The economy’s in the very best of hands….

Two “uh-oh” stories:

Some banks unwilling to hand over client-held physical gold and silver?

This is why I am making a deal to take actual delivery of physical silver (coins and ingots) rather than let another party hold it.

A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trading in Derivatives

I worked on Wall Street in the 90’s, and there is nothing the big investment banks ever do that is so unethical as to surprise me. Although the financial industries are very heavily regulated, the big players are much smarter than the regulators. This particular story is not only an example of the big banks outfoxing the regulators, it is a meta-example of how the fox always gets to guard the henhouse — because the players on the committee to regulate derivatives were there precisely because they had created systems so complex that only they could understand them. Normally the government would, as a condition of a bailout, toss out everyone involved in the collapse and replace them with new and untainted managers, who could be counted on to exist. Now everyone who understands the market is implicated, so they get to give themselves a pass. (Not strictly true: as the story makes clear there are smaller, scandal-free players who are still large banks who would like to be at the table, but the big guys managed to get there first and be in a position to exclude the others by further obfuscation and denigration.)

Advertisements

About Polymath

Discoverable with effort
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to The economy’s in the very best of hands….

  1. Polymath says:

    Another “uh-oh” from last week which I could have included in my Three Economic Warnings post:

    NY Times Warning: Blue State Armageddon On The Way

    That piece is about the state debt crisis. The same blogger, Walter Russell Mead, had another very interesting post last week:

    The Crisis of the American Intellectual

    which explains much that has gone wrong and why it is so hard to fix, although I don’t agree with all of it; the comments there are very good.

    Hardly anyone ever clicks on links from here, they only discuss pieces I take the time to excerpt and summarize, but I just don’t have time to do that for these last two pieces; maybe in another day or so I’ll say more, but don’t let that stop you from reading and commenting now.

  2. Alvis Velthomer says:

    Comment on the former link:
    It will be interesting to see if California, New York, and Illionois will go bankrupt, or whether they will manage to kick the can down the road for another two years. California is already well past the demographic point of no return. Its hard to imagine that as much as less as 30 years ago California was a conservative-leaning state, and had Republican presidents such as Nixon and Reagan come out of it. Today, it is one of the most leftist big states in the country. I think the only reason why Ahnold even got elected was due to name recognition and positioning himself as a RINO. The situation is also coming to Texas, however, the difference there is that whites there vote more like a minority bloc.

    Richard Spencer put it quite bluntly to say “conservatism has no future” in the United States. It will be interesting to see what happens when demographic overrrun hits Texas like it has California. Will Republicans dump social conservatism in favor of trying to save the low-taxes and and foreign policy hawk part of their platforms? I think due to how much Americans have put up with the hard left turn in terms of social issues that the disenfranchised right will learn to “suck it up and love it”. Moderns whites don’t fight, they flight. I personally, see the Republicans becoming overtly the “we are a less extreme version of the democrats” party. However, I think that the hegemony of the Left will actually be short-lived in the sense by that in a decade after this happens, the country will have either become bankrupt or degraded into a third-world power and a has-been, resembling Brazil but with less natural resources. I think if that happens there is a could chance the country could very well break up into several different countries. It will be interesting if eventually down the line a White-American Garibaldi will eventually come along once the “white guilt” virus is purged from Western conscious. I think though the vaccine for “white guilt” will have ironically come from “leftist” Europe, before it finally makes it way here.

  3. FortitudineVincimus says:

    Is there any movement/group in favor of deporting illegals en masse?

  4. Alvis Velthomer says:

    To FV: There are absolutely none in the mainstream.

    The thing is that that is seen as “evil and nazi-like”. The labels “nazi” and “racist” are basically simply magical incantations to stop a white person from having any ethnocentric thoughts. They are absolutely the worst things a person can be in the modern West, nevermind that Stalin alone killed almost three times as much people as Hitler, which would make communism a greater evil than nazism, however, I certainly see a lot more neo-commies in academia and the citadels of power than I do even see paleocons. One of our greatest obstacles will be to break to the incantations and the power they hold over the West.

    Secondly, white-Americans do not even see themselves as a single group, and instead divide themselves as being “Red America” and “Blue America”. Until white-Americans come under a single identity that wants to puts its own interests ahead of other ethnic groups, then there will be no mainstream movement to secure the border or put a hold on immigration.

  5. Workshy Joe says:

    Thank you Polymath. Very timely warnings on both precious metals and the big banks that have been naked shorting them. Google “crash JP Morgan”.

  6. FortitudineVincimus says:

    Interesting point, Velthomer.

    I myself have mused over the evils of communisms vs. national socialism.

    I reckon nazis were worse. I believe this because although the slaughter was tremendous, turning mass-murder into an industrial business just strikes me as a different dimension of evil.

  7. Polymath says:

    FV and AV,

    They don’t need to be deported en masse. If we make it impossible to employ them by enforcing ID requirements strongly, a large number will self-deport, and others can be deported as they come into contact with the authorities in some way. It shouldn’t be necessary to round up masses for simultaneous deportation, attrition can work over a few years.

  8. Alvis Velthomer says:

    FV, I don’t think you learned enough about what Stalin and Mao’s regimes did, they were just as sadistic as the Nazis. The difference between the crimes of the nazis and communists, is that there has been a lot less sunlight on what the communists have done compared to the nazis.

  9. Alvis Velthomer says:

    To Polymath:

    I do agree a large number will leave if the environment is made “unfriendly” to them. “Unfriendly” meaning making it illegal to hire illegals, banning birthright citizenship, and banning welfare for illegals. If those three are removed there is absolutely no incentive for them to stay unless they make a living through the gangs or the black market.

  10. FortitudineVincimus says:

    I am not a hard-liner…

    Starving the Ukrainians was probably as ridiculous as it got. Still, the Nazis tried to exterminate entire population groups – not just reduce numbers, or pacify. Extermination for its own sake.

    Communist slaughter was wanton and in enormous numbers, but I don’t think it was ever the actual policy goal to kill everybody.

  11. FortitudineVincimus says:

    And I’m quite familiar with some of the literature, particularly Robert Conquest.

    As for illegals, I imagine deporting 11 million illegal immigrants would solve a great deal of problems, but then we’ll still have a Mexican south-west a generation or two from now.

  12. rebelliousvanilla says:

    FV, the Soviets wanted to exterminate the Germans in my country because of their ethnic origin. This proves how clueless about what exactly the Soviets were doing you are. But again, a properly taught history of WW2 would also show that the US had the intention to impose mass starvation on Germany, which I highly doubt that is in your history books.

    Polymath, too bad you suck at timing and listening to my advice. 😛 I doubt you will ever get $13-14 silver prices ever again.

    If the GOP has any balls, they should let the blue states go bankrupt – with no negotiations on conditions and whatnot.

    Alvis, that’s only a problem because you gave nonwhites the right to vote. 🙂 Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a problem, would it?

  13. Polymath says:

    Here’s a report about a blue state that is going bankrupt real soon:

    New York’s Exploding Pension Costs

    Key quote: NYSTRS and NYSLRS are “fully funded” by government actuarial standards, but we estimate they have combined funding shortfalls of $120 billion when their liabilities are measured using private-sector accounting rules.

    Two insane practices: allowing governments to use much more generous assumptions about investment returns than private companies could in funding their pensions, and using defined-benefit instead of defined-contribution plans. The resulting collapse was predictable, and predicted. In the mid-90’s when I worked in the financial industry I was shocked at the waste of brains involved in constructing fancy mathematical models to plan investment, where the single key variable on which everything else depended, the annual rate of return expected, was simply pulled out of a hat. When I studied for financial exams nobody was ever able to explain why it made sense for some industries to assume their money managers would be permanently smarter than the money managers in other industries who assumed a lower rate.

  14. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Polymath, if you use private sector accounting rules, the US government has $202 trillion in liabilities.

  15. Polymath says:

    That’s different in two ways: because the Feds can print money while the states can’t, and more importantly there is no statutory obligation to pay all those liabilities. Congress can change the social security parameters at any time, while the states have bound themselves to pay the pensions in a stronger legal sense and can be sued if they don’t while there is nothing retirees can do if Social Security benefits are cut.

  16. FortitudineVincimus says:

    RV, I’d like some serious references, specifically as to the US intention to deliberately starve Germans. I’m aware thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Germans died in the winter of ’47, but as far as it being intentional goverment policy, I’ve never heard that.

    Not sure about Romania, but ethnic Germans in the Soviet Union were sent to labor camps, and those Prussia driven West after mass rape of their young women and the deportation of thousands to Soviet labor camps to compensate for labor shortages in the Soviet Union. As horrible a fate as that was, I’m not sure it corresponds to being gassed and cremated.

    In the time alloted (just under six years of war, less than three on the Eastern Front), and in terms of the population groups they were dealing with (Jews, Gypsies, Slavs) the Nazis were far more efficient killers. I don’t think you’d say it was for lack of effort the NKVD didn’t manage to kill a higher percentage of the population groups they dealt with.

    Just calling me “clueless” is not an argument, but if that’s how you validate yourself, we need a new thread.

  17. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Polymath, that doesn’t matter, they’re still liabilities until they recognize that the government is bankrupt.

    FV, I doubt the technological capabilities of the 1940s to cremate millions of people. The whole cremation thing is fishy, even though it’s obvious that the Nazis committed quite their share of genocides. And I hardly care about convincing people online about anything. You can do your own research if you’re interested. It’s not like proving my point will change squat. I do this out of boredom alone.

    And the US ‘cremated’ 250,000 people in three days with the atomic bombs, so I’d hardly preach moral superiority. 🙂

  18. FortitudineVincimus says:

    You don’t have to explain yourself.

    I am not really into the Holocaust debate, except that I would be surprised if it was all a hoax. Like the moon landings. Or September 11th. Even if the general public is easily misled, there are plenty of serious historians out there in politically correct times as these, so that information ought to have gained creedence by now.

    As far as cremating goes, US and British conventional bombing inflicted far heavier losses than the Atomic bombs, yet Hirohito himself ended the war in hitherto unseen opposition to Japan’s military leadership just days later, specifically stating the bombs as the reason for doing so. Maybe, as many Americans (such as Herbert Hoover) have held, victory could’ve come in a different way, but probably not with fewer than 250,000 more Japanese killed, and almost certainly at a higher cost to the US. Having started the whole affair, I would not be overly concerned with what price Japan paid for defeat as long as victory was achieved with lowest possible loss of American lives. I know many American, Dutch, British and Chinese POWs are glad the War ended when it did, weeks or days away from dying of starvation, or murder, as they were.
    Discussing the merits of the Strategic Bombing campaign is a a seperate discussion.

    I simply hold National Socialism is worse than Communism,which is worse than Democracy, which is the least tragic of all.

  19. rebelliousvanilla says:

    FV, I’m unsure why you consider communism worse considering that Stalin alone killed more people per year than Hitler did. Let alone all the rapes and so on that the Nazis never did. Not that Nazism is a serious ideology that has to be considered, it is completely idiotic.

    And I’m not sure why you consider that you needed total victory over Japan. This is like saying that oh, it’s not their fault that so many people died in WW2 since the UK and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around, so everything they did was justified. It’s a ridiculous assertion to make. Also, it’s funny that the US treated the POWs the worst after the Soviets(who outright killed their own former POWs lol) and you bring them up.

    I’m not really in the Holocaust debate thing either, since all sides are motivated by the truth not being found out, so I simply don’t consider a historical event anything about it that hasn’t been proven. For example, the existence of concentration camps is proven, the gassing thing isn’t. So it’s not that I don’t consider the Nazis a bunch of war criminals – but I don’t really see them as any worse than any other country who took part in the war. Obviously, if America wouldn’t pose as the morally superior country related to WW2, nobody would really care about what you did during it, since that’s pretty much how total war goes.

  20. Polymath says:

    It doesn’t matter exactly how the European Jews died, they were there in 1933 and not in 1945 and the Nazis are obviously responsible. All the debates about gas chambers and so on are beside the point, because it is undeniable that the Nazi high command wanted them dead as a matter of policy, as the Wannsee minutes proved. Whether they worked them to death or starved them to death or shot them or gassed them or some combination is irrelevant.

    The atom bombs were no more immoral than strategic bombing in general is. They undoubtedly saved lives in the sense of ending the war with less loss of life on both sides than would otherwise have occurred, and they are the only way “total victory” could have been achieved, but we could have simply left Japan bottled up on their home islands, having re-established naval and air superiority.

    Pragmatically speaking, total victory was justified because Japan became a normal country again and a very valuable trading partner and ally, and the Japanese are a lot better off than if we had declared a truce and let the militarists stay in power. The moral problems associated with the atomic bombing are real and I am not minimizing them, but they are not of the same order as the moral violations committed by the Nazis, Communists, and Japanese militarists.

    You owe FV more of an explanation on the starvation issue. Basically, the allied armies in control of Europe after the war did not make major efforts to redistribute food to prevent Germans from starving, which they could have done if they had wanted to. The people in countries the Germans had conquered were given preference over the Germans in all aid-related matters, and the magnitude of this preference was extreme enough that Germans starved so that people who were not German, but who were not starving, would get more food. The allied commanders were probably aware that this tradeoff was occurring.

  21. FortitudineVincimus says:

    I actually thinking gassing and cremating was dimension of cruelty onto itself.

    Don’t forget the pyschological damage murder on such scale does to the offenders. It’s easier to stuff 1,000 people into a gas chamber, then an oven, not having to listen to their screams, nor spatter their blood over your uniform, then to have to put a bullet in each individual’s head as they did at Babi Yar.

    Actually, Wikipedia, with which I am becoming more and more impressed, has an article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_food_policy_in_occupied_Germany

    And I don’t consider any “ideology” to be serious.

    Total victory over Japan was just how the Allies defined victory, so that’s what it would take and the Japanese were too proud to accept that so we just had to nuke them. As a patriot and cynical pro-American I take the ridiculous view that should it ever again come to War between the US and any other state (or organization), victory should be achieved with the following priorities in mind:

    1) Achieve all military objectives
    2) Do so at minimum loss of life and resources to the US up to including inflicting maximum loss of life and resources on the enemy
    3) Do so at minimum loss of life and resources to the enemy

    In other words, get the job done. Do so at a low cost to ourselves, even if it means high cost to the enemy. Do so at low cost to the enemy.

    I really don’t know what would’ve been best in terms of victory over Japan, although the SONY CD player my father bought in 1985 was probably a nice side-effect of dropping those bombs.

  22. Polymath says:

    That Wikipedia article was good. I knew the Americans had let Germans starve, but I had not realized how overtly they had prevented private aid from reaching the Germans. That was inexcusable, because it wasn’t just preferentially allocating resources to non-Germans.

  23. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Polymath, I don’t excuse the Nazis – I did say they were scum. But if they are to be responsible for the death of the people they killed, everyone in WW2 is, including the US. The point I’m trying to make isn’t that the Nazis were somehow heroes, it’s that everyone involved in WW2 was a genocidal horrid person and if the Nuremberg trials actually applied the law equally, all the people involved in it would have been executed for war crimes as defined by the Hague and Geneva conventions. And if people like FV make a point related to how the Nazis killed them, then it does matter how they died. And working people to death has been done by all the sides in WW2, some doing it even after the war ended. I’d like to point out to others, since you already know, that I find all the rambling about WW2 and so on unproductive and I find people who are moved by its symolism part of the problem, not the solution.

    And strategic bombing doesn’t involve killing so many civilians. Also, I’m not so sure who Americans are to define what a normal country is. 😉 The way I see it, it was done simply to enforce American influence in the region – not that much different than the German invasion of CZ or Poland. This whole talk about morality is just postwar propaganda that the victors afford so that they don’t feel bad about themselves. Sort of like the Romans had defensive wars when they were expanding their empire.

    FV, if you dig more, you will find even more horrible things did by the Allies in Europe. And don’t worry, the history books in my country portray the Allies as good people too, so I went through a few epiphanies myself. As I stopped having progressive values though, America became less and less sugar and spice and all things nice.

  24. Polymath says:

    We are mostly agreeing but you’re overlooking some subtleties.

    And if people like FV make a point related to how the Nazis killed them, then it does matter how they died. And working people to death has been done by all the sides in WW2, some doing it even after the war ended.

    The point is the Nazis directly intended the deaths of the Jews as a matter of policy. It’s not how that matters, it’s why. And I’m not saying Americans weren’t guilty of some of this, but as far as *intended* deaths were concerned there is an enormous difference of scale.

    And strategic bombing doesn’t involve killing so many civilians.

    Yes it does, this is a terminological issue, that is exactly what “strategic” bombing means as opposed to “tactical” bombing which is directed at military targets. And civilians died just as massively in places like Dresden and Hamburg and the Japanese cities that were firebombed. I’m not defending it, just saying that morally it was similar to the atom bombs.

    Also, I’m not so sure who Americans are to define what a normal country is. The way I see it, it was done simply to enforce American influence in the region – not that much different than the German invasion of CZ or Poland.

    Not arguing about that, I was using the term “normal country” to refer to the fact that as far as Japan was concerned, the consequences of the occupation were good and resulted in probably the most desirable outcome possible.

    This whole talk about morality is just postwar propaganda that the victors afford so that they don’t feel bad about themselves. Sort of like the Romans had defensive wars when they were expanding their empire.

    I agree that you should only talk about morality with reference to a pre-existing code and not ex post facto. But you can have a defensive expansion if you have hostile barbarians raiding you who need to be defeated and pacified so they will stop raiding you.

    FV, if you dig more, you will find even more horrible things did by the Allies in Europe. And don’t worry, the history books in my country portray the Allies as good people too, so I went through a few epiphanies myself. As I stopped having progressive values though, America became less and less sugar and spice and all things nice.

    True, but we didn’t invent Nazism or Communism or start world wars. Europe destroyed itself with the world wars and Communism, if we are to blame for your current progressivism it is only because you screwed up so badly and so violently. America may not be perfect or even good, but we were right to see Germany and Japan as enemies and fight them, and right to oppose Communism until it fell.

  25. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Ah, I just remembered why I decided I don’t do politics anymore. The problem was that Europeans didn’t ally each other to destroy America in the 19th century. This was the mistake Europeans made. Should have put the colonists under trial for genocide for what they did to the Amerindians. 🙂

  26. FortitudineVincimus says:

    Ha, I always laugh at that one.

    American Indians were butchering each other long before whites showed up. And they had as many different languages and nations as there were in Europe. They were only too happy to have the French or British helping them out wiping out the next tribe.

    But yeah, I totally agree, the American State is in no way any kind of saint. No one is. We can just be thankful it was the Anglo-American civilization that rose to prominence when it did. I doubt anyone could’ve hoped for any better, given the alternatives. On numerous occasions has it been within America’s power to annihilate her enemies with efficiency the Romans, Turks, Nazis and Japanese could only dream of and would’ve loved to been able to do, yet our “evil” leaders have yet to do so. Why?

    RV, if you want to know more about how to define the concept of a “Just War” per our morailty argument, St. Thomas Aquinas lays the foundation for a sensible doctrine.

  27. FortitudineVincimus says:

    This actually just reminded me of a topic that it would be interesting for PolyMath to address:

    Nations rise and fall, often at the expense of each other. The US took it out on Britain, Spain, Mexico, the Native Americans and the African slaves.

    The Brits conquered 2/5ths of the world’s land mass.

    The Jews conquered and annexed lands held by Arabs, and they certainly didn’t mind the Arabs fleeing (if not ouright “encouraging” them to).

    We tacitly accept this, yet cry out when Islam tries to do the same. What’s the difference?

  28. Polymath says:

    The difference is that Islam is totalitarian. There would be similar objections to being conquered by North Korea now or the Soviet Union in 1945 or China in 1965 or Germany in 1940 (Germany in 1940 would be the least bad of these if you weren’t Jewish).

  29. rebelliousvanilla says:

    FV, I see any war as being just. So I hardly care about the Amerindians at all. I would have done that just to spite idiots in America who feel morally superior. I hardly give a damn about Christian ethics and the last thing I’d apply them to is war. This is why Turkey exists nowadays and it was never retaken – because Christianity is a religion for women and slaves in terms of morality.

    And by the way, if 50% of the opinion leaders, 20% of Congress and 30% of the Supreme Court were Muslim, you’d see them support the Palestinians too.

    Polymath, I see no difference, actually, besides Muslims being terribly stupid at public relations, while Jews aren’t. It’s obvious that Americans don’t really mind ethnic cleansing and so on, as long as groups the US likes or ideologies that Americans are fond of are the ones doing it. It’s bad only if others do it too. And I don’t see this as generally bad, since I reject universalism, but it does make you a hypocrite if you do support universalism in the same time.

  30. Polymath says:

    Don’t be disingenuous, you would mind living under Sharia much more than if you lived in Israel or a colonized part of the British empire. That’s more than “public relations”.

  31. rebelliousvanilla says:

    By the way, why does it matter where I’d live? I’d much rather live in Hong Kong than in any part of the European or Anglo world. I suppose I should ask the Chinese to ethnically cleanse Europe then. 🙂

  32. FortitudineVincimus says:

    Of course you give a damn about Christian ethics. By having any ethical standard at all, you by definition give a damn.

    If you really were impartial, you would forfeit the privilige to ever object to anything. At least without also being a hypocrite.

    I’d also venture to correct ethnic cleansing is OK if the politically correct establishment has OK’d it. Why Iraqi Christians and Darfur Christians are persecuted, but we don’t bomb Sudan or the Shiites, yet we bomb the Serbs when they persecute their Albanian minorities. If we must have a double standard, that is the worst one to have.

    Imagine China and Russia bombing the US when we decide we have to send the Mexicans home, then slicing up the South-west and declaring it an independent state. Russia’s war against Georgia was hardly any different than America’s war against Milosovic in foreign policy terms.

  33. rebelliousvanilla says:

    I have an ethical standard, but I don’t see Christian ethics as anything good, especially in terms of war. And America is for all intents and purposes the PC establishment. And Russia’s war against Georgia was different. But like all Americans, you’re clueless about how this region works, yet you talk like a geopolitical strategist.

  34. FortitudineVincimus says:

    I really don’t recall talking about how the Balkans work. What are you talking about?

    Enlighten me as to how Russia’s war was different? Small nationalist minority is giving central government trouble, central government steps in, big outsider bombs central government. Might makes right. What am I missing?

    And yes, I see the same thing, America has been thoroughly hijacked by the PC establishment with has helped shed light on truths previously hidden, and surpressed other truths in its place. In that way they’re only marginally better than the Spanish Inquisition. I wonder if it would ever be possible to have a society where the truth was always told.

  35. Polymath says:

    Russia’s war against Georgia wasn’t as bad as America’s war against Milosevic. That war was the worst American war I can think of, in terms of lack of justification. Seeing Republicans support Clinton in that war was when I stopped thinking of myself as a Republican. Only 21 Senators opposed the bombing of Serbia (vote 5/26/99):
    Allard (R-Col.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Burns (R-Mont.), Cleland (D-Ga.), Craig (R-Idaho), Crapo (R-Idaho), Enzi (R-Wyo.), Feingold (D-Wis.), Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), Gramm (R-Tex.), Grassley (R-Iowa), Gregg (R- N.H.), Helms (R-N.C.), Hutchinson (R-Ark.), Inhofe (R-Okl.), Nickles (R-Okla.), Santorum (R-Penn.), Sessions (R-Ala.), Thurmond (R-S.C.), and Voinovich (R-Ohio).

    Note that ONLY TWO Democrats opposed Clinton’s war. The 19 Republicans who opposed it were mostly from the “conservative wing” of the party.

    I was appalled but unsurprised by the Bush’s final betrayal of the Serbs in February 2008 when he recognized Kosovo’s declaration of independence. Interestingly, Kosovo still doesn’t appear on most maps of Europe and in most lists of countries. Only 72 of 192 UN members have recognized it.

    Non-recognizers include China, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Mexico, Nigeria, Bangladesh, 9 of the 11 countries with populations over 100,000,000 — only the U.S. and Japan among these 11 have recognized Kosovo. (Germany and Turkey are the only other countries in the top 20 to have recognized Kosovo, so 80% of the 20 most populous countries don’t recognize it, and those 16 countries already include 61.6% of the world’s population.)

    I remember very well that both Democrats and Republicans proclaimed that Kosovo would remain part of Serbia at the time of the war and stated they were only intervening for to prevent the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from repression. NOBODY in the media pointed out that in 2008 the U.S’s recognition represented a diplomatic about-face and a violation of the UN Resolution 1244 which formally ended the war. in 1999. No politicians complained about the betrayal. Did they all think we couldn’t remember back 10 years?

  36. FortitudineVincimus says:

    Obviously, yes.

    Poor BUsh was trying to score points with the muslims. This is going to come back and bite us in the ass.

  37. Alvis Velthomer says:

    Hey since we are on the topic of Kosovo, the prime minister of Kosovo is the head of an organ and fire arms trafficking ring, and most of the organs these freaks harvest are from Serbs. Don’t you feel great that our tax dollars put a corrupt islamic state in the heart of Europe. Seriously, I wonder when leftists will realize that America is a force for leftism despite their rhetoric as America being a “racist power”. I hate how leftists consistently like to portray themselves as the underdog despite having control over everything.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/14/kosovo-prime-minister-llike-mafia-boss

  38. Polymath says:

    Alvis, here’s a related article:

    HOLBROOKE’S LEGACY: A GANGSTER REGIME IN KOSOVO

    The mainstream media’s obituaries of Holbrooke correctly call him the most important diplomat of his generation but don’t talk about this. And he wasn’t just carrying out the policy of his bosses, he was a major force behind it. He’s a good example of American arrogance; I’ll give him some credit for the Dayton peace accords which ended the Bosnia war, because his diplomatic skills resulted in something fairly acceptable to all sides, but his basic attitude was that other countries should do what we ask them to because we’re both always right and unafraid to bomb those who oppose us. (In other words, failing to make the distinction between opponents and enemies that is necessary for long-term political and geopolitical success.)

    Domestically, the opponent-enemy distinction is also critical — the Democrats started treating the Republicans as enemies instead of opponents in the late 60’s and the Republicans only understood this starting in the Clinton years and only fully understood it during Bush’s administration. Globally, the Obama administration is so bad it not only can’t tell opponents from enemies, it can’t even tell friends from enemies.

  39. Alvis Velthomer says:

    I would argue that the Republicans still view the Democrats as a competing corporation. Republicans (and most of the “right” since World War II) have a business mindsight that view politics as industry believing that “marketing” their message the right way convinces (and that is where most of their success since World War II lies, with the only other cause being if there was a disastrous left-wing government). They view election trends only in terms of the next election cycle. The farthest they look is four years (basically the next fiscal year in terms of politics).

    By contrast, the left tends to view politics as a sort of holy war, and its enemies as being dark priests or scum worthy of being killed. For them, politics does not end on Election Day, every day is election day for the leftist, both grassroots and elite. They view the long-term, and while they may be frustrated that the things they want are not going as fast as they want them to, the ones who have a brain realize they will eventually win. They are also much bolder in terms of their red-meat issues than the right is, and much more willing to get legislation enacted for their agenda even if it costs them a backlash on the officially designated election day (which does not matter for leftists, because for them every day is election day). Everything in their lives must conform to their political beliefs, whether it be the entertainment they watch, and the education they receive, whereas rightists are merely content to vote for someone who only pays lip service to their ideas and simply view a right-leaning news outlet if one is available. The Left will actually protest things that do not support their cultural view, whereas only a few rightists might actually write a letter of complaint if something truly incendiary is said or done.

    There also exists much more enthusiasm among the left since the end of World War II, which is why they have been consistently winning. The only major victory for the Right since World War II was the fall of communism, and that was not so much due to the efforts of the Right (though they did play a role, thought it was not the most significant) but rather due to laws of economics and human nature biting communist regimes in the ass.

    The Left has multiple things it can rally behind which are “Universalism”, “Equality”, against “Racism”, “Social Justice”, and “Diversity”. There have been multiple victories on this front for the past 100 years, so it is east for leftists to relate their present struggles with their past victories.

    By contrast, the Right only rallies behind “God” and “religion” which today have been reduced to merely a sexually restrictive version of the things that leftists fight for. (not to mention the Left has been fighting tooth and nail against God thereby clawing way the last thing the Anglo-West rallies behind). Sure there are some things that there are rallied behind to a lesser extent such as “the flag”, however, they never really define (or know) what “the flag” stands for, and even less know what it currently stands for today (the things that the Left currently fights for). Outside of the collapse of communism, there has been no significant victory for the Rightists to draw from, and most Rightists do not compare their current plight to that under communism (where “incorrect” thoughts were also punished). As such, the Right has no victories within memory for which to rally itself on. It has become such a desperate joke that it has elevated Reagan onto the level of a sort of saint (he was conservative, but definitely not a reactionary), and placed vapid fools like Palin as a sort of general for their cause. It also does not help that the Right is extremely fractured. For example, Leftists consider both Traditionalists and Libertarians to be “right-wing extremists”, however, outside of taxes and maybe a smaller federal government, they are not really allied to one another.

    The key is enthusiasm and youth. The American Right recently got a shot in the arm in the former, but still has a mortal deficiency in the latter. The youth are the ones who will eventually run the country, and contrary to popular belief they usually do not change their beliefs (but rather they become “conservative” over time due to the rest of society becoming much more leftist compared to them). Since God and “the flag” offer little to today’s youth, why shouldn’t they be leftist? They would be taking part in the winning side and from what they have been told since they were dropped off in a school, “the good guys”. The biggest rallying cry the Right had besides religion was “blood and soil” or ethnonationalism. Social issues can only be defined if they are construed as being tied to that of a people. That is the reason why Japan and China are much more hardline against things like homosexuality and immigration because they see their opposition to such things as being tied to their “ethnos” and not religion, like the Right in the West has. Due to the evaporation of ethnonationalism, the Right no longer had a foundation from which to mount a worthy opposition, basing all of their resistance behind the House of Cards that is “economics” and de-fanged “religion”.

    If there is ever going to be a Reactionary Right, it will have to begin among people who totally reject this culture and society and see it something as wicked and worthy of hate, much like the Left has. From there, perhaps one can discover that the key to changing the world begins with knowing who you are, both as a person individually, as a person tribally, and a person spiritually.

  40. Polymath says:

    Alvis, epic comment. Lots to think about. I somewhat disagree with this:

    The youth are the ones who will eventually run the country, and contrary to popular belief they usually do not change their beliefs (but rather they become “conservative” over time due to the rest of society becoming much more leftist compared to them).

    The society moving left accounts for some of it, but having to work for a living and forming a family naturally makes people more conservative, and empirically-minded people also become more conservative as they notice that the left’s solutions don’t work. Most people are not empirically minded, but most people do form families and work for a living, so there is a real drift of individuals rightward that is not merely relative to the society moving leftward. The overall leftward movement is because the young people start out further left and don’t drift as far right as their parents did, but the typical person still becomes less leftist over time.

    The only way to fix this is to take over the education system and entertainment industry so the young people aren’t pushed so far to the left by the time they’re 18 and able to vote. Taking over the government is less important than this in the long run.

  41. Alvis Velthomer says:

    Your comment about people becoming more “down to eath” upon family formation may be true, however, it is also important to realize that both marriage and family formation are down, especially among whites. Also, people are increasingly employed by the public sector which is dependent upon government largess and taxation of the private sector. I remember reading a poll about a year ago and it said something like 70% of college graduates want to work in the public sector over the private sector. For these two reasons alone, there would be less people getting a reality check later in life.

    Also, your comment about reactionaries trying to take back education and entertainment is true. However, the leftists have construed all sorts of forts and trenches around the establishments for both. Its for this reason that perhaps an alternative establishment might have to be done (which could be done for education in the way of homeschooling). However, education will be increasingly difficult to control as demographics become increasingly more dire. There are hardly any rightists (let along reactionaries) left in entertainment of any kind or type, though I do believe upon until a few decades ago there were still some strongly traditionalist novelists and writers about.

    I personally think the 2010 was the Battle of the Bulge by the current American Right, the last advance by them. Alternative Right has already gone in-depth for this, so I will not elaborate. The key will be to see what the Republican Freshmen do from 2011-2012 and to see whether they are the same ones from 2000-20008. Personally, I think we might see a few bright spots among them, however, I don’t expect much outside of being relatively obstructionists.

    The Left has been consistently taunting recently that all the Right has are “Old White Men” and taunting that they will all die off soon. The Left arrogantly chuckles on its throne, with a big smug smirk on its face while resting its knuckle upon its titling leering visage. However, much like how no one 100 years ago would have seen the West becoming the state it is in today, the Left will probably be shocked to learn what “Old White Men” can do when the chips are down.

  42. Pingback: The Snake Of Kosovo | Centurean2′s Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s