Gold, it's only for looks in America.

[evilbau]

Its more libertarian reactionary bullshit is what it is, just like those videos that claim 9-11 to be the work of secret jewish NSA-mossad double agents or what have you.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g5a/20000103/

The USD gained strength against virtually every other world currency between 1996 and 1999, so much for your "sky is falling" claim.

My fallacy-o-meter is going off the charts (read:irrelevant conclusion).

Nywas, gave up on the thread long ago. So why am I bother replying? I'm bored at work, actually, tiem for me to go! Bye niggras! ('-')/

I love these topics if for no other reason than to hear the latest trendy rhetoric and propaganda. Breaking apart a weak analysis is a treat, too. But thats only the ego-stoking part of my participation, in reality i want to dispel the myths and misconceptions that evaporate with a more detailed analysis and the intentions of the players. "I guess saying the government is evil just isn't going to work anymore!"

[aurik]

My fallacy-o-meter is going off the charts

It's picking up Dense's bullshit.

[oxx2]

BG: where nerdy gamers become global economists

News flash #2: Some of us, in that thing called real life, go to/have graduated from institutes of higher education. In these places we like to call "universities" or "colleges", we study various subject matter, including this crazy concept called "economics". We even get evidence of knowing what the hell we're talking about called "degrees".

ok

[aurik]

Aurik, I suggest you take a look into some of the arguments put forth by Mises or Rothbard. You will probably disagree with what they have to say outright, but perhaps you could enlighten us on where they are mistaken.

Unless you can point me to a summary of their criticisms which I can read in an hour or less (to determine whether their ideas merit further reading) I'm going to have to pass.

And yes, I subscribe to Keynes so if you're a proponent of their stuff we're probably just at ideological odds.

The funny thing is for the most part I'm a libertarian, with the glaring exception of monetary policy.

[Quicklet]

Rothbard is perhaps easier to understand with a quick read, being both American and having a straightforward writing style. For a somewhat brief summary of his argument about the inherent problems with fractional reserve banking and fiat money, I suggest reading sections III.6 to III.13 from the following link. Each section is maybe about a page long, and it shouldn't take more than half an hour (if that) to see the main points of his argument. Obviously, some of the assertions he makes are based off of his analysis of money in the previous sections, but I'll leave it up to you to look up any of those if you feel the desire to.

http://www.mises.org/money.asp

While you will probably automatically be at odds with the conclusion he makes (that the force of government is used to mandate a single currency under a fractional reserve banking system in order to control the money supply is unhealthy for an economy due to its inherent redistribution of wealth and subsequent credit expansion/contraction cycles), perhaps you can pick out where he is wrong in his analysis and explain why? It does not directly address the issue of thrift, but it does suggest that any benefits offered by fiat are undermined by the nature of such a system.

Also, for a more direct criticism of Keynes, the strongest one would most likely be Henry Hazlitt's The Failure of the "New Economics". Rothbard also has an essay criticizing Keynes, but it most likely would not go into the depth you would appreciate as you would from the Hazlitt book. If you decide at this time that it's worth looking further into the critique, that book would most likely be the best test of Keynesian theory for you.

[aurik]

Rothbard is perhaps easier to understand with a quick read, being both American and having a straightforward writing style. For a somewhat brief summary of his argument about the inherent problems with fractional reserve banking and fiat money, I suggest reading sections III.6 to III.13 from the following link. Each section is maybe about a page long, and it shouldn't take more than half an hour (if that) to see the main points of his argument. Obviously, some of the assertions he makes are based off of his analysis of money in the previous sections, but I'll leave it up to you to look up any of those if you feel the desire to.

http://www.mises.org/money.asp

While you will probably automatically be at odds with the conclusion he makes (that the force of government is used to mandate a single currency under a fractional reserve banking system in order to control the money supply is unhealthy for an economy due to its inherent redistribution of wealth and subsequent credit expansion/contraction cycles), perhaps you can pick out where he is wrong in his analysis and explain why? It does not directly address the issue of thrift, but it does suggest that any benefits offered by fiat are undermined by the nature of such a system.

Also, for a more direct criticism of Keynes, the strongest one would most likely be Henry Hazlitt's The Failure of the "New Economics". Rothbard also has an essay criticizing Keynes, but it most likely would not go into the depth you would appreciate as you would from the Hazlitt book. If you decide at this time that it's worth looking further into the critique, that book would most likely be the best test of Keynesian theory for you.

Well I read the pages you recommended but I don't really see what the point is.

It's mostly a recitation of a piece of monetary policy history, from the point of view of someone from the Austrian school, and is well salted with unsubstantiatable claims such as "All pro-paper economists, from Keynesians to Friedmanites, were now confident ..."

The main issue I have with the article is that it's mostly just leads to a wishy-washy "what if they had done X instead of Y" retrospective, which is really just a big false hypothesis. It's really easy to sit back and criticize, when the implications of their suggested actions won't ever be explored.

The secondary issue I have with the article is that they don't seem to give any nod to lurking factors. Where's the mention of the 1973 Energy crisis brought on by the Yom Kippur war? This kind of glaring omission makes me question the soundness of claiming that the stagflation of the early 70s was due to a shift in monetary policy rather than other factors, or even possibly a conflagration of several factors including the major shift in monetary policy. I would think that any major shift in policy will almost always have a fairly major, though ultimately short lived, impact on the markets.

[Dense]

Your US federal income tax (which is unconstitutional, btw) pays for this interest.

[quote:mh8swaxn]The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

If I'm wrong please tell me, but how I read the 16th amendment it explicitly gives Congress the right to tax whatever it pleases.[/quote:mh8swaxn]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3867390173

Aaron Russo posits that the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the States.

[Dense]

I'm not listening to what you're writing because you're repeating lies, like "the federal reserve is a completely private organisation".

When you come to grips with reality, I'll lend you a listen.

The only governmental tie with the federal reserve is the presidential appointment of the board, who aren't even paid by congress. In that respect the Fed is a private entity. At any rate, you've rated this as being libertarian BS, but in effect, it's something that is happening in your country and no one is taking notice...

So what you're saying is when you said "it's a completely private organisation" you really meant "it's not a completely private organisation", just like when you claimed the dollar was continuously weakening against foreign currencies you really mean you just don't know what you're talking about and can't remember anything earlier than 2003.

Why are you being so hard-line about this? I'm not trying to spread some propaganda for libertarian bullshit, I'm just passing on some of the information I've absorbed from various sources that may challenge what we've come to believe.

When I was talking about currency trends, I meant a 5-year complete drop that is in direct relation to your national debt (as I was trying to describe). Please forgive my language, I'm trying my hardest to keep up ;_;. I'm not trying to say you don't know what you're talking about, but rather, there may be some information that sheds some light into the reasons WHY inflation is so outrageous, and some sources.

Aaron Russo set out to find a law defining that US citizens must pay a Federal Income Tax, and his research came to some pretty startling information. Information that is so startling that Ron Paul has taken the torch and intends to act on it.

I found Freedom to Fascism on google video for you, even though I doubt you'll watch it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3867390173

I really wish you would give it a chance, even if you think it's bullshit, as the more knowledge you have, the more you can do with it...

[Quicklet]

Well I read the pages you recommended but I don't really see what the point is.

It's mostly a recitation of a piece of monetary policy history, from the point of view of someone from the Austrian school, and is well salted with unsubstantiatable claims such as "All pro-paper economists, from Keynesians to Friedmanites, were now confident ..."

The main issue I have with the article is that it's mostly just leads to a wishy-washy "what if they had done X instead of Y" retrospective, which is really just a big false hypothesis. It's really easy to sit back and criticize, when the implications of their suggested actions won't ever be explored.

The secondary issue I have with the article is that they don't seem to give any nod to lurking factors. Where's the mention of the 1973 Energy crisis brought on by the Yom Kippur war? This kind of glaring omission makes me question the soundness of claiming that the stagflation of the early 70s was due to a shift in monetary policy rather than other factors, or even possibly a conflagration of several factors including the major shift in monetary policy. I would think that any major shift in policy will almost always have a fairly major, though ultimately short lived, impact on the markets.

Fair enough. I can't speak for Rothbard, but my guess would be that he would say that factors such as the energy crisis were secondary or unrelated to any basic effects caused by a monetary supply shift. To the extent that it contributed to the situation would have no bearing on the effect caused by the monetary supply changes. I'm not sure what time period you have in mind when you talk about short lived impact of a change in monetary policy, if you're talking about a period of months or as much as a few years, but in the cases where policy has been constantly adjusted to try and micromanage certain situations, the effects and an inherent uncertainty in the markets are going to last as long as policy is continually tinkered with.

Unfortunately I'm not acquainted well enough with all the details of Keynes' theory, so I'm not going to be able to give you more specific critiques on it, but I'll add his book to my list and hopefully after I get a chance to read it (heh, could be a while) I'll be able to give you a better analysis of why the fiat monetary system has a negative impact (or a higher potential for negative impact than positive) on economies and why the idea that mild inflation is desirable is ill-founded. Or maybe I'll be enlightened by the read, who knows.

[ertyu]

Can we just update the ban list to include people who are just fuck damned retarded? please

[archibaldcrane]

I'm not trying to say you don't know what you're talking about, but rather, there may be some information that sheds some light into the reasons WHY inflation is so outrageous...

Inflation...seems to have been kept in a pretty damn reasonable check for...well...my lifetime. I don't think there's many people who view the inflation that the US has experienced in the past 10 years or so to be a major problem, is there?

[Dense]

I'm not trying to say you don't know what you're talking about, but rather, there may be some information that sheds some light into the reasons WHY inflation is so outrageous...

Inflation...seems to have been kept in a pretty damn reasonable check for...well...my lifetime. I don't think there's many people who view the inflation that the US has experienced in the past 10 years or so to be a major problem, is there?

The problem in discussing this topic is twofold. The first is semantic. "Inflation" is not defined by a rise of prices. That is how the word is commonly used, but it confuses the situation. Inflation defined most simply, is an increase in the money supply. Increasing the money supply can have a positive effect on prices, but the correlation is not 1:1. Once that is understood, the situation can be broken down and the second problem, the problems with the statistics themselves, can be examined separately.

First, inflation (the money supply): There are no statistics available for this. The measurement for this was the M3, and was produced by the Fed, but they stopped in March 2006. The net result is that no one really knows how much cash is being injected into the economy. Consequently, it is difficult to link, exactly, what effect the Fed's creation of money has on prices, since its not clear how much money they are creating.

Second, prices: The stat that is available for this is the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is deeply flawed in that the weighting of items that make up the CPI are severely disconnected from the modern consumer's expenditures. It is still heavily weighted towards food, which is a substantially smaller portion of consumer expenditure as proportion of income in the US, as opposed to, say, heath care. In addition, while the full CPI includes energy, such as gasoline, the number that is more widely reported and used (Core CPI) excludes this entirely. Consequently, if you took a broader, more realistic view, it would certainly be above the 3% average that is reported in the media as "inflation".

Here is the data based on the CPI:

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/ ... ation.aspx

[Deejay]

I read the topic as God, it's only for looks in America.

I got excited for a couple secs until i saw all this armchair economist talk going on.

[Charla]

Reading comprehension, it's only for looks in America.

Could this be the start of a BG meme?

[Beckwin]

Information that is so startling that Ron Paul has taken the torch and intends to act on it.

Do some crosses and white robes come with that torch?

LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM

The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American cultural,
political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault from
thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and
everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who
earn it, and Christian morality.

Ten thousand stores and other buildings looted and burned, thousands
beaten and otherwise seriously injured, 52 people dead. That was the toll
of the Los Angeles riots in which we saw white men pulled from their cars
and trucks and shot or brutally beaten. (In every case, the mob was not too
enraged to pick the victim's pocket.) We saw Korean and white stores
targeted by the mob because they "exploited the community," i.e., sold
products people wanted at prices they were willing to pay. Worst of all,
we saw the total breakdown of law enforcement, as black and white liberal
public officials had the cops and troops disarmed in the face of criminal
anarchy.

In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says expert Burt Blumert,
the rioting was led by red-flag carrying members of the Revolutionary
Communist Party and the Workers World Party, both Trotskyite-Maoist. The
police were allowed to intervene only when the rioters assaulted the famous
Fairmont and Mark Hopkins hotels atop Nob Hill. A friend of Burt's, a
jewelry store owner, had his store on Union Square looted by blacks, and
when the police arrived in response to his frantic calls, their orders were
to protect his life, but not to interfere with the rioting.

Even though the riots were aimed at whites (in L.A. at Koreans who had
committed the crime of working hard and being successful, and at Cambodians
in Long Beach), and even though anti-white and anti-Asian epithets filled
the air, this is not considered a series of hate crimes, nor a violation of
the civil rights of whites or Asians.

The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every
non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.
As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white
oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to
steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is
justified against "The Man." And "The Woman.' A lady I know recently saw a
black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or
so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue,
and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the
parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've
never heard of it. If a white child made such a remark to a black woman,
the parents would stop it with a reprimand or a spank.

But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the
anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black
leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory
to bolster its claims of victimology. Like the communists who renounced all
that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is "Eurocentric." They
demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the possibility of non-blacks
understanding it.

The insurrectionist and revolutionaries intended to destroy large
sections of Los Angeles. Why did the ghetto youths so furiously rage
together? Was it because they have been neglected? Hardly. Welfare has
transferred $2.5 trillion from white middle class taxpayers to welfare
programs in the last 30 years. And if we adjust that figure for 1992
dollars, the total is more like $7 trillion. Are blacks being denied
economic opportunity? The cities could have freer markets, but so could the
rest of the country, where there is no rioting and little streetcrime. Are
black killers and looters responding to racism? Japanese Americans were
treated far worse in California than blacks. They were even put in
concentration camps by Earl Warren, John J. McCloy, and Franklin D.
Roosevelt, yet Japanese-Americans have never rioted. Korean-Americans,
hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive
people in America (the reason for black hatred).

The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot
loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the
welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to
terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The
cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend
themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean
storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm
within city limits." Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles
riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington
politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to
tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by
handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said
the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enf orcement. America's
number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass
blacks.

Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will
escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los
Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies,
burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones.

The rioters said they were acting out their frustration over the
acquittal of four L.A. policemen accused of using excessive force when
arresting Rodney G. King, but in fact, they were looking for an excuse to
kill, burn, and loot. Nonetheless, it is important to understand why the
jury decided not to convict, whether or not we agree with their verdict.

The California highway patrol began chasing drunk driver Rodney King,
a black man with a long arrest record, and his two passengers on the night
of March 3, 1991. He was recklessly driving at speeds up to 115 mph for
almost eight miles. They raced on the highway until King turned off to
drive through traffic lights and stop signs on residential streets
(families could have been killed). The L.A. police department came to
assist in the high-speed chase with lights and sirens on. One of King's
passenger s asked him to pull over. King initially refused, driving
faster, but he finally complied. When the cops approached the car,
suspecting armed criminals, the two black passengers immediately stepped
out of the car and fell flat on their stomachs with arms stretched out, as
instructed. They were handcuffed. King could have done the same. But he
chose a different route. He refused to get out of the car. He stalled for
a minute, and several times, stepped out of the car and then back into it.
The police wo ndered if he was searching the car for a gun. Once King
stopped this game, he was told by cops with guns pointing at him to put his
belly down on the ground with arms outstretched. Instead, King began to do
a crazy dance and laugh freakishly. He taunted the police and even the
helicopter buzzing above him. This is why the police thought he was on PCP.

Despite police orders, King continued to dance, grabbing his buttocks
to make lewd gestures at a female cop. Sgt. Koon approached him and warned
that he would be stung with a Taser gun. King got down on his hands and
knees, but refused to lay flat. He was again warned, but King refused.
Officer Powell put his knee on King's back to get him down on the ground so
he could be handcuffed. King went down to the ground, but bounced back up,
shaking off all the police who were trying to get hold of him. Fina lly,
Koon stung him with the gun, delivering 50,000 volts of electricity, and
King fell to the ground again. But again he bounced up, prompting Koon to
deliver another 50,000 volts. King fell again, this time into the proper
position. Not a single baton blow had been delivered and the cops thought
everything was over.

At this point, the video camera started to tape the action. Officer
Powell approached King to put handcuffs on him, but King, weighing 250
pounds and standing 6'4" tall, shocked everyone by springing into action
again from his flat position. Like a professional linebacker, he charged
Powell, who thought King was going for his gun. That's when Powell started
using the baton. At one point, Powell thought King was subdued, put away
the baton and reached for the cuffs. But King started to stand up again.
Remembering how King rushed him before, he put away his cuffs and brought
out the baton again. One officer even tried to put his foot on King's neck
to prevent him from getting up again so he could be cuffed.

In all, he was hit 56 times, and even in the end he refused to comply.
He had to be cuffed in an odd position that risked the lives of the cops.
The hospital reported that King had suffered an injury on the face from
when he fell to the ground and minor injuries to his leg. He was never hit
on the spine or the head, which would have violated regulations. And he was
not beaten nearly to death, as some have claimed. The jury concluded that
at every point of that night's action, King was in control. He could have
complied at any time and stopped the beating. Whether we agree or disagree
with the juries verdict--that the cops did not use exxcessive force--it is
instructive to know what they saw and what the media still refuses to tell
us or show us. None of the major networks showed the video scene when King
rushed Officer Powell after the first Taser jolt. Only CNN showed it, one
time. And no major paper even mentioned it. Neither did any major paper or
network tell of the two passengers who complied and were peacefully
arrested. Why? We were shown the section of tape where the cops hit King
as a metaphor for white racism. Shown it again and again, we were supposed
to feel guilty.

Not long after this incident, King was found trying to pick up a
transvestite prostitute, and when caught, tried to run over the cops who
intervened. He was not arrested. This was not reported outside of L.A. He
was also not jailed for violating his parole (for armed robbery) or for
drunk and reckless driving or for violently resisting arrest. The verdict
was handed down at 3:15pm on April 29. For weeks we had heard threats that
the blacks would riot if the officers were not convicted. Taking that into
account, did the media or politicians defer to the jury (as they do when a
liberal-approved criminal is released)? Not at all. At 5:10 pm, liberal
black L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley said he was shocked and outraged at the
verdict. He denounced the jurors for approving "the senseless and brutal
beating of a helpless man." As an afterthought, he asked the ci ty to
"remain calm." With those words, he might as well have thrown a match into
a pool of gasoline. It was permission for the blacks to "express their
rage."

Ten minutes later, the police got their first report of trouble.
Blacks were throwing beer cans at passing cars. When the police showed up,
the crowds had gotten much bigger. Cops tried to control them, but realized
they were outnumbered. Realizing that they could not use their guns or even
look cross-eyed at a black, a video recorded a policeman saying: "It's not
worth it. Let's go." Indeed it wasn't worth it. The cops could only have
put themselves on trial and had their lives ruined too.

Ironically, they were being filmed and are now denounced. But it was
the Establishment's reaction to the Rodney King verdict that set the
precedent that black criminals always have the benefit of the doubt over
white police. At 5:45, the field commander in the area where the riots
began ordered that no police go into the area. "I want everybody out of
here. Get out. Now." He wanted to protect his police force, which could
take no action without media criticism and legal action, from rioters who
vastly outnumbered them and were sometimes better armed. The blacks
started to attack cars driven by whites and light-skinned Hispanics with
crowbars, rocks, bottles, and even a metal traffic sign. At the last
minute, some police officers rescued a woman abandoned in her car and were
pelted by rocks as they left.

At 6:45, a white man was dragged from a delivery truck and thrown to
the ground and beaten, as black assailants yelled, "That's how Rodney King
felt, white boy!" Another white truck driver, Reginald O. Denny, pulled
into the area and five blacks beat him nearly to death. One threw a fire
extinguisher at his head as he lay unconscious, breaking nearly every bone
in his face. A white boy was pulled from his motorcycle and shot in the
head. All this happened less than an hour and a half after the mayor had
denounced the verdict. Rather than call for even minimal standards of
justice, the Establishment coalesced into its excusemaking mode, justifying
black terrorism in various ways. It was caused by poverty, frustration, "12
years of neglect," etc., but never evil. The fires burned out of control as
firemen were attacked by the rioters as well, in one case with an axe.

All banks within the vicinity of rioting, meaning nearly all of
central L.A., were immediately shut down. People who wanted to cash checks
or make deposits were shocked to find them closed. They were also stunned
to find city transit not running. Taxicabs were nowhere in sight. White
people found themselves walking alone many blocks to get home, running the
minefield of black gangs out for their blood.

Many people tried to buy guns to protect themselves. But, whoops,
California has a 14-day waiting period. And then, just to make sure honest
Californians could not get ammunition for the firearms they already owned
(poor ragefilled youth might be shot), Mayor Tom Bradley ordered all gun
and ammo shops closed, a great help to criminals who had stocked up
earlier, or who could simply break in and loot.

Another group that had stocked up were Korean merchants, many of whom
defended their places with guns, and later were arrested for illegal use of
firearms. As one told the L.A. Times, "Two looters entered my store; one
left." These Korean immigrants were the only people to act like real
Americans, mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our
liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back
and think of England. White reporters and photographers who entered the
riot zone were dragged from their cars and beaten. A freelance reporter for
the Boston Globe was shot five times. The anti-white hate crimes
accumulated.

In the midst of the rioting, Jesse Jackson and Congresswoman Maxine
Waters (D-CA) spouted the pro-terrorist line that it was all justified
because blacks "can't get no justice." The newsmen of the major networks
interviewed them and lovingly bemoaned the "plight of the inner-city
youth."
Liberal statist Jack Kemp weighed in with a victimological line similar to
Jackson's, saying we need more federal programs for the cities. As the
Establishment promised to spread more white taxpayers' money around the
inner city, the killers and looters spread their violence to Hollywood,
Beverly Hills, Fairfax, and Westwood. A mall in Compton burned.

The Violence wasn't limited to the L.A. area. It extended to Long
Beach, Cal. (where more than 500 Cambodian-owned businesses were torched);
Seattle, Wash.; Eugene, Ore.; San Francisco, Cal.; San Jose, Cal.; Las
Vegas, Nev. (where it still lingers); Madison, Wis.; Birmingham, Ala.; and
Atlanta, Ga. Terrorism swept America. In Las Vegas, for example, a white
man was pulled out of his car and severely beaten by blacks breaking up
from an anti-white rally at l0:30 pm. The blacks shouted racial insults as
the police carted him away to the hospital. The crowd then pelted SWAT
teams in armored vehicles with rocks and bottles. Someone in the crowd of
blacks shot a gun and the police responded with tear gas. I'm sure that
there were many more incidents of looting, fires, and violence that we
haven't heard about for the simple fact that the media doesn't want us to
know about them. Newsmen and editors are protecting us from the truth.

Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to
pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The "poor"
lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no
deliveries)--and then complained about slow service. What if the checks
had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the
welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the
violence subsided.

Several days after the violence ended, we learned that there would
have been blacks on the King jury--if the NAACP hadn't engaged in jury
tampering by telling potential black jurors that it was their racial duty
to convict the cops. The blacks admitted this to defense lawyers, and were
rightly excluded from jury. This is a serious crime, but the NAACP will not
be prosecuted.

Imagine the irony. Blacks have whined endlessly that letting the cops
off was "all white" (even though the jury included an Hispanic and an
Asian). But it was the leading "civil rights" organization that is at fault
for this.

What did Bush say about the riots? First he promised to have the Justice
Department see if it could retry the cops for violating Rodney King's
"civil rights." But what about the constitutional prohibition of double
jeopardy? No one cares. Then Bush promised an immediate payoff of $600
million to L.A. gangsters. When the liberals called this a "token", he
raised the amount to $1.2 billion. He has vacillated between pretending to
be a tough guy and condemning the rioters, and taking up the Jack Kemp line
that inner-city "despair" can be fixed through more federal programs. But
this is capitulation to terrorist demands. The advice some libertarians
give---"don't vote, it only encourages them" applies here. We must not
kowtow to the street hoodlums and their sanctimonious leaders.

At a Washington, D.C., rally two weeks after the L.A. attempt at
revolution, many poured out to lobby for more money to be given to the
cities. The most commonly held sign was: "Justice for Rodney King. Free all
the L.A. prisoners." Now, consider for a moment what this slogan implies.
Were they upset by the murders, the burned buildings, and the $1 billion in
property damage? Not at all, except to use it as an excuse to get more
cash. They wanted the cops jailed and the murderers, arsonists, and thieves
set free. This came not from the underclass, but from middle-class
blacks and black political activists, who hold opinions not markedly
different from the Crips and the Bloods. But the Crips and the Bloods, it
turns out, have been "misunderstood," according to Ted Koppel who
interviewed two of these animals. After spending several hours with them,
he decided he liked them. Unfortunately, they didn't pull him out of his
stretch limousine.

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not
going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities
across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good
sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly
avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of
actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color
of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for
many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who
doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that
it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black
men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of
proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots,
burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial
politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting
booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you
are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the
streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their
Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government
contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black
mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows,
black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and
public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.

Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that
race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting this will be
the major problem of the 1990s.

Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.

massive derail, but yeah.

[aurik]

Wasn't written by Dr. Paul, actually.

[Khamsin]

Wasn't written by Dr. Paul, actually.

When's the last time someone wrote their own stuff? Other than Bush (at least, I hope he writes his own stuff, or else he should fire his writers).

[Beckwin]

Who allows blatantly racist material to be published under their name?

[aurik]

Who allows blatantly racist material to be published under their name?

You'd be surprised.

Anyway, from Wikipedia:

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."

[Demosthenes11]

I'll be honest, I only read like 1/4 of it, but for the most part it isn't racist <.<

There is a bit of generalizing, but when Bill Cosby gets Boo'd off a stage for saying blacks need to take responsibility for their lives, it is a good majority that thinks that way.