Sunday, May 5, 2019

Plumbing the depths.

My last post, " A peroration on populism," basically expresses my growing realization that the ruling elites in the West have nothing but contempt for the people of the nations in which they reside and that pursue policies that are astoundingly contrary to the wishes and interests of those peoples. Moreover, Westerners have been slow to appreciate the danger that we are in because there's no historical analogue to which we can refer where our ancestors encountered such utter malevolence on the part of the elite.

Someone has observed that communist propaganda was not devised to convince the people that such and such a proposition was true but to humiliate people by forcing them to publicly express their belief that, say, the dictatorship of the proletariat with a leading role for the Party was a necessary temporary measure until the state would wither away.

That very same assault on Westerners' self respect and sanity is at work in every Western nation. Is America a white, European nation that once embarked on an experiment in liberty for all? Or is it a "nation of immigrants" rooted in the oppression of colored people aided and abetted by a mere piece of paper drafted by slave owners and the moneyed interests that can be shredded piecemeal with the aid of fantastical verbal gymnastics?

Can fundamental rights be found in the emanations from the penumbra of a certain clause in the Constitution? Is an exaction in aid of a vast federal health care scheme both a tax and not a tax? Do the words "health care" appear in the list of enumerated powers granted to the United States? Does the phrase "interstate commerce" signify "every activity known to man"? Is a stock pond on a farmer's land akin to the Gulf of Mexico affecting the jet stream, the coming of spring, and tornadoes three states over?

Is an Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq applicable to a possible military intervention in Venezuela 16 years later? To intervention in Myanmar? Yemen?

Does black underclass culture have anything to do with why blacks as a whole cannot get a grip on what it takes to create and maintain healthy and productive lives? Do whites achieve, build, and thrive simply because they enjoy "white privilege"? Is the XY genetic combo in fact the XX one? Should women athletes just suck it up because a Used-To-Be-A-Guy "female" athlete can beat them in any event?

Do the notions of "patriarchy" and "structural racism" adequately explain every instance of personal failure and unhappiness? Or does being a fat cow or growing up in a home with a slattern for a mother and no father have anything to do with it?

Is anal intercourse something to be legally incorporated into the most sacred of human institutions? Is cavorting on the asphalt in a jock strap with green, spiked hair an indication of the health of homosexual culture and the desirability of the homosexual agenda?

Was America deeply penetrated by communist spies and agents of influence in the last century and arae we saturated with communists even now?

Are massive deficits and crippling, astronomical debt evidence of wise political leadership? Was it a good idea to send tens of thousands of U.S. manufacturing plants to the shores of a communist dictatorship and thereby enable it to become a strategic, military threat and economic competitor to the United States? Is the presence of foreigners of any stripe whatsoever always and forever an unalloyed blessing to the historic people of the United States or are they a source of resentment, sedition, crime, dependency, and massive, leftist, electoral distortion?

You and I know what answers the corporate media (and the political elite who controls them) will supply to these questions and those answers individually and collectively make it clear – beyond a shadow of a doubt – that America will never be great again so long as we continue to sail on this ship, as we do, with the daily flood of lies and insults sloshing around our knees. Nothing is being done to return this country to anything resembling normality and there is nobody in national life with the remotest chance of effecting a course change, at least in the absence of an outpouring of rage from the bourgeoisie and the yeomanry. No answer to any of the questions I pose will reflect anything other than our fervent embrace of degradation for whites and our culture and of national suicide.

"Solid men to the front!" should be the cry on every lip. And "Remember Vicki and LaVoy!" But they aren't and our treasonous elites take pride in the fact that the giant con and fleecing are firmly in place.

This is a short take on the moral, political, and intellectual assault on the white backbone of the country. One additional point needs to be added to the foregoing list of stupidities and that is the deliberate "misunderstanding" of the economic system. Factories are off-shored, millions of low-wage third-worlders are imported to drive down wages of Americans, onerous taxes and regulations are imposed, profits are privatized but losses for the business and financial giants are socialized, competition is hampered, monopolies thrive, inflation is deliberately pursued, educations costs are driven through the roof, and the threat of "discrimination" suits guarantee that incompetents and malcontents will be hired with munificent salaries. Think Michelle Obama and her half-time bonanza at that Chicago hospital. Pinata party!

This zombified version of "an economy" is what is known to the left and legions of moronic "commentators" as "capitalism." Yes, what we have now is to real capitalism what someone on life support is to a Bolshoi ballerina. As such, this favored target of the left and ultra-left, this "capitalism," becomes an loathsome excrescence the only solution for which is "socialism." All the actual manipulation, skimming, concealment, and price suppression of our present bastard economic system are laid onto the earlier untrammeled and arguably more transparent system of free markets.

Debate may be had on how transparent or fair those earlier markets were but, hands down, they were not anything like the system of today. And millions of people prospered and built grand lives for themselves in a sane country that didn't worship foreigners, minorities, and homosexuals, live on debt, and hate its ancestors.

Chris Martenson has a most troubling article on the theft going on in our day. He discusses the exploitation of the "company store" scam that some employers used and how the correctives thereto merely led to more recondite systems to accomplish the same fleecing:

This [56% inflation since 1998] is a low-end estimate of how far food has actually advanced in price due to inflation over the past 20 years, as the CPI persistently underestimates inflation.

Turning now to the farmer, how have the prices received for their products fared over that same stretch of time? In the case of corn, not one single bit. A bushel of corn sells for the exact same (nominal!) price today as it did back in 1996[.]

* * * *

Run this scam [price suppression] long enough and one day we’ll discover that the banks and their proxy agents - private equity funds, hedge funds, endowments, and family offices, etc - own all of the productive farmland, all of the mines, all of the oil wells, all of the timberland, and every other means of primary wealth production. [1]

To drive the point of insider manipulation and advantage home (as if Hillary's "pay-to-play" Clinton Foundation weren't convincing enough), recall La Hillerita's phenomenal success as a commodity trader:
On October 11, 1978, the future First Lady, a neophyte investor with an annual income of $25,000, opened a commodity-futures account [in Little Rock, Arkansas] with a deposit of $1,000. Her first trade was the short sale of ten live-cattle contracts at a price of 57.55 cents a pound: a commitment to deliver in December of that year 400,000 pounds of cattle with a market value of $230,200. One day later, she bought the contracts back at a price of 56.10 cents, just 0.15 cent above the low of the day, pocketing $5,300 for a return of 530 per cent.

Mrs. Clinton continued to be a net winner at the game. By the time she closed her trading account ten months later, she had racked up $99,541 in profits, a spectacular 10,000 per cent return on her initial investment of $1,000. Either Mrs. Clinton was a better trader than the legendary George Soros, whose best-ever annual return in thirty years of trading was 122 per cent, or she was led by an invisible hand.[2]

If I correctly recall the device used by the commodities trading firm to engineer such spectacular returns, the price at which Hillary's trade was official executed on any one day was at or near the very peak or the trough of that day's trading, whichever was the price most favorable Hillary's particular trade. An amazing feat on her part, really, which she initially ascribed (1) to her close attention to the financial pages of Wall Street Journal, published on the day after trades were made let it be said, and, when this ludicrous explanation became untenable, (2) to the abilities of her broker(s). That Hillary! A natural to be our Secretary of State or even our president. We can NOT get enough of that double-X chromosomed fireball of competence (FOC).[3]

The whole shooting match is corrupt to the core, hopelessly distorted by (1) the banksters, (2) our corrupt corporate media, (3) our electoral system characterized by (a) persistent vote fraud on an industrial scale and (b) our sacred one-dollar-one-vote system that so ably makes clear what "our democracy" is all about. It is that democracy that we hold out to corrupt dictators as their political lode star and to Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Yemenis, Iranians, and Venezuelans, inter alia, as justification for their personal sacrifices on our behalf. Sorry about your mom!

[1] "'Big Money Coupled With Cheap Money' Never Ends Well...." By Chris Martenson, ZeroHedge, 5/4/19.
[2] "Herd instincts: Hillary's investment profits - ethics of Hillary Clinton's cattle futures investments." By Caroline Baum and Victor Niederhoffer, National Review, 2/20/95, reproduced at Find Articles (emphasis added).
[3] Note too that, in fact, the brokerage firm stole the benefit of the trade allocated to Hillary and foisted it off on some schlub who took the loss or the reduced gain as the case may be, none the wiser about his or her screwing.

No comments: