(h/t Ilana Mercer) Here.

I argued here and here that Danes should join the Hell's Angels, or at least affiliate with them in some way. Well, it looks like my idea is starting to catch on. As I stated here:

..."joining a gang" would not be a "maladaptive response" in that context (of increasing Muslim aggression and Danish state weakening). The fact is, gangs like the Hell's Angels cannot survive without government participation in their trafficking. [1,2] Every citizen of the legitimate state should understand the government's willful participation in the illicit state and act accordingly. If the state can benefit from involvement with criminal gangs, so can the citizen. Rest assured, the state is benefiting from Muslim immigration and subsequent aggression.

[1] Glenny, M. "McMafia." Random House, 2008.
² Naim, M. "Illicit." Anchor, 2006.

Question: Will the Hell's Angels become the de facto Danish state? Will the leader of the Hell's Angels and author of The Jackal Manifesto become something of a legitimate prince? Could we biblically argue that God is simply replacing one ruler with another in this context?

As usual, it has taken some time for me to collect my thoughts into something resembling a blog post. Thank you all for your patience and forbearance.

I can't find a reliable source that believes that we're in for hyperinflation. Karl Denninger, in a recent Market Ticker post, makes the point that this is an excess credit-driven Depression, just like the Great Depression of the 1930s, and that:

... the condition that led us into this recession - excessive debt - must be removed, not shifted around and hidden, before the recession can truly end. Japan tried what we're doing in the 1990s and failed. The Nikkei never recovered its former highs, in fact, it never even got close. Japan's economy never managed to get materially out of deflation and is now back in it as a direct consequence of their refusal to force the bad debt into the open and default it.

Mike Shedlock, writing on his blog, observes largely the same thing, and sees deflation as the cure to our debt, not the problem:

Notice the misguided advice by the OECD about pumping cash into the economy. Japan has been doing this for 15 years and all they have to show for it is massive national debt and bridges to nowhere.

What we have is deflation. What we need is for the deflation to run its course and not be perpetuated for decades by more and more debt, both public and private. Since the Fed, Kongress, the President, and all the financial punditry believe the Keynesian solution to be the only one, we may be headed for another "Lost Decade" like we saw during the last 10 years and like Japan has seen for the last 20. Nothing that bad seems to have happened to Japan. Of course, they are an ethnically homogeneous and highly-intelligent population. We are not. I'm not sure if that will matter in the long run, but I would guess that different regions of the country will just naturally drift apart, as social cohesion and public trust in government is at a nadir at this point.

Chronic deflation will likely lead to a lack of job growth, and that is what we saw over the past 10 years. We saw GDP growth, but it was illusory because it was all based on debt. We didn't see real GDP growth because more jobs were not created and real wages were not increasing. I've seen some people actually refer to the past 20 or so years as the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama recession.

What we need, then, is more real GDP growth fostered by more production of goods and services in this country and less debt of all kinds. What I believe is that, using the past 40 years as a guide, it will take the rest of the country another two decades to collectively understand that. California, for example, just voted down every bond measure on the last ballot because Californians (the ones that vote, at least), have finally realized that our bond ratings suck and that we have to pay back the principle plus interest on those bonds eventually. It took us 20-30 years to figure that out though. California is probably the prototype for the nation's economic future at this point, being the fifth largest economy in the world.

Also, our 401Ks and IRAs are unlikely to grow if invested in the NYSE or NASDAQ (which has still never recovered from the malfeasance of the 90s Dot Com scams). If we're to see returns on our investments, we need to invest abroad or in local/home production. Basically, we need to be either on some other country doing things better than us or on ourselves (through the purchase of capital goods that facilitate home production). Right now, the rest of the world is in much worse shape than we are, so the latter option might be the best. Commenter SameNoKami makes the latter point all the time. John Robb has a few suggestions on that front here.

Finally, we should expect a weakening of the nation-state worldwide by globalist actors, both malevolent and benevolent. This is a natural by-product of globalization making the nation-state obsolete due to the inherent sluggishness of its bureaucracies when compared to the lightning agility of globalized networks and due to the willful participation of corruptible government workers in the globalized commerce of illicit actors. Given the inherent sinfulness of man and the Bible's prediction that things will get progressively worse as the Day of Judgment nears, I believe most of these globalist networks and actors will be malevolent. The apostle Paul reminds us,

1 Thess 5:1 Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

The image of a woman in "labor pains" is very descriptive. Women have contractions while in labor, punctuated by periods of rest. The closer the baby is to being born, the more quick and powerful the contractions become and the less frequent the periods of rest. Paul is using this language to remind us that the world will be the same as the return of the Lord nears. There will be periods of relative "peace and safety" where the Thomas PM Barnetts, Thomas Friedmans, Zakarias, and other Davos men will be telling us that, "This time, things will be different!" than they have before. "Globalization," they tell us, "will make us more peaceful and wealthy." Globalization is a two-edged sword, and man will always choose the bad "edge" over the good, and the nearing of the day of judgment will be like a woman in "labor-pains." The more I read lately, the more I'm convinced that global illicit networks will become more and more prominent, the nation-state will be hollowed out, and the dark side of globalization will become much more obvious. Look out for your daughters. Since the news appears to be bad, let me reassure you that it isn't. As Jesus reminds us in the Sermon on the Mount:

Matt 6:25 "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? 28And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. 34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

So there's no point in worrying about the future because we have no control over it and God has promised to take care of us. Many people, especially in our society, delude themselves into thinking that they are the captains of their destiny. The reality is, they depend on the thin veneer that is our civilization to get them through life. That civilization only exists at God's mere pleasure. It takes very little for things to descend into chaos. But even if that happens, God has promised to provide for his flock. Aren't we worth much more than the "lilies of the field," who are clothed in greater splendor than that of Solomon? Will God give us snakes if we ask for fish (Matt 7:10)?

Jesus' sermon is simple but profound. Internalizing it leaves no room for anxiety about the future.

We all know that Rahm is a major league villain. What about his brother, Ari (the prototype of the "Entourage" character "Ari Gold")? He just spearheaded a hostile takeover of the talent agency that employs my friend and is now cutting the pay of all the assistants. Mexican day laborers get paid more per hour. You'll notice a distinct pattern in the last names of other William Morris Endeavor bigwigs, so I'm pretty sure my friend isn't safe there, given that he is of another ethnicity.

More here. The Emmanuels: what a bunch of cutthroats. Good thing they don't have a lot of influence in this country, right?

Steve Sailer's thesis on the diversity recession is that the government colluded with the banksters to give mortgages to undeserving (not "underserved") blacks and hispanics that didn't have the FICO scores, down payments, and income to ever hope to repay these mortgages. Most of this lending took place in the "Sand States" of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida. Subprime mortgages in California (with its ridiculous housing prices) composed the bulk of the bad debt, and most of the subprime loans went to hispanics. Why did the banksters shred centuries of good banking practices to collude with the government? Basically, the CRA and its government cheerleaders told the banks that lent to minorities that they were allowed to acquire other banks. Banks that made only solid loans were not allowed to do so. This reversed the normal course of natural selection for banks, in which banks making bad loans would naturally go under. The banks also found that they could package these loans up with normal, AAA loans and sell the entire package under a AAA credit score to fools overseas. Of course, these packages were sold on the margin, so there was a lot of leverage to go along with it. Also, the banksters and government (composed of guys like Angelo Mozilo) believed that everyone deserved to own a home and that give-aways to "underserved" blacks and hispanics was a Good Thing, regardless of how responsible the people receiving giveaways were with their money.

Karl Denninger reports on a case in Germany involving the kidnapping of a bankster by vigilantes who'd lost money buying properties in Florida (an increasingly-hispanic Sand State). Note, also, that they were buying properties with 10:1 leverage. That's a smoking gun, as far as I'm concerned. Though I only have N=1 data points right now, we know that this happened on a wide-scale. The MSM lets the truth slip through the cracks accidentally, sometimes.

I guess the new Obama financial regulation plan has provisions for even more lending to non-Asian minorities (NAMs). Will we even be able to blow up another bubble based on NAM lending in the period between 2000-2006, or are too many overseas investors going to steer clear of the securitized mortgage products we sold them before? My guess is the latter. I guess what will happen is that too-big-to-fail Citi and other groups will continue to make bad loans, which will continue to be guaranteed by Fanny and Freddie (also too-big-to-fail), and somehow we'll try to pay for the black and Mexican housing starts with more running of the printing presses. That would probably complete our South Africanization. Our first Mexican president started it, our first black president will complete it. Viva la republica Weimar!

Gates of Vienna has gotten into the act of predicting hyperinflation, which has been discussed at length here recently. We don't know the future, but it doesn't hurt to spend a modest sum of money planning for such a thing, even if it never comes.

The two questions in the case of hyperinflation are: what to do with savings and what to use as a medium of exchange until a new monetary system is found?

The answer to the first question appears to be: buy gold. Obviously, the government will try to make it illegal to do so, as FDR did in the 1930s. The solution to that is to do it anyway. Baron Bodissey also suggested owning uranium and other precious metals. I've ruled out having short bond positions because there is really no bond position short enough to counter the effects of overnight skyrocketing inflation, which is what hyperinflation is.

I think the answer to the second question is to have barter-able goods stored and on hand and to develop a cottage industry in barter-able good.

Ideas include alcohol stilling, beer and wine making, home chemical manufacturing, cottage agriculture (bee-keeping, fruits, vegetables, etc), blacksmithing, machining, etc. Incidentally, fermented beverages, honey, chemicals, and metals keep for a long time. Honey will keep for thousands of years - archaeologists have dug it up in the tombs of pharoahs and it is still perfectly good.

If you have a backyard with plenty of sunlight, your options are a lot better. If you have an apartment, you're options are more limited, but still there. Brewing can be done anywhere, as can chemical production.

This was inevitable, really. The news media has been carrying water for the Democrats for so long, it might as well just turn over total control to them.

(h/t SNK) Here's the transcript of a great presentation by Peter Schiff on value. I remember looking at 700 sq ft houses in 2006 that people were asking $500,000 for. "They'll only go up!" the realtors exclaimed. Of course, that was the top of the market and the bubble was about to burst. I don't believe it's actually ever coming back in California because conditions in this state continue to worsen for the middle class and people who actually pay taxes, so such people are leaving.

Nowadays, people don't think about value (what is this item worth). What they do think about is price (what can I buy this for and scam the next guy into paying for it). That was the housing bubble in a nutshell. It was everyone running around trying to scam one another based on the "fact" that "houses only appreciate." People were scamming banks, banks were scamming foreigners and the government, the government was scamming us. It just went around in a spectacular positive feedback loop until it collapsed like a star in supernova.

I like how Schiff makes the point that paying rent is not "throwing your money away." We all need a roof over our heads. In Maslow's heirarchy of needs (which my wife reminds me of frequently), we all need shelter, therefore paying rent is not "throwing your money away." The equity in your house isn't a retirement account, either, unless you're planning on cashing it in and moving to the third world. A lot of retiring boomers are moving to Mexico and Thailand, for now. We'll have to see how that works out for them.

(h/t SameNoKami) SNK sent me this article yesterday on hyperinflation. I then sent it to my financial guy who jumped ship from Citi to UBS (where I promptly moved my money). He got sort of a chuckle out of it and made light of it, but I think it's a lot easier to do that than to consider whether or not the claims are realistic/true. Most people nowadays are in the stage of nervous mockery of anyone who claims that things are going to get worse before (and if) they get better. We've got some real bush league people running the country at this point. The libs are starting to have buyer's remorse, but oh well. The rudder is pegged for the next 3.8 years.

To me, the wild card in whether or not we have hyperinflation is China. They're our biggest creditor and they don't want the value of their investment eroded by a collapsing dollar, which is probably why they're pushing so hard for a new world reserve currency. I've gotta say, I'm all in favor of that.

Detail from miniature painting The Prophet, Ali, and the Companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, illustration of a 19th century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil. Manuscript now in the British Library.

I have to admit, I keep reading Thomas PM Barnett's blog because he's good at finding interesting crap to read. Usually, though, he comes to conclusions which are 180 degrees out of phase with mine.

Here's an example:

In all places, both in Britain and Pakistan/Bangladesh, the schools are dominated by purists who trace their origins to Deoband, an Indian town that founded an austere school of Islam in the 1860s. The Talibans are considered an offshoot.

My big concern is the wormhole of back and forth travel between these two universes. As I have noted before, MI-5 can only get it right so many times. Eventually, the big package arrives and when it does, I fear a Children of Men reaction.

And if I was al Qaeda, that would be my #1 goal right now.

This is the sort of willful blindness we see from our Davos Men. Didn't an "austere form of Islam" begin with Mohammed? Didn't he go around whacking people and entire ethnic groups on the Arabian peninsula when he was alive? Didn't his successors do the same? But elsewhere, Barnett has remarked how we're "going to win" this war on Islamic supremacism because of the mysterious (but benevolent) force known as "globalization." Have he and any of the other Davos Men bothered to examine any of the source texts of Islam or their mainstream interpretation? I mean, how do they even know Al-Qaeda, the Deobands, and the Taliban have an unorthodox interpretation of Islamic texts?

(h/t Tom Barnett) Not my specialty, but interesting nonetheless.

Bootlegging was common during the Depression because of Prohibition (until it was finally repealed in 1933). Nowadays, alcohol is, of course, allowed, but subject to heavy sin taxes. What if you could make your own spirits and sell them to people only in your personal network? As the economy worsens, alcohol will only be in higher demand. Just a thought.

Here's another: LOSE WEIGHT. Eating your own fat cells is a great way to save money and enhance the quality of your life.

Any other ideas?

I lived to see pretty much the last of the "Golden State" era that my parents and grandparents knew. So did a lot of Steve's commenters. This piece explains where I get most of my views on "diversity" (Mexicanization). I guess our parks used to be fun places to go and our beaches used to be pristine and empty. Now? Nevermind.

On household finances:

The so-called "asset gains" were fraudulent and have evaporated into the wind, but the debt taken on to acquire them remains as a millstone around the consumer's NECK!

It appears we're good at creating imaginary wealth in the form of debt, but not so good at much else at this point.

Another good link here:

Speaking of fiscal profligacy, I would be remiss in not mentioning the U.S., the largest net debtor economy in the world. Chart 9 shows that total federal government debt, including debt owed to other government entities such as the Social Security Trust Fund by the Treasury, will rise from 70% of GDP in 2008 to 101% of GDP in 2011 and remains near 100% of GDP through 2019. Bear in mind, these projections of public debt-to-GDP ratios were made by the Obama administration's Office of Management and Budget rather than the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. So, a cynical person might think that these projections are on the low side. Again, given that the U.S. is a net debtor economy and given that all U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollars, there will be a temptation to relieve real debt-service burdens on U.S. residents by "encouraging" the Federal Reserve to err on the side of creating some inflation rather than deflation.

Guess who's going to pay for that government debt, Dear Reader? Ans: YOU.

Weeeeeee!

Before I got laid off (fired) yesterday, an old woman was kind enough to drive into my parked car and do enough damage to the left rear wheel mounts, axle, left panel, and bumper that my car is a total loss. This is a bummer because that car got great gas mileage and you could fit a lot of crap into it by folding the rear seats down. It was also a Honda so I was expecting another 50K out of it at least with the same transmission.

Anyways, does anyone have any car shopping pointers? I mean, there's really no way to verify the condition and maintenance of the tranny and engine before I buy it, is there? There's nothing that'll tell me that the person trying to sell me the car has been maintaining the most vital components, is there?

Apparently, despite enormous financial compensation throughout her entire career, Sotomayor's FICO score is in the toliet and she has exactly zero in the way of assets or savings. Uh-oh. And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of her racialist/anti-white activism.

The Mexicans are none-too-happy about Sotomayor either. As "El Chez" writes:

"(Not) until a true Chicano is appointed to the Supreme Court the Mexican-Americans of this country will truly be represented. Puerto Ricans and Mexican-Americans are as different as night and day. Obama might as well have elected another black to the Supreme Court. "

"Another black?" I rather like Justice Thomas (because he doesn't occupy the same "ideological space" as most blacks). Indeed, if we could get most white men to start acting and thinking like him, we'd all be a lot better off. Steve Sailer comments on more of the legal implications here.

In other news, I lost my job again today (LOL), so my departure from California will be hastened by several months.

I like to read VDH when he's not trying to see everything through the lens of an optimism brought on by the robustness of the founding documents of this country, which are no longer honored or respected. I prefer when he's a realist:

I spent 21 years in a university in which quite affluent elites sought any multicultural patina possible for an edge in professional advancement and general leverage-the hyphenated name, the addition of the accent mark on the name, the non-American accentuation, occasional ethnic dress, the relabeling of one as a designated minority who otherwise had not previously emphasized race, etc.-that would suggest they were not part of the popular capitalist culture-supposedly centered on the white male-around them. Yet I left sensing the industry of race was doomed, due to the power of popular culture, the unworkable labyrinth of racial identification due to intermarriage, the laughable contradictions (the jet-black immigrant from India got no favored treatment, the light-skinned Costa Rican name Jorge piggy-backed onto the Mexican-American experience), the son of the Mexican father who used his name Gomez was authentic, the son of the Mexican mother who carried his non-Mexican father’s name Wilson was not. And on and on with this ridiculous neo-Confederate practice of adjudicating percentages of race to the sixteenth, and drops of targeted minority blood-a racist enterprise to the core. The only constant? The white male was fair game. It mattered little that more women were graduating than men, that under the racial spoils system we were beginning to see white males in less percentages than those found in the general population at the university; instead, it was sort of OK to trash, as in the manner of Sotomayor’s comment, the proverbial white male, as if we are collectively ashamed of everyone from the Wright Brothers to Lincoln to John Wayne to JFK.

In a weird way, I don’t think we’ve seen officials of a government as racially conscious since the days of the 1930s. Surely in the last three decades one’s race has never been so emphasized as it is now-and large numbers of all races will begin to resent that once again we are not talking about the content of our characters, but our racial pedigrees and the degree to which we can all showcase the modern populist version of being born in a log cabin. There is a feeling I think that every Obama appointment for some reason either will fit some desirable race/class/gender rubric, or, if not, will soon have to be "offset" one-for-one, by another PC selection to come: sort of Obama’s racial version of Al Gore’s carbon offsets. This is very disturbing, and one is surprised that sensible people seem to be happy with seeing people in terms of racial profiles rather than simple human beings with a common humanity.

Here in the eastern Mediterranean, one should remember the story of the last 3,000 years is the escalation of such tribalism into mayhem, as those of different races and religions went at it ad mortem. Why emulate the former Yugoslavia, or Kurd/Shiite/Sunni, or Rwanda, when the US alone had created the basis for a multiracial culture under the aegis of a shared Western paradigm?

Why emulate it? There's no reason that we should have. But that horse has already left the barn. Show me where, in the US, is mass immigration leading to common consensus, intermarriage, and shared values? Can't do it? Why not?

...what if you don't have years to wait?

Mike Shedlock thinks we're years away from the bottom of the housing market. I'm inclined to agree, if we're talking about the state of California, where the bad loans to Mexicans and unscrupulous whites were the most egregious. Moreover, California's intellectual/human capital is declining at a much quicker rate than depicted in "Idiocracy." We're already there. I see it on a daily basis and often where I least expect it. For example, as my wife and I were sunning ourselves like beached elephant seals poolside in our apartment complex yesterday, a ghetto latina youth decided to walk out of her apartment and begin cursing into her phone in an English that was barely intelligible. She was discussing how some "b-tch," (as she put it, along with other choice words), had beat up her girlfriend in an unfair manner. "That's an incredibly interesting conversation you're having there," I said, loud enough for her to hear me. She gave me the stink eye and went inside. The week before, two of her Latino friends/cousins/whatever went into her apartment after ogling my wife and staring me down briefly for no apparent reason. Oh, and an Arab of some type vibed me last night, this morning, and today (again as I was sunning myself by the pool). Oh, and 2 weeks ago I got a call from the Torrance PD to testify against the Mexican kid who made my life so unpleasant the last time I lived next to Mexicans 18 months ago.

The take-away is, states where the lending was the worst also have the worst human capital and won't EVER recover unless we can bamboozle the Chinese into underwriting more of our debt in the future. Something tells me we won't succeed in that endeavor.

We did go driving around looking at houses yesterday. Prices are down quite a bit but not in the range of a couple looking to start a family on a middle-class (whatever that means nowadays) income. And if you want to start a family, you don't have 10 years to wait it out.

Once you realize that the United States government is anti-white and pro-Latino or pro-black, events in this country become much easier to understand. As a thought experiment, consider all of the statements Sotomayor has made in terms of Latino chauvinism, and see if they would be considered "racist" if said by a white person about his own ethnicity. Of course they would. As a Steve Sailer commenter put it, we're shifting to Brazilian demographics with a ANC government - a recipe for decline if there ever was one.

What did you, as a white person, ever do to oppress the black/latino man? You were born. As Ian MacKaye put it, "I'm guilty of being white." It's much easier for blacks and latinos to blame their re-creations of the Third World in the USA on "white racism" instead of themselves. What's laughable is that if you drive through a black or latino neighborhood, there isn't a white person around. I wonder why that is?