2. January 2009 by admin.

Last month the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released a statement that they didn’t have enough funds to properly invest in failing countries around the globe, and that they were going to have to “print” money to keep entire sections of the world afloat (1)). Since the world decided that a collective shrug would be a valid response, we can safely assume one of two options:

1)the majority of the western populace is ignorant and apathetic
or
2)western media outlets have decided to downplay the philosophical significance of the event

So why’s this such a problem?

To give a little background, the IMF was created in 1944 to facilitate global economic development, acting as a central bank to the world (2). A central bank’s main function is to provide relief to failing banks, acting as a last source of credit, and within a fiat currency system having the ability to basically “print” money into existence (9). The IMF is a little different, though, because it’s an international organization that focuses on lending money to failing countries instead of banks, giving a list of changes that the recipients have to make, known as the “Washington Consensus(3).” When countries receive money, they then have to agree to implement the changes deemed necessary to stimulate their economies and ensure a return on the IMF’s investment (privatization and reduction of trade barriers are common requests).

Now, the problem with our current situation is that the IMF, an international body of officials you didn’t vote for, has decided to print money, which acts as a form of taxation because it will reduce buying power and the value of savings, all through inflation of the currency it prints. After all, when more money is available within a system, people will have to pay more for the things they want. Some advocates of the proposal have suggested this may be a good thing, since it can be said that the same inflationary function that reduces savings also reduces debts, and both American society and government are insolvently in debt (4)(5)(6). Philosophically and economically, though, this is incredibly backward. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics, economy | Print | No Comments »

2. January 2009 by admin.

Who would Jesus vote for?

As a Christian, this is a question you’ve got to ask yourself every time an election season comes around. Not necessarily because you actually believe Jesus would have actually voted for any particular person (since Jesus was pretty clear about his kingdom being in heaven and not on earth), but because you have a duty to your family and friends to be an active citizen, upkeeping the gifts of freedom and moral prosperity that have been handed to you by your forefathers. As such a Christian American, you’ve got to first find out which people most properly support the values of Christianity.

So where do you start? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Theology, politics | Print | No Comments »

2. January 2009 by admin.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to repeat the same thing everyone else has been repeating for the past umpteen years: the media is lying to you, and you’re being sold something that isn’t only a lie, but is killing the economy. The bad news? Nobody knows what the heck that means. It’s almost as empty a statement as “all politicians are liars:” Everybody says it because it makes them fit in with the cool guys, not because they actually know what politicians are lying about.

As such, I’d like to tackle this issue from the viewpoints of an average American citizen in 2008, calling to light the various misunderstandings with which this current administration has had to deal.
Before I start, though, it should be mentioned that anyone who’s only expecting a purely Democrat-directed grilling is in for a surprise, mostly because the problems we’re dealing with today are so heavily ingrained in both parties that it’s completely impossible to escape by using traditional partisan politics, even though the media and common consensus would have you believe it’s Bush’s fault, and the blogs would have you believe it’s Clinton’s.

Oh, and by the way, I’ve placed stars next to economic concepts that you can easily find in Wikipedia, just in case any readers aren’t familiar with the concepts and would like more information. All the other information will be used from respectable sources, so feel free to dig around in the links. That being said, allow me to tell you why the economy is Bush’s fault, why it isn’t, and why Americans are generally wrong.
Misunderstanding #1: Our unemployment levels are out of control

The first gigantic lie regarding our economy is that right now—in September of 2008—we have more unemployed people than ever before, and there are hordes of people roaming the streets incapable of finding jobs.

This is total garbage.

Actually, we averaged about a 6% unemployment rate in September according to the Department of Labor Statistics, which is better than we had through half of the 90’s when the media was reporting a “good time” (1). Furthermore, at one point in 2007 our unemployment rates were at a cozy 4.5%, almost at the lowest level we had ever achieved through the 90’s, which is very near something known in the world of economics known as “full employment*”. Read that again in case it didn’t soak in. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics, cultural/racial, economy | Print | No Comments »

2. January 2009 by admin.

“The goal of abolishing the White race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed White supremacists … Race Traitor will not abandon its focus on Whiteness, no matter how vehement the pleas and how virtuously oppressed those doing the pleading. The editors meant it when they replied to a reader, ‘Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead White males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the White race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.’”

Noel Ignatiev, Ed.M. Ph.D. From 1994, fellow at the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute.American history professor at the Massachusetts College of Art

This is it, ladies and gentlemen. You have in front of you a decision to make: you can buy into the propaganda that’s been forced down your throat for the last 60 years, which will result in disempowerment and disillusionment for your people and the entire West; or you can intellectually reconsider the merits of our currently accepted philosophies and thereby save democracy. For those of you already well versed in the philosophy of democracy and capitalism as well as Marxist principles, this should be a healthy refresher course. For those of you unfamiliar with reexamining popular and institutionally propagated mindsets, this may result in a bit of a headache.

As such, I ask the reader to actively consider the following questions and take the time to discuss this amongst his or her friends. This is not an easy thing to do, for the Western Elite have taken no small measures to make sure you cannot safely consider or espouse these ideas. But just as our American founding fathers threw off the shackles of imperialist mindset, just as Martin Luther resisted the apostate Catholic church, and just as Jesus resisted the Pharisees, so must you now take the time to resist the status quo which threatens not only your way of life, but ultimately the very survival of your kind. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, after all. And this will be a venture.

That being said, here is the guide to anti-racism, the assumptions made by those abiding its philosophy, and the ramifications resulting from an inability to discuss the topic openly. This will be done in a series of statements and explanations that follow them, in the hopes that the reader will find the points easier to digest.

#1: Anti-racism and democratic capitalism are incompatible.

The first point that any person discussing the merits of anti-racism must understand is that anti-racism is the monkey wrench within the machine of classically liberal economics. Basically, the way capitalism and democracy are designed to work is by giving people the ability to succeed and fail by making decisions. Our model being simplified, this personal autonomy is the basis of capitalism and democracy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in cultural/racial | Print | No Comments »