Sunday, October 17, 2010

Governments and the Mortgage Crises

ADV Broadcast Of October 16, 2010

Hello, and welcome back to another broadcast of American Dissident Voices, the Internet radio program of North America’s foremost racialist organization, the National Alliance. I’m your host and the Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.

Ideally, the main purpose of a government is to ensure the well-being of its citizens. Up to this point in history, that ideal has mostly been approached from the standpoint of keeping a nation’s citizens safe and healthy. When something has threatened a nation’s people, responsible governments in the past have taken actions to defuse the threat. Sometimes, of course, defusing a threat has called for the deployment of military personnel and the resultant loss of life of some of those personnel. But the rationale behind governments using the military is that to NOT do so would endanger ALL of the nation, and because the nation as a whole must be preserved, the snuffing out of the lives of some of the nation’s soldiers is a price that governments are willing to pay.

The citizens of a nation are willing to pay that price, too, as long as it is generally believed that the government’s use of the military is for both the immediate and long-term good of the country. In 1941, not all Americans were convinced that America’s entry into the ongoing war in Europe and in the Pacific would be in our nation’s best interest. That’s why there was a vocal anti-interventionist movement, led by groups such as the America First Committee, and why there was broad-based support for that movement among the general population.

Of course, as we know, the American Jewish establishment at the time was practically frothing at the mouth to bring down Adolf Hitler and National Socialist Germany for making Germany such a Jew-unfriendly place. And so with the Jewish press softening up the public for war, Franklin D. Roosevelt and his power-mad co-conspirator Winston Churchill cooked up a way to force Japan into a corner, where its only options were to roll over or lash out at its diplomatic and economic antagonists. The predictable outcome occurred just as Roosevelt planned; the Japanese struck back, bombing Pearl Harbor in what mainstream historians falsely call an unprovoked attack. That act of aggression – which was certainly provoked, let there be no doubt about that – was enough to push the American people over the edge, convincing them that war was the only option. The Jews were thrilled and the rest, as they say, is history.




To say that World War II ended in a net positive for the United States is to view that war’s outcome from an almost childish win-loss perspective. Yes, the United States was on the winning side in the war, and that always makes the hardcore flag wavers feel good. But from a White racialist standpoint – and, I might add, from a human decency standpoint – the outcome of that war was almost entirely negative.

For instance, the most obvious outward effect of the war was that communism made its debut on the world stage as THE force to be reckoned with. Although the Soviet Union had sustained frightful losses during the war, it emerged stronger, just as a muscle that has been worked nearly to exhaustion over a sustained period grows bigger and stronger, despite its bouts of fatigue and near-collapse. Stalin’s communist cancer took over the eastern half of Europe, making puppet states and even bringing its tyranny into the one country whose leader had long before recognized communism for what it really was: a state in which no account is taken of the value of the individual citizen.

Besides enslaving half of Europe and forcing untold millions of its own citizens into slavery in the Gulag work camps, the Soviet Union was instrumental in helping Chinese communists under Mao Zedong seize power in the late 1940s. Despite the ideological split between Soviet and Chinese communists that began in the late 1950s and continued to grow until the breakup of the Soviet Union, it is an historical fact that – early on – Chairman Mao was given a healthy boost of support from that infamous Soviet butcher: the self-styled “Father of the Peoples,” Joseph Stalin.

Germany, of course, and to a lesser extent Japan and Italy, intended to crush communism before it could spread further, which is why Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa – the invasion of the Soviet Union – in June of 1941. Hitler knew better than anyone the true nature of the communist beast and made no secret of his intent to protect the best interests of Germany and the German people against its venom.

Interestingly enough, although Politically Correct historians snicker at the fact that Hitler had little in the way of steady and gainful employment following Germany’s surrender in World War I, it was precisely BECAUSE Hitler didn’t have a steady job during those years that he was able to assess the true nature and intent of the social and political forces of his day more accurately than anyone else. Aside from the fact that there basically WEREN’T jobs to be had in the so-called Weimar Republic, supposing Hitler had HAD one, he wouldn’t have had the time to foresee where the communists intended for Germany to go. But he DID see, and he had no intention of handing his beloved Fatherland over to the communists, and vowed to crush the treacherous ideology.

But thanks to Roosevelt, Hitler never had the chance to really focus on strangling the serpent of Soviet communism. Before the crusade – to destroy, incidentally, NOT Russia, but rather communism IN Russia – was even half a year old, Roosevelt had pushed the United States into the conflict, simultaneously sealing the fate of Germany and saving the Soviet Union. The fact that, in the decades following the war, communism in Russia and in Eastern Europe has sunk back down into the filthy swamps from which it came doesn’t undo all of the pain endured by humanity and by the Earth itself under the lash of communism. The recent environmental debacle in Hungary is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ecological consequences of a political ideology that, not unlike laissez-faire capitalism, views natural and human resources alike as mere cogs in the machine.

On that topic, it seems to me that the only essential economic difference between communism and laissez-faire capitalism is that, while communism runs roughshod over people and the planet in order to satisfy government-imposed production quotas, capitalism instead runs roughshod over people and the planet in order to satisfy the voracious money-appetite of whomever has the tenacity to gather the gold. Fortunately, in the West, laissez-faire capitalism is largely a matter of history, and the inherent social conscience of the White man has, more or less, tried to ensure clean air, clean soil, and clean water for everyone. Not that we’ve entirely succeeded on that count, but the environmental damage sustained by Eastern Europe in the few decades it suffered under communism is orders-of-magnitude worse than what we have inflicted on ourselves here in the West.

Anyway, it is obvious that throughout history, governments that were supposed to be concerned about the welfare of their own citizens weren’t always doing so. Sometimes, as in the case of Stalin, a power-seeking leader enslaves the people and forces them to toil for his glorification. Sometimes, as in the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a leader’s egocentric personality and his desire to flatter powerful special interests combine to result in a nation working against the best interests of its own future. And sometimes the system itself is so structured that it puts the needs of a select few before the needs of the whole population.

The present crisis in the so-called “mortgage industry” is a prime example of the few benefiting at the expense of the many. Just so that we are all on the same page, a mortgage constitutes an agreement between a lender and borrower whereby the lender gives a certain amount of money to a borrower in order to purchase a piece of property; a house, for instance. The borrower agrees to repay the amount borrowed, plus interest. If the borrower defaults on the loan (that is, if he is unable to make his payments to the lender), then the lender seizes the property, becoming wealthier not only in that regard, but the lender also gets to keep all of the payments made to him by the borrower up to that time. The lender can then re-sell the foreclosed property and make even more money.

Like all loans, mortgages are based on the principle of what used to be called usury, which is the loaning of money at interest. Today, the term usury has come to mean “the loaning of money at exorbitant rates of interest,” but we are splitting hairs. Who is to say what is or is not an exorbitant rate of interest? The idea is the same: The lender gives a certain amount of money to the borrower, who agrees to pay back the lender not only the original amount, but also the additional interest. There are various ways to structure loans, which means that the interest on a loan can be calculated in several ways, but what is ALWAYS the same in our current system is that the borrower must pay back MORE than he borrowed. Not that that in itself is the worst idea ever, but interest can get, in my mind, out of hand. In the case of home mortgages, which have terms of perhaps 30 years, what is paid back is sometimes WAY more than what was borrowed. It isn’t unusual, over a period of several decades, for a borrower to pay back three to five times what was originally borrowed.

Well, with the American economy being the way it’s been for the last few years, some ordinary Americans have been having a tough time keeping up with their mortgage payments. Because of that, homes are being foreclosed at an astonishing rate. In August 2010 alone, banks seized over 95,000 homes from borrowers who couldn’t make the payments. One in four homes now sold in the U.S. are foreclosed properties that mortgage companies re-selling to make even more money, on top of the payments that the previous occupant made.

So it is no wonder that some observers have decided that the mortgage business is a complete money-sucking racket. They take your payments for as long as you can make them, but when your job gets shipped to Southeast Asia and you can’t help but default on your loan, they’ll evict you and take the property back.

And it has come to light recently that virtually the entire mortgage industry has been doing some shady paperwork with regard to foreclosed properties: issuing fraudulent documents to evict delinquent occupants and seizing properties without having a clear ownership of the mortgages, for example. In other words, they have been taking shortcuts and throwing their weight around to make more money at the expense of the rest of us, trusting that the naiveté of the public about financial matters will keep the secret under the table.

Well, now there have been calls in Congress for a national moratorium on foreclosures; that is, a nationwide freeze on the sale of foreclosed homes until the situation can be resolved. Most mortgage companies have halted the sales of their foreclosed properties in the 23 states that require a court order to evict occupants; some have added additional states to that list. They are bringing in armies of accountants to audit their recent foreclosure activities. The mortgage companies are bracing for what could possibly be a wave of lawsuits by borrowers who are fighting to keep their homes. And I happened to see a very touchy-feely JP Morgan Chase commercial on television the other night; obviously, the folks at JP Morgan are doing some damage control, trying to head off the negative publicity right at the start.

The Obama Administration, too, is treating the situation rather lightly, as though it is simply a minor matter of not all of the i’s being dotted and the t’s being crossed on the mortgage paperwork. Obama doesn’t want a national moratorium on foreclosures because he is interested in economic recovery, and he and everybody else knows that a nationwide freeze on the sale of foreclosed properties will prolong the recession.

At least, that is what is being put out there for us to believe. Maybe the advisors to Obama have told him that their buddies are in the mortgage business, and that the public simply needs to be told to stay out of the way and let the mortgage companies do their internal audits. If there is no governmental investigation and the mortgage companies are allowed to police themselves in this matter, then we can be sure that the results of those audits turn up nothing earthshaking – just a few misfiled papers, nothing to worry about. And that might be the case even IF the government launches an investigation; after all, there are rich and powerful men who could lose a lot of money if this doesn’t go right.

Historically, of course, the Jewish people have been the kingpins in the world of finance. The American poet and visionary Ezra Pound noticed this during the First World War, which prompted him to work in propaganda radio for fascist Italy – against the interests of Jewish high finance – during the Second World War. The German National Socialists gained power largely by educating the masses of Germans about the financial straightjacket the Jews had tied around Germany.

The world of finance is still a murky business, and when a government puts its interests ahead of those of the nation’s citizens – as our government appears to be doing with the mortgage crisis – it is a clear sign that something needs to change.

Join the National Alliance and help us make those changes.

I’m Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.
Source:www.natallnews.com

No comments:

Post a Comment