Here is a nicely written non-partisan article which describes how the immigration issue is buthchered by corrupt politicians.  Over and over again, Americans poll that they want the borders closed down and illegal immigrants approached instead of ignored or legalized, but over and over again, the leaders of the establishment are very reluctant to do what should be very easy.

In their desperation, President Barack Obama and senators with large Latino populations in their states (like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.) are seeking to polarize Hispanic and Anglo sentiment over the issue of illegal immigration. In his frequent messages calling for higher Latino and black turnout and his condemnation of the Arizona immigration law, Obama is trying to recapture over immigration the voter approval he lost over healthcare.

Arizona acted as it did because of a lack of federal enforcement of federal law barring undocumented immigrants. With a porous border, they felt that they were left no choice but to pass a law allowing potentially intrusive searches to ferret out illegal immigrants. Because this law could subject American citizens of Hispanic origin to undue scrutiny and perhaps to needless trips to the police station, the Arizona law antagonizes the jump ball in the immigration debate — Latino-American voters. If there were a real national identification card, the requirement to produce papers might be less intrusive. But, as it is, with the burden of proof on the citizen (or the illegal immigrant), the law is bound to raise tensions between Anglo cops and Latino citizens.

But being forced to support or oppose the Arizona law is a false choice. It reflects the unimaginative politics of confrontation that jeopardize race relations and elect demagogues like Barack Obama. (Obama’s share of the white vote was the same as Kerry won in 2004. He was elected only because of a three-point increase in black turnout and a shift in Latino votes to his corner. He won because of race, and now he schemes to keep control of Congress by using the immigration issue.)

The real answer is not to round up Latinos in the streets of Phoenix and hope to catch illegals in the net. Nor is it even to pretend that we can stop determined men and women from crossing the border by way of more guards, more troops and better equipment. The answer is to dry up the will to cross the border in the first place by stopping employers from offering jobs to undocumented workers. If there were felony penalties — jail time — for hiring illegals, they would not be hired. And if there were no jobs, there would be no illegal immigration.

The Republican position on illegal immigration should be to demand tough employer sanctions, including jail, and coupling that program with a vigorous guest-worker program to bring needed workers in legally, pay them a living wage and then escort them out when they are no longer needed. The United States, in need of a younger population to pay for our current and future retirees, should also raise the allowed levels of immigration.

Both parties are hypocritical on immigration. Democrats, controlled by unions, want Latinos to vote but not work. Republicans, controlled by agribusiness interests, want them to work but not vote. The answer is to stand up to union and to agribusiness pressure and take tough action to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants.

If there were no jobs for illegals outside of guest-worker programs, there would be no need for amnesty. They would all go home of their own accord or wait until they got legal status.

We would need a foolproof, biometric identity card to speed identification of those eligible for employment to accompany the sanctions against hiring illegals, but this is a small price to pay for an answer to so pressing a problem.

But Obama will not take the step that could end illegal immigration. Why? Because he wants immigration. He seeks to reshape the partisan balance in America by increasing the number of Latino voters and marrying them to the Democratic Party by provoking Republicans who just want law and order to appear racist to Hispanic-Americans. His is a game of great duplicity and racial opportunism. But good legislation can defeat his designs and solve one of our most pressing domestic problems at the same time.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government on Friday accused Wall Street’s most powerful firm of fraud, saying Goldman Sachs & Co. sold mortgage investments without telling the buyers that the securities were crafted with input from a client who was betting on them to fail.

And fail they did. The securities cost investors close to $1 billion while helping Goldman client Paulson & Co., a hedge fund, capitalize on the housing bust. The Goldman executive accused of shepherding the deal allegedly boasted about the “exotic trades” he created “without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities!!!”

The civil charges filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission are the government’s most significant legal action related to the mortgage meltdown that ignited the financial crisis and helped plunge the country into recession.

The news sent Goldman Sachs shares and the stock market reeling as the SEC said other financial deals related to the meltdown continue to be investigated. It was a blow to the reputation of a financial giant that had emerged relatively unscathed from the economic crisis.

Goldman Sachs denied the allegations. In a statement, it called the SEC’s charges “completely unfounded in law and fact” and said it will contest them.

The SEC is seeking to recoup the money lost by investors and impose unspecified civil fines against Goldman Sachs and the executive, Fabrice Tourre. The SEC could enter into settlement negotiations over the amount if Goldman changed its stance and decided not to fight the charges in a trial.

The SEC said Paulson paid Goldman roughly $15 million in 2007 to devise an investment tied to mortgage-related securities that the hedge fund viewed as likely to decline in value. Separately, Paulson took out a form of insurance that allowed it to make a huge profit when those securities’ value plunged.

The fraud allegations focus on how Goldman sold the securities. Goldman told investors that a third party, ACA Management LLC, had selected the pools of subprime mortgages it used to create the securities. The securities are known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations.

The SEC alleges that Goldman misled investors by failing to disclose that Paulson & Co. also played a role in selecting the mortgage pools and stood to profit from their decline in value. Two European banks that bought the securities lost nearly $1 billion, the SEC said.

“Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party,” SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami said in a statement.

But Goldman said in a statement that it never mischaracterized Paulson’s strategy in the transaction. It added that it wasn’t obliged to “disclose the identities of a buyer to a seller and vice versa.”

The charges name only Goldman Sachs and Tourre, who was a vice president in his late 20s when the alleged fraud was orchestrated in 2007. Tourre, the SEC said, boasted to a friend that he was able to put such deals together as the mortgage market was unraveling in early 2007.

In an e-mail to the friend, he described himself as “the fabulous Fab standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities!!!”

Tourre, 31, has since been promoted to executive director of Goldman Sachs International in London.

Stanford University spokeswoman Elaine Ray said a student by the name of Fabrice Tourre received a master’s degree in management science and engineering from the school in 2001.

A call to a lawyer for Tourre, Pamela Chepiga at Allen & Overy LLP, wasn’t returned.

Asked why the SEC did not also pursue a case against Paulson, Khuzami said: “It was Goldman that made the representations to investors. Paulson did not.”

Paulson & Co. is run by John Paulson, who reaped billions by betting against subprime mortgage securities. He is not related to former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former Goldman CEO.

John Paulson was among the first on Wall Street to bet heavily against subprime mortgages. His firm earned more than $15 billion in 2007, and he pocketed $3.7 billion. He has since earned billions more, largely by betting against bank stocks and then buying them back after their shares plunged.

In a statement, Paulson & Co. said: “As the SEC said at its press conference, Paulson is not the subject of this complaint, made no misrepresentations and is not the subject of any charges.”

Goldman, founded more than 140 years ago, built a reputation as a trusted adviser to investment banking clients and for sending top executives into presidential Cabinet posts.

In recent years, it shifted toward taking more risks with its clients’ money and its own. Goldman’s trading allowed the firm to weather the financial crisis better than most other big banks. It earned a record $4.79 billion in the last quarter of 2009.

The complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan “undermines their brand,” said Simon Johnson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Goldman critic. “It undermines their political clout. I don’t think anybody really values being connected to Goldman at this point.”

He continued: “There are many people who — until this morning — thought Goldman Sachs was well-run.”

The SEC’s enforcement chief said the agency is investigating a wide range of practices related to the crisis. The prospect of possible legal jeopardy for other major financial players roiled the stock market.

Goldman Sachs shares fell more than 12 percent Goldman and lost $14.2 billion in market capitalization. The Dow Jones industrial average finished down more than 125 points.

The SEC appears to be taking a particularly aggressive approach with Goldman. Typically, cases are resolved by firms agreeing to a settlement before the charges are made public, said John Coffee, a securities law professor at Columbia University.

“The SEC has changed its style,” Coffee said. “They wanted to tell the world what they thought Goldman had done wrong.”

The charges come as lawmakers seek to crack down on Wall Street practices that helped cause the financial crisis. Congress is considering tougher rules for complex investments like those involved in the alleged Goldman fraud.

President Barack Obama vowed Friday to veto a financial overhaul bill that doesn’t regulate mortgage-backed securities and other so-called derivatives. Legislation in Congress would for the first time regulate derivatives, whose value depends on an underlying asset, such as mortgages or stocks. Senate Republicans oppose the bill.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is “pleased that the SEC is departing from the lax enforcement of the Bush administration and is returning to the SEC’s proper role of protecting investors in the marketplace,” spokesman Steven Adamske said.

The biggest loser in the alleged fraud was ABN Amro, a major Dutch bank, and the Royal Bank of Scotland, which acquired major portions of it in 2007. The SEC said the Royal Bank of Scotland paid Goldman $841 million to unwind ABN transactions.

IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, a German commercial bank, lost nearly all its $150 million investment, the agency said. Most of the money the banks lost went to Paulson in a series of transactions between Goldman and the hedge fund, the SEC said.

IKB was an early casualty of the financial crisis. It issued a profit warning in 2007 saying it had been hurt by U.S. subprime mortgage investments. IKB was sold in 2008 to Dallas-based Lone Star Funds.

Ed Trissel, a spokesman for Lone Star Funds, declined to comment on the case.

The SEC charges come after Goldman Sachs denied last week it that bet against clients by selling them mortgage-backed securities while reducing its own exposure to them.

In an annual letter to shareholders, Goldman said it began reducing its exposure to the U.S. mortgage market in late 2006.

AP Business Writers Alan Zibel in Washington, Stevenson Jacobs in New York and Ashley M. Heher in Chicago contributed to this report.

Venezuela’s extreme leftist president Hugo Chavez recently took aim at the PlayStation and non-indigenous toys in his weekly radio-TV show, Alo Presidente. According to the AFP, Chavez stated, “Those games they call ‘PlayStation’ are poison. Some games teach you to kill.” El Presidente had previously knocked Nintendo for promoting “selfishness, individualism and violence.” He believes video games reinforce capitalism which, of course, is “the road to hell.”

Chavez would like to see Venezuela making “educational games” instead of Super Murder Simulator VI and “little indigenous dolls” in place of Barbie. Venezuela’s (sometimes paranoid) government outlawed violent games last October in an effort to curb the country’s extremely high violent crime rate.

Hugo Chavez has attacked my two Corporate darlings – Sony and Nintendo.

May fascist corporate technocracy prevail over phony egalitarian socialism that appeals to bullshit religious values.

Mr. Hussein is a strong advocate of progress under the banner of secularism and a united Arab destiny. Mr. Hussein believes that a dictatorial government that force-feeds modernization is a shortcut to progress. He is convinced that such an approach will catapult the backward Arab world, starting with Iraq, into the next century.
-New York Times

The Ba’athist movment was and is clearly run by mainly Caucasoid Arabs (of course there is some racial variation), of Mediterranean appearance in Syria and of partial Iranid mixture in Iraq, who claim religious beliefs from Christianity, to Islam, to atheism, to even Judaism. It was a Jewish mother who convinced Saddam Hussein’s mother not to abort him. While many Muslims participate, an important point in their worldview is the separation of church and state. Ba’thists enthusiastically embrace secularism and technological progress and oppose Sharia law. In addition, the Iraqi Ba’athists embraced the Soviet Union, logically becoming allies of third positionists as nationalists who are conscious of the dangers of capitalism. The Ba’thist Arabs were not religious fanatics but progressive Human Beings. “American” imperialists targeted the Ba’athists not because they were a theological threat, but out of Corporate greed. There was no link between Al-Qaeda and Ba’athism, so the war was fought under false pretenses.

Arab Ba’thists strongly resisted and continue to resist a global capitalist structure that not only keeps them enslaved but also the majority of the world. Hence, Arab Ba’thists and their American, European and Israeli Third Positionist brothers should work actively together to smash imperialistic ideologies like capitalism, Shia fundamentalism, Sunni fundamentalism and mainstream Torah Zionism (secular Zionism is okay) wherever possible! HAIL the heroic Ba’athists! Only those who do not understand the material falsehoods of Abrahamic theology do not appreciate the hard work that they did for the betterment of progressive thinking. The accomplishments of the Arab Ba’athists should be remembered by any self-respecting race realist and anti-capitalist nationalist.

While the Middle East, North Africa and Near East are now enslaved by a reactionary religion, at one point Arabs were major contributors to paganism and technical progress. Saddam Hussein set out to progress his people scientifically at the expense of religion in the same way that Stalin did!  The regime in Israel which the Ba’thists opposed was nothing but a puppet for American interests.  America stabbed Saddam Hussein in the back, and logically he had to respond with defiance.  But this does not mean that Saddam Hussein was fixated on killing Jews.  Being a secular man, I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein was open minded enough to embrace the right Israel if it wasn’t aligned against his interests behind America.

How do Clerics view the Ba’athists? As traitors to Islam who need to be decapitated!

HAIL the Ba’athist Arabs! Good fascists most of them… HAIL the ideology and the pragmatic results of its applications!

Some Arabs supported the Ba’thist Revolution to liberate the Arabs from the possibility of encroaching Sharia Law while others chose to side with the non-Arab South Asians who worship an Arabian religion in Iran.  The Ba’thist Arabs that sacrificed their lives to aid the destruction of Sharia law and liberal capitalism were spiritually connected to Europeans and secular Israelis that fought for the same goal.  It is absolutely correct to distinguish between good Arabs and bad Arabs. It is retarded to throw all Arabs into the same pot, declaring them enemies of progressive civilization. After all, historical evidence suggests otherwise. Besides, many Arabs were and are similar to Europeans, both culturally and racially.  All were pagan and now all are ruled by Abraham’s creed (Christianity, Judaism and Islam come from Abraham)! Physically, Bashar al-Assad is the president of Syria, and he is DEFINITELY Mediterranean in appearance, similar to a person in Southern Europe. Is Saddam Hussein non-White? No. Is Ralph Nader non-White? No. Is Steve Jobbs non-White? No.

Arabs as a group are not the enemy.  Massive immigration of Arabs into Europe, and Islamic imperialism are the enemy, but not Arabs in a physical sense just because they are Arabs. Theocratic nuts are the enemy. Failing to realize the genetic link between Europe and the Middle East is anthropology for a crippled mind. A lot of Arabs look Mediterranean in appearance, a few are actually blondish, and a few have a particular “Arabid” type which is still Caucasoid. There are, however, negroids who live in Arab countries and have mixed, and they should not be confused with the indigenous Arabs. In the case of Iraq, Iranian admixture is present (Persians are not Arabs).  There is variation in phenotype internal to the Arab linguistic group just like there is variation in phenotype internal to the Hispanic linguistic group, Soviet Geographical group and American geographical group.  Nevertheless the majority of Arabs are Caucasoid, with some variation in appearance from the Peninsula to the Gulf to the fertile crescent.

Islam is a reactionary religion. Iraq was a secular state and therefore indefinitely more progressive than the Islamic “republics” surrounding it. Most Arabs in Iraq opposed sharia law while other Muslims are religious fanatics. Why a socialist should support religious fanatics instead of rational secularists is beyond me. Ba’thism is a beacon of communitarianism. This is why it is necessary that Arabs orient themselves towards either Ba’thism or Social Nationalism (another secular party in Syria) instead of towards a capitalist liberalist AmeriKa or Sharia law. Social nationalists fringe movements and mainstream Ba’thist movements are trying to push Arabs in that direction. Only modernism can guarantee communitarian stability in the Middle East, if necessary by force. After all, it has been conclusively proven that hardcore Muslims are incapable of uniting themselves, for whatever cause. Muslims are by nature tribal and factional but Saddam Hussein brought many people together under his rule. Ba’athists are more industrious than theocrats as well. This is why Iraq remained a techno-progressive labor nation while Muslim nations reverted to their medieval (and natural) state of tribal and nomadic desert communities. While Saddam looked towards the future, Muslims longed to live in the past.

Iraq was a race realist tribal state which is superior to a liberal state. If Iraq was only a liberal state, it would have been defeated by Islam. But since Ba’athists are of a different mindset than Theocrats, Iraq adamantly resisted Iran. This is a good thing. Actually, to civilize the Middle East, Iraq was correct to invade Iran and Ku’wait. The effects of reactionary imperialism could be erased with progressive imperialism. Of course, for this to happen, Iraq needed the support of America, which backstabbed it, and could have benefited from a Euro-Siberian Empire.

When the car gets stuck in the mud, the government must be there to get the car out.

The link

WASHINGTON — Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd on Tuesday called for sweeping new government powers to prevent another economic collapse, protect consumers and dismantle failing institutions.

Dodd’s 1,100 page-draft would strip the Federal Reserve and other regulators of their powers to regulate banks and hand that job to a single agency. The bill also would take away the Fed’s ability to monitor credit cards and mortgages and establish a new “Consumer Financial Protection Agency.”

The bill, inspired by last year’s financial meltdown, will minimize “economic turmoil and protect(ing) the interest of taxpayers,” the Connecticut Democrat wrote.

An advance copy of the legislation was obtained by The Associated Press.

President Barack Obama has demanded that Congress rewrite the federal regulations governing Wall Street to close legal loopholes and prevent the kind of fraud and abuse that fed the crisis.

Dodd’s proposal was expected to gain broad support among Democrats, but Republicans haven’t signed on.

Among the top points of contention is Dodd’s desire to create a new agency to protect consumers taking out home loans or using credit cards against predatory lending and surprise interest rate hikes.

Republicans counter that creating another bureaucracy will make business harder for banks and limit the availability of credit.

The Senate Banking Committee was expected to review the legislation next week, paving the way for a floor vote by early next year.

The House was already on track with its own proposal. Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he expects a floor vote in December.

Dodd’s plan differs slightly from Frank’s bill and the administration’s proposal in that it would do more to scale back the powers of the Federal Reserve, which many lawmakers blame for the economic crisis.

For example, Frank has proposed that the Fed be in charge of enforcing tougher regulations on large and influential financial firms so that they don’t grow “too big to fail.” A council of regulators would monitor these firms and make recommendations.

Under Dodd’s bill, the Fed would have less reach. An “agency for financial stability,” managed by a board that includes Fed representation would enforce new rules and dismantle complex financial firms if they threaten the broader economy.

Both the House and Senate bills would likely put limits on the Fed’s ability to provide emergency loans and eliminate its oversight of consumer protections.

Also unlike the House bill, Dodd’s proposal would establish a single federal regulator for banks called the “Financial Institutions Regulatory Administration.”

The single regulator would get rid of two existing federal bank regulators — the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. It also would strip the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of its oversight of state banks and the Fed in their supervisory powers of bank holding companies.

Dodd has said consolidated oversight is needed to prevent banks from shopping around for an agency that will impose the least amount of oversight.

The only way to have populism is to make the state so strong that it can play referee against economic impulses that are not collectively beneficial. A strong state enables a national self-interest.

Imagine all the problems “fascism” could have prevented. With a strong state, there would be no global economic meltdown because the government would put the bankers in their place. If the bankers act against the interest of the state, they get the purge.

National socialists and white nationalists argue that the movement should all be for the race, and they don’t even know how to define the race. The race is nothing but a collection of genetic matter without the state. The state is everything and everything else is nothing. A cruel death to neo-liberalism!

Quite frankly, it is time for populists to do a little more than talk about opposing the regime. If there is no light at the end of the tunnel, then populists should start to organize not against a particular party but against the entire power structure.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/06/news/economy/jobs_october/

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The nation’s unemployment rate rose above 10% for the first time since 1983 in October, a much worse jump than expected as employers continued to trim jobs from payrolls.

The reading, reported by the government Friday, is a sign of the continued weakness in the labor market even though the economy grew in the third quarter following the longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression.

The government reported that the unemployment rate spiked to 10.2%, up from 9.8% in September. It is the highest that this rate has been since April 1983. Economists had forecast an increase to 9.9%.

There was also a net loss of 190,000 jobs in October, according to the Labor Department, an improvement from a revised estimate of 219,000 job losses in September. However, economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a loss of only 175,000 jobs in October. This was the 22nd straight month of job losses.

“The only good news is the number of layoffs are dropping off, but those who are laid off still aren’t finding jobs,” said David Wyss, chief economist with Standard & Poor’s.

The jump in the unemployment rate was driven up by a large drop in the number of people who describe themselves as self-employed, as well as the number of teenagers who have jobs. The unemployment rate for teenagers in the labor force soared to 27.6%, up 1.8 percentage points and hitting a third straight record high.

Both teen workers and the self-employed are not captured very well in the government’s separate survey of employers that is used to calculate the number of people on U.S. payrolls. That explains much of the disconnect between fewer job losses overall and the much worse unemployment rate.

The rise in unemployment was not spread evenly across the population. For those with college degrees, the unemployment rate fell to 4.7% from 4.9% in September, as the unemployment rate for those in management, professional, and related occupations slipped to 4.7% from 5.2%.

But the unemployment rate for production jobs, such as factory workers, jumped to 14.5% from 14.1%. The jobless rate for workers in construction, maintenance or natural resources industries such as mining rose to 15.5% from 14.3%.
0:00 /3:08Real unemployment really bad

“There’s a real mismatch between the unemployed people out there compared to what job openings are available,” said John Silvia, chief economist with Wells Fargo Securities. He said construction workers who lost a job when the housing bubble burst don’t have the skills to compete for jobs in sectors that are hiring, such as health care and technology.

Government efforts to end job losses have had limited effects, although the Obama administration estimated last month that 640,000 jobs were created or saved by the federal stimulus package passed earlier this year. But that’s modest compared to the 7.3 million jobs that have been lost since the start of 2008.

Christina Romer, chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, said the steady decline in monthly job losses since earlier this year is a hopeful sign for the economy.

But she acknowledged there’s still significant pain for those looking for work. “Having the unemployment rate reach double-digits is a stark reminder of how much work remains to be done before American families see the job gains and reduced unemployment that they need and deserve,” she said.

Friday’s report comes one day after Congress voted overwhelmingly to extend unemployment benefits by up to 20 weeks. There are now a record 5.6 million people who have been unemployed for six months or longer, as the average time an unemployed person has been out of a job hit 26.9 weeks.

Prior to this report, most economists had believed that the unemployment rate would keep rising and that job losses would continue into next year. But the jump in unemployment in October took it to levels worse than what many previously had expected to be the peak.

According to a survey of top forecasters by the National Association of Business Economics last month, the consensus estimate among economists was that unemployment would hit a high of 10% in the final three months of this year and the first quarter of 2010.

The five economists with the most bearish forecasts had expected unemployment to rise to 10.2% in the fourth quarter of this year before hitting 10.5% in the first half of next year.

Wyss is one of those economists who had projected an unemployment rate of 10.5% in the middle of next year. He said Friday’s report may force him to raise his worst case estimate.

“Some things aren’t playing out the way I expected them to,” he said. “There’s just no good news in this report.”

But others said they see some early signs of life for the labor market. Sung Won Sohn, economics professor at California State University Channel Islands, noted that the biggest increase in temporary employees in two years took place in October.

Employers typically bring in workers on a temporary basis before deciding to make more permanent hires. As such, he expects gains in payrolls by next spring.

“Despite the gloomy job picture, there are some encouraging signs,” he said.

As we saw last year, the great globalization of IT seems to have peaked. After booming from 2004 to 2006, offshore IT outsourcing leveled off the past couple of years, even among the largest companies (DeMers, 26). – InformationWeek Print Magazine

I can observe this myself. I see major Corporations insourcing because they are realizing the realities of culture and heritage. I have no delusions that globalization will end, but the second guessing is starting. Not only have I observed this, not only has InformationWeek observed this, but very respectable PHD level analysts I know have observed it. Insourcing is a victory for populism and a victory against exploitative wages that harm the third world as much as the first.  It is a victory for those who believe that the third world needs to build its own infrastructure instead of relying on the infrastructure of America.  Culture, reliability, locality, knowledge of a local business process and heritage matter, even when global ideologues pretend they do not.  Technocratic attitudes must reconcile with nationalism to defeat the delusion that one size fits all.

Works Cited

DeMers, Kevin. “Tech Specialist: Unified Communications.” InformationWeek 14 Sept. 2009: 26. Print. ]]> http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2009/09/20/populist-attitudes-are-resurging-with-american-technology-jobs/feed/ 3 http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2009/09/07/newly-discovered-third-positionist-website/ http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2009/09/07/newly-discovered-third-positionist-website/#comments Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:41:36 +0000 Metal Gear http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/?p=1794 Third Position Justice

Interesting Website. I will add it to the blog roll. It has well constructed political opinion and links to very good material about the global financial crisis.

The moral power of the exemplary person is the wind; that of the petty person is grass. When the wind blows over the grass, it will surely bend. – Confucious

Strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will Scatter – The 48 Laws of Power

Those who most successfully play the game of death – success in the free market, should not be blamed more heavily than the unlucky and weak. They may not be conscious allies, but they serve our inegalitarian interests. Analogously, Dennis Rodman cannot be blamed for the invention of basketball and gangster rapers cannot be blamed for the “harsh reality” of society or for profiting from the liberal capitalist system. Directly blaming the bankers and business men? Get real! The blame should be placed on George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama and the architects of society…the politicians, the military, the constitution. NOT the businessmen who happen to be a bit more “crafty” than their opponents. Do not blame Wal-Mart. Blame Washington DC. Let the behavior of Wal-Mart (shipping jobs overseas for low pay) expose Washington DC.

Don’t hate the player who plays the game. Hate the game. Until the military force that controls society is altered, we all play the game. Yes we would like to switch from one set of rules to another set of rules, but do not be jealous and hypocritical. Reject the two party system. All energy and focus should be in redirecting society collectively away from the ruling order, instead of trying to rehabilitate and tweak the regime without the necessary adjustments.

Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. It is not morally or strategically justified to blame the player.

“Foreign fruit pickers are taking home as little as £45 a week at a company which provides some of Britain’s largest supermarkets with thousands of tonnes of fruit, an investigation by The Independent has found. S&A Produce, which supplies both Tesco and Sainsbury’s, employs thousands of eastern Europeans who are given a specific work visa allowing them to work for the company. They are attracted by the prospect of earning up to £200 a week by picking fruit on its farms in Herefordshire and Kent. The workers are officially paid the minimum wage of £5.74, a comparatively high sum for foreign nationals who often have an average annual income of less than £3,000 in their own countries. But employee pay slips obtained by The Independent show that the real hourly rate for the company’s fruit pickers often amounts to less than half the minimum wage once a series of obligatory charges has been deducted.” (Independent, 10 July) RD

Very useful information here!

Do your research; the total amount of business per square mile in America is astounding, even inside the recession. The only reason that digital dirt is a threat is because of the recession and now employers are picky. In a good economy, for every employer who cares, there are ten decent employers who are not hypocrites. For every employer who “writes you off” due to your viewpoints, there is one that will favor you as an out-of-the-box thinker with creativity. This is particularly true if you prove that you have good tech skills. We really do have a conspiracy of elites and most people indeed are decent enough, afraid enough, indifferent enough or in agreement enough to not care. Simply put, most people do behave like backstabbing politicians and special interest lobbies do.  Most people do not behave like internet cowards do either.

In the recession, indeed opportunities are limited and I can see why people would be stuck working for an asshole who stalks their social networking, and want to cover it up. I can see why the recession could turn employers into assholes and I can see why some people would want to work for an asshole just to make ends meet. Even though the recession complicates matters, if you really do your research, enough business still exists that you hopefully can find a good match with an employer. I feel empathy for those who are less lucky and end up either unemployed or the victims of stalking due to the convergence of the recession and what they have written online.

I used to fear the consequences of “being outed” but now I really do not care. The kind of guy who sits around looking for digital dirt and “punishes” people economically for it is exactly the kind of guy you want to avoid. If digital dirt weeds out the weak, then perhaps we should create more of it and care less what others think about it. If it wasn’t for the recession, I would openly declare that I completely do not care.

Years ago, as the Cold War was coming to an end, I said to my fellow leaders around the globe: the world is on the cusp of great events, and in the face of new challenges all of us will have to change, you as well as we. For the most part, the reaction was polite but sceptical silence.

In recent years, I have often told listeners that I feel Americans need their own change – a perestroika, not like the one in my country, but an American perestroika – and the reaction has been markedly different. Halls filled with thousands of people have responded with applause.

First Gorbachev articulates the need for change. I agree, there is a need for a change. Much to the consternation of the Marxist-Leninists on this website, I believe USSR needed change too (but went too far). In his contingent historical time, Stalin advanced industrialization, but the conditions that existed while Stalin did no longer exist. Marx, while a good thinker for his time, is even further outdated than Stalin.

Our perestroika signalled the need for change in the Soviet Union, but it was not meant to suggest a capitulation to the US model. Today, the need for a more far-reaching perestroika – one for America and the world – has become clearer than ever.

Gorbachev here makes it clear that while he intended to revise the Marxist line, he did not intend to embrace the Reganite line.

But then came the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009, and it became clear that the new Western model was an illusion that benefited chiefly the very rich. Statistics show that the poor and the middle class saw little or no benefit from the economic growth of the past decades.

The model that emerged during the late 20th century has turned out to be unsustainable. It was based on a drive for super-profits and hyper-consumption for a few, on unrestrained exploitation of resources and on social and environmental irresponsibility.

This is very true. The economic crash definitely strengthened my position that in times of struggle, populism and authoritarianism are necessary. On some level, I have always admired authoritarian regimes, but now I swear by them.

But if all the proposed solutions and action now come down to a mere rebranding of the old system, we are bound to see another, perhaps even greater upheaval down the road. The current model does not need adjusting; it needs replacing. I have no ready-made prescriptions. But I am convinced that a new model will emerge, one that will emphasise public needs and public good, such as a cleaner environment, well-functioning infrastructure and public transport, sound education and health systems and affordable housing.

Gorbachev must be reading Free Media Productions!

The time has come to strike the right balance between the government and the market, for integrating social and environmental factors and demilitarising the economy. Washington will have to play a special role in this new perestroika, not just because the United States wields great economic, political and military power, but because America was the main architect, and America’s elite the main beneficiary, of the current world economic model. That model is now cracking and will, sooner or later, be replaced. That will be a complex and painful process for everyone, including the United States.

I couldn’t agree more!

New York Jewish bankers and liberal ideologues should be supported for exposing the weaknesses of the capitalist system, even if they do not intend to. A strong dose of liberal idiocy is like a strong dose of bacteria; anti-bodies are produced. A more gradual dose of liberalism is like lead poisoning; when you notice it is too late. In a Machiavellian sense, they have proven how inferior the system is and how badly it needs to be replaced. Hail the Jewish subversives who expose the flaws of capitalism, liberalism and democracy! Third Positionists, Marxist-Leninists and all critical of Western Capitalism must mourn the loss of Saddam Hussein, but otherwise the most successful Jewish sociopaths should be applauded. Hail Madoff, Hail Abraham Foxman, Hail Chaim Ben Pesach, Hail the Jews who pretend to be anti-semites on Nazi websites.

EXPOSE THE FUNDAMENTAL WEAKNESS OF CAPITALISM. PUT IT ON THE RADAR! The more Jews manipulate the system, the more the weakness of the system becomes obvious. I applaud Jews for proving that the overthrow of capitalism is a prerequisite to a revival of nationalism and ridicule bourgeious nationalists who think removing Jews is sufficient.  Nationalism cannot exist with the current political system in place. The more obvious this is the fact, the better.

1. Corruption – politicians receive large sums of money from businesses and other special interests (e.g. unions) in exchange for implementing specific policies. Politicians depend on such contributions for campaign funding.

2. Lack of accountability – because any given politician or party has such limited power for such limited periods of time it is difficult to evaluate their impact. Power often oscillates from one party to the next such that outcomes can easily be attributed to the party currently in power or, similarly easily, to the party previously in power. Power is divided between various branches and levels of government and among numerous politicians such that responsibility and accountability are dispersed and confused.

3. Incoherence – the division of power, both between different levels of government and within each level of government, can lead to an assemblage of policies that are inconsistent in terms of there objectives and implementation.
Example: Division of power requires compromise between those who support the complete ban of a substance and those who favor no restrictions. The compromise reached is to criminalize the production of the substance but not its use, thereby allowing unfettered demand to combine with exclusion of legal production to produce a huge market for organized crime.

4. Gridlock/delay – disagreement within government and so-called “checks and balances” delay the implementation of much needed policy changes. Consultation of “the people” takes time.

5. Fuzziness of the concept – the very meaning of democracy is unclear. Whether a given system of government is more democratic than another is frequently disputed among proponents of democracy.

6. Corporate (etc) media influence – much media is delivered by corporations with their own interests that could influence their reporting. Media depends on advertising for much of its funding and could be compelled to report in ways favorable to current and prospective advertisers. Such reporting heavily influences the voting public.

7. Lack of effective/powerful international/supranational government and impracticality of its formation within a democratic framework – practically precludes comprehensive, substantial, global cooperation and coordination to solve problems.
Example: Two states share a border. One of the states implements a strict ban while the other does not. Consequently, the state with the ban has much greater difficulty enforcing its ban.

8. Instability – governments and policies often change frequently resulting in wastage of resources from starting and undoing programs and lack of sustained long-term policies/projects. Incentives become less effective due to uncertainty.

9. Political myopia – campaigning focuses on short-term goals, accomplishments, and results. Politics becomes overly focused on shot-run outcomes.

10. Superficiality/triviality – voters are unwilling and/or unable to dedicate much time or effort to investigate or analyze political issues. Consequently, politics becomes focused on rhetoric, emotions, trivialities and is overly simplistic. Policies and candidates are selected within the context of the aforementioned state of political discourse.

11. Division/partisanship “democracy fosters division along party lines” people are expected to adopt particular ideological identities (opposition vs government etc) – unity is precluded (granted, Russia may be an exception).

12. Democracy allows good governments to be voted out of office.

13. “Human rights” often promoted as essential components to democracy. Many of these “human rights” interfere with the implementation of good policy.

Readers, I direct you to an interesting discussion taking place on “politics forum” which is a high end political discussion forum.  Feel free to add your opinion if you would like to.

A market structure in which a few firms sell either a standardized or differentiated product, into which entry is difficult, in which the firm has limited control over product price because of mutual interdependence, and in which there is typically nonprice competition.  (McConnell, G-17)

I will compare this definition to the contemporary American Media.

Category 1 – Are there few firms involved in the industry?
Answer : Yes, the television and paper media are controlled by a small amount of powerful corporations, General Electric and Microsoft being examples.

Category 2 – Is entry difficult into the media market?
Answer : Yes, it is difficult to create a media outlet on cable news or print media. Technical, fiscal, competitive, operational and substitution-oriented (the internet) barriers to entry exist.

Category 3 – Do firms have limited control over price due to interdependence?
Answer : Yes, access to all networks is sold in the same cable and satellite packages. A buyer purchases packages from satellite and cable companies instead of individual products from companies or even retailers. There may be more control over price with print media, but other economic forces drive it down.

Category 4 – Is there “non-price” competition instead of price competition?
Answer : Absolutely. Olberman vs. O’Riley. Fox vs Msnbc. This is non-price competition.

Ladies and gentlemen, the American news media is an oligopoly.

Works Cited

McConnell, Campbell R., and Stanley L. Brue. Economics : Principles, Problems, and Policies. 16th ed. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2005.  G-17.

Another ruling class front company. This group fraudulently claims that doctors in Canada and England hate their healthcare systems. This is completely untrue. They have actually spoken saying that their healthcare systems are not universal enough.

For full screen, click the bottom right button.

I haven’t converted this to youtube video format yet, because every inexpensive method I discovered would substantially downgrade the quality.  But it is here uploaded on our website.  It will probably eventually be created.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C79uRk1Kg0c

http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm

The first thing F.D.R. did was quietly declare in March of 1933 (by executive order) that the federal corporation was bankrupt and insolvent, which triggered the long standing debt contracts with the international bankers.  The federal corporation went into receivership (ownership) to it’s creditors (the international bankers).  The engineered “great depression” made receivership to the bankers possible, PLUS it consolidated existing control of the banking and monetary system into the hands of the PRIVATE, so called “federal reserve” (which is a private cartel owned by the international bankers).  F.D.R., acting on behalf of his handlers, came for our gold first.  He made it illegal for CITIZENS to own gold.  Whoever owns the REAL money, owns the monetary system.  Thus, in 1934, citizens abruptly ceased to own the monetary system, which of course meant that they had no more actual monetary power or wealth, OR control over the government (which solidified control over american citizens).  Then as if acting from a perfectly planned script for CONQUEST, him and his evil handlers successfully came for our guns in 1934.  The 2nd amendment was overthrown with the rest of the constitution.  We STILL have the huge 1934 gun ban and registration scheme strapped to our backs.

The “new deal” was a euphemism for the total reorganization of the federal corporation in favor of the creditors. The creditors (the international bankers) wanted an all powerful federal tyranny (which they obtained in the 1930s, so it’s mind boggling how tyrannical the federal “government” is today!)

What confuses a lot of people is that they BELIEVE that the constitution is still in force. The legal TRUTH is that the constitution was overthrown in 1933 and as part of the reorganization, the LOOK (i.e. appearance) of the constitution was allowed to remain. This is how federal “judges” were able to get away with complete and OBVIOUS perversion of the interstate commerce clause (the federal “government” claims the authority to regulate EVERYTHING-and I mean EVERYTHING, if any part of it was EVER a part of “interstate commerce.”)

Federal “judges” are well trained by the establishment legal system not to reverse the “progress” the control system has made since 1933. The training is subtle because the legal system (beginning with law schools) is totally obsessed with legal PRECEDENT (i.e. what other “judges” have ruled) as opposed to what the law ACTUALLY says. Law schools indoctrinate students to follow the establishment, and if they do, they will be rewarded with a lucrative career. Today, federal “judges” are controlled (in varying degrees from judge to judge) by the system that took power in 1933, and are strongly influenced when the establishment needs to pick and choose WHAT parts of the sham constitution they will enforce. The establishment maintains a network of loyal federal “judges” who will rule in ways the establishment needs (usually by throwing out or altering cases that could end up limiting federal power). People need to study this abomination for themselves (so they will be outraged enough to take action) so I encourage all Americans to read about cases involving the interstate commerce clause, and more specifically, what the treasonous federal “judges” did to Irwin Schiff and Hollis Fincher (Google is your friend).

The control system that took power in 1933 is beginning to come more out in the open as americans are growing accustomed to not having any rights or privacy or sovereignty. In many ways we are past the point of no return. In theory, an educated citizenry could rise up and reverse the “progress” that’s been made since 1933, but preventing such a thing is exactly WHY the federal “government” has gained effective control over the “school” system. That is WHY there is a federal department of “education.” That is WHY almost all “school” districts are addicted to and CONTROLLED by the “free” federal funding. Kids are brainwashed from day one into being government loyalists and establishment loyalists. This is the new “patriotism.”

Kids are taught massive contradictions which result in such confusion that the subject (the child) has no choice BUT to become loyal and subservient to it’s new master (government) Examples of INTENTIONAL CONTRADICTIONS:

1. The government indoctrination centers (”schools”) preach “say no to drugs” while at the same time PUSHING dozens of dangerous vaccines and mind altering drugs into the bodies of our children.

2. In English class, the poor kids are “taught” that they are there to “learn english,” and then they are taught garbage such as “inventive spelling” which has resulted in a nation full of idiots who cannot spell or use grammar that is even remotely correct.

3. The children are fed a constant stream of nonsense and lies about guns and are abused with scare tactics and intimidation tactics that they should “never touch a gun,” or that “guns kill…,” and that if they ever touch a gun or so much as TALK about guns at school they will be severely and unjustly punished (which frequently happens). I have personally spoken with several young neighbors to tell me just how many threats and how much intimidation they receive from the entire “school” system. One neighbor was given an assignment to find something unique about a certain country. I suggested talking about the gun laws there (since the gun laws of this particular nation are extremely different from ours). This 9 year old had a knee jerk reaction of fear that they would “get into trouble” for talking about guns. I said that this had nothing to do with guns, but the massive threats and intimidation from the “school” system had made this student totally unreasonable on this subject. The only thing this student knew how to do was to be totally obedient (and worshipful) to their government masters. The contradiction is that government agents constantly walk around with guns (the very tool that the students are taught to fear).

My two favorite quotes from the founding fathers:

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be taken from banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” — Samuel Adams