Anarchists and frightened police face off in London

Bobbies learn spoiled kids are holy terrors 

by Don Hank

The UK newspaper Daily Mail reported today on a riot by anarchists in the UK, which broke out as part of an anti-cuts demonstration. They number in the thousands, have done a lot of damage and have also scared the beejeebers out of the police, who have become accustomed to fear over years of facing Muslim demonstrations against Western values (which make Muslims uncomfortable and never seem to quite go away no matter how many Europeans they terrorize in an effort to gently convert them–or else).

While many Americans still believe that the main source of economic benefits is a combination of work, ingenuity and risk taking, along with simple notions of supply and demand (commonly known as free market principles—once believed extinct until live specimens were recently found in China), Europeans have been taught since about the end of WW II that the government is where all money, jobs and benefits come from. Some of them also reportedly believe government is where babies come from and where people go when they die.

They pray thusly: Our Government, who art in heaven, give us this day our dole of bread, lest we blast your stuff to kingdom come. For mine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen and to the barricades.

Sadly, the anarchists featured in the Daily Mail story are protesting something that practically no longer exists: capitalism.

Today’s Western economy is based on a system that can charitably be called corporatism, or, if you are mean, fascism, which has replaced the free market system so gradually that most have not noticed and don’t even know it is there.

We can all agree that the present system is impoverishing us and eliminating the middle class, while enriching the oligarchs.

However, since it is a hybrid between corrupt Big Government (essentially socialism) and corrupt business interests, conservatives (on both sides of the pond) hate it but only see the Big Government side of it, which is corrupt — while socialists / anarchists (on both sides of the pond) hate it but only see the capitalist side of it, which is corrupt.

It’s like the 4 blind men and the elephant. There aren’t enough people yet who see the system for the many-tentacled hybrid that it is, and herein lies the tragic inability to solve the problem. Indeed, if you don’t understand what you are up against, then it is hard to fight effectively. A friend of mine has likened problem solving of this sort to buttoning a shirt: If you start wrong at the top, you wind up wrong at the bottom.

Many, including the above-referenced anarchists, believe all of their problems can be solved by a government willing to cooperate with their hedonistic whims. That’s because not nearly enough understand that the EU is a dictatorship that looks out only for its own interests (as elegantly explained by Sonya Porter) and has been controlling the corrupt government side of the economy (by teaching young people fairly tales about climate change and social justice), while most of the capitalists have joined forces with this same government and together they have a jolly good time robbing all of us poor blokes down at the bottom of the food chain.

If young people can be made to understand this, then, once they outgrow their Pampers, they can help us rebuild the West, now that we have all managed to muck it up.

So what do you say? Let’s teach them.

That should work a lot better than sending teams of frightened bobbies after them.

9 Reasons why quantitative easing doesn’t work

from FedUpUSA

Buckle up and hold on – a new round of quantitative easing is here and things could start getting very ugly in the financial world over the coming months.  The truth is that many economists fear that an out of control Federal Reserve is “crossing the Rubicon” by announcing another wave of quantitative easing.  Have we now reached a point where the Federal Reserve is simply going to fire up the printing presses and shower massive wads of cash into the financial system whenever the U.S. economy is not growing fast enough?  If so, what does the mean for inflation, the stability of the world financial system and the future of the U.S. dollar?  The Fed says that the plan is to purchase $600 billion of U.S. Treasury securities by the middle of 2011.  In addition, the Federal Reserve has announced that it will be “reinvesting” an additional $250 billion to $300 billion from the proceeds of its mortgage portfolio in U.S. Treasury securities over the same time period.  So that is a total injection of about $900 billion.  Perhaps the Fed thought that number would sound a little less ominous than $1 trillion.  In any event, the Federal Reserve seems convinced that quantitative easing is going to work this time.  So should we believe the Federal Reserve?

The truth is that the Federal Reserve has tried this before.  In November 2008, the Federal Reserve announced a $600 billion quantitative easing program.  Four months later the Fed felt that even more cash was necessary, so they upped the total to $1.8 trillion.

So did quantitative easing work then?

No, not really.  It may have helped stabilize the economy in the short-term, but unemployment is still staggeringly high.  Monthly U.S. home sales continue to come in at close to record low levels.  Businesses are borrowing less money.  Individuals are borrowing less money.  Stores are closing left and right.


Why Keynesian (Obama’s) economics doesn’t work

The Business Cycle: Krugman vs. Austrian Economic Theory

by Thomas E. Brewton

The Keynesian black-box doesn’t work, because the reality of independent actions by millions of individuals is ignored in order to achieve a simplistic representation of the economy in computer models.

Read More…
Keynesian economics, as expounded by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, is essentially a black box theory.  Stand on the outside of the economic box and dump into it endless baskets of inflationary fiat money, and things supposedly just happen automatically inside the black box to produce permanent prosperity and near zero unemployment. 

Read David Gordon’s commentary on THE HANGOVER THEORY by Paul Krugman.

Keynesians gloss over the human factors of uncertainty about keeping a job or losing a home, millions of different consumer preferences, and the chilling effect on businessmen of punitive government taxes and regulations, along with continual threats of more of the same.  Keynes’s feeble gesture in that direction was allowing that “animal spirits,” a kind of gambling instinct, played some role in businessmen’s decision processes. 

From the Keynesian perspective, businessmen don’t make rational decisions.  They, like the rest of the public, don’t know what is best for them.  As with Pavlov’s dogs, they are expected to exhibit a conditioned response to the stimuli administered by intellectual theorists.

Paul Krugman’s simplistic view of the economy, among other things, ignores the fact that government stimulus handouts usually are targeted by Congress to favored special-interest groups.  Most people without jobs and in danger of losing their homes will never receive a dime of the stimulus funds.  Private businesses, the engines of the economy, are not among the favored interest groups.

Keynesian theory ignores the fact that money is not real wealth.  Economic well being and improved living conditions can come only from increased production of goods and services that people freely choose.  Phony money earmarked for green jobs, wastefully expensive battery-powered automobiles, and environmental scams such as ethanol won’t cut it.  Keynes himself set the tone, asserting that government expenditures on anything would rejuvenate the economy.  His suggestion: pay men to bury fiat paper money in bottles and pay other men to find the bottles and dig them up.

Increasing production, when businessmen perceive possibilities for profit in doing so, is the only real source of income for consumers.  Moreover, increased business payments to suppliers and workers is non-inflationary, because the volume of available goods and services rises as incomes increase.  Government stimulus spending is inflationary, because the money supply increases long before production increases.

If one takes Keynes literally, inflation is a good thing.  Think of Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke’s assertion that the Fed seeks to promote inflation at approximately a 2% annual rate.  Add to it the forthcoming QE2, designed to raise the rate of inflation. 

Keynes acknowledged that deficit spending with fiat money, created by bookkeeping entries at the Federal Reserve banks, would have inflationary consequences.  But, he opined, workers and others wouldn’t notice its effects in the short run.  Having more fiat money via government handouts, with no increase in actual production of goods and services, would fool the public.  Believing that prosperity had returned, people would stop saving and paying down debt and would add to their debts to resume consumption spending at the pre-recession rate.

Consumer spending is touted by Keynesians as the be-all and end-all.  In their paradigm, spending on consumer goods alone has the economic pulling power to gain what Paul Krugman calls “traction.” Yes, consumer spending is about two thirds of cash flow in the economy, but only if you view it as an application of funds.  The underlying source of all that consumer spending is business production that necessitates payments to suppliers of materials and wages to workers.

Stimulus payments to consumers is analogous to dumping frosting onto a cake mix, before the ingredients have been mixed and baked.  All elements of the economy, from raw materials, to intermediate goods, to consumer goods, must return to a supply-demand balance before the economy can gain Krugman’s “traction.” That necessarily takes time, because mining companies and other producers of basic raw materials have time scales for increased output and employment that are very different from the time scales of intermediate goods producers and consumer goods manufacturers.

Deficit spending, ballooning Federal debt, and a Fed dumping money, along with the prospect of higher taxes and unknowable impacts of multifarious new regulations, breeds fear among business decision makers that impedes the re-balancing process.  In the 1930s, such actions under Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt prolonged what should have been a two-year recession into twelve years of Depression misery.  President Obama’s similar Keynesian policies are repeating the Depression mistakes, giving us a flattened economy, with unemployment projected to remain in the 9% (really 17%) range for several more years.

Despite Paul Krugman’s assertions, Austrian economists don’t advocate higher unemployment and deflation, nor do they want to punish credit profligacy. 

They simply want to eliminate the Federal Reserve’s ability to fund speculative booms with excessive easy money (low interest rates).  Since the end of World War I, shortly after the Federal Reserve came into being, every inflationary boom and recession has been preceded by the Fed’s pumping excessive reserves into the banking system.

Artificially easy money and low interest rates lead businessmen and consumers to believe that there is unlimited demand for products of the latest bubble element of the economy.  Without excessive money creation, from 1987 onwards, there would have been no boom-and-bust, and no housing bubble that corrupted the banking system.

Rather than unemployment, as Paul Krugman apparently believes, Austrians advocate price flexibility, including wages.  It is labor unions and their government supporters who indirectly promote higher unemployment.

Before the New Deal’s 1935 Wagner Act gave labor unions power to bludgeon employers, businesses were able to minimize layoffs by temporarily reducing wages to bring their costs into line with their reduced selling prices for goods.  Better for all workers to have lower pay temporarily than for many of them to lose their jobs.  Wage reductions spread the hit over the entire work force.

In the Depression, labor unions, with the full weight of the Federal government behind them, demanded higher wages in the face of high double-digit unemployment.  To compensate, huge numbers of non-union labor had to be laid off, leaving them, not with lower wages, but with no wages at all.  Our parents and grandparents paid for the extortionate power of labor unions with lowered living standards.

We see a repeat of this Marxist class warfare today in New York, California, and other strongholds of the Democrat/Socialist Party.  Public employee unions not only are unwilling to consider reductions in their gold-plated benefits packages to avert state bankruptcy.  They demand new wage and benefit raises at a time of high unemployment and skyrocketing taxes for everyone else.  Labor unions thus block job creation.

With regard to deflation, which Krugman ascribes to Austrians’ wish list, most prices naturally decline (unless artificially propped up by the government) when demand lessens or supply increases.  Demand lessens when big-employment industries like housing construction overbuild, and buyers no longer can support their bloated personal debt.  Demand lessens further when a bubble-bust causes banks to tighten credit for everyone, while they liquidate over-valued collateral on defaulted loans to bring balance sheet ratios back into line with regulatory requirements.  Prices are bound to decline (deflation to some extent, in some sectors of the economy) when excessive inventories (housing, for example) are dumped into the market by lenders.

Analogously, people have garage sales when they have accumulated too many things or things that they no longer need.  Nobody in his right mind would expect buyers to pay original retail prices.  If garage sellers want to clear out their stuff, they have to cut prices, often to a small fraction of original prices.  That’s deflation, yes, but it gets rid of the excess, puts some money into sellers’ pockets, and opens space for new purchases.

Austrians don’t advocate deflation.  They seek to forestall speculative bubbles that lead to deflationary recessions.

Austrians note the statistical fact, in every economic recession since the Fed’s legislative enactment in 1913, that financial bubbles and recessions have followed over-creation of money by the Fed and its support for excessive credit expansion by the banking industry.  Those bubbles are accompanied by price run-ups unsupported by underlying, long-term real demand.  They also note that long-lasting, non-inflationary business upswings can occur only when the Fed buts out and businesses are allowed to sink or swim while liquidating excess inventories and over-built production facilities. 

Only under Fed chairman Paul Volcker in the early 1980s has the Fed followed that policy to deal with a recession.  The result was a severe downturn for nearly two years, followed by sharply reduced inflation and one of the longest and strongest economic revivals in history.  Had the Fed under Volcker’s predecessors not flooded the economy with easy credit, the punishing rigors unleashed by Volcker would have been unnecessary.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

Email comments to

I hate to say it but I told you so

I saw this coming in 2007

On August 1, 2007, I smelled a rat when Dr. Richard Land was scheduled to debate “Christian” socialist Jim Wallis. I had already shown how fallacious it is to try to shoehorn Jesus into the socialist framework. I wrote that it seemed odd that Land (whom I had already spotted as a wolf in the sheep fold) would be debating Jim Wallis unless Wallis knew Land would be playing softball. I said:

… leftists normally eschew debate with biblically grounded Christians.  They debate only when they feel they can gain something in the incremental dialogue toward realization of their socialist vision. Which makes me wonder what Wallis knows that we don’t and whether punches will be pulled in his favor.

This was only a hunch but a very very strong one because I had read some of the politically correct tripe Land had written — including his glowing endorsement of Al Gore.

Now it looks like Land is moving even further to the left and openly siding with Wallis.

But it’s even worse than that, much worse, as Brannon Howse shows in the column below. Unlike Howse, however, I would not stay in the SBC any longer with the ever more leftward-leaning Land in the top echelons of the national organization. It is only a matter of time before things begin to unravel on the local level as the hands at the top get heavier and heavier, push toward more and more socialism and ram more un-Biblical social ideas (same-sex “marriage” perhaps?) down the throats of the faithful. Of course, that is just a hunch.

A very very strong one.

Don Hank


Marxists, Muslims, Mormons, Globalists, and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention
By Brannon Howse

For many years, including in my most recent book, Grave Influence, I have been warning about the rise of ecumenicalism and globalism and my concern that evangelicals would be used to give credibility to these movements.

Sadly, I believe the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission headed by Richard Land is being used to push radically unbiblical, politically correct, and anti-American agendas. As a member of a solid, Bible teaching SBC church, I am very concerned about Land’s activities. However, I think even those that are not a member of an SBC church should be concerned since Land is speaking as an evangelical.

The Southern Baptist Convention is the nation’s largest protestant denomination. I believe Mr. Land’s office, which is funded to the tune of over $3.2 million dollars, is largely working against the Biblical worldview convictions of not only most of the SBC church members but most conservative, Bible-believing Christians.

Land Endorsed the U.S. Muslim Engagement Project and is helping to build Mosques: 

In September of 2010, the Anti-Defamation League formed an “interfaith coalition” to help Muslims build mosques in America. Of course Land did not pass up the opportunity to be involved in one more pluralistic, politically correct project. Why would any Christian, much less a Christian leader, be working to help build Islamic Mosques? Islam is an antichrist, demonic, religion. This is a clear violation of the Biblical mandate not be involved in spiritual enterprises with non believers as revealed in 2 Corinthians 6:14. SBC members are not paying Mr. Land to help build Islamic Mosques.

The name and mission statement of many of the organizations that make up this coalition clearly reveal their ultimate goal is not just building mosques but pushing ecumenicalism. The website says, that member include, the “Vicar for Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Affairs”.  The keyword is ecumenical. Then there is Dr. Eboo Patel whose organization is “Interfaith Youth Core” and his website declares that their goal is “to introduce a new relationship, one that is about mutual respect and religious pluralism. Instead of focusing a dialogue on political or theological differences…”

Read more.

Obama and Mao, a short history lesson

by Don Hank

Obama has surrounded himself with maoists, like terrorist couple Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

The Czars he has named include Maoist-leaning Van Jones, and his White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has publicly expressed admiration for Mao Tse Tung.

At least three of Obama’s campaigners, Carl Davidson, Bill Fletcher and Mike Klonsky, are big Mao fans.

So if Obama is surrounding himself with Maoists, how is that affecting policy? Or rather, if Obama is enough of an admirer of Mao to have named these people in the first place, can we expect to see some evidence of this in his style of governance?

Well, liberation theologists like Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor, believed that, in a “just” society, accidents of birth (being born black in their case) automatically confer privileges to members of a downtrodden minority. That is in line with Mao’s thinking. For him, a person born as a peasant or worker was to be given special treatment.

Another striking similarity with Mao is Obama’s clever use of thugs. Not only are union thugs useful in intimidating his enemies, but his unprecedented open borders and no-arrest policies vis-a-vis illegal aliens encourage the cartel and undocumented low-life to bludgeon his opposition through often-violent crimes such as the savage murder of rancher Rob Krentz and the recent murder of an American boater on a lake shared with Mexico.

Put the administration’s ignoring of recent murders of Americans by Mexican thugs together with the testimonies of Justice Department whistle blowers Christian Adams and Christopher Coates declaring that the Obama administration had a hands-off order for accused criminal minority members, i.e., blacks and Hispanics, and you get an unmistakable pattern of the double standards for minorities vs whites taught by his beloved Liberation Theology mentor and in line with the thinking of his maoist pals. Under this policy, cases against Black Panther members who were seen by millions of viewers on national TV brandishing night sticks in front of a polling place in Philadelphia, and against prominent Black Panther leader Malik Shabazz, who had recently visited the Obama White House, were dropped by the Obama DOJ without adequate explanation.

The connection to thugs of the historic global left is evident if you look back at the history of the criminal scum who played key roles in the French Revolution, the Paris Communes, Mao’s Chinese revolution, the Mexican Revolution (Pancho Villa), etc.

The lumpen proletariat have long had a role in leftwing revolutions. Even today, by doing nothing to halt crime, Hugo Chavez encourages bands of roving bandits to roam the countryside and the city streets and intimidate and rob the wealthy and intimidate or kill dissidents. The murder rate in Venezuela has tripled since he rose to power.

A look at Part 2 of “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party,” published by the Epoch Times shows an uncanny similarity with the way Mao Tse Tung used the “scum of society” to intimidate his enemies. This low life, often violent and typically criminally minded, actually was integrated into the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese analysts identified the “unleashing of the scum of society” as one of the inherited traits of communism in China. They point out that while Marx rejected this lowest of all social classes, Mao welcomed them in his movement. Epoch Times observes:

Fourth Inherited Trait: Unleashing the Scum of Society—Hoodlums and Social Scum Form the Ranks of the CCP

“Unleashing the scum of society leads to evil, and evil must utilize the scum of society. Communist revolutions have often made use of the rebellion of hoodlums and social scum. The ‘Paris Commune,’ actually involved homicide, arson, and violence led by social scum. Even Marx looked down upon the ‘lumpen proletariat.’ [4] In the Communist Manifesto, Marx said, ‘The ‘dangerous class,’ the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution. Its conditions of life, however, prepare it far better for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue…”…’

“The CCP developed further the dark side of Marx’s theory. Mao Zedong said, ‘The social scum and hoodlums have always been spurned by the society, but they are actually the bravest, the most thorough and firmest in the revolution in the rural areas.’[2]”

Incredibly, Obama is imitating the most virulent and radical of his Marxist forebears. To call him a Marxist is in fact missing the mark. His promotion of thuggery is distinctly Maoist.

So, to get an idea of what awaits American blacks and Hispanics, let’s take a look at what happens to the favored class of peasants and workers (not including the thugs) in a Maoist society.

One of Mao’s first steps after winning the revolution was to confiscate all the land then in the hands of the landlord class and give it to the peasants, who received about 4 acres per family.

For a few years, they lived quite well and were able to even sell off some surplus to buy consumer goods for their families.

But this was too much free market for Marxist ideologue Mao, who soon began confiscating the grain of the peasant class. In perfect imitation of Stalin in his treatment of the Ukrainian farmers, Mao didn’t just make life a little tougher for them by taking a large amount of this grain.

He in fact took it all, every last grain of wheat, in order to sell it to the Russians in exchange for help in industrializing China.

As a result, millions of peasants died of starvation.

All told, some estimate that Mao killed off as many as 70 million of his countrymen, most of whom worshipped him even in their last moments.

 This, then, is the “leader” that Obama’s mentors and supporters admire.

Which begs the question: what is in store for the minorities that voted for Obama and are the most devoted to him?

Already many blacks are complaining of joblessness and the way Obama has catered to the rich bankers instead of giving relief to those who supported him. Others complain that Democrat-run sanctuary cities cater to illegal aliens who steal their jobs.

But this is just a foretaste of the misery. Once the money runs out and the printing presses start rolling, inflation can be expected to eat away life savings in short order, welfare and social security checks will fall to bare subsistance levels.

There is so much more to come. As they say: the revolution eats its useful idiots.

Link recommended by a reader:

Karl Marx flunks history

In the following column, Olavo de Carvalho alludes to the Hegelian theory of the “historical imperative,” which the early Marxists used as a basis for their ideas.

This Utopian notion of history as a foregone conclusion, is still used by Marxists and their followers. I have shown how the idea of “gay marriage” is based in part on this idea and is seen by activists in the field as an inevitable outcome of all prior history.

Mr. de Carvalho points out the severe philosophical limitations of this Utopian idea. Ironically, its popularity and the virulence of its supporters are symptoms of its inherent lack of validity.

Don Hank

Social Critique and History

Olavo de Carvalho
Jornal da Tarde, October 11, 2001

All social critique is founded upon some idea of the better. It is only in comparison with this idea that any existing society may seem good, tolerable, bad, or unbearable. But the idea of the better does not emerge from nothing: it is conceived of by actual men, members of the same society they criticize. If we consider that the mindset of these men is entirely a “product” of society, then, only one of two alternatives is true: either they themselves fall into the evil they denounce, or society, having given these men the idea of the better, cannot be as evil as they say it is.

Therefore, all social critique that claims to have any foundation at all can only be based upon the premise that in man’s consciousness there is a dimension which somehow transcends any present society and to which he can transport himself in thought in order to judge that society from the outside, or from above.

It is evident, however, that a simple verbal appeal to a legitimating authority is not enough to validate any critique. A critique must not only allege but must also prove its logical affiliation with a superior authority.

Social critiques, therefore, can be hierarchized on a scale of strictly objective validity, in accordance with (a) the intrinsic legitimacy of the authority called upon to legitimize them; (b) the degree of logical consistency of the nexus between the legitimizing authority and the content of the critique. In other words: (a) The authority of the superior authority summoned to legitimize a critique may be false or deficient in itself, as in the case of the critic who condemns society based upon a pure Utopian model of his own invention. (b) If the alleged authority is valid in itself, there is also the risk that the deduction which the critic draws from it in order to validate a specific critique of a specific society is not a logically valid inference.

A history of social critique from antiquity to the present day would easily demonstrate that, over time, the social critiques formulated in the West have been progressively losing their validity as they have grow in virulence and in the number of their adherents. In other words: as time goes on, social critics lose in intrinsic authority what they gain in pretension and audience.

I know that this is a lamentable observation and that some people, without having ever studied the subject, or even become minimally aware of it before reading this article, will reject it in limine and will seek refuge from it behind all sorts of subterfuge. The only thing I have to say to these people is: don’t bother me; go study. As to other people, that is, those for whom the enunciation of a hypothesis arouses curiosity instead of tears, I suggest they compare, for example, the Socratic critique to the Marxist one. The latter has far more adherents and is much more ferocious than the former, but, in declaring that men’s consciousness is a “product” of history, the Marxist critique cannot allege any legitimizing authority other than history itself; however, since history does not provide models for its own judgment, but rather the simple reporting of faits accomplis, the Marxist critic is left with no other alternative than to infer from past history a hypothesis for a future development and to take it at once as the legitimizing authority for the critique of the present. Nothing proves that the predicted development is inevitable, nor that the state of affairs that results from it will have to be better than the present state of affairs; all this is nothing but hypothesis and has no other legitimizing authority than that of a hypothesis. On the other hand, Socrates’ critique, which did not gain many adherents, except in a very limited circle, had a much more solid foundation, since the authorities to which he appealed were the certainty of death and the intrinsic authority of reason, which no man can reject. 

Marxism stands at an even greater disadvantage when compared to the social critique of the Hebrew prophets, who draw their authority from the fulfillment of prophecies. Moses’ critique of the state of affairs in Egypt was founded upon his foreknowledge of the concrete means of leading the Jewish people to a better situation; and the success of his undertaking provided full proof of his claims. This is an argument that no Marxist can allege in support of his criticism of capitalism. Quite to the contrary, the historical achievements of the socialist model in USSR and China were so disappointing that, nowadays, Marxists, after having proclaimed and defended them as the purest and most typical expressions of how Marxism overcomes capitalism, strive to explain them ex post facto as accidental deviations and to purge Marxism of any commitment to such obvious failures.

Translator: Alessandro Cota; Translation Editor: Don Hank

Author Olavo de Carvalho is a noted correspondent for several major Brazilian newspapers and founder of the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government and Social Thought. He has spoken before the Hudson Institute, the Atlas Foundation and the America’s Future Foundation.

To comment or schedule an appearance, contact Laigle’s Forum at:

The eroded backbone of the free market

by Don Hank

To oppose socialism and the ongoing destruction of our Republic with libertarianism is like trying to stop a charging rhino by throwing a shoe at it. 

A recent article by Olavo de Carvalho shows why, and surprisingly, the author shows that his hypothesis of economics being reliant on traditional culture, is anything but new. He cites books going back over 100 years that support this view and that in fact, clairvoyantly foresaw the downfall of capitalism precisely for the reasons that it is now collapsing.

The viewpoint that the solution to our economic failures can be found in economics itself is fatally flawed from the outset.

Capitalism without the bedrock of tradional ethics, morality, patriotism, love of God and traditional family, tough love, brotherly love, honesty, honor, and the drive to compete, excel and better oneself that existed in the first century of our new Republic, and specifically without the work ethic promoted in the scriptures, cannot work any more than communism can. It quickly degenerates into fascism, a toxic mix of Statism and capitalism wherein corrupt politicians easily overpower the market.

The bailouts of the banks and bankers — a prime example of fascim — were opposed by over 90% of Americans but were quickly rammed through both houses. Healthcare “reform,” another example of a fascistic Public-Private Partnership (PPP), forces citizens (again, against the will of Americans) to buy health insurance at the outlandish inflated prices charged by companies. What a boon to the health insurance racket and its partner the medical business.  The un-Constitutional government takeover of a major part of the US auto industry is another example. The democratic process – not to mention the free market — has completely failed.

But it had failed long before that because the culture that formed its spiritual and moral infrastructure had been gradually decimated.

De Carvalho’s examples of self-destructive capitalism, including the selling of anticapitalist and anti-American culture to young people, reminded me of the vendors here in Panama selling shirts, carrying bags, hats and other paraphernalia bearing likenesses of Che Guevara — capitalism selling the antithesis of itself.

When I meet vendors on the street or in the mall selling these, I go up to them, smiling, and say “do you admire all mass murderers or just Che?”

One vendor offered the excuse that people have different opinions. I went up to a cap he was selling, pointed to the picture of Che on the front of it and asked “do you realize that if this man had met you during his heyday in Cuba and had found out you were Panamanian, he probably would have shot you dead in cold blood?”

The only vendor at the nearby mall who sold these items has since pulled them off the shelf. A local book seller has put his Che biographies in a less-conspicuous place since hearing my stern lecture.

You see, I have done something most others apparently have not yet done, and it is high time they did.

I got mad. Really really mad. It is time you did likewise, Dear Reader.

You see, they are immersing your sons and daughters in smut, unimaginable filth, in the entertainment field but probably even in your children’s school. “Christian” churches are awash with moral relatavism, with pastors claiming that salvation can come through all religions, leading to the inevitable conclusion that Christ is superfluous. Politicians are stealing you blind, and to rub salt in your wounds, have made you pay for the invasion from Mexico, other people’s abortions, other people’s drugs and booze, cohabitation, out-of-wedlock relationships and the children sired in them, sex change operations and much more. Since WW II, they have sent you and your children to die in foreign wars ordered by the agents of the New World Order, wars that we lost because that was the game plan. Then, once they saw how easy it was to fool you, they decided just to steal your money outright and give it to the banker buds who got them elected.

If you aren’t mad yet, you lack the anger gene. But if you are, I advise you to use your anger wisely, following Christ’s prescription: Be gentle as doves and wise as serpents.

If all you can do is froth at the mouth, don’t bother. But if you can love your enemies while refusing to back down even an inch, you can help win back the West.

Rick Warren calls dissenting Christians fake

by Don Hank

Help grow my megachurch or leave!

I was recently surprised to read that Rick Warren is calling other Christians fake and calling for phony Christians to leave his church. He is targeting in particular those who fail to help his multimillion dollar Saddleback megachurch grow. Is the narrow way passé for the finger-pointing pastor?

A country preacher at a church I once attended used to say “when you point the finger of blame you have three fingers pointing right back at you.”

How about a pastor helping a Marxist get elected?

How about a pastor being unequally yoked with non-believers who deny Christ? Wouldn’t that be fake Christianity? Rick has been yoked with the Left and Islam for some time now despite Paul’s explicit command: 

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).

Rick seems to have his own personal definition of “Christianity” and it doesn’t look quite the same as the Apostle Paul’s.

So who’s a fake? 

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matt. 7:5).

The “Christian” Left, hordes of sheep-like socialist heretics led by charismatic fanatics, almost completely took over Europe at various times in the 13th and 14th centuries. Even after they were largely subdued, they clung to their utopian fantasies and the last one of their line, Wilhelm Weitling, met and influenced Karl Marx. Charismatic leaders like Dolcino in Italy and Thomas Müntzer in Germany, condemned other Christians as fakes, preaching that all property must be held in common and strictly forbidding all private ownership of anything. They plundered, killed, maimed, destroyed and looted churches and waged war against all who stood in their way, conquering vast territories and forcing concessions from powerful princes and popes before finally being overthrown. They were convinced that they were right, based on a cursory knowledge of certain verses of the Bible, and that they were Christ’s avengers, based on nocturnal dreams.

Yet nowhere do we read that Jesus or the early Christians had urged Christ’s followers to force others to live by their rules.

Jesus flatly rejected the socialists of his day, in so many words telling them to get lost when they dunned Him to initiate a free lunch program.

The socialist heretics had their way in Europe sporadically for about 2 centuries, and then faded away. Their modern day counterparts will do likewise.

But not before causing untold hardship and leading hordes of foolish, gullible souls to perdition.

Further reading:

Is Obama Employing the Cloward-Piven Strategy?

Anthony Horvath is a staff writer for Laigle’s Forum, the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries, and the author of three books, two in the Birth Pangs series and a pro-life book called We Chose Life.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy is a deliberate series of tactics designed to bring a system down in collapse so that a preferred system can be erected in its place.   Named after two Columbia University professors, it was actually employed in the early 1970s.  I want to repeat that:  it was actually employed.

This is not your ordinary conspiracy theory.  In this case, we know that the strategy was employed and had some effect.  Namely, by deliberately burdening New York city’s welfare system, they managed to bankrupt the city, which so declared in 1975.

Cloward and Piven, therefore, have made it impossible to take at face value measures which are put forward as being ‘for the poor,’ especially when those plans emerge from people associated with them or their organizations.

Cloward taught at Columbia University for almost five decades.  During his tenure, a certain Obama attended.  Did Obama and Cloward ever interact?  Did Obama ever take any of Cloward’s courses?  No one can prove he didn’t because Obama refuses to allow Columbia to release his transcripts.   In 1982, Piven returned to New York.  Did Obama interact with these two individuals? Continue reading

Poll shows one-quarter of world disenchanted with capitalism

BBC survey shows world disenchanted with capitalism

By Don Hank

Soon after last year’s disastrous bank crash, liberals and RINOs were quick to infer, from evidence to which only they seemed to be privy, that the capitalist system was flawed and needed regulation. Even conservatives seemed confused. Oddly, no one could come up with a uniform regulation design that would fix things or prevent such a crash. Something didn’t seem right about their take on the causes.

Not long after that, conservative pundits made an amazing revelation: Starting in the Clinton administration, an old banking law, the Community Reinvestment Act, passed under Carter for the purpose of channeling mortgages to the poor, had been strengthened. As a result, banks had been strong-armed into issuing mortgages to “underserved groups” meaning Hispanics and African Americans. Those that refused were harassed by radical groups like ACORN and/or blacklisted and/or sued by the government. Those that complied were given the highest marks and put into enviable positions from which they could make more money. The shrewdest lenders realized that this was a government-supported racket with which they could enrich themselves at little risk, as long as Fanny and Freddy were willing to back up their seemingly foolhardy lending policies. So they continued the game, and even lenders not subject to the CRA were soon cashing in, realizing that the government actually wanted them to play Russian roulette with public funds. Even when the inevitable crash came, they thought they were protected. Indeed many did get bailouts, but because of the innovative banking practice of bundling, or derivatizing, these mortgages, and then securitizing them – selling them as “securities” like stocks, bonds and mutual funds, the risk was actually multiplied to the point that even the bailouts were no longer a safeguard, because, surprise, even the US government isn’t too big to fail. The banking world on both sides of the pond, moving in lockstep like lemmings, sold and bought such “securities,” many made in the USA but also many homegrown ones, and a global disaster ensued that you are now witnessing, perhaps in person.

I know that many of you are aware of this background of the crash, but there is a whole industry devoted to telling you that this historical fact, authenticated by responsible, sober economists like Thomas Sowell, never happened. This disinformation campaign, supported by the mainstream media and universities, is overwhelming in both its magnitude and its absurdity.

I discovered this firewall of lies and distortions serendipitously while looking for articles on the issue. I had not read or heard anything lately on the causes and had also heard a Keynesian investment advisor on the radio boldly proclaiming that the capitalist system needs regulation to prevent such a crisis from recurring. Over a year ago, Sean Hannity had tried to tackle this issue, but I noticed that his grasp of the facts was a bit slippery. Later, the rest of the pundits also just dropped the ball. In retrospect, it is easy to see why. People are lazy by nature. There are a lot of esoteric concepts and language in this issue and it takes a bit of study. And after all, what’s it matter? We are only talking about your survival (please excuse the sarcasm).

To get to the bottom of this, I typed “cra causes bank crisis” in my search engine and found, compared to the legitimate articles plausibly describing the role of the CRA and government meddling in mortgages, about 20 times more articles either downplaying the role of the CRA and Fanny-Freddy and the strong-arming of banks or actually bold-facedly declaring that the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis. The gist of each one: capitalism can’t sustain itself without government regulation. We desperately need socialism under a scheme of global governance. Quick, give up your sovereignty and pledge allegiance to the UN before we all die. The truth is that government over-regulation of a toxic kind had threatened the world’s economy and those who were responsible for this outrage were self-righteously preaching to the rest of us that we were somehow the culprits and would now have to submit to their tyranny.

This is the time for conservative pundits to fly into action and defeat this insidious disinformation campaign. It is not new information that is needed, but someone must look at all the rubbish that is being written and start debunking it, because these government induced toxic loans are still ongoing. Right now the FHA has taken over the role of Fanny-Freddy in backing them and is starting to suggest that they too need a bailout. Nothing has changed. The actors are just shifting roles. We are not supposed to pull out of the crisis. It is just going to get worse — with “stimulus” money.

And that will be more evidence that the free market system “needs government control,” quick, before anyone has time to study the issues and recognize what actually hit them.

With the mainstream media and America’s – and Europe’s – professional pseudo-intelligentsia working overtime to show that global capitalism has self-destructed and that the story of the big-bad CRA and of Fanny-Freddy being the fox in the hen house are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, it is no wonder that the entire world is tilting to the Left in its thinking on so-called capitalism. As BBC reports (not without a certain unmistakable Schadenfreude), almost a quarter of people surveyed throughout the entire world are now saying that capitalism is fatally flawed.

Yet when you look at these statistics, you see that Americans are among the least deceived. BBC states: “In only two countries, the US and Pakistan, did more than one in five people feel that capitalism works well as it stands.”

I believe this is due to at least 3 phenomena:

1—Americans are smarter than the rest, including the BBC, because they have the commons sense to support the free market,

2–We have pundits like Rush, Savage, Farah, Beck and a whole slew of small but mighty web sites out there, like Laigle’s Forum, unspinning the spin and setting people straight.

But there’s also this I’m afraid:

2—Many Americans haven’t figured out that capitalism is no longer in place here. Many years ago they watched sanguinely as their government propped up a failing Chrysler, naively believing that the government was actually “saving” capitalism and the free market.

What was actually happening was that the stage was being set (BY BOTH PARTIES!) for Obama to come along decades later and deal the free market what was calculated to be its death blow.

There were other steps along the way to what is now being called alternately fascism, corporatism and even communism. Pick your –ism, but don’t call it capitalism, because Adam Smith would not see his ideal embodied in what we call big business in the West today.

Afterword: A reader emailed me that it was good news that 3/4 of the world still believe in capitalism. But if you go to the BBC article linked above, you see that of the 3/4 who still have not given up on capitalism, the majority by far believe the propaganda. They choose the option that capitalism “Has problems that can be addressed through regulation and reform.” A European Christian friend writes that neither capitalism nor communism are good — a conclusion that leaves socialism as the default system. If we lose this one, there will be no powerful conservative in the USA to say “tear down that wall.”

For Christians who think socialism is part of Jesus’ plan, please read the following article: