Jul 7, 2015

How to Win Power and Riches by Betraying Your Own

via The Occidental Observer

After a crowded jet-liner was deliberately crashed in the Alps earlier this year, many journalists talked about the need for psychological screening of pilots. It’s a good suggestion. But if we screen the pilots of planes, why don’t we screen the pilots of nations? Why aren’t aspiring politicians tested for dangerous traits like narcissism and psychopathy?

If we had tests like that, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton , and Barack Obama would never have achieved high office. They are true children of the television age: all surface, no substance. At this time, there is literally no country in the West where a politician can achieve power without the support of Jewish interests. This article necessarily just scratches the surface (so I’m not even going to mention Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, the Republican Jewish Coalition, etc., or Hillary Clinton‘s long association with powerful Jews). Supporting Jewish interests is a great career move, whether it’s as a politician, making Hollywood movies, or writing for a neocon think tank. The war against Whites is massively incentivized.

Quite simply, it is not possible to be a viable candidate for high national office without the stamp of approval from the Jewish community. Even though Obama’s relationship with the Jewish community has become frayed because he has thus far not acquiesced to all the military ventures desired by Israel, here is an article describing how he scaled the heights of power with the support of America’s richest and most influential ethnic group:
Writer Toni Morrison famously dubbed Bill Clinton “the first black president” – a title he fervently embraced. Abner Mikva, the Chicago Democratic Party stalwart and former Clinton White House counsel, offers a variation on that theme. “If Clinton was our first black president, then Barack Obama is our first Jewish president,” says Mikva, who was among the first to spot the potential of the skinny young law school graduate with the odd name.
“I use a Yiddish expression, yiddishe neshuma, to describe him,” explains Mikva. “It means a Jewish soul. It’s an expression my mother used. It means a sensitive, sympathetic personality, someone who understands where you are coming from.” …

Abner Mikva: The Mensch behind Obama
Abner Mikva: The Mensch behind Obama

Obama’s circle of Jewish patrons and advisers widened further in 1992 when he became involved in a voter registration drive that brought him into contact with Bettylu Saltzman, a liberal activist (and daughter of the late Philip Klutznick, a former commerce secretary and shopping mall developer). Saltzman says she knew from the moment she met Obama that he would someday be president. … “As Jews got to know him, they recognized a kindred spirit, not someone who came down from Mars,” Mikva said. Rabbi Arnold Wolf, of KAM Isaiah Israel synagogue across the street from Obama’s Chicago home, was another early backer. Like Mikva, he sees what he called Obama’s “Jewish side.” … (Barack Obama: The first Jewish president? Chicago circle nurtured him all the way to the top, The Chicago Tribune, 12th December 2008)
And here is a photograph illustrating how Blair won the support of Britain’s richest and most influential ethnic group:

Alleged paederast, proven traitor: Greville Janner and Tony Blair
Alleged paederast, proven traitor: Greville Janner and Tony Blair

That photo, which dates from 1997 according to the Daily Mail, is now very embarrassing to Blair, especially since Janner was one of the first peers to be appointed to the House of Lords when Blair was elected. His grinning companion, Greville Janner, is officially accused of serious sexual offences against boys.

Since leaving office, Blair has amassed a huge fortune by highly dubious means, turning the dross of his intellect into heaps of gold. His new career move is therefore not surprising. He will continue to serve his masters by becoming the front man for an organization co-founded by Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress, dedicated to eradicating free speech on ethnic issues.
Tony Blair is set to become chairman of an organisation that combats anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia in Europe. The former prime minister is stepping down from his post as Middle East peace envoy [having achieved nothing]…  and will join the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), which describes itself as a “non-partisan” organisation designed to promote “tolerance, reconciliation and education”. He will replace Aleksander Kwaśniewski, the former president of Poland.
Writing a joint article in the Times [paywall] with Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress and the ECTR, Blair cites statistics from the Kantor Centre at Tel Aviv University showing a rise in anti-Semitic attacks last year. …
In his role, Blair said he could campaign for European states to implement proposals in the ECTR’s report Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance, which recommended judges should have greater powers to prosecute hate speech and to make Holocaust denial illegal. During his time as Middle East envoy, where he was working to end the Israel-Palestine conflict, Blair was perceived by Palestinians as being too sympathetic to the Israeli cause. As the Times points out, Blair’s decision to work at the ECTR could fuel suspicions that he was biased towards the Israeli side during his work as Quartet envoy.
Blair will not officially be paid for the role but the Times reports his foundation will receive an annual donation from the ECTR. His office has not disclosed the amount. (Tony Blair has a new job, The Independent, 4th June 2015)
In Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), George Orwell describes how the ruling ideology is openly “impudent” in its “deliberate reversal of the facts.” The Ministry of Truth is dedicated to lies and the Ministry of Love to torture, for example. Similarly, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation is dedicated to intolerance and a fractured society. It calls itself “non-partisan” when it clearly reflects the interests of the organized Jewish community.

So who better to serve as chairman of the ECTR than a liar and confidence trickster like Tony Blair? In 1997, he was standing with Greville Janner; in 2015, he’s standing with Moshe Kantor. All that has changed is the name of his master. The nature of his service remains the same: to work for Jewish interests. Those interests include implacable hostility to the White majority that still exists in both Britain and the United States. Jewish lobbies want that majority undermined and pushed from power by mass immigration from South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

This explains why Blair surreptitiously opened Britain’s borders during his time in power, causing huge harm to the White working-class who voted for Labour and creating huge problems for the future. The White working-class are now deserting Labour, who rely more and more on the votes of ethnic minorities.

Of course, the Conservatives are no better. Like the Republicans in the United States, the Conservatives are desperate to discard their image as a White party by wooing saintly ethnics away from the left. The Republicans dream of a plausible non-White candidate for the presidency. The Conservatives aren’t dreaming: they’re already grooming a non-White to be prime minister.

Javid is from Rochdale, home of Pakistani gang-rapists

Javid is from Rochdale, home of Pakistani gang-rapists

His name is Sajid Javid and you’ll be relieved to hear that he doesn’t come from the slippery and devious world of lawyers. No, he’s a former banker instead. Isn’t that reassuring? He’s also a Pakistani Muslim but you can be sure that he will not emulate Sayeeda Warsi, the Tory chairwoman who resigned in protest at her party’s bias towards Israel. In December last year, a journalist at the neo-conservative Spectator swooned with pleasure when Javid delivered “one of the finest speeches from a government minister I have ever read.” In fact, it was fawning speech by someone attempting to ingratiate himself with the people who matter.
Sajid Javid’s speech at the Union of Jewish Students’ Annual Conference 2014
Shalom Aleichem [Hebrew for “Peace be with you”]. Thank you for coming, and thank you for inviting me along today. It’s always great to see young people getting engaged with the political process. …
As I’m sure you’re all aware, there’s an increasingly vocal campaign for a full-scale cultural boycott of Israel. It’s a campaign I have no time for … It was wrong when Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s Behzti came under siege from members of the Sikh community. It was wrong when Christian groups tried to drive Jerry Springer The Musical off the stage. And it’s wrong when Jewish artists are targeted simply because of their connection to Israel. A century ago William Howard Taft called anti-Semitism a “Noxious weed”.
A century later, I don’t want to see that weed taking root in any aspect of British life. That’s why I will always be proud to stand up and resist calls for boycotts of Israel. I know that such calls are nothing more than a smokescreen for the oldest hatred. That’s why I am proud to see the government taking real action against anti-Semites who want to gain a foothold in Britain’s universities. We’re denying a platform to extremists who would abuse our freedoms in order to sow the seeds of division.
And that’s why I’m proud of the work we’re doing with the Holocaust Educational Trust. We’re paying for two teenagers from every British school to visit Auschwitz, letting them see for themselves the horrors of the Shoah. I had the privilege of joining a group of children from my constituency when they visited two years ago. I’ve read a great deal about the atrocities of the Nazi regime. And I was extremely moved by the permanent Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum.
But nothing can prepare you for the experience of actually being there. The Prime Minister found that for himself when he visited this week. I’m sure everyone who goes to Auschwitz is touched by what they see in different ways. For me, I will never forget the sight of a case filled with thousands upon thousands of shoes taken from those who were murdered. Mixed in among them there were countless tiny pairs that had clearly been stolen from the feet of children.
As a parent – and as a human being – it’s a sight that will live with me forever. As the Holocaust Educational Trust says, when we understand where prejudice leads, we can stop it in its tracks. …
I’m proud to be the child of immigrants. It’s who I am. It’s what I am. The same was true of Yehudi Menuhin. He was born an American and died a British citizen.
But for his whole life he was, of course, Jewish through and through. I know that his name, Yehudi, is the Hebrew word for “Jew”. But what I didn’t know until recently was the story of how he came to be called that. You see, not long before Menuhin was born his parents were out house-hunting together.
I think it might have been in New York. They thought they’d found the perfect place. But as they were leaving, the landlady, unaware of their background, cheerily told them that: “You’ll be glad to know I don’t take Jews!” His parents were rightly appalled, though sadly not surprised. But they were proud people. They didn’t want to hide in the shadows. To deny who they were. To simply ignore the bigotry of others. So there and then, they decided that their unborn child would be given a name that declared his race and religion to the world.
That’s why, a few months later, they called their first and only son “Yehudi” – “The Jew”. And as he grew up and toured the globe, probably the greatest violinist of all time, his name proclaimed not just who he was, but what he was. It shouted it from posters, album covers and programmes around the world. Celebrating his heritage, not hiding it. Just as his parents intended. [Etc, etc] (Sajid Javid’s speech at the Union of Jewish Students’ Annual Conference, 14th December 2014)
If you ever need to show someone the meaning of the word “sycophancy,” I would recommend you show them that speech. It’s an extended exercise in grovelling. But while the speech might have appealed to Jews, it will definitely not have appealed to the Muslims currently enriching Britain. Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Somalis might be of low average IQ, but they can recognize a traitor when they see one.

Like Blair, Clinton and Cameron before him, Sajid Javid knows that treachery to his own kind is the price a politician must pay for the highest political office. Whether he actually becomes prime minister is another matter: the buffoon Boris Johnson and the harpy Theresa May also want the job. Johnson is definitely part Jewish and May knows that she must prove her devotion to Jewish interests if she wants more power. Here she is after the Charlie Hebdo massacre:

“I am a Jew” – Theresa May
“I am a Jew” – Theresa May

Violent and corrupt Muslims have flooded into Europe because Jews like Moshe Kantor and Greville Janner wanted them here to undermine the White Christian majority. The chief victims of the invasion have been Whites, especially working class Whites, who opposed mass immigration, not Jews who supported it. But people who point this out will be demonized as “anti-Semites.” If Kantor and his puppet Tony Blair get their way, those people will also go to jail. Like Obama and Clinton, Blair was utterly unfit for power. But in a political system where one cannot achieve power without genuflecting to Jewish interests, that’s precisely why he got it.

Responding to the New York Times

via Radix

For those who are discovering us for the first time through the article in the New York Times, I would recommend that you read through the Radix Journal archive (our site for cultural writings, which is frequently updated) and consider reading some of our books or reports. You may also want to consider attending our upcoming conference, Become Who We Are, which takes place in Washington, DC, on October 31. 

A week ago, I had a civilized interview, of about 45 minutes, with Michael Wines, a long-time reporter from the New York Times. Unlike a lot of “point and sputter” journalists, Wines seemed to be curious about what made me tick intellectually. Very little of our discussion—about identity, the contradictions of liberalism and multiculturalism, and the meaning of Americanism—made the final report. Though everything we discussed I’ve spoken of publicly in my last two speeches.
Here is what made the report.
Richard B. Spencer, the 37-year-old president of the white nationalist National Policy Institute in Whitefish, Mont., embodies this new generation. He holds a master’s degree from the University of Chicago and studied for a doctorate in history at Duke University. Now he runs an organization that produces papers on issues like racial differences in intelligence and the crime rate among Hispanic immigrants.
As I’ve said many times, The National Policy Institute’s foundational location is Virginia. It functions, by necessity, virtually, and we publish thinkers from around the world. I’ve become annoyed by NPI’s association with Whitefish, for the reason that NPI has never held and will never hold any kind of event in Montana, and we do not actively engage in local matters.
“America as it is currently constituted — and I don’t just mean the government; I mean America as constituted spiritually and ideologically — is the fundamental problem,” he said in an interview. “I don’t support and agree with much of anything America is doing in the world.”
This is shorthand for a number of topics I’ve dealt with recently.
Mr. Spencer, who runs the National Policy Institute, said in an interview that he fantasized about an Aryan revival in the style of the Roman Empire.
For what it’s worth, throughout the interview, I used the term “European,” not “Aryan.” This is not to say that the term “Aryan” is illegitimate; it is an important anthropological concept. But due to “Aryan’s” connotations, I find the word more often confuses or repulses people than enlightens them—which is probably why Wines and his co-author used it.

Anyway, I have always stressed that the “Ethno-State” is a fantasy, in the sense that it is not going to emerge next Tuesday and our current geo-political dispensation is undeniably stable for the foreseeable future.

That said, I take fantasies seriously.

In the 19th century, communism and Zionism were two “impossible,” “utopian” ideals; and both were easily dismissed by “realists,” who couldn’t imagine anything beyond the balance of power of the time.

As I discussed in my speech on the Ethno-State, a movement must have an ideal, a telos, an end-goal that channels action. This is the function that the “dreams” of communism and Israel played for the Left and Zionists.

“Conservatives” rarely have such dreams. The best they can do is yell “stop” at an ever-changing world, that is, resist the Left, weakly and ineffectually.

It’s also worth pointing out that the contemporary Left has itself lost so much of its “utopian,” forward-looking character, perhaps as a result of being institutionalized, that is, by being “ruined by its own success.”

I would also be remiss if I didn’t criticize the “meta-message” in the Times report. The chief reason the paper is reporting on me and others—whom it wrongly refers to as “white supremacists”—is because of Dylann Roof’s murderous actions. No individual from the article has any real connection to Roof, nor does anyone support his actions. (Roof putatively read the Council of Conservative Citizen’s website, which reproduces local and overlooked news stories about crime and other matters. The CofCC hardly instigated any kind of violence. My own thougts about Roof can be read here.)
The Times article is thus an effort to “understand” Roof by linking him, however irrationally and tangentially, to writers, thinkers, and activists whom the Times already disliked.

The reality is that Dylan Roof was a mentally unsound young man. Mentally unsound people can latch on to all kinds of political and social movements. The issue that should be have been of national concern after the Charleston shooting is the reality of mental illness—and what we as a society owe people who are incurably ill. Yet this is a topic, for a variety of reasons, few Americans are willing to discuss seriously.

It’s much easier, and more gratifying, to blame “racism” or the Confederate Battle Flag.

Bush, Obama, NINJA Loans, and the Greek Debt Crisis

via Western Spring

It appears that Greece is teetering in the brink of bankruptcy and if we were to listen to the usual financial pundits of the mass media, it would appear that ‘those Greeks’, those ‘lazy, hot-headed’ Mediterranean types — the kind of people who like to spend all day in the sun, eating olives and kebabs and drinking cheap red wine and ouzo — have gotten themselves in one hell of a financial mess, and now they expect everyone else to bail them out! The truth however is never as simple as it might at first seem, and certainly not as simple as the mass media would have us believe. 

Like almost all western economies, Greece is afflicted with chronic financial problems, some of which may be marginally more severely felt than elsewhere, but none that are not shared by virtually every other Western nation. However, it seems to have passed out of the public consciousness that Greece’s financial problems have really only been ramped up to their current critical level since the financial crisis of 2007-2008 — the so-called ‘Credit Crunch’ — and logically therefore we should look to that crisis to begin to formulate an explanation of what is happening in Greece today.

One reason for the current misunderstanding of the Greek crisis has been the refusal of economists and politicians to acknowledge the true causes of the Credit Crunch and the reason why almost all Western nations have in recent years been forced to shoulder vast amounts of public debt, to suffer prolonged recession, to endure high unemployment and austerity.

The Credit Crunch

The Credit Crunch has traditionally been blamed on two things: irresponsible lending and exorbitant banker remuneration, and while these two factors were indeed symptoms of the Credit Crunch which no doubt exacerbated an already dire situation, they were not per se, the causes of the crisis.

In exposing the levels of irresponsible lending by our banks, we were told about the credit card debt that we had each accumulated; we were told about the large mortgage multiples that had been introduced and the sub-prime mortgages. Furthermore, we were told about how all these various debts were securitised into ‘junk bonds’ that had found their way into the reserves of most of our banks. However, as someone who has in the past been a financial adviser and who is familiar with the credit risk assessment systems employed by major banks in the UK, these explanations, with the inference that virtually everyone in banking and finance, and virtually every consumer across the Western world was at least partially to blame, don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Firstly, while there was over a period of at least two to three decades a loosening of credit restrictions in the UK, and while the total of both national and consumer debt was by 2007 higher than at any previous time in our history, there did not exist at that time, the kind of ‘NINJA’ loans that analysts have since identified, there has not been a massive wave of loan defaults in this country and certainly nothing has happened on the domestic consumer front that could have been blamed for the collapse of Northern Rock and the demise of Bradford & Bingley and Halifax, Bank of Scotland Group (HBoS).

The roots of the Credit Crunch go back much further than anyone in authority has so far been prepared to admit and they go back to one particular source, the USA.

NINJA Loans & ‘Sub-Prime’

‘NINJA’ is an acronym standing for ‘No Income, No Job, or Assets’, and this terms signifies a kind of home loan that was not available here in Europe, but which was widely made available in the USA to people who were not required to substantiate the income they claimed, who were not required to substantiate the employment they claimed and who were not required to have any assets that might otherwise have been required as collateral in order to establish their credit worthiness for the loans in question.

In order to explain why ‘NINJA’ loans were a feature of the US housing market, we need to study a little history.

The Great Depression ‘ Fannie Mae’ & ‘Freddie Mac’

Following the Great Depression of the 1920s it became apparent to government in the US that many communities were suffering from a lack of credit availability.

In those days, many rural communities and small towns had their own local, one branch banks and because of their lack of resources, dealing with only the financial needs of a small, relatively poor farming community, these banks followed a very strict policy of financial probity, operating on a mutual basis, much as building societies have traditionally done in the UK. Consequently as these communities struggled to recover from the Great Depression there was often a greater demand for credit facilities than the small town banks could provide, and this tended to hinder economic recovery.

In 1938, the Federal National Mortgage Association or ‘Fannie Mae’ as it become known, was formed as a government agency to create liquidity and expand credit availability in the mortgage market.

Fannie Mae would ‘buy’ mortgages from small town banks and to package the mortgages and sell them on to merchant banks as investments. This practice relieved the small banks in rural areas of their debt burden and gave then fresh money that they could make available to new borrowers, thereby giving a greater number of people the opportunity of home ownership.

This policy was very successful because the banks still applied strict lending criteria and in the main were only lending to responsible, overwhelmingly White customers who had been raised in a culture that fundamentally disapproved of borrowing and indebtedness unless it was absolutely necessary and which had a strong ethic of paying off one’s debts promptly.

In 1968 Fannie Mae was converted into a private shareholder-owned corporation to take it off the government’s balance sheet, but this move was more cosmetic than substantial as Fannie Mae continued to carry an implicit government guarantee so that if or when it failed, taxpayers would bail it out. A competitor to Fannie Mae was also created 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation otherwise known as ‘Freddie Mac’. ‘Freddie’ and ‘Fannie’ subsequently competed in buying mortgages from loan providers, and in repackaging and selling the mortgages on to investors in what became known as the ‘secondary mortgage market’.


The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was also formed in 1970. It is a not-for-profit, so called non-partisan social justice organization with national headquarters in New York, New Orleans and Washington, D.C. and has since become the USA’s largest grassroots community organization of ‘low and moderate income people’ with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighbourhood chapters in 110 cities across the USA.

In the US, the term ‘low and moderate income people’ is a euphemism for ‘black and minority ethnic’ people, and while ACORN does ostensibly represent the interests of poor white people too, the graphics used on its website (www.acorn.org) until quite recently made it obvious that it was, in the run-up to the Credit Crunch and for some time afterwards, primarily a civil rights group acting almost exclusively in the interests of the Black and Hispanic communities. Since the Credit Crunch the website has been given a racially sanitising make-over and is now almost devoid of the tell-tale graphics.

ACORN was co-founded by Gary Delgado and Wade Rathke, both ex-organisers of the left-wing National Welfare Rights Organization. Rathke is also an ex-member of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) a student Marxist group and part of the culturally Marxist, radical New Left movement that formed in the US during the post war period.

In 1977, the ‘Community Reinvestment and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act’ (CRA) was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA mandated that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it is meeting the credit needs of its entire community. The purpose of this legislation was to ensure that ‘under-served populations’, another euphemism for the Black and minority ethnic communities, could obtain credit and loans on terms sufficient to boost home ownership rates amongst such groups.

Then in 1980, ACORN and other community organizations, under the auspices of the CRA began to accuse banks of ‘redlining’, i.e. of discriminating against minorities in mortgage lending. They argued that home ownership amongst minority communities was significantly lower than amongst the White majority and it was claimed, this was evidence that banks operated lending policies that were racially discriminatory.

In 1989, Congress dominated by the Democrats, amended the CRA in order to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants, with the intention that in so doing, the institutions would provide the likes of ACORN and federal regulators with the statistical ammunition needed to bring about change in banking practices vis-à-vis lending to Black and other ethnic minority applicants.

Three years later in 1992, under pressure from ACORN and in an effort to appear compliant and in tune with the spirit of legislation in this area, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston published a study indicating that black and Hispanic mortgage applicants in the Boston metropolitan area were roughly 60 percent more likely to be turned down for a home loan than were Whites. ACORN’s Marxist political outlook would not accept that minority loan applicants were rejected more frequently for legitimate and prudent banking reasons. While the banks argued that Black and other minority applicants on average had lower incomes than White applicants; rarely had a deposit to put down when purchasing a home; had less stable employment histories; and had worse credit histories than White applicants on average, and that because of these legitimate reasons they presented a greater risk of mortgage default and were less attractive prospective borrowers, ACORN dismissed these factors amid allegations of ‘institutional’ racism.

Barack Obama & HUD

Greek Debt Crisis 2

During this period, Barack Obama was a newly qualified civil rights lawyer involved in community activism with ACORN. He was engaged by ACORN to provide training for their community activists and in 1994 acted as attorney representing one Calvin Robertson in a ‘Class Action’ lawsuit against Citibank. The bank was accused of systematically denying mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighbourhoods. In this case, Obama and four other lawyer associates from his law firm jointly attacked Citibank and using a premise introduced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Clinton administration, that where the application of contractual terms and conditions on average produces differential outcomes for different racial groups, this constitutes evidence of racial discrimination even if such terms and conditions have been applied fairly and with no intent to discriminate. ‘Disparate impact’ as it became known, was regarded as evidence of discrimination.

Obama and his colleagues won the case which was one of a number of similar highly publicised cases against banks and lending institutions instigated by ACORN with the support of HUD during the 1990s, which served as a warning to mortgage providers that their records with the regulators needed to show ‘equality of outcomes’ and not just ‘equality of opportunity’. In short, where minority applicants were found to be less successful than white applicants when lending terms and conditions were applied even handedly, lenders were required to relax their lending criteria for minorities until a parity of outcomes was achieved.

As a consequence, mortgage banks fell over one another to provide loans to low-income households and especially to minority customers. In the five years from 1994 to 1999, the number of African-American and Latino homeowners increased by two million.

During the early to mid-90s activists and community organisers from ACORN conducted a campaign of ‘direct action’ aimed at intimidating banks and more specifically their staff, to increase lending to minority applicants. Organisers led mobs into bank premises and turned up at bank employees’ homes in order to physically intimidate bank staff and their families in a campaign that was directly comparable to the kind of low grade ‘terrorism’ conducted by animal rights activists against the proprietors and employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences during the same period.

In 1995 changes were made to the Community Reinvestment Act to establish a system by which banks were rated according to how much lending they did in low-income (Black and Hispanic) neighbourhoods. A good CRA rating was necessary if a bank wanted to get regulators to approve mergers, expansions and even new branch openings. A poor rating could be disastrous for a bank’s business plan. It was a different kind of coercion, but just as effective.

Throughout the 1990s and beyond, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the percentage of mortgages they purchased from primary lenders that were derived from loans to borrowers earning below the median income for their area, i.e. Black and Hispanic borrowers. Initially the requirement was set at 42% but it was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.

In April 1998, Andrew Cuomo, President Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development announced an ‘affirmative action’ settlement with Accubank, a Texas bank. HUD forced Accubank to provide 2.1 billion dollars in risky mortgages to low-income Americans.

George W Bush

When George W. Bush addressed a White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership at George Washington University on October 15th 2002, he said, “… in America today two-thirds of all Americans own their homes, yet we have a problem here in America because fewer than half of the Hispanics and half the African Americans own their home. That’s a homeownership gap. It’s a gap that we’ve got to work together to close for the good of our country, for the sake of a more hopeful future.

“We’ve got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.

“I set an ambitious goal. It’s one that I believe we can achieve. It’s a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we’ll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families… And it’s going to require a strong commitment from those of you involved in the housing industry …”

Bush went on to say, “Last June, I issued a challenge to everyone involved in the housing industry to help increase the number of minority families to be home owners. And what I’m talking about, I’m talking about your bankers and your brokers and developers, as well as members of faith-based community and community programs. And the response to the homeowners challenge has been very strong and very gratifying. Twenty-two public and private partners have signed up to help meet our national goal. Partners in the mortgage finance industry are encouraging homeownership by purchasing more loans made by banks to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities.”

“Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans.”

As we can see from the above, the roots of the sub-prime lending crisis and the subsequent ‘Credit Crunch’ extend back over more than three decades to the Carter Presidency and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. Successive Democratic and Republican administrations having absorbed the tenets of cultural Marxism wanted to create a situation in which there would be ‘equality of outcomes’ between the various ethnic and racial groups in their endeavours to buy their own homes, not just ‘equality of opportunity’.

The effect of all the pressure placed upon American banks and mortgage-lending institutions was that progressively they relaxed previously prudent lending standards in order to accommodate the political aims of the federal government and left-wing minority advocacy groups:
  • Gradually reducing the requirement for borrowers to place a deposit as a down payment when buying a home until eventually 100% advances were commonplace
  • Making low-start and deferred interest payment mortgages available to low income non-professional applicants who had no prospect of a significant increase in income in the foreseeable future
  • Not taking up employer’s references and by allowing low-income applicants to self-certify that they are employed and that they have the income necessary to afford the loans applied for and
  • Not taking up credit references, so that even low-income applicants with horrendous histories of previous loan defaults could still obtain loans.
In short, US banks invented the NINJA loan in direct response to the political pressures being applied. The banks found that they could make full blooded ‘NINJA’ loans to poor Black and Hispanic applicants almost with impunity as they were able, through the facility provide by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to relieve themselves of any adverse financial liability that would come from the ‘Tsunami’ of loan defaults and repossessions that would inevitably follow.

The Securitisation of Bad Debt

The banks were able to package up the highly risky ‘sub-prime’ mortgages and sell them on, together with the consequent liabilities to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. In turn, Freddie and Fannie were able, in conjunction with Bear Stearns, which was one of the largest investment banks in the US, to re-package the sub-prime mortgages into debt-based securities and off-load them as ‘low-risk’ SDIs (Structured Debt Investments) to unsuspecting banks around the world.

The Market Goes Pear Shaped

All was well for a while as property prices continued to rise in the US during the late 1990s and early 2000s. As borrowers later began to default on their mortgage repayments however, the investment incomes that should have been derived from the supposedly ‘low-risk’ debt-based securities sold by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to unsuspecting banks around the world did not fully materialise and alarm bells started to sound. Happily, when repossessions took place, the proceeds from the re-sale of the properties involved were initially sufficient to recover all of the income arrears as well as the capital loaned.

In 2006 however, the property boom in the US came to an end and property values started to fall. Re-sale proceeds were suddenly no longer sufficient to cover the financial losses derived from loan defaults and the purchasers of the debt-based securities that Fannie and Freddie had sold them via Bear Stearns found that instead of low risk, AAA rated securities, they had been effectively sold ‘junk’ bonds that were far lower in value than had previously been imagined.

In effect, the sale of these supposedly ‘low-risk’ investments composed of securitised ‘high-risk’ mortgage debts was fraud on a massive scale, in which the worldwide customers of the Western banks who bought the dodgy investments were left to absorb the financial losses suffered as a result of institutionalised and politically motivated irresponsible lending for the purposes of promoting home ownership among Blacks and ethnic minorities.

The Liquidity Crisis

Throughout most of the world, banks operate on a system known as ‘fractional reserve’ banking. This means that banks are able to lend far more money than they actually have deposited with them and M3 the total value of all bank notes and coins and bank deposits is massively greater than M0, the total of all of the money that physically exists in the form of notes and coins.

Banks have tended to hold as their reserves not just cash, but also ‘near money’, i.e., Commercial Paper, Treasury Bills, Government Stocks and other debt-based, fixed-interest securities and banks around the world had purchased the SDIs (Structured Debt Investments) sold by Fannie and Freddie via Bear Stearns and were holding these amongst their reserves. Suddenly their reserves were no longer worth anything like the values that had previously been placed upon them and banks all around the world suddenly realised that they had lent massively more than they should have done based upon prudent liquidity ratios and compared to the new lower values of their reserves.

The consequence of this realisation was threefold;

Firstly, the banks needed to halt further lending and call in as many loans as possible in an attempt to re-establish healthy liquidity ratios;

Secondly, no-one wanted to purchase further debt-based ‘near money’ from other financial institutions for fear of making matters worse by buying more concealed junk bonds; and

Thirdly, investors began to realise that many banks had inadvertently become technically insolvent and were in danger of financial collapse. Investors therefore began selling shares in banking institutions and investment companies like AIG who were known to have acquired large quantities of potentially ‘toxic’ SDIs.

Bank Failures, Rescue Packages & the ‘Bail-Out’

Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were widely recognised as being the source of the ‘toxic debt’ that was at the heart of the financial crisis and as other institutions shunned them and investors began selling their stock, Bear Stearns collapsed and Fannie and Freddie had to be rescued by the federal government.

Here in the UK, Northern Rock was well known as a bank that catered for the sub-prime end of the market and unfortunately for Northern Rock, although they had not indulged in sub-prime lending with anything like the recklessness of the American banks — they had certainly never offered NINJA loans — however they were tarred with the same brush and institutional investors suddenly stopped buying their packaged mortgage investments. This meant that Northern Rock had no way of raising new money to lend and as their business model relied upon a constant turnover of money generating new fee income, they ran into immediate serious financial difficulties and had to be rescued by nationalisation. The story at Bradford & Bingley was very similar.

Realising that the financial standing of almost all banks had been seriously damaged and that share prices in the banking sector were going to fall come what may, hedge funds began short selling bank stocks, targeting those banks that they viewed as the weakest and whose stock was likely to fall the fastest thereby presenting the greatest opportunity to profit from this misery. Thus Lehman Brothers were driven into liquidation and HBoS was weakened sufficiently to require rescue by Lloyds TSB and ultimately the British taxpayer.

Something had to be done to correct the liquidity crisis, to provide banks with additional capital so their liquidity ratios would return to normal and rectify their technical insolvency. Governments on both sides of the Atlantic felt the need to use public money to prop up our failing financial institutions, but treasury coffers were bare and so a dilemma was created. Governments needed to borrow enough money to bail out their banks, but the banks had no money to lend to governments because they were the one’s in trouble and needing help as a result of the liquidity crisis.

Financial Sleight Of Hand & The National Debt

Greek Debt Crisis 4

As stated earlier, the entire banking system of the Western World operates on the principle of fractional reserve banking under which and within certain limits imposed by liquidity ratios, commercial banks are able to create money out of nothing.

Less well understood is that when governments wish to increase the money supply, instead of instructing the Mint to print more bank notes, they usually ‘borrow’ the new money into existence. Therefore while our banks were unable to cure their liquidity crisis on their own because their reserves were no longer sufficient, with the help of the government they could conduct a feat of near magic, creating more money by financial sleight of hand.

When governments ‘borrow’ money into existence, they issue Treasury Bills to the value of the amount by which they wish to increase the money supply. These Treasury Bills are a promissory note issued by the government stating that in return for a capital sum of say £500billion, the government promises to pay interest on that sum for a term of years and to repay the capital amount at the end of that term. The Treasury Bills are given to the banks and in exchange, the government’s current account with their central bank is credited with £500billion. This is money that has been conjured out of nothing and created by making a simple electronic data entry in the central bank’s computer. Following such a transaction, the government then has £500billion to spend and this is £500billion of the same type of ‘electronic money’ that constitutes the difference between the M0 and M3 money supplies, vast billions of pounds of which already exists and ‘circulates’ happily within our economy just so long as vital liquidity ratios are maintained.

Virtually all Western leaders and their Treasury advisers, including the Greek government, decided that the way out of the financial crisis was to ‘borrow’ hundreds of billions of Dollars, Pounds Sterling and Euros etc., by issuing Treasury Bills or the equivalent. They used the ‘money’ created to buy shares in the banks and the hundreds of billions of Dollars, Pounds and Euros etc. worth of Treasury Bills were used by the banks to supplement their depleted reserves and in doing so re-establish for a while, equilibrium in the world of finance.

As with all borrowing however, the ‘fly in the ointment’ is that borrowed money has to be repaid, and despite the fact that much of the borrowed money was conjured out of nothing, the stability of the financial world relies upon all debts, including those comprised of ‘magic money’ to be repaid with interest, with real money that has been earned by our honest labour and paid to the various national treasuries in taxes.

Quantitative Easing

Needless to say, the massive bank bail-outs that took place as a result of the Credit Crunch and the massive loans that governments took on in order to make those bail-outs, have placed a massive strain upon the economies of various nations and have driven some to the very brink of bankruptcy, including Britain, the USA and Greece. Where Britain and the USA are concerned however, we have control of our own currencies and as bankruptcy loomed ever closer, our government were able in 2008, and on a number of occasions since, to relieve the crushing weight of our respective debt burdens by indulging in Quantitative Easing (QE), in which our governments simply printed bank notes debt free, and used these to pay off some of our debts, bringing the overall debt burden down to manageable levels.

Greek Debt Crisis 3

The Greeks on the other hand were not able to do this, as they are part of the Eurozone and are unable to gain the relief from debt that QE provides without getting the agreement of the other twenty-seven member states of the EU, including Germany, where the European Central Bank is located. QE can only be employed by a government if it has its own currency with its own central bank and the freedom to act as it wishes in terms of fiscal policy. Greece no longer has any of these, because it is part of the Eurozone. The currency in Greece is the Euro, their de facto central bank – the European Central Bank – is outside of Greek control, and the Greeks have surrendered their national sovereignty through their membership of the European Union and the Euro-zone.

Therefore, while the Greeks may or may not have been marginally more financially irresponsible than other nations, their current financial crisis does not follow from that. It comes as a direct consequence of the 2007-08 Credit Crunch, which was in turn a direct consequence of a policy of social engineering in which successive American governments, through policies of coercion, blackmail and fraud, tried to boost ethnic minority home ownership in the USA at the expense of everyone else.

The Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has been placed in an invidious position in which he is being urged by his EU counterparts to subject his people to extreme austerity measures in which they will have to pay the price for the high-level financial con-trick that was played on the peoples of the West and accept a reduced standard of living, or in which he will be forced to withdraw Greece from the Euro-zone and re-issue a Greek national currency in a return to the Drachma.

Common sense and natural justice suggests that he should do the latter, however, how that would impact upon Greek membership of the European Union and how it would impact upon the nations remaining within Europe and the Eurozone remains to be seen. What is ironic however, is that while Tsipras is a left-wing politician, circumstances and the dire plight of his people are currently forcing him to adopt an increasingly nationalistic position, economically speaking at least.

National Youth Front Confronts Saida Grundy

via Renegade Tribune

It is no coincidence that Kyle Hunt released this video above on the 30th, a day before National Youth Front launched Operation “Grumpy Grundy” in the early morning of July 1st. This plan was in the making for weeks, giving Kyle the time he needed to produce the video and the NYF the time to assemble their chapters so they could give Saida Grundy a warm welcome on her first day of work.

Grundy was involved in a scandal after she Tweeted hateful messages against Whites, but Boston University refused to fire her – even after it came out that she told a rape victim to “go cry somewhere.”

There was no way Boston University or Grundy could have seen this coming, nor could they have defended themselves from this; for this operation was executed in a timely manner and with military precision. NYF members evaded all security and successfully taped-up large posters and flyers (smaller versions of the large posters) in strategic locations all over Boston University including: Grundy’s entire Sociology wing, BU Administration Building, the Dean’s Office and the Student Center.

Get more details of the story here.

The purpose of all this was to send a clear message to these Marxist universities: We White people are watching; we will no longer tolerate the anti-White hatred being taught to our people; and we will make our voices be heard.

The NYF, their allies and others have begun tweeting the hashtag #FireGrundy, and you should be tweeting it in order to support this mission.

The goal is to make this go viral and get it trending. We must work together and not allow these people think that they can get away with their anti-white hate speech. We must make a stand and we must do it together.

Boston University Facebook page

Twitter – @BU_Tweets

Make sure you say hello to Saida @saigrundy

Why America Should Invade Mexico -- And Possibly One or Two Other Countries

via Alternative Right

Each White baby delays the utopia of true diversity
Vice President Joe Biden (pictured above, on the right) has been sharing his wisdom with the nation again. At a recent State Department luncheon for Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, he opined:
"By 2017, those of us of European stock," Biden said "will be an absolute minority in the United States of America." That's "not a bad thing, that's a good thing," he added, because it means the U.S. is expanding the diversity of its people."

He has cheered the end of the white, European majority before. Last December, while in Morocco, he said:

"Ladies and gentlemen, in 2017, the United States for the first time, Caucasians of European descent like me will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America. The secret that people don't know is our diversity is the reason for our incredible strength."
OK, narrow-minded hate-mongers are going critique the guy's math skills (which already show interesting elements of diversity) because, according to old-dead-White-guy science, Whites are not scheduled to be a US minority until 2044.

But this kind of racist accuracy just detracts from the great point the VP is making, namely that diversity is our strength, and the fact that our racist media and education system has been conniving to keep this vital secret hidden, ever since it was discovered in a laboratory or somewhere. Biden deserves a pat on the back for having the courage to be #sobrave and come out about the tremendous advantages of diversity. He's definitely my pick to stand up to whichever racist thug the Republican Party picks as its candidate in 2016.

But while Biden is so right about his vision of an America where Whites are a deracinated minority, there are distinct dangers with the approach now being used to achieve this utopian state: namely a seeping, porous Southern border, inefficiently manned by Mexican smuggling and rape gangs.

First, this system by raising the level of diversity slowly, may actually trigger epigenetic racist defense mechanisms buried deep beneath the ethnomasochistic altruism of Whites, leading to a sudden outburst of racism and calls for a "White America." Perhaps this is the reason why Donald Trump's blowhard message of building a wall across the border is already taking the Republican primary campaign by storm.

But, secondly, even assuming that the globalist-friendly elements in the GOP can push "The Donald" to one side and keep the border open, you are not likely to get much diversity from allowing in a flood of mainly Catholic Mexicans with a tiny peppering of H-1B Asian tech geeks and their virtual waifus.

No, if you believe in diversity as an absolute good, you can't leave its attainment to such unreliable and long-term methods as this – plus I'll probably be an actual Republican by 2044, ferchrissakes! If you want it by 2017 at the latest, then the only way to get it, is to immediately annex several large "sources of diversity."

In the past America has invaded countries for worthless oil (we now have wind power, etc.), but, as Joe Biden so correctly points out, diversity is a much more valuable commodity than some ancient fossil fuel made from patriarchal dinosaurs. Finally, something worth invading foreign lands for!

Right now the US has about 190 million Whites out of a population of 308 million. In order to reduce Whites to a minority it needs at least another 72 million non-Whites, but that would still leave Whites as the biggest minority, which is not that different from being the majority, especially with all their in-built power, wealth, work ethic, racism, guns, and privilege. To achieve true diversity, it would be necessary to increase the non-White population by much, much more than this.

For this reason, I recommend that America – while its cisgenderist, patriarchal military can still do such things – invade and annex Mexico (population 122 million, mainly Mestizo) and one or two other large, vibrant countries in quite different parts of the globe. Nigeria (population 173 million, Black) and Pakistan (182 million, South Asian) would be ideal. This would give the USA the right demographic mix to be a truly diverse state, where no one language, religion, or race – especially not the White one – would dominate.

Why must we wait until 2044 for true diversity? With his brave comments, Joe Biden has shown the way: inviting the World isn't quick enough, invading it might be.

The Final Outrage

via Cambria Will Not Yield

Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. – Luke 17: 28-30

The United States is the type of nation that all other European nations are trying to become: A militantly anti-Christian, anti-European, Babylonian nation with the negro serving as its mystical center. The recent Supreme Court ruling that raised the sin of sodomy to the same level as Christian marriage was the final step in a process that began with race-mixing. It’s striking, not as a matter of mere intellectual curiosity, but as a horrific story of hell and damnation, how closely the United States and her European toadies have followed the same path as the damned in the Bible. The modern Europeans have chosen to build their civilization on the two sins, miscegenation and sodomy, that the Lord God chose to come down to earth to condemn.
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. – Genesis 11: 9
And lest we forget, our Lord also had something to say to the gay community:
And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. Genesis 18: 20-21
Of course we know the rest. Our Lord could not find ten just men, and Sodom was destroyed. Yet the anti-nation called the United States celebrates sodomy. “I’m not gay, I’m ecstatic!” a triumphant sodomite sign proclaims.

Let us pray, we few, the European remnant, for each other and for our loved ones, that we not be counted with the Babylonians and the sodomites. ‘We were among them, O, Lord, but we were not of them.’

Some of the Christian pastors – at least they preach in buildings advertised as Christian – have expressed their concern over the legalization of sodomy. But really, aren’t those pastors like the girl who says ‘Yes, yes, yes,’ at every liberty taken and suddenly says, ‘No’ before the final liberty? You can’t militantly support miscegenation, women’s ‘reproductive freedom,’ and democratic multiculturalism, and then suddenly say, ‘We will not have homosexual marriage elevated to the same status as marriage between a man and a woman.’ This homosexual blasphemy is not an aberration, it is the logical consequence of allowing liberals to restructure Christian Europe in the image of Satan.

Conservatives blather on about the economy, telling us that we are becoming like socialist Greece – a reverse pyramid society. That is true. But can you have a stable economy in Babylon? Of course you can’t. A country with an anti-Christian mystique will have a satanically based economy in which the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer.

The liberals’ utopia is based on the age-old mysticism of all the nature religions. In those religions the devotee’s personality is absorbed by the deity, who is an impersonal deity that can inspire the type of ecstasy that our modern, sexually-depraved perverts speak of, but such mysticism cannot touch the deeper regions of the human heart where charity and love abide. It was only the historical Jesus, the Christ of the Gospels, who inspired the mysticism that St. Paul writes about in 1st Corinthians 13. The Christian Europeans practiced the Christ-centered mysticism of St. Paul, in which human hearts, through the grace of God, are able to commune with God in and through their people. (1)

In the 20th century, many debunking theologians claimed that St. Paul had perverted the teachings of Christ. The same theologians said that the European people, prior to the coming of the 20th century theologians, had also perverted the teachings of Christ. But such is not the case. St. Paul’s mystic vision, his poetic, is in perfect harmony with the Gospels. And the collective vision of the European people, their poetic mystique prior to the 20th century, is in complete harmony with the poetic of the Gospels and St. Paul. On this issue – is Jesus Christ, true God and true man, at the center of the antique European culture, or is He not? – rests the entire fate of the human race. If Christ is at center of the antique European culture, He should be rediscovered, through adherence to the mystical core of that ancient culture, rediscovered by the people who have been enjoined to carry the Christ Child on their shoulders through the rivers of modernity. If the European Christ was a false Messiah, then let Babylon reign supreme. There is no middle ground. The Babylonians have triumphed, because of their victory in the Christian churches over the poetical-mystical Christianity of St. Paul. Intellectual, theological Christianity is incapable of combating the mystique of Babylon. The ‘ecstasy’ that comes from absorption by the gods of blood and perverted sex cannot be overcome by referring the ecstatic gods’ devotees to page 281 of the Summa Theologica or page 999 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. But the ecstatic cults can be destroyed by a spirit and blood connection to the Christ of history, who can be known and loved through a heartfelt connection to the European people of long ago.

The Babylonians have spent over a century trying to cut the Europeans off from their past, because without that connection there is no means to judge between Babylon and Christianity. It’s not possible to be connected to Walter Scott’s Europe, which contains the God-man at its mystical core, and also be connected to modern Babylon. That is why old Europe and the men and women who dwelt there only exist as case studies for the people of Babylon, and their whole civilization, their movement from darkness to the light, is seen as a cautionary tale of what can happen when white people with a faith in the historical Jesus and a faith in their destiny as the Christ-bearing people are allowed to live unopposed by the forces of Babylon. A racist, sexist, homophobic society is created. You can’t compromise with the Babylonians. The halfway-house Christians politely ask if they can take a few Christian remnants into their new Babylonian house, but why should the Babylonians make any concessions to a people who no longer believe they are a people and who no longer believe their God is the true God who cannot be blended with other gods? A blended race is not a race, and a blended god is not God.

The Roman Catholic church and the mainstream Protestant churches are scared to death of the Babylonian liberals. If they oppose this final outrage, the legalization of sodomite marriages, they might lose their tax exempt status. Horrors of Horrors! – No tax exempt status to preach the new blended Christianity, which combines Babylonian negro worship with Christianity and comes up with the most anti-Christian mixture ever conceived. It would be a blessing if the churches were denied tax exempt status, because it might force them to seek solace in the historical Christ instead of filthy lucre. But it is not likely that the liberals will deny the churches their tax-exempt status so long as the churches support the blending of negro worship and Christianity; it is in the best interests of the liberals to maintain the churches’ support. As they stand now, the churches are like brothels; they allow a man to keep his Babylonian wife while occasionally dallying with his Christian mistress.

Never doubt for a moment that the first outrage, miscegenation, has led to this final outrage. Immediately upon the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of sodomy, the Babylonian apologists took over the media. A ‘conservative’ talk show host asked his liberal cousin if it was right that a private businessman with religious objections to homosexual weddings should have to cater a homosexual wedding. “Of course they have to,” the liberal asserted, “because once people claimed that race-mixing was against their religion and refused to serve mixed race couples and people of color.” Ah! There it is. Once the race barrier is broken, then all of what the liberals call ‘barriers’ – and we call channels of grace – must be destroyed.

There is no such thing as religious freedom in Liberaldom. You are only free to practice your religion to the extent your religion supports liberal values. And this is how it should be: A Christian people should not support miscegenation, abortion, negro worship, and sodomy any more than a liberal government should support segregation, the sanctity of unborn life, the white race, and the Christian marriage bond. But the children of darkness are wiser than the children of light. The liberals know who their enemies are, while the Christians do not. But then that is because the Christians are not Christian; they have been absorbed by the negro gods of Liberaldom. And that is a terrible thing, because Christ’s rule is tempered by mercy, whereas the rule of the negro is devoid of mercy.

All of the Babylonian ideals were ready and waiting to be implemented during my childhood and early manhood, but they hadn’t been put into their iron-clad place yet. I grew up in a segregated town and had only a vague abstract notion of homosexuality and abortion. Now there is no commercial break from the unrelenting, soul-killing, iron-clad rule of the liberals. (2) If you don’t call on Him who saves every second of your existence, and become an ironclad, uncompromising, counter-revolutionary of the spirit, you will be absorbed by the liberal gods.

For me, it is the image of William Tell in the lead picture of this article that represents the counter-revolutionary spirit that the European people need. His task was much easier than ours; he had only one tyrant to deal with. But his spirit should be our spirit. He stood against the moral tyranny of those who would destroy Christian innocence and charity. He hoped others would follow in his stead, but if they didn’t he was prepared to stand alone in defense of his European hearth fire. I see Tell’s image before me, defiant and European to the last, as the final piece of the liberals’ Babylonian kingdom of hell on earth is being put in place. Surely it is better to stand with Tell at the mountain pass than to be enveloped and then consumed by the gods of Liberaldom?


(1) H. V. Morton once remarked that Dickens’ characters were not exaggerations. Christian Europe produced such distinct personalities. Now we seldom see Europeans with distinct personalities, because the heathen gods absorb the human personality into one inhuman refuse heap.
(2) It’s appropriate that the Supreme Court’s decision came so close to the July 4th holiday. Let Babylonians rejoice! Let us celebrate the eradication of every last vestige of Christian humanity. Every 4th of July, and most particularly on this 4th, I recall Shakespeare’s words: “It is a tale, told by an idiot, Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Precisely. At the heart of the American Babylonian mystique is nothingness, the nothingness of a people who have forsaken their people and their God.

Ayn Rand, Before Capitalism

via Counter-Currents

Counter-Currents Editor’s Note: This essay was written in 2000 and published online at a long-defunct website. It contains some good ideas and good writing, so I believe it deserves to live again. 

“The capitalistic world is low, unprincipled and corrupt.” —Ayn Rand, Journals of Ayn Rand

“The mob had not yet been taught to openly and consistently worship itself as a mob; it still has vestiges of respect for individualism ground into it by centuries of aristocracy.” —Ayn Rand, Journals of Ayn Rand

“The free market . . . is the greatest of all educators. It continually raises the knowledge of the citizens, the caliber of their tastes, the discrimination of their pleasures, the sophistication of their needs . . . the growing statism of a mixed economy promotes the increasingly debased mass tastes we see today in such fields as art, literature, and entertainment.” —Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was the 20th-century’s best-known philosophical defender of laissez-faire capitalism. But nobody is born a capitalist. Thus it makes sense to ask: When did Ayn Rand become a capitalist?

Considerable light is thrown on this question by Rand’s Russian Writings on Hollywood, ed. Michael S. Berliner (Irvine, Cal.: Ayn Rand Institute Press, 1999). This volume contains her earliest known published writings, two illustrated Russian-language “fanzines” about the movies: a biography of actress Pola Negri (1925) and Hollywood: American City of Movies (1926). Both texts show evidence of a pre-capitalist—indeed an anti-capitalist—phase of Rand’s thought.

In the first chapter of Hollywood, she describes economic competition in the language of “struggle”: “Throughout the life of Hollywood runs the red thread of that constant of competition, struggle” (RW, 73). Note the choice of color. In the second chapter, Rand again casts competition in negative terms: “The enormous studios of Hollywood belong to competing movie companies, which fight with each other like enemy powers” and “vie for dominance of the American screen” (RW, 76). Advertisements are described as “imperiously compelling” (RW, 76). Adolph Zukor and Jesse Lasky of Famous Players Lasky Corporation are described as, “count[ing] their profits by the million, earned by the effort and talent of their employees and actors” (RW, 76).

Attentiveness to social class is also apparent:

on [Hollywood’s] streets you will meet representatives of every nationality, people from every social class. Elegant Europeans, energetic, businesslike Americans, benevolent Negroes, quiet Chinese, savages from colonies. Professors from the best schools, farmers, and aristocrats of all types and ages descend on the Hollywood studios in a greedy crowd. (RW, 77)

In the third chapter, we again encounter the language of exploitation. Rand refers to “the stars” as “all those from whom the cinema businessmen squeeze out their million dollar profits” (RW, 78). She points out the fickleness of the marketplace, which can make and break a director: “One fine day he creates a picture which may not be any better or worse than preceding pictures. But this picture enjoys colossal success” (RW, 80). Rand describes the studio owner (the businessman) as the “omnipotent and indomitable enemy” of the director (the artist). “The owners and presidents of film studios force their views and demands on the directors. They greedily pursue the public’s tastes. Like obedient slaves, they strive to satisfy every desire of the omnipotent public. They want to release only that which is popular. They are frightened by the new and the unusual” (RW, 81).

After recounting the struggles of such famous directors as Joseph von Sternberg, Monta Bell, and Erich von Stroheim with the studio bosses, Rand adds, “It is not hard to imagine the working conditions of those who are less famous and more dependent on the movie-sharks” (RW, 81).

The fourth chapter also displays the language of Marxist class analysis. Of D. W. Griffith, Rand writes, “He portrays the lives of small, provincial people, the tragedies of everyday petty bourgeois lives” (RW, 82).

Rand also seems to disapprove of the American public’s disdain for Erich von Stroheim: “Erich von Stroheim occupies a unique place among American directors. He is the most abrupt, the most tempestuous, the most uncompromising of all of them.” These are characteristics of which Ayn Rand would approve, even though, “His pursuit of naturalism, of the portrayal of the most repelling aspects of life, is incomprehensible to Americans. His abrupt straightforwardness is alien to them. He is faulted for ‘his desire to show us dead cats instead of a sunrise.’ Stroheim is too serious for Americans” (RW, 84).

In the fifth chapter, Rand notes that, “The best, greatest stars always appear alone in a cast comprised of little-known actors. Why pay large sums of money to other celebrities, when only one name is necessary for a full profit?” (RW, 87). Rand also laments the indifference of the public to real beauty in actresses: “Beauty means nothing. It is much more important for an actress to possess unique, original, unusual facial features, distinguishing her from the others” (RW, 90). Rand also laments the fickleness of the marketplace: “The American public forgets its old favorites just as quickly as it brings new ones to fame. Movie stars are helpless puppets in its whim-driven hands” (RW, 91).

Rand blames the lack of good American film scenarios on the profit motive: “In their chase for profits producers are more likely to adapt a successful literary work for the screen, than to take chances on unknown scenarios specially written for the movies” (RW, 101). She deplores the corruption of artistic standards by the tyranny of the public’s dubious tastes:

The technically perfect films are far from perfect artistically. The American public considers the movies to be more a pleasant pastime than an art form. It wants the movies to entertain, but not to make a lasting impression.

A tragic end of a movie is not acceptable for American moviegoers. They will not go to the movies, if they know that the hero or heroine dies. They like sentimental, naive plots. They rate ‘family’ movies, those movies which you could show to children, the highest. (RW, 105)

Pola_Negri_by_Ayn_Rand_coverAs noted earlier, Hollywood was published without Rand’s permission. It appeared with an introduction by a Soviet writer who condemned Hollywood. Editor Michael Berliner suggests that, “It is also likely that the publisher and not Ayn Rand was the source of occasional Marxist interpretations in the text, such as the characterization of owners as exploitative, making millions of dollars from the efforts of their employees” (RW, 43). There is a serious problem with this suggestion, however. If the remarks in question are not Rand’s, then we would not expect to see them in Pola Negri, which was published with her permission while she was still in Russia. But in Pola Negri Rand also employs the rhetoric of Marxian “internationalism” and class analysis:

Pola Negri is international [Rand could have chosen the more apt “universal”]. She is able to portray every social class and nationality equally colorfully and convincingly. A Spanish woman, an ancient Egyptian, a modern-day Frenchwoman, a child of the people, a worldly noblewoman—this great actress is equally good at each of these roles . . . (RW, 32)


Even the American petty bourgeois, who demands a movie actress with the face of an angel from a cheap postcard, kneels before this strong, energetic talent. (RW, 32)

Rand later repeats the claim that Negri’s “heroines are not limited by nationality, age, or social class” (RW, 36–37).

Certainly, there is not as much Marxist rhetoric in Pola Negri, but this is to be expected, for two reasons. First, Hollywood is 40 percent longer. Second, Hollywood deals with the film industry as a whole, providing more occasion for political commentary, whereas Pola Negri is simply a biographical essay. Since both booklets contain Marxist terms and anti-capitalist sentiments, it is reasonable to conclude that it was Rand who put them there.

But how could Ayn Rand write such things?  Either she was sincere or she wasn’t. If she was not sincere, what was her motive? The most plausible motive is fear of the Soviet regime. Rand may have included such language to protect herself from suspicions of ideological unorthodoxy. Such suspicions could have led to the denial of employment, imprisonment, and even under certain circumstances death. Rand may have been trying to establish herself as an ideologically reliable film scholar in order to gain permission to visit America, where her relatives ran a movie theater in Chicago. One pretext for her visit was to study the American film industry. Thus it is perfectly plausible that the Marxist terminology and anti-capitalist sentiments of Rand’s Russian writings were insincere.

Rand was not, moreover, loath to deceive the Soviets. She lied about her intentions when she applied for a visa. And, as noted earlier, in The Passion of Ayn Rand, Barbara Branden relates how Rand considered the possibility of feigning Communist sympathies in order to write for the screen (Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986], 38).

Furthermore, the hypothesis that Rand was sincere has two problems.
First, we have to square the remarks in question with the individualist sentiments that are also evident in the Russian writings. Rand clearly sympathizes with such unconventional artists as Pola Negri and Erich von Stroheim, who did not pander to the public’s tastes but tried to transform them.

Second, we have to square these remarks with the mature Ayn Rand’s own autobiographical reflections, which say nothing about a “Marxist” period in her thinking; in fact, Rand claimed that she was opposed to Marxism as soon as she heard about it, at age 12, at the very beginning of the Bolshevik Revolution.

In her “Biographical Essay” in Who is Ayn Rand? Barbara Branden writes:

When, at the age of twelve, [Rand] first heard the communist slogan that man must live for the state, she knew, consciously and clearly, that this was the horror at the root of all the other horrors taking place around her. Her feeling was one of incredulous contempt: incredulity that such a statement could be uttered in human society, and a cold, unforgiving contempt for anyone who could accept it. (Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, Who Is Ayn Rand: An Interpretation of the Novels of Ayn Rand [New York: Random House, 1962], “Biographical Essay”)

Rand claimed, furthermore, that these attitudes only intensified with time. However, to be anti-communist is not necessarily to be pro-capitalist, as the phenomenon of National Socialism illustrates.

The best evidence that Rand’s anti-capitalist sentiments are sincere is the fact that they appear in some of her writings after she left Russia. At that point, Rand had no more reason to feign anti-capitalist views. In fact, she had every reason to conceal them.

Consider, for example, the following remarks on Hollywood from Rand’s first notes for The Fountainhead, dated December 4th, 1935:

As a ridiculous and petty but clear example of this type: the movie producers and the Hollywood type of mentality. The movies have produced no great work of art, no immortal masterpiece to compare with the masterpieces of other arts. Why? Because the movies are not an art? Rubbish! Because those in charge do not create what they think is good. Because those in charge have no values of their own (and refuse to have) but accept blindly anything and everything approved by someone else—anyone else.

The movies are the perfect example of collective ideology and of “living for others.” Why did all the other arts reach heights the movies never attained? Why did they prosper and survive in spite of the fact that they did not consider the “box-office,” the mob’s approval? Precisely because they did not consider the mob’s approval. They created—and forced the mob to accept their creations. But the movies “live for others.” And—they do not live at all. Not as an achievement and an end in themselves. Those working in the movies work to make money, not to work in the movies. Fine, if that’s all they want. But what do they get out of the money? What do they get in exchange for giving up the reality of their work and of their lives? They spend their lives at a second-hand task, a task secondary to their real purpose, a task which is only a means to an end. What is the end? Shouldn’t the end be precisely that at which they spend their lives? But—they’re only second-hand people with second-hand lives! (Journals of Ayn Rand, ed. David Harriman [New York: Dutton, 1997], 87).

Although Rand ultimately treats the artistic corruption of Hollywood as an example of moral failure rather than market failure, she treats the profit motive as a contributing factor. The goal of the studio bosses was to make as much money as possible by catering to the vulgar tastes of the mob. The only way to create great art, however, is to aim at creating great art, not at creating  a popular product to make money. Great artists must operate in sovereign contempt of the “box-office.”

There is one way of reconciling Marxist terminology and anti-capitalist sentiments with Rand’s early individualism: Rand could have been anti-capitalist precisely because she was such a strong individualist. If, moreover, Rand were anti-capitalist for non-Marxist reasons, she could still have adopted certain terms and elements of the Marxist critique of capitalism while rejecting Marxism itself.

But how could Rand have been anti-capitalist for individualist reasons? I wish to suggest that the early Ayn Rand, like Nietzsche, did not think that the fundamental political alternative was between communism and capitalism. Instead, she regarded communism and capitalism as two species of the same genus: mass society.

Thus, she writes in her 1928 notes for her first planned novel, the bitterly misanthropic and deeply Nietzschean The Little Street, “Communism, democracy, socialism are the logical results of present-day humanity. The nameless horror of [these systems], both in their logical end and in the unconscious way that they already rule mankind” (Journals, 25). Note that at this stage of her thinking Rand refers to “democracy,” not capitalism. The differences between economic systems seem less important to her than the common mass character of socialist, communist, and democratic societies.

The same subsumption of capitalism and communism under the genus of mass society is evident six years later in her notes on fellow-Nietzschean José Ortega y Gasset’s The Revolt of the Masses. Consider also her notes for The Fountainhead, dated December 22, 1935:

Either “man” is the unit and the final sovereign—or else “men” are. And “men” means the mob, the State, the nation, the Soviet—anything one wishes to call it, anything that implies a number of humans, a herd. Man must live for the State, claim the communists. Well, man is living for other men, for the mob, completely and hopelessly, only we don’t say so. . . . Proper life is possible only when man is allowed (and encouraged, and taught, and practically forced) to live for himself. (Journals, 85).

Mass society is defined in opposition to elite society, specifically aristocratic society, and Rand’s early writings also display pronounced elitist and aristocratic tendencies. Rand was an aspiring artist. She worshipped creativity, talent, and innovation. She saw that these qualities were possessed only by the few human beings who faced the world with their own eyes, minds, and imaginations. She saw that such creators were opposed by the masses, who tend toward ignorance and lack of cultivation, as well as timidity, intellectual sloth, conformism, small-mindedness, and mindless conservatism. It was natural, therefore, for Rand to see an elitist, aristocratic form of society as more consistent with the interests of creative individuals.

Communism, however, claims to rule in the name and the interests of the masses. Thus, Rand told Barbara Branden that when she heard the slogan that the individual must live for the state:

She saw, in that slogan, the vision of a hero on a sacrificial altar, immolated in the name of mediocrity . . . she saw the life of any man of intelligence, of ambition, of independence, claimed as the property of some shapeless mob. It was the demand for the sacrifice of best among men, and for the enshrinement of the commonplace . . . that she saw as the unspeakable evil of communism. (“Biographical Essay,” 157-58).

Communism is evil because it seeks to subordinate all of society to the tastes and the interests of the masses.

The same criticism could, however, be directed at American capitalism. Hence Rand’s assertion that, “The movies”—that is to say, the movie business—“are the perfect example of collective ideology and of ‘living for others.’“

Just as the state is the central institution of communist society, the market is the central institution of capitalist society. Just as the communist state legitimates itself by claiming to work for the interests of the masses, the capitalist market legitimates itself by being marvelously responsive to the interests of the masses. Businesses that wish to survive and succeed must cater to the public tastes, and the better they cater to public tastes, the better they succeed.

Thus capitalism, like communism, subordinates the central institution of society to the tastes of the masses. This is why defenders of aristocracy have disdained “bourgeois” commercial society: not because it is too individualistic, but because it is not individualistic enough. This tradition of thought includes such writers as Plato, Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, Matthew Arnold, Lord Acton, Walter Bagehot, Jacob Burckhardt, and Gustave le Bon. The aristocratic critic of mass society who influenced Rand the most, however, was Nietzsche. Rand was also influenced to a lesser extent by fellow Nietzschean José Ortega y Gasset.

Although the political convictions of these writers varied widely, from socialism to classical liberalism to the radical right, they are united in seeing mankind as divided into two types.

The majority are ruled by their appetites, not by ideals. When faced with a choice between morality and expediency, they choose expediency. Philosophically, they are second-handers. Their metaphysical convictions are determined by culture and geography: In a Catholic society, they are Catholics; in a Buddhist society, they are Buddhists. Their values—moral, political, and aesthetic—are also determined by others. Any high ideals among them are then betrayed, cut down to fit the masses. They may pay lip-service to greatness, but in fact they value the common, mediocre, sentimental, and safe.

Because they aspire to little, they achieve little. Because they aspire to conventional values, they lead conventional lives. Because they live by imitating others, they turn out to be mere imitations of others. They conspicuously lack individuality, self-actualization, and spiritual greatness.

In the words of Rand’s 1928 notes for The Little Street: “humanity has and wants to have: existence instead of life, satisfaction instead of joy, contentment instead of happiness, security instead of power, vanity instead of pride, attachment instead of love, wish instead of will, yearning instead of passion, a glow-worm instead of a fire” (Journals, 25).

It is only a few human beings who become self-actualized individuals because they have the courage to think and live for themselves. Nietzsche and other critics of mass society associate this small elite with the institution of aristocracy. (An examination of Rand’s use of the concept of aristocracy and its cognates reveals a similar association.) This association seems, however, quite puzzling, for most aristocrats seem no more individuated and self-actualized than the masses.

There are, however, two plausible reasons for this identification. First, virtually every great artist and philosopher up to the beginning of the 18th century was either an aristocrat or enjoyed aristocratic patronage. Second, the ethics of self-actualization and individualism was first articulated by Greek aristocrats (Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon), and, after the fall of paganism, this ethic was preserved throughout the Christian era by European aristocrats. (Aristotle’s ethics is the “common sense” of the British aristocracy to this day.)

From the viewpoint of an “aristocratic” critic of mass man and mass society, the differences between capitalism and communism are less interesting than the similarities, for both systems share the same end: They seek to throw off vestiges of aristocracy and empower the masses. The systems differ only in their chosen means: Capitalism uses more carrots, communism more sticks. Because of this, communism does a better job of throwing off the vestiges of aristocracy (replacing it with elite rule by the worst), while capitalism does a much better job of empowering the masses.

Given the nature of the masses, one can sympathize with the early Ayn Rand’s concern with the cultural consequences of the free market. Before capitalism, the realm of high culture was heavily influenced by the “given preferences” of a highly cultivated, idealistic elite deeply influenced by the pagan ethic of self-actualization. The result? The cultural atmosphere eulogized by Rand in the Introduction to The Romantic Manifesto:

As a child, I saw a glimpse of the pre-World War I world, the last afterglow of the most radiant cultural atmosphere in human history. . . . So powerful a fire does not die at once: even under the Soviet regime, in my college years, such works as Hugo’s Ruy Blas and Schiller’s Don Carlos were included in theatrical repertories, not as historical revivals, but as part of the contemporary aesthetic scene. Such was the level of the public’s intellectual concerns and standards. If one has glimpsed that kind of art—and wider: the possibility of that kind of culture—one is unable to be satisfied with anything less. . . . [That period’s] art projected an overwhelming sense of intellectual freedom, of depth, i.e., concern with fundamental problems, of demanding standards, of inexhaustible originality, of unlimited possibilities and, above all, of profound respect for man. (Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto: A Philosophy of Literature [New York: New American Library, 1971], vi)

With the rise of capitalism and the decline of aristocracy, the realm of culture has been shaped more and more by the “given preferences” of the masses, i.e., those who are less cultivated, less idealistic, and more influenced by Christianity and other egalitarian creeds without the countervailing influence of pagan virtue. The result? Modern popular culture, which grows more lurid, coarse, violent, sentimental, and stupid every day.

So Leonard Peikoff is just plain wrong to argue as quoted above that the free market tends inevitably to increase the knowledge, caliber, sophistication and discrimination of the tastes expressed by the public. The only law that governs the creation of such cultural products as gangster rap, Marilyn Manson, and the moronic fare offered on networks like the WB is the law of supply and demand. The pop culture industry is simply catering to the “given preferences” of people with crude and vulgar tastes.

But it does not stop there. The culture industry actively conspires to corrupt the tastes of the masses. Why? To create demand for new products. At any given time, there are things that people will simply not buy because they find them obscene and revolting. But no matter what our scruples, human beings have dark and prurient curiosities. This is why we gossip; this is why we sneak peeks at tabloids in the supermarket; this is why we look for blood as we drive by accident scenes. If the culture industry can use these prurient curiosities to undermine our scruples, it can sell us new products. It is this combination of greed and cynicism that is so brilliantly satirized in Network, a movie that looks more and more prophetic today as millions tune in to the modern Coliseum, the Fox network, to watch people dying in plane crashes and being mauled by lions and bears. Sadly, it is far easier to create new demand by corrupting people’s tastes than by edifying them. The corrupters are aided by gravity, by the downward pull of our prurient curiosity. The edifiers have to fight against gravity.

If, however, Rand was influenced by this sort of aristocratic cultural critique of mass society, how did she come to be an advocate of capitalism?

First of all, we have to remember that Ayn Rand never became an advocate of capitalism as it exists today; she was an advocate of an “unknown ideal” she called capitalism. Therefore, there is no inconsistency in defending Rand’s unknown capitalism and harshly criticizing capitalism as it exists today.

Second, the essence of Rand’s unknown ideal is not the profit motive or private property, but a new moral code. Rand’s studies of and subsequent experience in the movie industry showed her the cultural and spiritual destructiveness of the combination of cynicism and greed. Rand’s experiences in Russia, however, showed her evil and futility of trying to stamp out greed. Therefore, she declared war on cynicism. This is made abundantly clear in her notes for The Fountainhead dated December 4, 1935:

The thing which is most “wrong with the world” today is its absolute lack of positive values. . . . Nothing is considered bad and nothing is considered good. There is no enthusiasm for living, since there is no enthusiasm for any part, mode or form of living.

(Incidentally, this explains the tremendous popularity of communism among people who are not communists at all, particularly young people. Communism, at least, offers a definite goal, inspiration, and ideal, a positive faith. Nothing else in modern life does. The old capitalism has nothing better to offer than the dreary, shop-worn, mildewed ideology of Christianity. . . . Furthermore, that same Christianity, with its denial of life and glorification of all men’s brotherhood, is the best possible kindergarten for communism. Communism is at least consistent in its ideology. Capitalism is not; it preaches what communism actually wants to live. Consequently, if there are things in capitalism and democracy worth saving, a new faith is needed, a definite, positive set of new values and a new interpretation of life . . .)

. . . A new set of values is needed to combat this modern dreariness, whether it be communism . . . or the sterile, hopeless cynicism of the modern age. That new faith is Individualism in its deepest meaning and implications, such as has never been preached before: individualism of the spirit, of ethics, of philosophy, not merely the good old “rugged individualism” of small shopkeepers. Individualism as a religion and a code, not merely as an economic practice. . . . A revival (or perhaps the first birth) of the word “I” as the holiest of holies and the reason of reasons. (Journals, 80-81)

Even more revealing is a passage from her notes dated December 22, 1935, part of which was quoted as the first epigraph of this essay:

If all of life has been brought down to flattering the mob, if those who can please the mob are the only ones to succeed—why should anyone feel any high aspirations and cherish any ideals? The capitalistic world is low, unprincipled, and corrupt. But how can it have any incentive toward principles if its ideology has killed the only source of principles—man’s “I”’? Christianity has succeeded in eliminating “self” from the world of ethics, by declaring “ethics” and “self” as incompatible. But that self cannot be killed. It has only degenerated into the ugly modern struggle for material success at the cost of all higher values, since these values have been outlawed by the church. Hence—the hopelessness, the colorless drabness, the dreariness and empty brutality of our present day.

. . . Until man’s “self” regains its proper position, life will be what it is now: flat, gray, empty, lacking in all beauty, all fire, all enthusiasm, all meaning, all creative urge. That is the ultimate theme of the book—Howard Roark as the remedy for all modern ills. (Journals, 84) 

In sum: Rand’s answer to the aristocratic critique of capitalism is to try to graft an aristocratic ethics onto capitalism. Rand envisions a world in which businessmen have such a high sense of honor they would not pursue material wealth by flattering and corrupting the mob. Instead, they truly would strive continually to raise “the knowledge of the citizens, the caliber of their tastes, the discrimination of their pleasures, the sophistication of their needs.” They would have too much pride to produce inferior products and rely on slick and deceptive marketing to sell them. They would have such good taste that they would not sell gangster rap or pornography or Jerry Springer.

But there’s a problem: Was Rand reasonable to expect the masses to accept her new moral code? How did she expect to sell an aristocratic ethic to anyone but aristocrats? Did she expect to sell this ethic to the Larry Flints of the world? To the Snopeses? If she couldn’t, then wouldn’t we be right back where we are now?

This brings us to the third, and to my mind most problematic, aspect of Rand’s transformation into an advocate of capitalism: her increasingly unrealistic attitudes toward the masses— “the common man.” Rand came more and more to believe that America was being corrupted by bad ideas trickling down from the intellectual elites, and that the further one got from the elite, the better the people’s thinking. Like Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Rand came more and more to believe that “All hope lies in the proles.”

The transformation of Rand’s attitudes can be gauged by comparing her different treatments of jury trials. In her 1928 notes for the The Little Street, Rand indicates that she will model the jury that judges the hero Danny Renahan on the William Edward Hickman jury: “The whole must make a nice picture of society’s representatives, who sit in judgment over the boy even though they are not worthy to lace his shoes” (Journals, 39-40). Renahan is convicted and sentenced to death. In her 1935 notes for The Fountainhead, the first vote of the jury in the Cortlandt Homes case was to be “eleven . . . guilty to one . . . not guilty. The one swung the eleven” (Journals, 176). By the time The Fountainhead was published in 1943, however, Rand dropped the behind-the-scenes drama, casting the common man in a better light. In Atlas Shrugged, when Rearden is tried before the three judge tribunal, the support of the spectators sways the decision of the judges. Perhaps it is just as well that Rand didn’t live to see the O. J. Simpson trial.

I began by raising the questions: When and why did Ayn Rand become an advocate of capitalism? Based on The Letters of Ayn Rand and The Journals of Ayn Rand, I would argue that Rand became an advocate of capitalism sometime in the early 1930s, and that this conviction took progressive shape during the planning and writing of The Fountainhead. Rand became an advocate of capitalism because of her growing conviction that what capitalism lacked was an aristocratic ethic of self-actualization, and that this ethic could be sold to the common man. To this end, she created two of history’s most remarkable vehicles for popularizing philosophical ideas: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. You can judge her success for yourself.