My interview with Richard Spencer for AltRight Radio. Listen to the podcast.
From The Economic Collapse.
Does anyone really want to hear that America is in decline? For decades, most of us have been raised to believe that the United States is “number one” and that anyone who doubts that fact is a “gloom and doomer” that should just pack up and move to “Russia” or “Iraq” or some other country where things are not nearly as good. But does it do us or future generations any good to ignore the very serious signs of trouble that are erupting all around us? The truth is that it is about time to wake up and admit how much trouble we are actually in. The U.S. government is absolutely drowning in debt. The entire society is absolutely drowning in debt. We are being slaughtered in the arena of world trade, and every single month tens of billions of dollars (along with large numbers of factories and jobs) leave our shores for good. Our infrastructure is failing, our kids are less educated and our incomes are going down. We have serious, serious problems. At one time, the U.S. economy was so dominant that it was not even worth talking about who was in second place. That is no longer the case in 2010. Our forefathers handed us the greatest economic machine in history and we have allowed it to fall apart right in front of our eyes. A national economic crisis of historic proportions is getting worse with each passing month, and yet most of our leaders seem to be asleep at the switch.
So is American in decline? Well, read the statistics below and decide for yourself. The reality is that when you start connecting the dots it gets really hard to deny what is going on.
Urgent action must be taken if things are going to be turned around. It is time to get our heads out of the sand. It is not guaranteed that the United States will always be the greatest economy in the world or that we will even continue to be prosperous.
For many Americans, it will be incredibly difficult to admit that our nation has become a debt addict and an economic punching bag for the rest of the world.
But if we are never willing to admit what the problems are, how are we ever going to come up with the solutions?
What you are about to read below is going to absolutely shock many of you. But hopefully it will shock you enough to get you to take action. We desperately need to change course as a nation.
The following are 24 statistics about the United States economy that are almost too embarrassing to admit….
#1 Ten years ago, the United States was ranked number one in average wealth per adult. In 2010, the United States has fallen to seventh.
#2 The United States once had the highest proportion of young adults with post-secondary degrees in the world. Today, the U.S. has fallen to 12th.
#3 In the 2009 “prosperity index” published by the Legatum Institute, the United States was ranked as just the ninth most prosperous country in the world. That was down five places from 2008.
#4 In 2001, the United States ranked fourth in the world in per capita broadband Internet use. Today it ranks 15th.
#5 The economy of India is projected to become larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2050.
#6 One prominent economist now says that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040.
#7 According to a new study conducted by Thompson Reuters, China could become the global leader in patent filings by next year.
#8 The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001. Approximately 75 percent of those factories employed at least 500 workers while they were still in operation.
#9 The United States has lost a staggering 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.
#10 Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.
#11 In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of all U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented only 11.5 percent.
#12 The television manufacturing industry began in the United States. So how many televisions are manufactured in the United States today? According to Princeton University economist Alan S. Blinder, the grand total is zero.
#13 As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time that less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.
#14 Back in 1980, the United States imported approximately 37 percent of the oil that we use. Now we import nearly 60 percent of the oil that we use.
#15 The U.S. trade deficit is running about 40 or 50 billion dollars a month in 2010. That means that by the end of the year approximately half a trillion dollars (or more) will have left the United States for good.
#16 Between 2000 and 2009, America’s trade deficit with China increased nearly 300 percent.
#17 Today, the United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that China spends on goods from the United States.
#18 According to a new study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, if the U.S. trade deficit with China continues to increase at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.
#19 American 15-year-olds do not even rank in the top half of all advanced nations when it comes to math or science literacy.
#20 Median household income in the U.S. declined from $51,726 in 2008 to $50,221 in 2009. That was the second yearly decline in a row.
#21 The United States has the third worst poverty rate among the advanced nations tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
#22 Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, the U.S. dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power.
#23 U.S. government spending as a percentage of GDP is now up to approximately 36 percent.
#24 The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that U.S. government public debt will hit 716 percent of GDP by the year 2080.
Please share these statistics with as many family members and friends as you can. It is time to get real. It is time to admit that we have some really big problems.
America is in decline and the situation is getting worse by the day. If we are not willing to admit how bad things really are, then we are never even going to have a chance to find the solutions that we need.
From Tyler Durden. (hat tip to James O’Meara)
As if we needed more warnings that the US is rapidly losing its position as the world’s superpower and wealth aggregator, is the following chart from Credit Suisse, which ranks the top 10 countries in the world in terms of average wealth per adult. While the US was #1 10 years ago, due to an abysmal growth rate of only 23%, by far the lowest of all the ranked countries, the US has now dropped from first to seventh, falling behind such countries as Sweden and France. At the top – such perennially voted “top places to live” as Switzerland and Norway. Hopefully the US can fix its ever-expanding black hole of problems soon, as once the wealthiest decide they have had it here and move away, look for this number to drop ever faster until the US drops out of the ranking altogether.
This is a particularly good comment:
“I wonder: does Morrissey’s little outburst offer a snapshot of what could happen if the Left acknowledge that their favoured folk aren’t always as innocent, victimized and enlightened as they portray them? Would these universal uplifters react venomously, out of a sense of “betrayal”, upon staring reality straight in its pockmarked face? Does the type of of white Leftist I describe here assign bigotry to his breed in order to avoid acknowledging it in himself? Like the rector who yearns to take it up the rectum, does his socially-sanctioned superego shield a malignant Morrisseyan id, itching to smash the slanty, swarthy “subspecies” into submission?”
This reminds me of what Tom Sunic observed about the former hard-line Communists in Yugoslavia who managed to somehow convert themselves into uber-capitalists overnight as the Communist meal ticket suddenly became invalid. Sunic has said before that the liberal-multiculturalist elites would likely reinvent themselves as hard line racialists or nationalists if the multicultural system proved to be no longer viable. In other words, how many liberals would lose their pretentious humanitarian gloss and become fascists if the latter offered a better deal? To quote myself:
It should also be pointed out that the old-guard Marxists, even the Stalinists, only took their egalitarianism so far. Their professed aims were limited to the ostensible equality of wealth among the social classes and, in some instances, political equality of racial and ethnic groups. They did not nearly go so far as to attack the long list of “isms,” “archies” and “phobias” (for instance, “looksism,” “phallocracy” or “transphobia”) so reviled by today’s leftoids, nor did they typically advocate equality of looks, weight, ability, intelligence or even species (hence, the modern leftist infatuation with concepts ranging from “grade inflation” to virtual prohibition of so-called “fatty foods” to giving animals legal rights approximating those of humans). Nor did they advocate ending race and gender oppression by simply abolishing races and genders. Indeed, the contemporary leftist obsession with both race and health under the banner of multiculturalism and the therapeutic state calls to mind the other great totalitarian ideology of the twentieth century. One shudders to think what will happen when these elements gain control of a more fully developed genetic engineering technology and subsequently combine this with emerging surveillance technologies. An increasing popular concept in leftist academic circles is the notion of “whiteness” which, as might be expected, is typically used as a term of opprobrium. Indeed, one of the more extreme proponents of “whiteness” theory maintains a website whose masthead reads “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” To understand the implications of this slogan, one need only remove the term “whiteness” and replace it with “Jewishness.”
Lloyd Lacy is interviewed by Andrew Yeoman. Read the interview on BANA’s blog.
I’ve blogged on here before about the psychological inadequacies plaguing the modern Left, but I’ve never systematically analyzed them and presented a full conclusion. So, to cop a line from Lenny Bruce, I, as a “surgeon with a scalpal for false values” will dedicate this blog post to doing just that. So kick back, relax, and crack a beer as I shine a flashlight through the mothballed corridors of liberal consciousness…
The liberal mind cognizes deductively, albeit having internalized its own strawman reasoning. Expressed abstractly it goes something like this-
1.Policy A is intended to advance the interests of group B.
2.Person C opposes Policy A.
3.Therefore, Person C opposes the societal advancement of group B.
4. Person C is therefore an “ist” or “phobe” regarding group B.
This line of thinking is applied to all objects of discourse. Opposing-
1. Affirmative action = “racist”
2. Abortion = “sexist”
3. Gay marriage and/or adoption = “homophobe”
4. Mass immigration = “xenophobe.”
These are then added together and deduced to the following equation-
1. Conservative and/or non-left thought opposes affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage and adoption, and mass immigration.
2. Affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage and adoption, and mass immigration are necessary for the societal advancement of their corresponding groups.
3. Therefore, conservatives and non-leftists oppose the societal advancement of those groups.
4. Therefore, conservatism and non-leftism are not ideologies but discursive covers for straight white males seeking to maintain their own supposed privilege while suppressing others.
This serves a dual function for the leftism, which likewise is deduced from a starting point-
1. Conservative and non-leftist views are not an actual ideology but covers for bigotry.
2. Therefore, the leftist is exempt from having to engage in actual debate with conservatives and non-leftist.
1. Conservative and non-leftist arguments against liberal positions are actually arguments in favor of restoring past bigotries and inequalities.
2. Therefore, the leftist’s positions are exempt from conservative and non-leftist criticism.
From this reductionist deflation of conservative claims is deducted the leftist’s own self-image-
1. Conservatives are societal deviants seeking to perpetuate bigotry and inequality.
2. Leftists oppose conservatives and their agenda.
3. Therefore, leftists are societal heroes fighting against societal deviants and their bigotry and inequality.
And from this we derive the leftist conception of the socio-political realm-
1. All politics is a good versus evil struggle between left-wing heroes and right-wing villains.
2. As the heroes, the Left and its policies are exempt from criticism and need not engage in actual debate.
3. As the villains, the Right and its policies deserve nothing but criticism and need not be actually debated.
It becomes obvious, then, that-
1. The modern Leftist adheres to a false paradigm constructed through the use of deductive logic that starts with false premises and ignores all actual facts and information.
2. Adhering to a false paradigm constructed using this method is a delusion.
3. Therefore, modern Leftism is not a real ideology but a delusion, or mental illness.
It’s plain to be seen who the truly irrational, unreasoned, and bigoted folks are in this place.
by Kevin Carson
The U.S. government’s attempt to expand the surveillance state — in this case to make it easier to wiretap the Internet — is pretty much a dog-bites-man story.
A fairly typical response is: “I’m not worried. After all, I’m not doing anything wrong.”
Sure. Because governments have never done bad stuff to people who weren’t doing anything wrong. The right-wingers have a good word for people who implicitly assume that the government means well and can be trusted, and that its only motivation is to stop “bad guys.” They call them “sheeple.”
You think the Jews living in Europe in the 1930s were “doing anything wrong?”
But lest I be accused of triggering Godwin’s Law, let’s stick to the United States. God knows there’s enough material in our own history to keep the most naive goo-goo liberal awake nights.
Look at the role of the state in the post-Haymarket repression of anarchists and leftists, and the direct role of federal troops in breaking strikes like the Pullman Strike. During the Copper Wars out West at the turn of the century, governors proclaimed martial law to suppress the unions.
Look at the police state nightmare under Woodrow Wilson, during and after WWI. The War Hysteria and Red Scare under St. Woodrow included wholesale repression of dissent — American Railway Union leader and socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs was imprisoned — and culminated in the Palmer Raid’s political imprisonment of socialists and Wobblies and shutdown of left-wing newspapers.
Then there was the internment of Japanese Nisei in 1942. Were they doing anything wrong?
And don’t forget COINTELPRO.
And all those civil rights organizers who were “shot trying to escape” in police custody down South. Were they doing anything wrong?
How about the people who had drugs planted on them by cops who “knew” they were guilty — or worse yet, had guns planted on them by the cops who murdered them — what were they doing wrong, other than being foolish enough to trespass on the turf of vicious thugs whose gang colors are blue?
Folks, the U.S. government has murdered or imprisoned countless people who weren’t doing anything wrong but being stupid enough to believe the government only goes after “bad guys,” and that “not doing anything wrong” makes a snowball’s difference in hell. If the government perceives you as a threat to the class interests and the system of power it upholds, you don’t need to be “doing anything wrong.” It will make something up.
The question is why anyone would be gullible enough to trust the GOVERNMENT not to do anything wrong.
Good suggestions from Anna Morgenstern:
Even within the context of welfare-state capitalism, if people were serious about reform, they could do it quite easily.
But the most logical reforms are not on the table, because of ideological bullshit. The truth is, social-democrat types love the super rich and they love the false “meritocracy” of corporatism. And statist-libertarian types love protestant religious morality.
But if an anarchist without adjectives like myself were to “reform” welfare-state capitalism, it’s pretty easy to make it better (but still not “good”):
Health Care Reform: Make medicare non-need based. Everyone is eligible if they want to opt in. Even rich ass bastards.
However, anyone is free to get any sort of health care they want outside the system, with no regulations or restrictions.
Welfare Reform: Cut every citizen a check. A decent check. Pay this out each year, not each week (to give talented but poor people a chance to invest in their own talents). Make it equal to the median per-capita income. This will eliminate all behavioral incentives associated with our current welfare system, since there’s literally nothing you can do to get more or less money. It will end up costing less in the long run, once you incorporate lost productivity and generational welfare patterns. If you spend your whole check before the year ends, you can get free MREs – military field rations (3 per day) and BDUs – military style uniforms (each month) at government depots. But no money, not a dime.
Environmental Reform: Anyone who is a victim of pollution can raise a class action suit for unlimited damages against a polluter. No limited liability applies in the case of environmental damage. Stock in risky, pollution prone companies would drop like a fucking hot potato.
…and so on. This is all very simple, *from the right perspective*.
And the right perspective is that people are more important than institutions or concepts. That no one is magically protected from the consequences of their own actions. That people should have the option to do things that aren’t acceptable to the majority, if they are willing to take those consequences.
But that perspective should lead you eventually to anarchism, I think.
In which case all of these reforms will seem like unnecessary and crude patches on a bad system to begin with.
I’ve always thought that an essential part of advancing an anarchist struggle would be to create a serious political wedge between the clients of public assistance and social welfare programs and those who administer such programs, e.g. New Class bureaucrats. Advocating the simple elimination of such programs and replacing them with something like the Negative Income Tax would be the way to do it. The clients would certainly prefer a system that gives them direct cash benefits without the bureaucratic middlemen. But of course, if such a system were proposed the public sector professional class would raise hell as they would soon be out of work if it were implemented. The welfare statists would then be exposed for what they are.
Excellent post from Sheldon Richman. The U.S. media does need formal censorship in order to silence dissident opinion. Because it is part of the wider ruling class apparatus, the media practices self-censorship. See the evidence:
Six Zionist Companies Own Ninety-Six Percent of the World’s Media (take what you can use, discard the rest)
Faisal Shahzad was sentenced to life in prison the other day for trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square last May. At his sentencing Shahzad said what almost every Muslim says when he pleads guilty to or is sentenced for committing or attempting to commit violence against Americans:
We are only Muslims trying to defend our religion, people, homes and land, but if you call us terrorists, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing you until you leave our lands and people at peace.
The Associated Press reported the quote in full.
But that’s not what the Washington Post wanted you to read. So it gutted the quote leaving: “We are only Muslims . . . but if you call us terrorists, we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing you.”
The Washington Times, doctoring the AP story, did the same thing.
Ditto USA Today.
The New York Times did a better job, sprinkling the quote throughout its story but burying “we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace.”
Why won’t the mass media let the American people see the full story? Muslim violence is not aimed at American freedom. It is retaliation for decades of U.S. government crimes against Muslims.
The establishment media are lapdogs of the warfare state, as slavish as any publication in the old Soviet Union.
A set of podcasts advocating a left/right populist alliance from a progressive perspective.
An Immoral System Can Only Be Sustained by Immorality by Kevin Carson
[Keith: As a Hobbesian, Nietzschean, and Stirnerite, I reject the paradigm that posits a morality/immorality dichotomy, but that’s just nit-picking. This is good stuff.]
Should We Care About Inequality? by Jason Sorens, founder of the Free State Project (His answer? No, we shouldn’t.)
Anarcho-“Capitalism” Is Impossible by Anna Morgenstern
Is Inequality and Asymmetry Really Important? by David Heinrich
Obama Can’t Stand Up to His General-And That’s Dangerous by Andrew Bacevich
Afghanistan Nine Years On by Chris Sands
The New Antiwar Populism by Justin Raimondo
The U.S. Edges Closer to Invading Pakistan by Eric Margolis
The Real Costs of the Wars by Bob Adelmann
First Guantanamo Habeas Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court by Andy Worthington
The Taliban: Forced Into Negotiation While Winning by Ivan Eland
Article by Anna Baltzer
The gravest threat of all faced by Colombia’s indigenous population is cultural destruction and extinction. Of Colombia’s 102 indigenous tribes, 32 percent are in danger of disappearance. Eighteen tribes have fewer than two hundred persons remaining. One of the most important forms of resistance for many communities has been the preservation of language, cultural values and traditions.
Read the report from the BBC. (hat tip to Brady Campbell)
I’m not a fan of Wilders. His politics are basically the same as those of the neocons, e.g. Zionism, Islamophobia, and neoliberal economics. Nor do I agree with ideas like banning the Koran, minarets, headscarves, or burquas of the kind that some immigration restrictionists in Europe have proposed or enacted.
Murray Rothbard argued that it is the nature of the state to create a mess with its actions, which leads to calls for increased statism as a corrective measure, which creates more chaos, which leads to still more calls for state efforts at correction.
As I’ve argued before, mass immigration of the kind we see today is not naturally occurring but is the product of the state and of the economic arrangements imposed by the state. Sam Francis explained how this works a bit in this video. I also tried to explain the true relationship between the state, class theory, and immigration in this article for Lew Rockwell a few years ago. Most libertarians and anarchists are blind to this issue at present because, having drank the liberal Kool-Aid, they regard mass immigration as an ideal unto itself, irrespective of the role of the state or capitalism in fostering it.
Mass immigration has the effect of dramatically altering the host culture, which in turn leads to calls for state-imposed forms of cultural protectionism such as banning minarets, censorship of Islamic religious books and speech, banning burquas and headscarves, etc. But those things are only symptomatic of the real problem. Western civilization could certainly survive the presence of an occasional burqua or minaret. It’s when immigration becomes so massive as to amount to demographic overrun or fundamental civilizational alteration that it becomes a problem. Naturally, many will want to take action to prevent such a thing, but they will do so in superficial ways like banning burquas. Meanwhile, the cultural protectionists (so-called “xenophobes”) will come under the attacks of the proponents of multiculturalism, who instead of calling for bans on minarets, will attempt to censor and repress the “xenophobes.”
In essence, both Wilders and those who are putting him on trial represent two different strands of “totalitarian humanism.” Why does Wilders oppose Islamic cultural influences? Because he regards them as illiberal, sexist, and reactionary. He compares the Koran with Mein Kampf. Wilders, the supposed “fascist,” actually has much more in common with militant liberal anti-religionists like Christopher Hitchens. His opponents represent another thread of totalitarian humanism that regards denunciation of a non-European, predominantly Third World religion like Islam as racist, chauvinist, or colonialist. It’s a question of liberalism versus multiculturalism.
The proper solution to the problem of mass immigration is to eliminate the support it receives from the state (which would involve abolishing much of what the state does at present), followed by economic decentralization, and restoration of full freedom of association, property rights, and community sovereignty.
(hat tip to David Heleniak)
Interesting discussion of Marxism by Gary North from a Mises Institute seminar from 1988. I don’t agree with North’s religious determinism any more than I agree with Marx’s and John Stuart Mill’s economic determinism, but North’s critique of Marxism (and Marxists) is rather penetrating.
This comparison of Marxist and Austrian class theory by Hans Hermann Hoppe is also interesting.
Amy Goodman’s discussion of the recent attacks by the feds on antiwar activists.