When the West’s white peasant class allows a bunch of usurers to control its mainstream media, this is what happens.
The phrase “gene-culture” expresses the idea that there is no such thing as a culture independent from genes, or genes independent from culture. It enables a researcher to think of human evolution in accurate, realistic terms. At a population level, it is not individual humans, or specific genetic backgrounds, that are most relevant to natural selection, it is the gene-culture.
Examples of gene-cultures are WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), Lebanese Christians, the Amish, Malaysian Muslims, and Ashkenazi Jews.
In order for children to grow up, prosper, and reproduce, in addition to requiring healthy and capable genes, they require healthy and capable cultures. They need a culture where there is rule of law, where there is sufficient social support to overcome the fear of the financial risk posed by having children, and where there is sufficient knowledge and health care to feed, clothe and care for these children.
The reproductive prosperity of a population relies on both genes and cultures. The two are inseparable. And when either of them is unfit, reproductive fitness is diminished.
The Japanese are extremely fit genetically. Intellectually they have the capacity to provide sufficient food and care for their offspring. But their culture is unfit. The reproductive fitness of their genes doesn’t make a difference when the culture part is unfit; the gene-culture as a whole becomes unfit and fails to reproduce effectively.
What is unfit about Japanese culture is the fact that they fully embraced the West’s neo-Liberal Usurer Economics, which, through the Risk-Profit Differential, constantly pushes the nation’s wealth into the hands of the super-rich, increasing poverty among the lower classes, and causing stagnation in the middle class.
Any culture that is not resistant to usury will eventually suffer stagnation, declining birth rates and population shrinkage. This is happening in most, if not all, of the developed world.
Just as a population that is genetically prone to a plague can be wiped out by it, a population that is culturally prone to usury will be wiped out by it.
The idea of the gene-culture enables us to view matters of cultural (economic and religious) practice in Darwinian terms. Just as a harmful genetic mutation reduces a population’s viability, a harmful cultural mutation (in the case of Japanese, embracing Western-style usury) reduces the population’s viability.
The idea of the gene-culture also contains the important implication that culture affects genes and genes affect culture. Among animals, genetic fitness is the most important factor in their survival, most animals have negligible cultures (exceptions being higher primates like orangutans). Humans, however, due to their intellectual complexity, are extremely reliant on culture, so that culture makes up about half of the picture when it comes to examining a population’s reproductive fitness.
In the above chart, I’m counting the material environment in which the genes exist toward the gene side. The contribution of culture toward the reproductive fitness of humans varies a great deal from environment to environment, and the average amount of its contribution might be less than 50%.
Imagine a hundred Japanese middle class families in Tokyo adopting a hundred Haitian children from soon after birth. The children will grow up in a Japanese world, learning Japanese customs and ideals. But they do not have Japanese genes. Victorian romantics and modern proponents of “environment is everything” (junk 20th century social scientists, which is nearly all of them) would imagine that these children would grow up and make perfect Japanese citizens who will only be held back by racism.
What actually happens is that their Haitian genes will mutate Japanese culture, so that no matter how hard they try to be authentically Japanese, there will be clear manifestations of differences in their understanding and application of Japanese culture (which is not a bad thing, it is a simple fact of biology).
But the most interesting thing is the children of these children. These children will create a Creole Japanese culture that will seem quite foreign to the average Japanese. It will have aspects of Japanese culture and Haitian culture, even if the children and their parents know nothing about Haiti and its people. Haitian culture is partly a result of its population’s genetics. And if this population is made to grow up in Japan, these genes will ultimately show through, tearing Japanese cultural conditioning apart and creating something new and interesting out of it.
An interesting expression of the gene-culture came from Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia’s president, the Wall Street-friendly drunkard Boris Yeltsin, took off all of Russia’s defenses and threw it naked in a room with Wall Street’s fattest and ugliest usurers, who, in just a few years, managed to plunge the country into the worst demographic disaster in its history, where Russia’s started to become more like a third-world backwater than a proud Euro-Asiatic country. Regardless of the genetic fitness of Russia’s population, removal of its cultural defenses against usury destroyed its reproductive fitness.
Once Vladimir Putin took over, he kicked out the usurers and started the process of repairing Russia’s cultural fitness. The usurers, in turn, launched an all-out financial and propaganda war on him from Wall Street that has continued to date. Regardless Wall Street and Washington’s chest-pumping, Russia has continued its demographic recovery. Christianity is back on the rise, culture is flourishing, life expectancies increase and technological innovation grows.
The above is, of course, a gross simplification of what happened in Russia. But to the gene-culture this is not an issue, since the gene-culture is a high-level construct that enables researchers to examine human history from a Darwinian perspective. No facts are ignored or thrown out to fit reality into the theory (as is done by junk sociologists on the one hand, and certain behavioral psychologists on the other), as the theory encompasses all facts. Dysfunctions in politics are affected by, and affect, the gene-culture. Russia’s gene-culture leads to Czars, Arab and African gene-cultures lead to dictators, and Western Europe’s present gene-culture leads to usurer-controlled democracies. Cultures select for genes and genes select for cultures.
The gene-culture also sheds light on the effects of feminism. Feminism reduces fertility in many ways, such as encouraging women to spend their most fertile years working to enrich the usurer class. A gene-culture that is not immune to feminism will be infected and mutated by it, so that its reproductive fitness decreases. Meanwhile, gene-cultures that are immune to feminism will not be harmed by it, and will reproduce faster than the infected populations. This process will naturally eliminate feminism from any large population that contains a significant minority gene-culture that is resistant to feminism.
The gene-culture could also be called the gene-meme, or geme for short. But this gets too technical and only social scientists would understand it. I chose “gene-culture” since it is easier to imagine and comprehend. By “culture” I mean everything carried by a human population apart from genes and epigenetics. This includes language, religion, law and political institutions.
The evils of usury, and the immense urge that usurers feel to practice it, can all be summed up into one phrase: the risk-profit differential.
Whatever reasons usurers bring up to defend usury can be defeated by mentioning this phrase. The risk-profit differential is the core of usury, the reason why usurers prefer usury over productive investment, as was recognized by Jesus in his Parable of the Talents.
The risk-profit differential refers to the fact that, at its core, every usurious contract is about passing off more risk to the borrower than to the lender, and passing off more profit to the lender than to the borrower. This differential, this unbalanced arrangement that constantly pushes risk away from the usurer while also constantly pushing profit toward him, is where the attraction of usury lies.
It is the desire of every human to want to increase profits while also wanting to decrease risks. A usurer is simply someone selfish enough to create an arrangement that puts this unchecked, selfish animal desire into law through a contract that ensures him more profit and less risk, while also ensuring less profit and more risk to the borrower.
Usury is about enforcing a contract that enslaves the borrower to the usurer’s interests. The usurer class ensures itself a constant rate of profit (the class as a whole always profits, never loses), while the borrower class profits and loses randomly, so that as a whole no profit or loss is made. The usurer class gets guaranteed profits. The borrower class is forced to share its profits with the usurers, while also being made to keep its losses to itself.
Through this unbalanced arrangement, the wealth of the usurer class balloons. They build skyscrapers to house their banks and insurance companies. The rest of society’s prosperity grows fast at first, then stagnates, and then starts to decline as the debt load grows.
Regardless of how poor society continually becomes, regardless of how much it suffers, the wealth of the usurer class continues to increase. With their immense wealth they end up controlling our entire economy, our media, our politicians, ensuring that things will always stay in their favor. This is not new. The Knights Templar, through their practice of usury, were powerful enough to ignore the commands of popes and kings.
Casinos make vast profits by having machines that win very slightly more than they lose. Perhaps winning 52% of the time and losing 48% of the time. Usury, through the risk-profit differential, turns the entire economy into a casino where the usurers win 80% of the time, and lose 20% of the time (through defaults and bankruptcies). While a large casino makes a few billion a year for its owners through its rigged nature, the economy, due to the rigged nature of usury, makes trillions every year for the usurer class.
Usury is an unbalanced arrangement, otherwise it wouldn’t be usury. There is no way to make usury fair, to make it harmless, to make it add positive value to society. The only solution to usury is to ban it, as the Catholic King Edward I and the Protestant King Edward VI did.
Remember this phrase, the risk-profit differential. No matter how many clever arguments the usurers and their economists come up with in defense of their usury, they can never make this fact go away, as this is the only reason a usurer practices usury: he wants nearly all profits to come to himself, and nearly all losses to go to his borrowers.
[For ideas on non-usurious lending and insurance, please see the chapter on Socratic Finance in my book How to Really Occupy Wall Street.]
The nice people at Reddit, in their ceaseless effort to protect the usurer class from the West’s white peasants, chose to remove the following comment and ban the user who wrote it.
It is time we stopped letting corrupt-to-the-core billionaire usurers control our media. Hopefully their fascist-style efforts to control the nation’s thoughts and opinions will only hasten their demise.
[From my new book, How to Really Occupy Wall Street.]
Note that I’m writing all of this as a (legal) immigrant myself from Iraq living in the US.
Helping immigrants who are trying to leave their hopeless countries for a better life is a cause that most of us can get behind. It’s difficult to refuse help to those who need it. At least, if you are not a usurer.
Usurers, who knowingly pass off their economic risks to society so that only profits remain for themselves, are at the forefront of supporting immigration. They fund ad campaigns and large non-profit organizations that promote immigration. And they pretend that they do it all because their hearts are bleeding for these poor people.
When someone’s entire lifestyle is based on passing off suffering to others, only a very gullible person would believe them when in this very specific case they seem to have bleeding hearts. They couldn’t care less about the people dying from drug overdose and alcoholism in small US towns, and black people dying in ghettos, when the usurers took their jobs overseas to increase their own profits.
The reason usurers support immigration is that, for them, immigration is a complete no-brainer. It is winnings and profits all the way.
Usurers want to promote “diversity” by importing immigrants from non-white countries. One important quality of these immigrants is that they are easy to convince that the locals hate them. They are told in the usurer media, in college, in movies and TV shows, in ads, that America’s peasant class are all racist and ignorant. In this way, America gets to have yet another class that can be used to fight off the peasant class.
By having a divided nation ridden with internal conflicts, and promoting these conflicts every chance they get, usurers believe they themselves will be safe. A brown person waiting at a bus stop is not going to be worrying about the power of the usurers if he is constantly bombarded with ideas suggesting to him that the white people around him are all secretly racists who hate everything about him.
The only instances in history where usurers have been in true danger are those in which a country’s population were all united for a common goal. Germany was entirely being run by usurers in the 1920’s. They owned the banks, the corporations and the media (similar to the United States today). It was usurers who financed Hitler’s rise to power, thinking that he would be even friendlier to usurer interests. What happened instead is that Hitler used the hopelessness and despair of Germany’s peasant class to unite the country and bend it to his will. Instead of doing as the usurers wanted, he used the power given to him by the people to take over the country’s economy.
Samuel Untermyer, a Jewish millionaire, wrote in The New York Times in August 1933 that it was a number of Jewish bankers who were financing Hitler. The Harvard-educated Rabbi Edward L. Israel wrote this in 1938 in The Pittsburgh Press:
One sad fact keeps ringing in our ears in the midst of the savage anti-Semitic outbursts in Nazi Germany. We cannot keep from mind the grim thought that during Hitler’s rise to power, a number of wealthy Jews helped to finance his campaign. Unbelievable as it now seems, this is the truth.
Hitler’s lesson, and many similar lessons throughout history, have taught usurers that a stable and united nation is a highly dangerous environment for usury, because usurers will be at the mercy of the whims of the nation’s leaders, who are empowered by the population’s unity.
What’s much safer for usury is a nation full of divisions. They promote hatred for men in the name of feminism, hatred for whites in the name of civil rights, and hatred for straight people in the name of gay rights. And toward this same goal, they promote immigration to create new classes of society who do not identify with the suffering of America’s peasant class. They can even be convinced to hate America’s peasant class by telling them that America’s peasant class are mostly racists who hate them. In this way, racial and religious divisions are used to destabilize the nation’s unity, and thus stabilizing the usurer’s paradise. As long as different classes of peasants fight each other, they won’t have the time to focus on their true enemies, the usurers living in their gated communities and high towers, protected by a militarized police.
The second reason usurers love immigrants is to get cheap workers and keep wages low for the entire population, so that more profits can be directed toward their own stomachs. After President Trump’s crack down on illegal immigration, wealthy California farmers can be found who are complaining about how “hard” it is to find workers. What they are saying is that it is hard to find workers at the disgracefully low wages they are used to paying them. Americans are “too expensive” for them, because if they hired Americans, instead of their making $10 million a year in profit, they might make only $7 million. What a tragedy! They may not even be able to afford that bigger yacht they’ve been thinking about for the past year!
It is true that the price of some things will go up if immigration stops. But that increased price goes to other workers. It is money being sent from one part of the peasant class to another, meaning that the peasant class’s economic fitness as a whole is not harmed. No, its fitness even benefits, because of the real Phillips curve: wage inflation reduces unemployment. When restricted immigration increases wages, as the money among the peasant class increases, their ability to purchase goods and services increases, and business profits in their area increase, so that these businesses are able to expand and hire more people (who will also be paid high wages). It is only the usurer’s personal profits that are reduced.
Immigrants, by increasing the population, also increase the number of people that can be enslaved through mortgages, credit cards, student loans and insurance. It is a way for usurers to increase the number of their slaves.
Many immigrants are able to assimilate and find better lives here. As usual for usurers, they and their media use this good fact to justify the whole thing, the same way they justify usury, for-profit-insurance, futures contracts and globalism. They ignore the fact that immigration makes local workers and professionals poorer. If today 100,000 Indian software engineers are brought to the country, the wage-earning ability of nearly all local software engineers will decline. And if they have secure jobs, they will not be able to ask for promotions, because their bosses can always say that they are already being paid more than all these newly available software engineers.
The usurer pretense is that immigrants are just as capable as the locals to fill out all job positions throughout society. They can be entrepreneurs, surgeons and farmers. And a few superstar immigrant entrepreneurs and surgeons are used as “proof” of this.
In the real world, if we consider 100,000 local software engineers, we can easily imagine that $200,000 has been spent educating and training each one of them, equaling a sum of $20 billion. If we bring in 100,000 Indian or Chinese software engineers, this $20 billion investment can easily lose half of its value, as our local software engineers will suffer wage stagnation and unemployment from the competition from the immigrant software engineers. That is 100,000 of our people who will find it so much harder to pay off their student loans, to buy a house, to start a family. What good is a kindness that benefits a group of people while destroying the hope and livelihoods of another group of people?
The usurers and their media frame the entire issue as a matter of racism and xenophobia, which is of course to their own profit, since whether it is low-skilled or high-skilled immigrants that we are bringing in, it is the usurers whose wealth will balloon as a result as their corporations end up paying lower wages and earning higher profits, and as their banks find new customers to enslave to credit cards, mortgages and student loans.
The issue of immigration is as complicated as the issues of usury, insurance, futures contracts and trade. This complexity gives the usurers and their media the ability to exaggerate the benefits of whatever the usurers want while ignoring the harms. And in the case of immigration, since it is so easy to call someone a racist for opposing immigration, there has been very little resistance to it.
It is possible to have a fair form of immigration, through having skill quotas. First, all immigration should be stopped. Next, we should look at the economic conditions of the workers in different sectors of the economy.
For example, we can look at low-skilled workers and see whether after a year of no immigration their median wages rise or fall. If they rise, it means their prosperity is increasing, and it means we could let in a limited number of unskilled workers who could supply the economy with labor without damaging the wellbeing of the local unskilled workers. The amount of unskilled immigrants allowed should be small enough to prevent wages from decreasing next year. It is fine if wage growth slows a little, but wage growth should not stop.
But if we find that even after stopping immigration low-skilled wages are stagnant, it means the economy is already oversupplied with low-skilled labor, so that letting in more low-skilled workers would do damage to the economic wellbeing of the local low-skilled workers we have. No more immigration should be allowed until their wages start to rise higher than inflation.
The same calculation can be done for software engineers, or welders. If it is determined that the wages of any sector are increasing quickly, we can let in more immigrants who can work in that sector without causing economic damage to the local population.
Even as they promote immigration, the usurer media ignores the fact that usurers have everything to gain and nothing to lose from it. The costs to the rest of society are entirely ignored, our local low-skilled workers are treated as stupid and worthless. The widely-read usurer lobbyist Bill Kristol says American workers are lazy and need to be replaced by immigrants. Americans are some of the hardest working and most overworked people in the world.
As a commentator who has nothing to do besides ensuring usurer interests are protected and that the status quo is unchallenged, he may really be stupid enough to think that every other American lives the same life of idleness and luxury. Most of our political elite are like this. Everything comes so easily to them that they really think the average American is also having a great time doing nothing useful.
Immigration is often nothing but another outlet for the usurers to increase their own profits at the cost of the rest of society. We should see through their duplicity and lies and realize that the reason they promote immigration is not that they have good hearts, but that they stand to gain all the benefit from it while passing off all the costs to the rest of society.
[From my new book, How to Really Occupy Wall Street.]
Free trade sounds like a good thing. Who doesn’t want freedom? How could restricted trade be better?
Usurer economists have managed to enforce the usurer-invented ideology that free trade benefits both nations that engage in it. It has certain benefits that usurers use to justify it, the same way that usurious lending, for-profit insurance and futures contracts have benefits that usurers use to justify them.
Free trade is how corporations (and their usurer owners) maximize profits by bypassing local laws that ensure livable working conditions, health insurance, and environmental protection. They move production to countries where workers are cheap because education is cheap or free there, instead of having to pay local workers who have $100,000 or more in student debt and who need a certain amount of pay just to make ends meet.
Free trade is how usurers double-dip the world economy, producing things where it is cheapest, and selling them where it is most expensive. They do their utmost to maximize profits while contributing the very least to either of the nations they exploit.
The usual argument in support of free trade goes like this: If one nation is good at producing airplanes, and another good at producing wine, then if each nation specializes at what it does best, both nations will produce more of the things they specialize in, and in this way the production of both nations increases, and thus both nations enjoy a surplus of both wine and airplanes.
What goes into this argument is the naive and fraudulent assumption that all of a country’s workers are equally capable of moving from one industry to another. If our country’s largest software companies move their best jobs to India, does that mean our own programmers can become farmers or airplane makers? Is that the best use of their talents for our country?
A programmer put out of work due to Microsoft off-shoring work to India (or importing workers from India through the H1-B visa) is not going to be happy as a farmer or accountant. They have spent years learning their specific trade (and perhaps have collected hundreds of thousands of debt from usurers in the process), and they need an outlet for their talents that can enable them to get their investment back.
Usurer economists will say that they are free to create their own companies. But they cannot. Usurer-backed companies like Microsoft, who get their cheap labor from India, will always be able to out-compete them, because their workers are cheaper, and they have the money to out-spend all competitors in advertising.
By putting our programmers out of work, these programmers are forced to either accept a low-paying job so that they can find work again, or start a company that supplies a small product to a niche market, while the major software industries of our country are run by foreign programmers, meaning that there will never be a major market for the talents of our own programmers.
The same is true for manufacturing workers. A worker who specializes in producing specific car parts for the car industry cannot effectively move to another industry when the car part maker decides to move production to Mexico or China. They cannot start their own car part making company because the company that fired them is going to be producing the parts cheaper, so that they cannot compete.
This has been happening in industry after industry in the United States as our globalist usurers have continually sent production overseas. The market for the talents of our local workers and professionals has continued to shrink, and their incomes have stagnated, even as the profits of corporate managers have skyrocketed.
Free trade is all about treating people like cattle. Your entire industry has been sent overseas so that there is no outlet for your talents? Too bad, start flipping burgers. You are an exchangeable cog, if a cheaper one can be found, then goodbye. And good luck paying off your student loans. If you are lucky, you will be able to find another job, or start a company that can make enough for you to get by.
But most people are not lucky. What free trade does to most people is that it takes away the jobs they enjoy (and have spent years learning to do effectively) and forces them to do second-rate jobs, often at lower pay. It turns thriving cities into ghost towns as factories and businesses close and the workers are left living in barren economies, to become alcoholics and drug addicts.
These workers are filled with an overwhelming sense of shame, as they feel there is no purpose to their existence anymore. They either completely give up, or leave for a larger city and start to rebuild their lives anew, often while carrying large debt loads from their past lives.
Since Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), which enacted free trade between the US, Mexico and Canada in 1994, drug overdose deaths and death rates in general in small US towns skyrocketed, in a phenomenon that’s only now being recognized. Some are calling it the “White Death”, as it has mainly affected majority-white counties in the Midwest and surrounding areas.
It was the counties that were hit hardest by NAFTA that gave the most votes to Donald Trump.
The NAFTA hasn’t been any easier on Mexico. Our usurer economists use the media’s nascent racism against lower-class whites (“they took our jerbs!”) to pretend that free trade is a good thing that the lower class opposes because it benefits other poor people.
What actually happened after the NAFTA is that it put millions of Mexican corn farmers out of work, since Mexico was flooded with cheap corn produced by US corporations. The devastation caused by NAFTA caused the biggest wave ever of Mexican illegal immigration into the United States.
Usurers and their economists said the NAFTA would help raise the wages of Mexicans. What actually happened is that Mexicans in 2014 actually had lower wages than they did in 1994. Millions of Mexican families had to give up the plots of land that had been farmed by them for generations, as their land was now worthless thanks to US corn.
And usurers on both sides of the border got richer. Mexico’s chief usurer, Carlos Slim, became the richest man in the world for a while.
The root evil of free trade is that it ignores the very, very important fact that the majority of the workforce cannot effectively move from one sector of the economy to another. Once free trade destroys their industry, they are left with nearly nothing. Years of education and training (in the case of US workers), or generations of hard work on a farm (in the case of Mexican farmers) or business are made entirely worthless by it.
People are not cattle. And a million-dollar factory cannot magically go from producing car parts, or milling grain, to producing smartphones. When free trade hits, all the investment that went into the factory becomes mostly worthless. The Midwest is full of abandoned and rusting factories that once were worth millions and were surrounded by thriving towns.
There are people who love to write software for computers, and who have spent years of effort, and have collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, to acquire the skills they have. If most of the country’s software industry is suddenly run by foreigners, then local software programmers will have no outlet for their talents, and they will suffer unemployment and lower wages. Corporations will treat them as undesirable, since they cost so much more than foreigners, and they will do their best to only maintain skeleton crews of local software programmers while outsourcing everything that can be outsourced.
Free trade is a great tool for beating employees into submission. If they complain that their wages aren’t sufficient for them to make a living, you can just threaten them to send their jobs overseas. Through the use of this threat, local wages can be kept low, so that more profits go into the stomachs of the usurers who own and run the country’s corporations.
Usurers want to be able to freely import goods and services from China. What they ignore to mention is that China doesn’t allow its own usurers to freely import goods and services from other countries. China only believes in one-way free trade, where it can flood the world with its own products while refusing to take in other countries’ products freely, in this way ensuring full employment for its own citizens and creating unemployment in other countries.
The people who run China are clever, and unlike the US government, their policy decisions are meant for the benefit of the nation as a whole, instead of entirely for the benefit of an all-powerful usurer class. China encourages local industry and employment through charging heavy taxes on imports. Many American and European car makers have been forced to build factories there, since China makes it so difficult for them to import cars built elsewhere. Through this policy, China makes these companies hire Chinese workers, who acquire the technologies of these companies, and through the government’s strong support for local industry, they are able to leave these Western companies and create Chinese alternatives to them. It’s one of the main goals of the Chinese government to reduce imports (its reliance on other nations) so much that by 2025 it means to ensure that 70% of all products the country needs are entirely locally produced. Universities are working with local factories to develop alternatives to materials which so far they have only been able to import from other countries.
Encouraging local employment and preserving the value of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that go into educating and training a skilled worker is only one of the benefits of restricted trade. The other important benefit is innovation. You cannot innovate in producing passenger airplanes if your country doesn’t have an industry producing passenger airplanes. If all of your airplanes are imported from China, the innovation is going to be happening there. This is the case with screen technology. As most smartphone, laptop and TV screens are made in South Korea and Japan, these two countries are the world leaders when it comes to inventing and marketing new screen technologies.
By importing any good or service from other countries, we are subsidizing innovation and research in that country, allowing them to maintain a permanent technological edge over us.
The solution to all of this is restricted trade, which we can also call “fair trade”. This was the policy of the United States during its extremely fast industrialization in the 19th century, until it was given up through the efforts of bank lobbyists.
One of the greatest American economists of the 19th century was the anti-free-trade thinker Erasmus Peshine Smith, whose ideas inspired American trade policy until the end of the 1800’s. Almost no one knows his name, since he wasn’t a usurer economist, and his ideas go against the interests of the usurer class, so that not a single mention of him can be found in most of today’s college textbooks. An entire 40 year period of American economic history has been wiped from the public consciousness.
One reason usurers and their media hate Donald Trump so much is that he says he will charge a tax on imports (such taxes are known as tariffs), which threatens their profits, and which will force them to raise the wages of their local workers. It is a policy that will help the peasant class at the cost of the usurer class, and so to a usurer it is utter blasphemy.
The latest defense of globalism and free trade is that sooner or later, everything is going to be automated, so that “bringing those jobs back” is not going to happen anyway, as the jobs will not exist. They are using some imaginary event 50 years in the future to justify continuing their current policy of plundering the working and middle classes. Bringing any industry back to the country would not only bring those jobs back, but will also create a great number of other supporting industries that too will employ people. Usurers will be forced to raise wages, and job opportunities would greatly increase for job seekers.
Yes, automation is a big, looming threat to everyone except the top 10% most skilled workers and professionals in society. But leaving our industries overseas is not the answer, because even if a factory is entirely automated, if it is overseas, the knowledge to run the factory, and the innovation required to improve it and make greater things out of it, will also happen overseas, giving that overseas nation (and its skilled workers) a great advantage over our workers.
The solution is to bring jobs back regardless of automation. As for automation, there is a powerful solution to it known as wealth recycling, that I will address in a future chapter, that will ensure that automation, instead of reducing people’s wages and living standards, will actually increase them.
To oppose free trade, which we should call “globalism”, since the word “free” in “free trade” makes it sound like a good thing to most people, fair trade has to be promoted in its place. That means putting our workers and professionals on an equal footing with foreign ones. We shouldn’t let a usurer corporation like Microsoft import tens of thousands of cheap foreign workers so that it wouldn’t have to raise the wages of local ones. Big tech companies have put hundreds of thousands of skilled software engineers out of work through this selfish and greedy policy.
The usual argument for these companies to import workers is that there aren’t enough skilled workers locally. Anyone familiar with their industries knows that this is a breathtakingly enormous lie. What they are really saying is that local workers cost too much. They want cheap workers who will ensure them continued enormous profits. So far, through importing cheap workers, these companies have managed to create wage stagnation for their workers over the past 15 workers just as executive pay has skyrocketed.
The United States does not have a talent shortage like these companies pretend. It has a massive surplus of talent that is going to waste. There are so many unemployed skilled workers that today even a PhD is not sufficient to ensure employment. A usurer corporation like Google gets to lord it over its employees by getting the best of the best of the country at incredibly discounted salaries, since they always have the power of outsourcing and hiring foreign workers.
There is nothing wrong with Google having an Indian branch that serves India. What is wrong is Google sending most of its jobs to India, and then from there serving the US market. Because this way all of the investment and innovation will happen in India, and Google will be able to offer services to the US market at discounted rates, so that no local company that hires local workers will be able to compete. This is the exact situation that has happened in industry after industry since the 90’s when outsourcing and worker importation soared.
Chinese leaders are very well aware of this, and so they make Western companies establish local operations there, and make them produce things there, if they want to serve the Chinese market.
President Donald Trump too seems to be aware of this and is promising to fix the matter. While this will be a step in the right direction for the people of the US, it is only a small step. It prevents one type of usurer abuse, but it doesn’t address the root cause of our economic woes: usury. Still, we need to be thankful for any progress made.
I call companies like Microsoft and Google usurer companies because they (and every other big corporation) all practice usury. They amass large hoards of cash, and like any usurer, lend these at interest to others through Wall Street banks. Apple made $4 billion solely from usury (reported as “interest income” on their earnings statements) in 2016, Microsoft made $903 million, Oracle $538 million, Google $434 million, and Facebook $91 million. The actual amount of money invested in usury by these large tech companies is probably upwards of $100 billion, the numbers earlier are only the interest they earned on their usurious lending.
Since taxes on imports are, in effect, a tax on the local population (since they end up having to pay higher prices for imports), the tax could be returned directly to the bottom 50% of society as part of the larger wealth tax that will be covered later. In this way imports will be prevented from destroying local industries on the one hand, and they will contribute to the wellbeing of the poor and the lower middle class on the other hand.
[From the first chapter of my new book, How to Really Occupy Wall Street.]
When asked, ‘What is to be said of making profit by usury?’
Cato replied, ‘What is to be said of making profit by murder?’
—Cicero (44 B.C.)
Someone who practices lending at interest is known as a usurer. Usurers have been hated by people throughout history, not just out of envy for their wealth, but because once usurers are in charge of any nation’s economy, wealth inequality explodes: the rich continue to get richer, the middle class stagnates, and the number of people living in poverty grows larger.
Modern economists, many of whom are nothing more than lobbyists for the usurer class, have rewritten the entire science of economics with usury at its foundation, so much so that only one in a thousand economists can be found who can think critically about the effects of usury on the nation’s economy. The majority are so immersed in Usurer Economics that for them to question anything about usury feels the same as questioning the value of breathing air.
What is so bad about earning and paying interest anyway? Shouldn’t a person who lends $10,000 USD to a business earn something in return?
There is one species of this price or reward …when money is lent on a contract to receive not only the principal sum again, but also an increase by way of compensation for the use; which generally is called interest…the enemies to interest… hold… any increase of money to be indefensibly usurious. And this they ground as well on the prohibition of it by the law of Moses among the Jews, as also upon what is said to be laid down by Aristotle, that money is naturally barren, and to make it breed money is preposterous, and a perversion of the end of its institution, which was only to serve the purposes of exchange” “and not increase. Hence the school divines (scholastic theologians) have branded the practice of taking interest as being contrary to the divine law both natural and revealed; and the canon law has proscribed the taking any, the least, increase for the loan of money, as a mortal sin.
—Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book the Second, as quoted in Usury in Christendom, emphasis mine.
Some people who borrow money make profits through the use of this money, so that paying an interest rate of 5%, for example, is of little consequence to them. If you borrow $10,000 at a 5% annual interest rate, you will only have to pay $500 at the end of the year. That’s very little if during that year you made $2000 from the money you borrowed. Your profit is 20%, while the interest rate is 5%, meaning that you make a net profit of 15%, or $1500, during that year. The usurer who lent you the money is satisfied, and you who borrowed the money are satisfied.
To most people today, this seems like a perfectly fair and just transaction.
But it is not. It is one of the most evil and unjust transactions that humans have ever invented. According to the New Testament, the only time that Jesus used violence during his entire career was against the usurers.
Hermann Adler, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire from 1891 to 1911, says: “No amount of money given in charity, nothing but the abandonment of this hateful trade, can atone for this great sin against God, Israel and Humanity.” He is attacking usurers for using philanthropy (widely publicized acts of charity) to justify their usury, saying that no amount of charity will absolve them.
In Europe, during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, usurers were among the most despised classes of society, they had the same social standing as brothel owners, cesspit cleaners and public executioners. It was a source of pride for Christians that they did not engage in usury.
As the centuries passed, usury become commonplace. Usurers rebranded themselves as financiers, capitalists and industrialists, and through performing acts of charity, the majority of them were (and are) also known as philanthropists.
So what is the big deal with usury?
The problem with usury is that the profits of lenders always grows faster than the profits of borrowers. When you borrow $10,000 at 5% interest, within this transaction is the embedded assumption that your prosperity will grow by at least 5% in the next year. This is why Aristotle and many other philosophers and intellectuals call usury “unnatural.” The profits of usury are separate from the profits of the actual economy in which it exists. When usurers lend at 5%, they are maintaining a parallel alternate reality in which the economy grows at 5% in the next year, regardless of whether the actual economy grows at 5% or not.
While some borrowers make good use of the money they have borrowed and make more than 5%, so that they can pay off the usurers and still make a profit, others, because of the millions of different chances that operate in the reality of an economy, make a loss on the money they have borrowed.
They may have borrowed $10,000, and a year later they only have $8,000 left, because their business dealing didn’t work out as they expected. But the usurer, in his alternate reality, continues to pretend not only that the $10,000 still exists, but that the $10,000 made a 5% profit. He collects $500 from the borrower at the end of the year, leaving the borrower with $7500 in cash, and a $10,000 debt to pay off. If the borrower continues to be unlucky the next year, he loses another $2,000 of his cash, but he still has to pay about $500 to the usurer, so now he has $5,000 left in cash, and a $10,000 debt to pay off.
Meanwhile, during these two years, the usurer has earned $1,000 in profit, without losing any of the $10,000 he gave to the borrower, since the borrower is required to pay it back regardless of his or her profits or losses.
Usury is a way of earning money by the virtue of having money, while making others to carry the burden of any risk that comes out of using the money. It is an amazing deal—for the usurer. For the borrower, sometimes it is a good deal, sometimes it breaks even, and sometimes it is pure slavery.
A modern, poignant form of debt slavery today is student debt. A usurer lends a student $200,000 at, let’s say, 5% interest. Within this debt is the assumption that not only will the student be able to use their $200,000 degree to earn that much back over their career, but that they will also make a 5% profit, every year, over the cost of the degree.
As it happens, some students graduate and succeed in the business world, so that they pay off the loan in 10 or 15 years while enjoying a good, or at least an acceptable, standard of living.
But for many students, this is only something that they can dream of. They borrow tens of thousands of dollars, only to spend the rest of their lives barely being able to make the monthly payments on their loans. And ten years after graduation, due to changing economic, political or technological conditions, their degrees may be completely worthless, meaning that they racked up $200,000 or more in debt for something completely useless. This $200,000 will hover over them like a dark cloud for the rest of their lives.
Meanwhile, the usurer in his or her high tower, continues to extract a 5% interest, or $10,000 a year, from the student, with the law enabling them to maintain an alternate reality in which that completely useless degree is actually worth $200,000, and also that that useless degree is enabling the student to earn a 5% yearly profit over the value of the degree.
In 2015, there were 2.8 million Americans over the age of 60 who were still living with student debt. US law, authored by usurers and their lobbyists, prohibits these people from declaring bankruptcy so that they can get rid of this cloud that has been giving them constant stress since their early adulthood. The law forces them to pay it off, and empowers usurers to seize these people’s wages and properties to get not only the original $200,000, but an additional $10,000 yearly profit over and above that for every year these people have had their debt, which, for a person of 60, means for their entire adult lives. Student debt has turned these people into money-making machines for the usurers.
Usury is about creating an alternate reality in which the economy grows at 5%, or 20%, or whatever the usurers are currently lending their money at, and using the law to force this reality on the population, regardless of the actual economy.
In the real economy, each year and each month’s profits are different from the previous ones. One year the economy may make a 5% profit, another a 2.5% profit. A war may break out, or natural disaster may strike, causing the economy to make a loss. Political conditions can change. Trade wars, currency speculation and terrorism can severely damage an economy’s profits.
But in the blissful alternate reality of the usurer, none of this happens. Each year is full of sunshine and great harvests, and the population will have to subsidize this alternate reality for them, by their very blood if they have to.
If all the businesses in the United States borrow $5 trillion from usurers at 5% interest, but they only make a 2.5% profit, they will actually make a 2.5% loss, since they have to pay 5% to the usurers. That is a $125 billion loss that will have to be paid to the usurers.
A business may declare bankruptcy, in which case the government auctions off their assets to pay off the usurers. In such cases the usurers can lose a lot of money. Usurers use this risk of bankruptcy to justify their profits. While this risk does exist, it is the amount of the risk that matters. While usurers do make losses sometimes, their profits are always greater. The whole economy operates like one big rigged casino for usurers, in which 10% of the time they lose, and 90% of the time they win, regardless of economic conditions.
Since the dawn of civilization, it has always been the case that the profits of usurers has grown faster than the profits of the rest of the population. The wealth of usurers balloons while the wealth of the population grows during some years, and decreases during others.
The wealth of usurers grows faster than the wealth of the population, meaning that they always have the upper hand in the economy. They get to buy the most profitable companies and the most profitable patches of land and real estate. They own the biggest mansions and the nicest cars. They live in a blissful alternate reality where every day is a great day—all subsidized by the sweat and blood of the rest of the population.
They are celebrated in the media as philanthropists and art collectors, rather than being cursed for being leeches draining the blood from the rest of society.
Why? Mostly because they own most of the media. You will never, ever hear a critique of usury in the media, whether it is from conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, libertarians or any other media group that claims to have the good of the people at heart.
This chapter is a short introduction to usury. It is not expected that you should understand the true nature of usury until the end of the book, as usury’s effects are complex and often long-term. Continue reading and each chapter will make the matter clearer to you. Do not give up the book just because you are not convinced usury is bad. This is just the beginning.
I was working on a book I’m writing in LibreOffice Writer. I am using the docx format for the book, as I plan to finish its formatting in Microsoft Word, not knowing that LibreOffice Writer has a tendency to corrupt docx files. After closing and opening the file again, I received the following error:
I extracted the docx file (which is just a zip file, on Windows you can rename it to something.zip to extract or, while Ubuntu Linux allows you to extract it without renaming it). Found the document.xml file and opened it in VIM. I used the following command to jump to position 791513 on line 2:
That is the position number followed by a lowercase L.
I don’t see any error there, so LibreOffice Writer is not telling the truth, the error is not there. I opened document.xml in Chromium, but it reported the same wrong error position. Since the error message I received was saying the “w:cstheme” attribute was redefined, I decided to use regular expressions to search for it. I spent a stressful hour trying to learn VIM’s ridiculous regular expression syntax, but couldn’t figure it out.
In the end, I decided to use egrep instead. I ran the following command on the command line, which looks for a “w:cstheme” attribute that is not separated by a forward slash from antoher “w:cstheme” attribute, meaning it will find tags that have duplicate “w:cstheme” attributes, which is the error that LibreOffice Writer is reporting:
egrep "w:cstheme[^/]*w:cstheme" document.xml
And voila! It highlighted the error:
I copied the highlighted text (using ctrl+shift+c), opened document.xml again in VIM, and pasted the text in VIM’s seach bar (first press forward slash to open the search bar, then ctrl+shift+v to paste):
<w:rFonts w:eastAsia="Times New Roman" w:cs="Times New Roman" w:cstheme="majorBidi" w:ascii="Times New Roman" w:hAnsi="Times New Roman" w:cstheme="majorBidi"/>
To this, removing one of the unnecessary ‘w:cstheme=”majorbidi”‘ attributes:
<w:rFonts w:eastAsia="Times New Roman" w:cs="Times New Roman" w:cstheme="majorBidi" w:ascii="Times New Roman" w:hAnsi="Times New Roman" />
I searched again for the error in VIM, to make sure there were no repeated errors. I fixed multiple other occurrences of the error until I couldn’t find any more. Now, when opening the document.xml in Chromium, no error was reported:
This was a good sign. I made the mistake of compressing the parent folder of the document, renaming it to docx, and trying to open it. LibreOffice Writer said the document was corrupted and offered to fix it. It tried but failed. After a long time, I realized my error. I shouldn’t have compressed the parent folder, I should have compressed the files and folders inside the parent folder directly, as follows:
To prevent this in the future, I will save the file in the ODF Text Document format (.odt), which is the native format used by LibreOffice that supposed doesn’t suffer from this issue. Once the book is done, I will then save it as docx for use in Microsoft Word.
Not a day passes except that news of more rapes, murders and assaults by Europe’s new multi-million-strong Muslim migrant population comes out. Europe’s politically correct mainstream media is doing its best to pretend the problem doesn’t exist, which is only infuriating the local population.
In Berlin, 12% of migrants are criminal suspects, while only 3% of the local population are. Berlin’s Senate has launched an investigation into why migrants are responsible for such a disproportionate amount of crime.
Today, Germany is where it was in the late 1920’s. A culture of political correctness is enforced by media that are almost entirely owned and operated by the lender class (banks and their lobbyists, i.e. usurers). They think of their local populations as ignorant, worthless and racist peasants that need to be lied to every hour of every single day in case they get the wrong ideas into their heads. In such an atmosphere, it is unlikely that the Berlin Senate’s investigation will lead to anything, besides more useless liberal projects intended to satisfy their own politically correct prejudices without really addressing the problem.
The problem with Europe’s migrants is not that they are Muslim. Zionist news sources like Breitbart (which is still infinitely better than the crypto-Zionist New York Times and their ilk) cannot stop pointing out that these migrants are Muslim, and that it is the fact that they are Muslim that is responsible for their criminality.
This is complete nonsense, as can be shown by a few simple mental exercises. Do you really think that Nigeria’s Christian population is any less criminal than Nigeria’s Muslim population? And do you think that letting one million Filipino Christians into Germany would lead to any better results than letting one million Filipino Muslims into the country? And do you think that Indian Hindus are any better than Indian Muslims? And what about Malaysian Muslims, these people who are too peaceful, too prosperous, too law-abiding and too intelligent for their existence to be acknowledged by anti-Muslims activists?
Germany has had hundreds of thousands of Muslim Turks living there peacefully for the most part. Argentina has 500,000 Muslims that never make the news. Japan has 100,000.
The problem is not Islam, but genetics. Generalizing about Malaysian Muslims using crimes committed by Afghans or Tunisians is as naive as generalizing about Norwegians using crimes committed by Mexicans, with Norwegians and Mexicans both being overwhelmingly Christian.
Europe, similar to Japan, Malaysia, Iran and Turkey, has gone through a thousand years of evolutionary selection for peacefulness and respect for the law. In Europe, just 150 years ago, criminals were being hanged at an industrial scale, often for minor crimes. Japan’s law enforcement was similarly vicious. The effect was that most genetic traits that lead to criminality were wiped out of the gene pool, resulting in populations that are extremely peaceful and law-abiding, and high in IQ, as respect for the law and IQ go hand in hand, and low IQ and crime go hand in hand.
It is not Islam that is the problem. America’s African-American population are overwhelmingly Christian. And yet their crime statistics have nothing to do with those of the local white Christians. African-Americans make up 12% of the United States population but are responsible for 32.5% of all rapes, 34% of all assaults, 54% of all robberies and 49% of all murders. Is it fair to blame Christianity for this?
The Bell Curve, perhaps the greatest scientific book of the 20th century (on par with Darwin’s Origin of Species), written by the professors Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, takes a deep and unpolitically-correct look at the basis for high black criminality, and it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that it is IQ that is responsible before anything else. And since IQ has a strong hereditary component (probably at least 60% or 70% heritable), what their results indicate is that crime is first and foremost an issue of genetics. People of a certain set of genes are more likely to be criminal than others.
Of course, it is unfair and inhumane to use these statistics to derive conclusions about individual black people. If 15% of blacks are criminal, that means the majority, the 85%, is not criminal. And similarly for migrants, if 12% are criminal, it means 88% are not. Black and migrant criminals are the loud minorities that taint the reputation of the whole.
The problem is not that all migrants are criminal. It is that there are more criminals among the ranks of migrants (12% of them) than there are among the ranks of the German (or Swedish, etc.) populations (3%). The majority of migrants and Germans are law-abiding. It is just that migrants have many more criminals among them.
Scientific fraudsters like Stephen Jay Gould (Jewish) and the criminally incompetent “intelligence researcher” Diane Halpern (Jewish) (who manages to write an entire book on intelligence without once mentioning g, the central variable that the whole science of intelligence research is dedicated to), have managed to throw the findings of the Bell Curve down some sort of Orwellian memory hole, aided by Jewish organizations like the New York Times, who pretend to be leaders of American enlightenment thinking while working to enforce their various narrow-minded prejudices on an unwary intelligentsia, continuing the sanctified tradition of Franz Boas (Jewish), ignoring science and attacking scientists for the greater good. They believe that whites acknowledging any genetic basis to intelligence (or anything else that puts whites in a good light) = Nazism = Auschwitz.
It is, however, perfectly fine in their opinions to acknowledge genetic bases for illnesses. And if you mention that Ashkenazi Jews have genetically-mediated high intelligence, they won’t complain. And if you mention that white men have a genetic tendency to be monsters, or that men have a stupidity gene, then they will celebrate it like the discovery of the century and plaster it all over their media. And if you ask whether the finding also applies to black men, they will change the subject. Their job, whether intentionally or unintentionally carried out, is to protect the “bounds on public discourse” by ensuring that no one strays too far from the party line to examine truths that may, in some distant future, be used to discriminate against Jews.
There is no quick and easy solution for curing the criminality of a crime-prone population, as America’s experience with blacks and Scotch-Irish whites has shown. It takes hundreds of years of law-enforcement for crime-prone genes to be slowly weeded out of the gene pool. By imprisoning a murderer for 30 or 40 years, their chances of procreating are severely reduced, so that their genes are cast out of the gene pool, and law-abiding genes grow to make up nearly the entirety of the population, as they have done in Western Europe and Japan.
Here are a number of steps Europeans can take to fight back against the migrant crime wave. I use Germany as an example, but it applies similarly to other countries suffering from the crisis:
- Instate a very strong anti-crime regime where a single proven criminal offense is sufficient to deport a migrant. In this way the worst specimens can be removed from Europe, so that the 88% non-criminal migrant population grows to make up closer to 97%, in line with Europe’s native population.
- Double or triple police presence wherever large migrant populations reside, and wherever large numbers of the local population gather, especially near city centers, and in bus and train stations.
- If the government can’t be bothered to protect the population, the people can create civil protection units. These would be groups of 5 men or more, wearing a particular uniform, and wearing bodycams. They would respond to migrant crime, and if the corrupt legal system tries to attack them for defending the local population, the bodycam footage can be used as evidence to show that they were acting in the interest of the people.
- If deportation can’t be done because the women in charge have bleeding hearts for these rapists and murderers, long criminal sentences should be instated (20 years or more) to significantly reduce the ability of these criminals to commit crimes on the one hand, and to reduce their ability to procreate on the other hand (by shutting them up with people of the same sex, making procreation quite hard).
- A number of language and other courses could be provided freely to adult males of working age. Those who fail to take them, or fail to pass successfully, would be deported. If they cannot pass a few simple courses, or think they shouldn’t have to, they do not have the intelligence and the self-control to contribute in any way to the German civilization and would be a net cost on German society.
- German women should warned to be double as cautious of being raped and assaulted as they were before the migrant crisis. The Middle East ensures the safety of its women through a system of chivalry where males (including strangers) are ready to protect them in case of assault. German society has no experience dealing with a young male population that thinks it’s OK to assault and rape given the chance, a young male population that is only kept in check in the Middle East through the presence of other, usually older, males. German women, therefore, for the time being should use the protection provided by German males wherever they can, for example by not going out alone anywhere where they could be assaulted.
It’s true that they “shouldn’t” have to do any of this, that they should be free to act as before. But this is not before. It’s their lives that are at stake; feminist bravado would only lead to more lives being lost and more women traumatized. Until the migrant crisis is somehow solved, women should take necessary measures to protect and defend themselves.
Of course, the best solution would have been for the migrants not to be there to begin with. If the US (and its European allies), at the behest of its Zionist neocons, hadn’t destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to ensure Israel’s status as the regional superpower, and if the CIA hadn’t spent billions funding terrorist groups to ensure perpetual war in the region, there wouldn’t be so many people wanting to leave.
There will, however, always be some economic migrants wanting to go from a less prosperous to a more prosperous state.
In these troubled times, it’s imperative on all men and women of good will to support Reddit, CNN, NYT, and other billionaire-owned outlets in their ceaseless work to protect us by prohibiting free speech wherever they can. It is not our rightful place to talk when our beloved, charismatic, well-educated and well-meaning billionaire usurers at the NYT and Condé Nast offices can do it all for us. Why do we need to get out of line and ruin the fun for everyone?
Below is a chart (click it to zoom) that shows the seasonality of Anglo-American history since the end of the Middle Ages, according to the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory (as described in their 1997 book The Fourth Turning).
This chart is one of the most beautiful things I’ve seen in the social sciences (not the design, but the contents). Any effort to understand modern English and American history without this chart in mind is going to be hopelessly inadequate, similar to trying to understand the history of life without reference to the theory of evolution. In other words, the Strauss-Howe theory is probably indispensable, similar to the Standard Model of physics and the Theory of Evolution.
The blue-pink cross is my addition to the theory. Although The Fourth Turning does mention the seasonality of the rise and fall of feminism, it doesn’t take this to its logical conclusion, which is to propose a Masculinism-Feminism cycle that ticks in synchrony with the seasons of the saeculum.
Below is the inner circles zoomed in (for those who don’t want to click the above chart to zoom in):
The “saeculum” is the word that Strauss-Howe use for each circle of the chart above, four seasons together make one saeculum. A saeculum is generally the length of one human life time, and its regularity has been noted since ancient times. We are currently living at the end of the saeculum that started in 1943, and which will probably end sometime between 2025 and 2035.
Below is the part of the chart that is most relevant to 2017. Many world leaders feel that we are approaching a major war. Countries are preparing for war, with Russia and China at the forefront, and Japan starting its own re-militarization program. According to the Strauss-Howe theory, 2017 is equivalent to 1933 (when Hitler got in charge and started rebuilding Germany’s army), 1854 (when the prospect of an American Civil War felt more and more imminent), and 1779 (the middle of the American Revolutionary War against Britain, and the year of the French Revolution). Needless to say, right now we are living in very interesting times.
Many on the Left compare President Trump to Hitler. What they don’t realize realize (or knowingly ignore) is that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington too rose during similar eras, meaning that Trump might have as much chance to be like these men as to be like Hitler. Comparing people to Hitler has been an old tactic of the Left, and it is losing its power fast.
Slurs like “racist”, “bigoted”, “backward”, “homophobe”, “sexist” come in fashion as feminism rises (in the present area, starting from the 1960’s), and, what the Left doesn’t realize, is that they go out of fashion as masculinism rises (tides will turn around 2021). Using white guilt to make America’s whites vote for incompetent and out-of-touch people like Obama and Clinton is not going to work anymore. That is over. That works in the fall and early winter of the saeculum, but from midwinter and on, a new political culture is established.
The slurs of the new political culture, the culture that rises with the rise of masculinism, and which will last into the middle of the next Awakening around 2050, are going to be “unpatriotic”, “un-American”, “degenerate”, perhaps “homosexual”, and perhaps “blood traitor”, for whites who don’t act in the best interests of other whites. “Blood traitor” is already commonly used by blacks and Jews (not exactly in those words of course), it is only whites who, so far, are not allowed to use it. But that is going to change. And when that happens, vast quantities of popcorn would be in demand as we all watch the vast zombie behemoth of the Left collapse. And, it’s already happening.
On the other hand, the Right may not realize that it is not picnic time yet, and probably won’t be for a long time. A lot of suffering might be in store for everyone. Just because Trump is (or seems to be) well-meaning doesn’t mean it is going to end well. Abraham Lincoln was well-meaning, and he single-handedly plunged the country into the world’s bloodiest war up to that time, a war that might have been prevented by someone less radical and less well-meaning.
As for World War III, we can only hope that the third one will be charm.
To every thing there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to get, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to rend, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time of war, and a time of peace.
– Ecclesiastes 3.1-8
Upon publishing my new book, Object-Oriented PHP Best Practices, as an Amazon paperback, I was dismayed to see how ugly the cover looked on their site:
I had provided the book’s cover as a PDF saved from Photoshop. I realized that the issue was that Amazon’s software had trouble properly rasterizing the text in the PDF. For this reason, I went back to Photoshop, went to Layer -> Flatten Image to rasterize the image, then saved that as a separate PSD file (since you will lose all layers in the image, making the cover’s text impossible to edit in the future), and then from there saved it as a PDF. I uploaded the new cover to KDP, and a day or two later, I checked the paperback’s page and was happy to see that it looks good now:
The term “fair trade” provides a great propaganda opportunity for US conservatives and Trump supporters. Trump’s goal is to enact tariffs that ensure trade does not negatively impact the American middle and working classes. This is what fair trade is all about, changing prices one way or another so that neither side of a transaction is taken advantage of.
Typically for the Right, this great opportunity to attack America’s anti-white opposition party—I mean the mainstream media—has been wasted, and Jewish organizations like the New York Times continue to drum up support for their usurer economics—cleverly branded as “neo-libralism” and “free trade”, the way usurers have been rebranded as financiers—while pretending to have the best interests of the American people in mind.
Free trade makes America’s super rich usurer class even richer as they enjoy, from their high towers, all the fruits that America has to provide, at fire sale prices, without contributing anything in return—no, as if their collapsing the country’s manufacturing industry wasn’t enough, they continue to shamelessly extract rent and interest from every nook and cranny of the US economy. Their wealth continues to balloon, their central bank continues to print money and dump it into their banks, even as the average American’s wages and life opportunities continue their decades-long dive.
It was surprisingly difficult to find out how to set a default search path for Catfish. On the command line, you can simply do this to always make Catfish search from the root directory:
alias catfish='/usr/bin/catfish --path=\/'
But adding this line to your
~/.bashrc file will not affect the default search path for Catfish unless you launch it from the command line. What I wanted was to be able to click on the Catfish icon on the Unity launcher and have it launch in my root directory (so that it would search all my hard drives). Typically for a Linux program, Catfish’s settings do not offer a way to set this.
The solution is to open up the file
/usr/share/applications/catfish.desktop as root, for example by typing this on the command line:
gksudo gedit /usr/share/applications/catfish.desktop
Once the file opens up, change the
Exec line near the bottom as follows, adding a
--path=/some_path/ to the end of the line. Below, I’ve only put a forward slash as a path, meaning I want catfish to search everything, including all mounted hard drives.
So today I searched for “muslim congressmen” on Google and the above is what came up. This is funny because Google has been at the forefront of defending Liberal narratives on basically everything1. In the above case, their AI is shooting them in the foot, feeding the narrative that Obama is a secret Muslim.
Jan 20, 2017 Update: Google seems to have corrected the error.