Mishko and Dietrich, 4/30/2010

April 30, 2010

This Week in Disorganized America:

Dietrich goes on a deserved leave so Mishko has a guest Marc on to discusses the current economic crisis, the cause and the future.

  • The economy
  • The future 
  • Stay and fight or leave?

And much more

In memoriam, Byron Jost

April 30, 2010

The staff of VoR regretfully announces the untimely death of a fellow traveler, Byron Jost. Byron was an American film maker whose interest in the preservation of his culture and people led to the creation of the 2005 film, The Line in the Sand, a production of his company, October Sun Films. He was a lively conversationalist who was fueled by his desire to understand the complex nature of the decline of his people’s civilization and the motivation of those who have allowed our society to stray. His sense of adventure led to a life of travel across the United States and around the world. Byron had a great number of admirers, and we will all miss him.

Byron Jost

Byron Jost

The Line in the Sand

1 hour 41 minutes

Minority Rule: The Rise of Political Correctness

58 minutes

Jamie Kelso, Apr. 29, 2010: Don Wassall

April 29, 2010

Jamie interviews Nationalist Times editor Don Wassall. We cover issues from the prospects for third party politics in America as the American Third Position organizes itself to sports, as Don talks about the bizarre phenomenon of the best running back in America, white athlete Toby Gerhart of Stanford, being drafted 51st! rather than in the first round. Don Wassall himself has just been drafted as one of our A3P Directors… in the first round.

26 MB / 32 kbps mono / 1 hour 56 min.

Contact Jamie:

Blacks vow to “rape and kill” Whites at World cup

April 29, 2010

A VILE Facebook campaign to incite race hate ahead of the World Cup in South Africa in June is being investigated by police

Supporters of Afrikaner Resistance Movement leader Terreblanche protest yesterday as his alleged killers appear in court

The official probe was launched into a group set up by alleged supporters of firebrand politician Julius Malema.

One entry, emailed to football fans around the world, calls for the “rape and slaughter” of whites and the murder of President Jacob Zuma.

In a chilling message a Malema “fan” called Thato Mbateti Mbateti warns: “Every trespasser, namely white whores, we will rape them and kill them… White kids will be burned.”

The campaign comes amid growing tensions in South Africa after the murder of white supremacist Eugene Terreblanche.

Yesterday angry crowds clashed outside a court in Ventersdorp, near Johannesburg, as two black farm workers, aged 15 and 21, appeared accused of killing the 69-year-old who had campaigned for all-white states within South Africa.

Bitter memories of the apartheid era were evoked when 2,000 people gathered and police used razor wire to separate the factions. The case was adjourned until next week.

South African leaders, including President Zuma, have called for calm after the killing of Terreblanche. But right-wing fanatics have vowed vengeance.

Malema, who leads the youth wing of Zuma’s African National Congress party, was reportedly under police guard after alleged death threats against him. The Facebook page, which attracted more than 15,000 followers, has been shut down. Malema and the ANCYL insisted it was not an official supporters’ page.

Lawrence Schlemmer, vice president of the South African Institute of Race Relations, said: “There is no reason why these things, as tragic as they are, should affect the safety of fans or players at the World Cup. The World Cup and sport, as it is supposed to, channels passions and reconciles conflict.”

By David Pilditch

Note: reports that this story was apparently deleted and then restored.


The Stark Truth: Interview with Phillip Francis Tourney

April 28, 2010

Phillip Francis Tourney

Robert interviews Phillip Francis Tourney, a US Navy veteran and survivor of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. Topics include:

  • A detailed account of the deliberate Israeli attack on a US naval vessel
  • The treasonous recall of US aircraft attempting to defend the Liberty by the highest offices in Washington
  • The government cover-up and intimidation of Phil & other survivors

About Phillip Francis Tourney

Phillip Francis Tourney is the three-time president of the USS Liberty Veterans Association. Books written or edited by Phil include Ship With Out A County and What I Saw That Day. He has been telling the Liberty story for over twenty years. His awards include the Bronze Star with the V for Valor; the Purple Heart; the Vietnam Service Medal with one Bronze Star; the National Defense Medal; the Presidential Unit Citation; the Combat Action Ribbon, Navy E; two Honorable discharges from the US Navy.

Phillip’s blog is at USS Liberty.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Robert:

Jamie Kelso, Apr. 28, 2010

April 28, 2010

Jamie focuses on events along the Red River that flows northward between North Dakota and Minnesota. Our White people have lived along the Red River in at least three eras: from 19,000 BP (before the present) to 10,000 BP and more recently; in 1362 AD; and today. In all three of these eras, original White settlers in America came under attack by Amerindians (Mexicans today) who reached the New World thousands of years AFTER White Europeans (Solutreans in 19,000 BP, Vikings in 1362, and YOU today).

26 MB / 32 kbps mono / 1 hour 56 min.

Contact Jamie:

Iran, Brazil and the ‘bomb’

April 28, 2010

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim put it very politely at a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki in Tehran this Tuesday. Amorim said, “Brazil is interested to have a share in settling the Iranian nuclear issue in an appropriate way.”

“Appropriate” is code for dialogue – not a fourth round of sanctions slammed by the United Nations Security Council, much less the military option, which the Barack Obama administration has stridently kept on the table. Thus by positioning itself as a mediator in search for a peaceful solution, the Brazilian government is in fact on a “soft” collision course with the Obama administration.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is visiting Tehran next month. For “full spectrum dominance” US hawks this is anathema – as well as for Western right-wing media, Brazilian outlets included, which have been hammering Lula non-stop for his foreign policy initiative.

It matters little that once again Amorim stressed there is absolutely no consensus among the so-called “international community” to isolate Tehran. “Community” once again in this case means Washington plus a few European countries. The global South, as a whole, votes for dialogue. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is unanimously against further sanctions. The Group of 172 (all the countries outside of the Group of 20) is against further sanctions.

Brazil and Turkey, both against further sanctions, currently hold non-permanent seats at the UN Security Council. Their common position essentially mirrors China’s and Russia’s – both Security Council permanent members. Russia’s poker face tactics and China’s agreement to “discuss” sanction packages have been misinterpreted by corporate media and sold as acquiescence to Washington’s demands.

Not true. At the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) meeting in Brasilia less than two weeks ago, these countries once again tacitly agreed new sanctions are not the solution, and stressed the dossier should be settled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In Tehran, Mottaki and Amorim also discussed the Iranian proposal for a nuclear fuel swap deal as a “confidence-building measure” that would benefit Iran vis-a-vis Washington and European capitals. Brazil offered to enrich uranium for Iran.

The problem is the new round of sanctions is being discussed in New York only between the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany – and only later will be extended to non-permanent members such as Brazil, Turkey and Lebanon, which takes the rotating chair of the Security Council next month.

The heart of the matter
Each player has their own reasons to oppose sanctions. Moscow – which already supplies Iran with nuclear reactor technology, as well as weapons – knows that sooner or later Washington will have to concede the obvious; that Iran, a key energy producer, is a natural regional power. For Beijing, Iran is a matter of national energy security; further sanctions threaten this “stability” and fall into the category of the wishful thinking of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

New Delhi hardly failed to notice that in Afghanistan, Washington has embarked on an all-out alliance with Islamabad, so India needs a stable Iran as a counter-power to Pakistan interfering in Afghanistan and once again engaging the Taliban. Brasilia wants to expand business with Tehran; and Lula for his part has been adamant that more sanctions will only open the way for all-out war, not prevent it.

Diplomats at the latest BRIC meeting hinted at the heart of the matter. The BRIC leaders – the actual, new, multi-polar power that is seriously engaged in keeping US hegemonic ambitions in check – have carefully evaluated all the mixed signals, from Pentagon supremo Robert Gates’ “secret” letter to Obama in January reviewing the military options “on the table” against Iran to Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen saying at Columbia University that a strike would be his “last option”. They have evaluated the level of anxiety in Washington. And they have concluded there will be no US attack on Iran.

They might be wrong. Veiled by a lot of smoke and mirrors in corporate media, there’s a furious catfight going on in Washington nowadays among full spectrum dominance practitioners – from military types to American Enterprise Institute people. But it all basically amounts to one thing: when to strike Iran – sooner or later.

For the hawks, the bottom line is that Washington will never allow Iran to “acquire a nuclear capability”. That inevitably implies pre-emptive war. Iran’s “crime”, so far, has been to develop a nuclear energy program allowed by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and inspected to kingdom come.

Within this high anxiety scenario, it does not matter that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently preached total global nuclear disarmament, and once again repeated his fatwa against even the threatened deployment of weapons of mass destruction. They are haram (forbidden) according to Islamic law.

The Pentagon itself, via Gates, remains on the offensive – threatening Iran with an explicit “all options on the table”, that is, nuclear attack included; and Obama, in an Orwellian newspeak masterpiece twist, has added that the US will “sustain our nuclear deterrent” as an “incentive” to both Iran and North Korea. Incentive to commit seppuku, perhaps?

So what next?
Next month, in New York, there will be a new revision of the NPT. The Obama administration has already pressured Brazil to accept an additional protocol to the NPT. Brazil has refused.

In essence, the NPT is extremely asymmetrical. Those nations belonging to the nuclear club get VIP treatment compared to the rest. The additional protocol increases this discrimination – making it hard for any non-nuclear power even to conduct non-military research.

Brazil – which, crucially, hails from a pacifist tradition – defends the right for any sovereign country to acquire ”nuclear technology capacity”. That’s what Iran has embarked on, according to all available evidence. So obviously Brasilia had to be on a collision course with Washington as far as a revised NPT is concerned. Brasilia considers it a submission to foreign interference.

As for sanctions, Washington needs a reality check. To believe that the BRICs or countries in Asia and Europe will not buy Iranian oil and gas; won’t sell gasoline to Iran; and that Iranian banks won’t develop ways to interface with the global economy (they have partners, for instance, in the United Arab Emirates and in Venezuela) is to live in Wonderland.

Chinese oil majors are selling gasoline to Iran directly. Iran will double its production of gasoline by 2012 after expanding 10 refineries, and is investing nearly $40 billion to build seven new refineries. Iran will keep swapping petroleum products – mostly with the Central Asian ”stans”; this shows, for instance, how it is able to import gasoline bypassing the international banking system.

And on top of it there’s the black market. Jordan and Turkey smuggled rivers of oil out of sanctioned Iraq during the 1990s. With new sanctions on Iran it would be the turn of a new generation of Iraqis to hit the jackpot. As for the military dictatorship of the mullahtariat in Tehran, it would love nothing better than to use its energy profits to solidify its protective shield.

The BRIC leaders – Lula included – may have seen through the smoke and mirrors after all. Bomb? What bomb? They all know Iran cannot build a bomb, for instance, at Natanz, as long as it’s being inspected to death by the IAEA. Suppose Iran pulls a North Korea, kicks out the inspectors, pulls out of the NPT and decides to build a bomb in some undisclosed location. They would need a lot of water and power – and surveillance satellites would register every move.

The BRIC leaders have in fact concluded that Washington cannot do anything about Iran acquiring “nuclear capability” apart from invading the country in a joint remix of Desert Storm and Shock and Awe and conducting bloody regime change.

Rounds and rounds of sanctions won’t stop it. Israeli, US, or joint “precision” bombing would only set it back a little – not counting myriad nasty forms of blowback. There’s only one sensible solution. Washington has to sit on the table with Tehran with a real “unclenched fist” and deploy all diplomatic options in search of an overall Middle East security package – and that would include full denuclearization; that is, no more “secret” Israeli nuclear bombs. It’s doubtful whether the Obama administration – assailed by hawks on every front – will ever step up to this challenge.

By Pepe Escobar

Source: Asia Times.

The Sunic Journal: Interview with Dr. Michael Hill

April 27, 2010

Dr. Michael Hill

Tom Sunic interviews Dr. Michael Hill, a former professor of History at the University of Alabama and founder of the League of the South. Topics include:

  • The League of the South: Its purpose, history, and activities
  • The legality, logistics & likelihood of secession
  • The putative demographics of a secessionist South
  • Southern culture, community & heritage; Fitzhugh and other Southern authors

To learn more and become a member of the League of the South, y’all visit their fine website at

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Tom:

The Nationalist Report: Defending Whites in South Africa

April 27, 2010

Mike Conner & Mishko Novosel interview returning guest Marc Cornah, a regional leader of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB) of South Africa.

Swedish Resistance marches again Boer genocideMarch in Sweden

Topics include:

  • Update on South Africa since the Terre’Blanche assassination: The ongoing murder rampage inflicted on Whites; the inaction of the government; the complicity of the mass media
  • The AWB’s effort to organize the defense of White lives: The need for radios, night vision, camo, and other items; the need for expert skills & assistance in military and communications
  • A short conversation with Jonas of the Swedish Resistance Movement, an organization that was on the scene in the 2008 relaunch of the AWB and that recently marched against Boer genocide

Note: Due to the volatility of the situation, a South African shipping address is not established at the moment. VoR will provide an a mailing address and other information for those who wish to contribute needed supplies in the near future. Please stay tuned.

About Marc Cornah

Marc Cornah is the leader of the Cape region of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB) of South Africa. To contact Marc, write to newawb

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 58 min.

Contact Mike: mike.conner

Contact Mishko: mishko

Thought police muscle up in Britain

April 27, 2010

BRITAIN appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely.

There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.

Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution’s principal tasks was “to alter people’s actual psychology”. Britain is not Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people’s psychology and create a new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.

The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years’ prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and suggested the “global baggage of empire” was linked to soccer violence by “racist and xenophobic white males”. He claimed the English “propensity for violence” was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that the English as a race were “potentially very aggressive”.

In the past 10 years I have collected reports of many instances of draconian punishments, including the arrest and criminal prosecution of children, for thought-crimes and offences against political correctness.

Countryside Restoration Trust chairman and columnist Robin Page said at a rally against the Government’s anti-hunting laws in Gloucestershire in 2002: “If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum-seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.” Page was arrested, and after four months he received a letter saying no charges would be pressed, but that: “If further evidence comes to our attention whereby your involvement is implicated, we will seek to initiate proceedings.” It took him five years to clear his name.

Page was at least an adult. In September 2006, a 14-year-old schoolgirl, Codie Stott, asked a teacher if she could sit with another group to do a science project as all the girls with her spoke only Urdu. The teacher’s first response, according to Stott, was to scream at her: “It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police!” Upset and terrified, the schoolgirl went outside to calm down. The teacher called the police and a few days later, presumably after officialdom had thought the matter over, she was arrested and taken to a police station, where she was fingerprinted and photographed. According to her mother, she was placed in a bare cell for 3 1/2 hours. She was questioned on suspicion of committing a racial public order offence and then released without charge. The school was said to be investigating what further action to take, not against the teacher, but against Stott. Headmaster Anthony Edkins reportedly said: “An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark. We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form.”

A 10-year-old child was arrested and brought before a judge, for having allegedly called an 11-year-old boya “Paki” and “bin Laden” during a playground argument at a primary school (the other boy had called him a skunk and a Teletubby). When it reached the court the case had cost taxpayers pound stg. 25,000. The accused was so distressed that he had stopped attending school. The judge, Jonathan Finestein, said: “Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? There are major crimes out there and the police don’t bother to prosecute. This is nonsense.”

Finestein was fiercely attacked by teaching union leaders, as in those witch-hunt trials where any who spoke in defence of an accused or pointed to defects in the prosecution were immediately targeted as witches and candidates for burning.

Hate-crime police investigated Basil Brush, a puppet fox on children’s television, who had made a joke about Gypsies. The BBC confessed that Brush had behaved inappropriately and assured police that the episode would be banned.

A bishop was warned by the police for not having done enough to “celebrate diversity”, the enforcing of which is now apparently a police function. A Christian home for retired clergy and religious workers lost a grant because it would not reveal to official snoopers how many of the residents were homosexual. That they had never been asked was taken as evidence of homophobia.

Muslim parents who objected to young children being given books advocating same-sex marriage and adoption at one school last year had their wishes respected and the offending material withdrawn. This year, Muslim and Christian parents at another school objecting to the same material have not only had their objections ignored but have been threatened with prosecution if they withdraw their children.

There have been innumerable cases in recent months of people in schools, hospitals and other institutions losing their jobs because of various religious scruples, often, as in the East Germany of yore, not shouted fanatically from the rooftops but betrayed in private conversations and reported to authorities. The crime of one nurse was to offer to pray for a patient, who did not complain but merely mentioned the matter to another nurse. A primary school receptionist, Jennie Cain, whose five-year-old daughter was told off for talking about Jesus in class, faces the sack for seeking support from her church. A private email from her to other members of the church asking for prayers fell into the hands of school authorities.

Permissiveness as well as draconianism can be deployed to destroy socially accepted norms and values. The Royal Navy, for instance, has installed a satanist chapel in a warship to accommodate the proclivities of a satanist crew member. “What would Nelson have said?” is a British newspaper cliche about navy scandals, but in this case seems a legitimate question. Satanist paraphernalia is also supplied to prison inmates who need it.

This campaign seems to come from unelected or quasi-governmental bodies controlling various institutions, which are more or less unanswerable to electors, more than it does directly from the Government, although the Government helps drive it and condones it in a fudged and deniable manner.

Any one of these incidents might be dismissed as an aberration, but taken together – and I have only mentioned a tiny sample; more are reported almost every day – they add up to a pretty clear picture.

Hal G. P. Colebatch’s Blair’s Britain was chosen as a book of the year by The Spectator in 1999.

Source: The Australian.

The Heretics’ Hour: Günter Deckert on European Politics

April 26, 2010

Günter Deckert

Carolyn Yeager & Günter Deckert discuss European Politics. Topics include:

  • Report from the Bishop Williamson heresy trial
  • Disturbing developments in Holo revisionism (for Jews)
  • Right-wing political parties: Successes and prospects

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Carolyn:

Mishko and Dietrich, 4/23/2010

April 24, 2010

This Week in Disorganized America:

Dietrich goes on a deserved leave so Mishko discusses a few topics and takes some great calls for about 60 minutes.  Topics discussed.

  • Illegal Immigration
  • Obama trying to figure out if it’s illegal to go after illegals. 
  • Bank closures
  • South Africa  – Time is running out

And much more

The Orthodox Nationalist: The Ukraine under Poland

April 23, 2010

Ukrainian Great Coat of arms

Matt Johnson discusses:

  • The Ukrainian reaction to Polish control
  • Job Boretsky, Michael Kopistansky, & Meliti Smotritsky and the reaction against the Jesuits in Poland
  • The genesis of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church

12 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 52 min.

Contact Matt:

The Stark Truth: Interview with Paul Topete

April 21, 2010

Robert Stark welcomes Paul Topete of the patriotic musical band Pokerface onto the show. Topics include:

  • Paul’s political activism and music
  • The threats to America posed by globalism and Zionist power
  • The controlled opposition and co-option of the patriot movement
  • Advocacy for freedom of speech
  • Solutions to restore the Republic

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Robert:

New Tribe Rising? -Pat Buchanan

April 21, 2010

“Is white the new black?”

So asks Kelefa Sanneh in the subtitle of “Beyond the Pale,” his New Yorker review of several books on white America, wherein he concludes we may be witnessing “the slow birth of a people.”

Sanneh is onto something. For after a year of battering as “un-American,” “evil-doers” and racists, and praise from talk-show hosts and Sarah Palin as “the real Americans,” Tea Party America seems to be taking on a new and separate identity.

Ethnonationalism — the recognition of an embryonic people that they are different from their neighbors, and the concomitant drive to live apart — is, as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote 20 years ago, a more powerful force than any ideology, be it communism, fascism or democracy.

Ethnonationalism is the pre-eminent force of the age we have entered, the creator and destroyer of empires and nations. Even as Schlesinger was writing his “Disuniting of America,” Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union were disintegrating into 22 new nations, along the lines of ethnicity. In Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chechnya, Ossetia and Abkhazia, the process proceeds apace.

It has happened before — and here.

In the American colonies, the evil institution of slavery, followed by a century of segregation, created out of the children of captured Africans who had little in common other than color a new people, the African-Americans, who went out and voted 24-to-one for Barack Obama.

In 1754, the 13 colonies consisted of South Carolinians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians and Virginians, all loyal subjects of the king.

But after the contemptuous treatment of colonial soldiers in the French and Indian War, the Stamp Act, the Townshend duties, the Boston Massacre, the Tea Party, the Quartering Act and the Quebec Act, by 1775 a new people had been born: the Americans.

In 1770, New York colonists had erected a statue of George III in Bowling Green in grateful tribute for his repeal of the Townshend taxes. In July 1776, they pulled it down and melted it for lead bullets after Washington read his soldiers the Declaration of Independence portraying George III as another Ivan the Terrible.

“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people,” said Golda Meir. When she said it, she may have been right. But as generations have grown up under the occupation and two intifadas and a Gaza War, the Palestinians are a people today.

Adversity and abuse increase the awareness of separate identity and accelerate the secession of peoples from each other.

Obama in the campaign of 2008 recognized that “out there” in Middle America existed another country, far from the one he grew up in, far from the privileged Ivy League community to which he belonged.

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and … the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Palin and Tea Partiers now repeat Obama’s disparaging line about their clinging to Bibles and guns — with defiant pride.

As others have done in our multicultural and multiethnic nation, this people is beginning to assert its identity, unapologetically.

Sioux gather at Little Bighorn to celebrate the massacre of Custer’s command. Hawaiian natives demand a new ethnically based government — and receive Obama’s blessing. Hispanics march under Mexican flags in Los Angeles to demand citizenship for illegal aliens.

Now Southerners are proudly commemorating ancestors who fought and fell in the Lost Cause and demanding recognition of Confederate History Month. And state governors are acceding.

In 2004, when Howard Dean reached out to “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,” Shelby Steele wrote that this was “absolutely verboten. Racial identity is simply forbidden to whites in America” because of their history and white guilt.

This, Sanneh suggests, is changing. The imputation of racism to Tea Partiers has not intimidated or cowed them.

When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, there was no hesitation in blistering her for showing contempt for the rights of Frank Ricci and the white firefighters of New Haven, cheated of the promotions they had won in competitive exams.

When black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested by Cambridge cop James Crowley, most Americans, despite Obama and media suggestions of racial profiling, sided with Crowley.

Why are the Tea Partiers not intimidated the way Republicans often are? Why is the charge of racism not working?

First, they do not feel the guilt of country-club Republicans.

Second, they know it to be untrue. While Tea Partiers are anti-Obama, they are also anti-Pelosi, anti-Martha Coakley and anti-Charlie Christ. The coming conflict is not so much racial as it is cultural, political and tribal.

Black America seems united. White America is the house divided, for it is in the womb of white America that this new people is gestating and fighting to be born.


More hype about Iran -Stephen M. Walt

April 21, 2010

Back when I started writing this blog, I warned that the idea of preventive war against Iran wasn’t going to go away just because Barack Obama was president. The topic got another little burst of oxygen over the past few days, in response to what seems to have been an over-hyped memorandum from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and some remarks by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, following a speech at Columbia University. In particular, Mullen noted that military action against Iran could “go a long way” toward delaying Iran’s acquisition of a weapons capability, though he also noted this could only be a “last resort” and made it clear it was not an option he favored.


One of the more remarkable features about the endless drumbeat of alarm about Iran is that it pays virtually no attention to Iran’s actual capabilities, and rests on all sorts of worst case assumptions about Iranian behavior. Consider the following facts, most of them courtesy of the 2010 edition of The Military Balance, published annually by the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies in London:

GDP: United States — 13.8 trillion
Iran –$ 359 billion  (U.S. GDP is roughly 38 times greater than Iran’s)

Defense spending (2008):
U.S. — $692 billion
Iran — $9.6 billion (U.S. defense budget is over 70 times larger than Iran)

Military personnel:
U.S.–1,580,255 active; 864,547 reserves (very well trained)
Iran–   525,000 active; 350,000 reserves (poorly trained)

Combat aircraft:
U.S. — 4,090 (includes USAF, USN, USMC and reserves)
Iran — 312 (serviceability questionable)

Main battle tanks:
U.S. — 6,251 (Army + Marine Corps)
Iran — 1,613 (serviceability questionable)

U.S. — 11 aircraft carriers, 99 principal surface combatants, 71 submarines, 160 patrol boats, plus large auxiliary fleet
Iran — 6 principal surface combatants, 10 submarines, 146 patrol boats

Nuclear weapons: 
U.S. — 2,702 deployed, >6,000 in reserve
Iran — Zero

One might add that Iran hasn’t invaded anyone since the Islamic revolution, although it has supported a number of terrorist organizations and engaged in various forms of covert action.  The United States has also backed terrorist groups and conducted covert ops during this same period, and attacked a number of other countries, including Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.

By any objective measure, therefore, Iran isn’t even on the same page with the United States in terms of latent power, deployed capabilities, or the willingness to use them. Indeed, Iran is significantly weaker than Israel, which has roughly the same total of regular plus reserve military personnel and vastly superior training. Israel also has more numerous and modern armored and air capabilities and a sizable nuclear weapons stockpile of its own. Iran has no powerful allies, scant power-projection capability, and little ideological appeal. Despite what some alarmists think, Iran is not the reincarnation of Nazi Germany and not about to unleash some new Holocaust against anyone.

The more one thinks about it, the odder our obsession with Iran appears. It’s a pretty unlovable regime, to be sure, but given Iran’s actual capabilities, why do U.S. leaders devote so much time and effort trying to corral support for more economic sanctions (which aren’t going to work) or devising strategies to “contain” an Iran that shows no sign of being able to expand in any meaningful way? Even the danger that a future Iranian bomb might set off some sort of regional arms race seems exaggerated, according to an unpublished dissertation by Philipp Bleek of Georgetown University. Bleek’s thesis examines the history of nuclear acquisition since 1945 and finds little evidence for so-called “reactive proliferation.” If he’s right, it suggests that Iran’s neighbors might not follow suit even if Iran did “go nuclear” at some point in the future).

Obviously, simple bean counts like the one presented above do not tell you everything about the two countries, or the political challenges that Iran might pose to its neighbors. Iran has engaged in a number of actions that are cause for concern (such as its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon), and it has some capacity to influence events in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, as we have learned in both of these countries, objectively weaker adversaries can still mount serious counterinsurgency operations against a foreign occupier. And if attacked, Iran does have various retaliatory options that we would find unpleasant, such as attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf. So Iran’s present weakness does not imply that the United States can go ahead and bomb it with impunity.

What it does mean is that we ought to keep this relatively minor “threat” in perspective, and not allow the usual threat-inflators to stampede us into another unnecessary war. My impression is that Admiral Mullen and SecDef Gates understand this. I hope I’m right. But I’m still puzzled as to why the Obama administration hasn’t tried the one strategy that might actually get somewhere: take the threat of force off the table, tell Tehran that we are willing to talk seriously about the issues that bother them (as well as the items that bother us), and try to cut a deal whereby Iran ratifies and implements the NPT Additional Protocol and is then permitted to enrich uranium for legitimate purposes (but not to weapons-grade levels). It might not work, of course, but neither will our present course of action or the “last resort” that Mullen referred to last weekend.

Source: Foreign Policy.

Now we know the truth. The financial meltdown wasn’t a mistake – it was a con

April 21, 2010

Hiding behind the complexities of our financial system, banks and other institutions are being accused of fraud and deception, with Goldman Sachs just the latest in the spotlight. This has become the most pressing election issue of all.

Goldman Sachs was in the spotlight last November when demonstrators protested outside its Washington offices against executive bonuses.

The global financial crisis, it is now clear, was caused not just by the bankers’ colossal mismanagement. No, it was due also to the new financial complexity offering up the opportunity for widespread, systemic fraud. Friday’s announcement that the world’s most famous investment bank, Goldman Sachs, is to face civil charges for fraud brought by the American regulator is but the latest of a series of investigations that have been launched, arrests made and charges made against financial institutions around the world. Big Finance in the 21st century turns out to have been Big Fraud. Yet Britain, centre of the world financial system, has not yet levelled charges against any bank; all that we’ve seen is the allegation of a high-level insider dealing ring which, embarrassingly, involves a banker advising the government. We have to live with the fiction that our banks and bankers are whiter than white, and any attempt to investigate them and their institutions will lead to a mass exodus to the mountains of Switzerland. The politicians of the Labour and Tory party alike are Bambis amid the wolves.

Just consider the roll call beyond Goldman Sachs. In Ireland Sean FitzPatrick, the ex-chair of the Anglo Irish bank was arrested last month and questioned over alleged fraud. In Iceland last week a dossier assembled by its parliament on the Icelandic banks – huge lenders in Britain – was handed to its public prosecution service. A court-appointed examiner found that collapsed investment bank Lehman knowingly manipulated its balance sheet to make it look stronger than it was – accounts originally audited by the British firm Ernst and Young and given the legal green light by the British firm Linklaters. In Switzerland UBS has been defending itself from the US’s Internal Revenue Service for allegedly running 17,000 offshore accounts to evade tax. Be sure there are more revelations to come – except in saintly Britain.

Beneath the complexity, the charges are all rooted in the same phenomenon – deception. Somebody, somewhere, was knowingly fooled by banks and bankers – sometimes governments over tax, sometimes regulators and investors over the probity of balance sheets and profits and sometimes, as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) says in Goldman’s case, by creating a scheme to enrich one favoured investor at the expense of others – including, via RBS, the British taxpayer. Along the way there is a long list of so-called “entrepreneurs” and “innovators” who were offered loans that should never have been made. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s CEO, remarked only semi-ironically that his bank was doing God’s work. He must wake up every day bitterly regretting the words ever emerged from his mouth.

For the Goldmans case is in some ways the most damaging. The Icelandic banks, Anglo Irish bank and Lehman were all involved in opaque deals and rank bad lending decisions – but Goldman allegedly went one step further, according to the SEC actively creating a financial instrument that transferred wealth to one favoured client from others less favoured. If the Securities and Exchange Commission’s case is proved – and it is aggressively rebutted by Goldman – the charge is that Goldman’s vice-president Fabrice Tourre created a dud financial instrument packed with valueless sub- prime mortgages at the instruction of hedge fund client Paulson, sold it to investors knowing it was valueless, and then allowed Paulson to profit from the dud financial instrument. Goldman says the buyers were “among the most sophisticated mortgage investors” in the world. But this is a used car salesman flogging a broken car he’s got from some wide-boy pal to some driver who can’t get access to the log-book. Except it was lionised as financial innovation.

The investors who bought the collateralised debt obligation (CDO) were not complete innocents. They had asked for the bond to be validated by an independent expert into residential mortgage-backed securities – a company called ACA management. ACA gave the bond the thumbs-up on the understanding from Fabrice Tourre that the hedge fund Paulson were investing in it. But the SEC says Tourre misled them, a pivotal claim that Goldman denies. The reality was that Paulson was frantically buying credit default swaps in the CDO that would go up in price the more valueless it became – a trade that would make more than $1 billion. Worse, Paulson had identified some of the dud sub-prime mortgages that he wanted Tourre to put into the CDO. If the SEC case is true, this was a scam – nothing more, nothing less.

Tourre could see what was coming. In one email in January 2007 he wrote: “More and more leverage in the system. The whole building is about to collapse anytime now… only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab[rice Tourre] .. standing in the middle of all these complex highly leveraged exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities”. Fabulous Fab, like his boss, will not be feeling very fab today.

The cases not only have a lot in common – using financial complexity allegedly to deceive and then using so-called independent experts to validate the deception (lawyers, accountants, credit rating agencies, “portfolio selection agents,” etc etc ) – but they also show how interconnected the financial system is. In Iceland Citigroup and Deutsche Bank covered the margin calls of distressed Icelandic business borrowers, deepening the crisis. Lehman uses the lightly regulated London markets and two independent British experts to validate that their “Repo 105s” were “genuine” trades and not their own in-house liability. The American authorities pursued a Swiss bank over aiding and abetting US nationals to evade tax.

Bankers will complain these cases all involve one or two misguided individuals, but that most banking is above board and was just the victim of irrational exuberance, misguided belief in free market economics and faulty risk management techniques. Obviously that is true – but, sadly, there is much more to the crisis. Andrew Haldane, executive director of the Bank of England, highlights the remarkable reduction in the risk weighting of bank assets between 1997 and 2007. Put simply, Europe’s and the US’s large banks exploited the weak international agreement on bank capital requirements in the so-called Basel agreement in 2004 to reclassify the risk of their loans and trading instruments. They did not just reduce the risk by 5 or 10%. Breathtakingly, they claimed their new risk management techniques were so wonderful that the riskiness of their assets was up to half of what it had been – despite property and share prices cresting to new all-time highs.

Brutally, the banks knowingly gamed the system to grow their balance sheets ever faster and with even less capital underpinning them in the full knowledge that everything rested on the bogus claim that their lending was now much less risky. That was not all they were doing. As Michael Lewis describes in The Big Short, credit default swaps had been deliberately created as an asset class by the big investment banks to allow hedge funds to speculate against collateralised debt obligations. The banks were gaming the regulators and investors alike – and they knew full well what they were doing. Simon Johnson’s 13 Bankers shows how the major American banks deployed vast political lobbying power and money to create the relaxed regulatory environment in which all this could take place. In Britain no money changed hands. Gordon Brown offered light-touch regulation for free – egged on by the Tories, who wanted to go further.

This was the context in which Goldman’s Fabulous Fab created the disputed CDOs, Sean FitzPatrick allegedly moved loans between banks and Lehman created its Repo 105s along with the entire “debt mule” structure revealed this weekend of inter-related companies to shuffle debt around its empire. London and New York had become the centre of an international financial system in which the purpose of banking became making money from money – and where the complexity of the “innovations” allowed extensive fraud and deception.

Now it has all collapsed, to be bailed out by western taxpayers. The banks are resisting reform – and want to cling on to the business practices and business model that has so appallingly failed. It is obvious why: it makes them very rich. The politicians tread carefully, only proposing what the bankers say is congruent with their definition of what banking should be. Labour and Tories alike are united in opposing improved EU regulation of hedge funds, buying the propaganda those operations had nothing to do with the crisis. Perhaps Paulson’s trades at Goldman, and the hedge funds’ appetite for speculating in credit default swaps, may disabuse them.

It is time to reframe the question. Banks and financial institutions should do what economy and society want them to do – support enterprise, direct credit to where it is needed and be part of the system that generates investment and innovation. Andrew Haldane – and the governor of the Bank of England – are right. We need to break up our banks, limit their capacity to speculate and bring them back to earth. Britain should also launch an official investigation into what went wrong – and hand the findings to the Serious Fraud Office. This needs to become this election campaign’s number one issue – not one which either a compromised Labour party or a temporising Conservative party will relish. The Lib Dems, the fiercest critics of the banks, have begun to get very lucky.

by Will Hutton

Crisis timetable:

  • September 2007: Funding problems at Northern Rock triggers the first run on a British bank. It is nationalised in February 2008.
  • April 2008: Bear Stern faces bankruptcy after a run on the company wipes out cash reserves in less than two days. Backed by the Federal Reserve, JPMorgan buys up shares at far below market value.
  • September 2008: Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy protection, becoming the first major bank to collapse since the start of the credit crisis.
  • December 2008: Bernard Madoff arrested for operating the largest Ponzi scheme in history.
  • January 2009: The Bank of England launches £200bn quantitative easing.
  • March 2010: Former chairman of Anglo Irish bank Sean Fitzpatrick is arrested in Dublin after failing to disclose details of loans worth millions from the bank.
  • April 2010: Northern Rock former directors, David Baker and Richard Barclay, are fined £504,000 and £140,000 for deliberately misleading analysts prior to nationalisation.
  • April 2010 :The US Securities and Exchange Commission accuses Goldman Sachs of “defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts”.

Source: Guardian.

The Sunic Journal: Interview with Dr. E. Christian Kopff, #2 of 2

April 20, 2010

Dr. E. ChristianKopff

Tom Sunic interviews renowned educator, classicist and writer Dr. E. Christian Kopff. Topics include:

  • Evola’s relevance for Americans and the rest of the modern West
  • Evola’s criticism of Communism and its comparison to Capitalism
  • The spiritual life vs. racial science; the State vs. the People
  • Ezra Pound
  • Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

About Dr. E. Christian Kopff

To learn more about Dr. Kopff you can see his academic profile here. You can also read his writings at Occidental Quarterly Online and the Alternative Right. His unique book on the necessity of a classical education, The Devil Knows Latin: Why America Needs the Classical Tradition, can be purchased at Amazon.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Tom:

John Demjanjuk’s declaration to the German court

April 20, 2010

[On John Demjanjuk’s behalf, the following Declaration was read in the German language by his attorney, Dr. Ulrich Busch, during the April 13th 2010 public court session in Munich, Germany.]

DECLARATION of the Accused to the Criticism of the Court and the Prosecutors of his Behaviour During the Trial:

by John Demjanjuk

I am personally thankful to the people who are helping me in my hopeless position as a very ill person, be it in prison or here in the courtroom. Therefore, I especially thank the medical personnel who are very helpful in alleviating my major aches and pains and who help me to survive this trial which for me is torture. As a matter of fact, I point out the following:

– Germany is guilty of the war of destruction against the Soviet Union through which I lost my home and homeland.

– Germany is guilty of forcing me to become a prisoner of war.

– Germany is guilty of creating prisoner of war camps where through purposeful denial of enough food rations I and millions of other Red Army prisoners were sentenced to die of starvation and only with God’s help did I survive.

– Germany is guilty of forcing me to become a slave labourer of the Germans in the prisoner of war camp.

– Germany is guilty of this war of destruction where 11 million of my fellow Ukrainians were murdered by the Germans and more millions of Ukrainians, including my loving wife Vera, were abducted to Germany to forced labour and slavery by the Germans.

– Germany is guilty of making thousands upon thousands of my countrymen unwilling German collaborators and forcing them to join in the perverse genocide program against Jews, Sinti, Roma, Slavs, Ukrainians, Poles and Russians under the threat of death as hundreds and more than hundreds that wanted to refuse this, were killed for that by the Germans. Over and above this, hundreds of thousands were deported to Ukraine and executed by Stalin or tortured for ages in the Siberian Gulag and lowered to work as slaves for the Communists.

– Germany is guilty of forcing me to live a wretched life as a displaced person in a DP camp years after the war.

– Germany is guilty of forcibly having me deported to Germany even after 30 years of legal prosecution in Israel, the USA, as well as, Poland and after more than 10 years of imprisonment, more than 5 of those in a death cell in Israel, at the end of my life and in my 90th year.

– Germany is to blame for false charges of accessory to murder being levied against me at the end of my life when I am without life’s energy in violation of 65-year-old case law and also in violation of the EMRK (European Convention for Human Rights).

– Germany is to blame for my having to vegetate more than 9 months in Stadelheim, in a prison, isolated, not free – though innocent.

– Germany is to blame for my having forever lost my second homeland, the USA, without a chance to return.

– Germany is to blame for my having forever lost the sense of my entire life, my family, my happiness and any kind of future and hope.

I have experienced every minute, every hour, every day, every week and every month since May 12, 2009 as a prisoner of war in Germany. I have experienced this process as a continuation of my terrible memories with Germans, as a continuation of the indescribable wrong which has been done to me by Germans. I am again and repeatedly an innocent victim of the Germans. I feel this as an inexpressible wrong that Germany with the help of this trial is making out of me, a prisoner of war, a war criminal. I find it an unbearable arrogance of Germany, that Germany is misusing me to turn the attention away from the war crimes committed by Germans, to make them forgotten and against the truth to claim that the true criminals of the Nazi crimes were me, the Ukrainians and the European neighbours of Nazi Germany.

I consider this trial, which is held exclusively against me, an alleged foreign Travniki, in violation of the principles of equal treatment as provided to German SS members and to an uncountable number of “German Travnikis”, incompatible with justice and the principle of equality. I have already defended myself against the accusation of the Munich prosecutor while in Israel. In Israel, I was accused to be connected to Nazi crimes in Sobibor. The Israeli Supreme Court specifically recognized that this accusation of the Israeli Prosecutor could not be proven, a legal verdict was decided on the Sobibor accusation in such a manner taking into account with special reference to the already suffered arrest of more than 7 ½ years. I was jailed in Israel for these charges against me for 7 ½ years with 5 of those years in a death cell.

I feel it is not compatible with fairness and humanity, that for over 35 years I have had to defend myself as a constantly chased legal victim of the Office of Special Investigation of the USA and the circles behind it, especially the World Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre which live off of the holocaust. Now at the end of my life and the end of my strength, the 30th or 40th trial in the same case is being made and I do not have the strength to fight. I am helpless against this judicial war waged against me for over 30 years which the Germans are now continuing against me in place of the OSI.

My beloved wife Vera, with whom I have been married for over 50 years, also suffered in Germany. It was the Germans who deprived my wife of her youth and took her by force to Germany for years of forced labor. She was for years in German slave labor under cruel and inhumane conditions.

The suffering that we endured in connection with the German war of annihilation against us Slavs is not describable in measurable words. That Germany has again and again chosen me and my family to be victimized is, for me, incomprehensible.

John Demjanjuk
April 2010

WebNote: Anyone interested in contacting the defense team can do so at this email address.