Danube Swabian Germans (Donauschwaben). Topics covered include:
Fate of ethnic Germans in the 1944 “evacuations” in Yugoslavia and the effect of the 1945 Potsdam protocols
The condoning of the mass killings under Tito
Fischer’s personal story as an ethnic German whose family emigrated to Canada (in “Little Swabian Hungry”) and the social pressures to throw off his German identity
Ethnic German demographics in Canada, the US, and elsewhere as a result of the ethnic cleansing from Eastern Europe
The spirit of victimology among ethnic groups and the blackout of this sector of European history
The importance of the early German settlers of Eastern Europe and their contributions to those lands and their history
Prince Eugene of Savoy
Eastern Europe as a cauldron of European peoples
Fischer’s book and the importance of the Danube to European history
The vilification of Germans in the aftermath of WWII
About Rev. Fischer
Henry A. Fischer born in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, is the son of Danube Swabian immigrants from Hungary whose lives and families provide much of the background for his writing and historical research. This resulted in the publication of his first book: Children of the Danube. In a sense, it gave birth to the trilogy entitled: Remember To Tell The Children.
Although a work of historical fiction, it is based on extensive historical and genealogical research, family and village traditions and stories handed down through the generations. They reflect the common experience of the Children of the Danube and their descendants since joining the Great Swabian Migration into Hungary early in the 18th century.
The first volume of the trilogy: The Pioneers deals with their journey down the Danube and the early settlement years in Hungary. The second part of the trilogy focusses on the development of their own distinct identity and lifestyle duirng the first half of the 19th century within the context of the wider society in which they were: Strangers and Sojourners. The final volume deals with their continuing search for a homeland and their eventual forced dispersal throughout the world, leading to their becoming: Emigrants and Exiles.
He and his wife Jean reside in Oshawa, Ontario. They enjoy travelling and the freedom of retirement but spend as much time as they can with their children and grandchildren. A former Lutheran pastor and co-founder of InterChurch Health Ministries, he is a graduate of the University of Western Ontario and Waterloo Lutheran Seminary
Rev. Fischer’s Web sites
Web sites on the history of the Great Swabian Migration into Eastern Europe and their fate, and on ethnic German demographics and genealogy:
Extract is the third live-action film written and directed by Mike Judge, creator of the hit animated TV series Beavis and Butt-head and King of the Hill (which will broadcast its final episode this coming Sunday after 13 seasons). Judge’s first was 1999’s Office Space and the second was the dysgenic sci-fi satire Idiocracy, which 20th Century Fox hostilely dumped into the doldrums of the 2006 Labor Day Weekend with no marketing effort whatsoever. Judge recalls, “I mean, to find it on Moviefone, you had to look under U for Untitled Mike Judge Project.” Unsurprisingly, Idiocracy died at the box office, but, like Office Space, its best lines have since entered the culture.
Now he’s back with the self-financed Extract, a low budget workplace comedy. I guess Judge is to Labor Day, the worst movie weekend of the year, what Will Smith is to Independence Day. Judge may well be the only person in the entertainment business whose work is deeply concerned, both sympathetically and realistically, with people on the left half of the bell curve. He often appears to be only artist who can bear in mind three relevant concepts:
1) That half the human race is below average in intelligence, which has serious (and sometimes hilarious) consequences. 2) Yet, everybody is equally human. 3) And, people on the right half of the bell curve have responsibilities to people on the left half that begin with not using their intellectual ability to theorize away the existence of the bell curve.
While perhaps not the most profoundly gifted, Judge is among the most broadly talented figures in American popular culture. After graduating with a physics degree from UC San Diego, he worked as an engineer in the manhood-crushing Cubicle Drone day jobs he satirized in Office Space. Meanwhile, he tried to make it as either a bass guitarist or an animator. He told the LA Daily News:
By the time I was pushing 30, I’d had so many job and had always been the employee. Then, suddenly, Beavis and Butt-head happened and I had 30 to 90 people working for me and I just became very sympathetic to my old bosses.
So, the self-financed Extract is, intentionally, the flip side of Office Space, a sympathetic portrayal of the kind of technically skilled white male businessman who is still largely responsible for creating our society’s wealth.
Judge’s subtle Red State Republican sympathies (he lives in Texas, where he shoots his movies, and commutes to LA for his television shows only when necessary) raised the hackles of New York Times critic Manohla Dargis. Her review of Extract showed she is still peeved about Idiocracy. She harrumphed about how Judge just isn’t subtle enough to understand “the complexities of class and representation” (unlike, say, Dargis, an English Lit major from Purchase College, SUNY).
In Extract, Joel, the founder of a factory that manufactures food-flavoring extracts, is played by Jason Bateman of Arrested Development. This former child actor’s career is starting to resemble Josh Brolin’s, another show biz scion who, as he neared 40, unexpectedly turned into a star worth keeping an eye out for.
As a kid, Joel wondered why root beer-flavored cookie dough tastes better than freshly baked root beer cookies. When majoring in chemistry, he learned that high temperatures degrade the molecules, which got him to thinking up better artificial flavorings for baked goods. This life story has brought him a BMW, a nice house with a pool, and the boredom of everybody he knows, including his wife (Kristen Wiig of Saturday Night Live), who hasn’t had sex with him in three months.
In his malaise, Joel considers the advice of his C.F.O. (J.K. Simmons, who is funny in everything, even Burn After Reading) to sell the company to General Mills so he can retire from riding herd on his ungrateful and accident-prone employees.
Then, a minor bit of assembly line sabotage sets off a series of mishaps victimizing a good old boy worker who loses a testicle; a seductive conwoman (Mila Kunis of That 70s Show) who talks the walking woundee into turning down Joel’s insurance settlement and hiring a sleazebag contingency fee lawyer (bassist Gene Simmons of KISS) who intends to drive the company into liquidation; Joel’s pill-peddling bartender (Ben Affleck, settling down to a career as a good supporting actor who looks like a bad leading man); and a gigolo. Every character is well-cast, especially Clifton Collins Jr., a half-Mexican actor from Los Angeles who once again just vanishes into his role, this time as the maimed redneck who helps Joel finally figure out what he wants to do with his life.
Idiocracy was criticized for sloppy plotting (which I’m not sure much matters in a comedy—Caddyshack’s narrative, for example, isn’t exactly a thing of beauty, but Americans have been quoting the movie for three decades). Perhaps in response, Extract is surprisingly well-tooled, with an efficient plot that gets the movie over and done with in just 89 minutes, although it’s never as howlingly funny as Idiocracy’s best bits.
Extract shows that Judge can turn out good, inexpensive movies that embody a conservative worldview seldom seen in Hollywood fare. What Judge now needs are financial backers who will let him make his modest but subversive movies at a faster clip than two or three per decade.
Consider Woody Allen as a potential role model for Judge’s future career. Allen has been churning out a movie per year since the late 1960s. Woody is somewhat overrated by the critics and by the Academy (who have tossed him a record-setting 21 Oscar nominations) because he shares their cultural presumptions. Like Judge, though, Allen doesn’t overrate himself. He doesn’t burn himself out with Apocalypse Now-scale ambitions. As he’s repeatedly said, “Eighty percent of success is just showing up,” and Woody shows up every single year.
Allen’s investors know that Woody, a self-disciplined tightwad, won’t burn them too badly. They expect they’ll probably lose a million or two in return for the bragging rights of helping Woody Allen make another movie, but they figure they won’t lose too much more than that.
Red State zillionaires looking to have a positive impact on our culture could do much worse things with their money than to back Judge the way Blue Staters have backed Allen over the years. Instead, however, they pour money into conventional charities or do things like give $265 million to the Oklahoma State athletic department, as oilman T. Boone Pickens has done in the hopes of buying a national college football championship.
Fine, but Red State moneymen should keep in mind that out-bribing each other for the best high school athletes is a zero sum game, while changing the culture is not.
Down at the Chinese outlet store in Albany known as Wal-Mart, Chinese tires have so successfully undercut U.S.-made tires that the Cooper Tire factory in that south Georgia town had to shut down.
Twenty-one hundred Georgians lost their jobs.
The tale of Cooper Tire and what it portends is told in last week’s Washington Post by Peter Whoriskey.
How could tires made on the other side of the world, then shipped to Albany, be sold for less than tires made in Albany?
At Cooper Tire, the wages were $18 to $21 per hour. In China, they are a fraction of that. The Albany factory is subject to U.S. health-and-safety, wage-and-hour and civil rights laws from which Chinese plants are exempt. Environmental standards had to be met at Cooper Tire or the plant would have been closed. Chinese factories are notorious polluters.
China won the competition because the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” does not apply to the People’s Republic. While free trade laws grant China free and equal access to the U.S. market, China can pay workers wages and force them to work hours that would violate U.S. law, and China can operate plants whose health, safety and environmental standards would have their U.S. competitors shut down as public nuisances.
Beijing also manipulates its currency to keep export prices low and grants a rebate on its value-added tax on exports to the U.S.A., while imposing a value-added tax on goods coming from the U.S.A.
Thus did China, from 2004 to 2008, triple her share of the U.S. tire market from 5 percent to 17 percent and take down Cooper Tire of Albany.
But not to worry. Cooper Tire has seen the light and is now opening and acquiring plants in China, and sending Albany workers over to train the Chinese who took their jobs.
Welcome to 21st century America, where globalism has replaced patriotism as the civil religion of our corporate elites. As Thomas Jefferson reminded us, “Merchants have no country.”
What has this meant to the republic that was once the most self-sufficient and independent in all of history?
Since 2001, when George Bush took the oath, the United States has run $3.8 trillion in trade deficits in manufactured goods, more than twice the $1.68 trillion in trade deficits we ran for imported oil and gas.
Our trade deficit with China in manufactured goods alone, $1.58 trillion over those eight years, roughly equals the entire U.S. trade deficit for oil and gas.
U.S. politicians never cease to wail of the need for “energy independence.” But why is our dependence on the oil of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, Nigeria, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela a greater concern than our dependence on a non-democratic rival great power for computers and vital components of our weapons systems and high-tech industries?
As Executive Director Auggie Tantillo of the American Manufacturing Trade Action Committee compellingly argues:
“Running a trade deficit for natural resources that the United States lacks is something that cannot be helped, but running a massive deficit in manmade products that America easily could produce itself is a choice — a poor choice that is bankrupting the country and responsible for the loss of millions of jobs.”
How many millions of jobs?
In the George W. Bush years, we lost 5.3 million manufacturing jobs, one-fourth to one-third of all we had in 2001.
And our dependence on China is growing.
Where Beijing was responsible for 60 percent of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactured goods in 2008, in the first six months of 2009, China accounted for 79 percent of our trade deficit in manufactured goods.
How can we end this dependency and begin building factories and creating jobs here, rather than deepening our dependency on a China that seeks to take our place in the sun? The same way Alexander Hamilton did, when we Americans produced almost nothing and were even more dependent on Great Britain than we are on China today.
Let us do unto our trading partners as they have done unto us.
As they rebate value-added taxes on exports to us, and impose a value-added tax on our exports to them, let us reciprocate. Impose a border tax equal to a VAT on all their goods entering the United States, and use the hundreds of billions to cut corporate taxes on all manufacturing done here in the United States.
Where they have tilted the playing field against us, let us tilt it back again. Transnational companies are as amoral as sharks. What is needed is simply to cut their profits from moving factories and jobs abroad and increase their profits for bringing them back to the U.S.A.
It’s not rocket science. Hamilton, James Madison and Abraham Lincoln all did it. Obama’s tariffs on Chinese tires are a good start.
Andrew Yeoman is the founder and spokesman of the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA). Discussion involves the nature and background of National Anarchism and the activities of BANA. Topics discussed include:
The history of nationalism in leftist movements
The local nature of BANA, the importance of grassroots social movements, and how they work
What “tribe” means to the organization
The growth of the movement and various National Anarchist groups around the US
Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney sent an Email around on Sunday in which she wrote:
“[I]t has just now come to my attention that a ‘journalist’ who suggested that I be lynched was actually being paid by our own government to say that. Now, when I reported it to the FBI, how in the world was I to know that he was at that time on the FBI’s payroll?”
“Hate blogger” Hal Turner’s lawyer said last week, and prosecutors agreed, that Turner was “trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative” and “worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an ‘agent provocateur’ and was taught by the agency ‘what he could say that wouldn’t be crossing the line’.”
Turner is being charged with making death threats against Connecticut legislators and Illinois judges and is apparently going to claim that his actions were legal because he did the same sort of thing when employed by the FBI:
“Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die. ‘But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever,’ [his lawyer] said.”
McKinney wrote in her Email: “Interesting that charges stem from his comments against Connecticut lawmakers and Illinois judges, but not from the threat made against me, a sitting Member of Congress at the time!” And, apparently the threat against McKinney was made when Turner admits to having been on the FBI payroll.
John Judge, who worked for McKinney, writes of Turner:
“This is the guy who announced a program topic suggesting that Cynthia McKinney be lynched on her way to the polls to vote in 2006 and published her campaign office address on the website. He asked how she would look swinging at the end of a rope and what message it would send to other ‘uppity’ Blacks. I called NJ Homeland Security and FBI at the time…. The FBI agent I spoke to said ‘We know all about Mr. Turner’. Looks like they did.”
While Turner’s website is down, another website has what it claims was posted on Turner’s:
“LYNCHING CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: SHOULD IT BE DONE BEFORE HER JULY 18 PRIMARY ELECTION?
Tune-in to ‘The Hal Turner Show’ this Wednesday evening from 9:00-11:00 PM eastern US time as we talk about this topic!
“Cynthia McKinney is a violent, black, racist, bitch whose official re-election campaign web site calls white people ‘crackers’. As such, on this Wednesday evening’s show I will ask the question ‘Given the prevalence of black crime in America, would it serve the public good to LYNCH Congresswoman McKinney within the next few weeks, while she’s on the campaign trail, so as to send an unmistakable message to other blacks: white people are tired of your bullshit, behave or die.”
Now, I realize that this sounds like ordinary civil discourse in tea-partied America, and yet it’s fairly easy to imagine altering it in ways that would have “crossed the line.” For example, Turner might have targeted a Republican, or a Democrat in good standing, or a white person. Surely that would have crossed some line.