- Germany Is About To Sell Zero-Coupon 10 Year Bonds For The First Time Ever
When the financial media says that governments get paid to issue negative yielding debt, that is not exactly true: most sovereign issuers still pay out a cash coupon, a modest as it may be, while they pocket the negative amortization on a bond issued above par for the life of the bond resulting what ultimately ends up being a negative yield for the buyer net of all cashflows at maturity. However, the lower – or more negative – yields get, the less the need for an issuer to actually pay a cash coupon: after all with a negative yield, it is essentially superfluous.
Still, while no sovereign has issued bond with negative cash coupons yet, some are starting to issue zero-coupon ten years: bonds which pay no cash coupons at all.
This is precisely what Germany is about to do in a few hours.
According to Bloomberg, on Wednesday morning Germany will sell 10-year bonds with a zero coupon for the first time, as a rally in fixed-income securities pushes investors to forgo annual interest payments in order to hold the safest assets.
The nation is selling €5 billion of zero percent bonds due in August 2026 on Wednesday, after yields in the secondary market dropped to an all-time low of minus 0.205% last week.
Then again, with a rather vicious snapback higher in yields over the past two days now that Japanese helicopter money looks increasingly probable, Germany may not be able to continue this experiment for much longer, and may have to revert back to its 0.5% coupon issued until now.
Of course, once this latest modest spike in yields subsides and the world reverts back to its deflationary trendline (a move which will eventually prompt every other central bank, not just Japan – to proceed with helicopter money), and German yields are deeply negative, Germany can then proceed to, if only in theory, issue “negative” coupons, demanding that bond buyers pay Germany. Of course, while in practice this is impossible, it would present the world with such an interesting thought experiment as the “inverse” bankruptcy: a state in which the creditor to the debtor “defaults” because it is unable to make a payment on a bond they lent to the same debtor.
Yes, the new normal sure is interesting. If only in theory.
- "Bring It On!"
Submitted by Robert Gore via StraightLineLogic.com,
Five words are important now: failure, exposure, rejection, repression, and war. The status quo has failed on multiple fronts. Its failures and corruption are being exposed, its governance and legitimacy questioned and rejected. The response is all too predictable: repression at home, war abroad. The Clintons represent the toxic confluence, the maelstrom’s vortex, and Hillary Clinton will press the powers’ response.
Anything but free market economics is a redistributive shell game with a sell-by date. Government debt, spending, and programs, redistribution, and central bank debt monetization and interest rate suppression have passed their expiration, leaving mountains of IOUs that will never be repaid and prostrate economies in the first thralls of a deflationary contraction that will be one for the ages. Particular rancid: illusory, credit-based wealth has gone to a small, well-connected coterie who access microscopic interest rates for financial engineering and speculative fun and games. Left behind: honest producers and savers, who have seen their incomes shrink and the economy wither.
Not content to lay waste to their own countries, the powers have visited their destructive and murderous mayhem upon wide swathes of the globe. Seeking to impose order they have instead promoted chaos, failed states, refugee flows, and the spread of terrorism. Stuck in costly and inconclusive quagmires in second-tier states, the US war lobby seems intent on provoking decidedly first-tier Russia and China, with a concomitant escalation of negative consequences. You can’t get any bigger, or potentially more suicidal, than war with the second and third largest nuclear-armed powers.
Propaganda, indoctrination, a captive press, and widespread obliviousness and passivity will only take the incompetent and corrupt governing class so far. There’s too much to be swept under the rug. Eventually notice is taken of the telling details. The economy is going nowhere. The US has been in Afghanistan for fifteen years and in Iraq for thirteen. The capital is an overflowing cesspool; the Clintons being the most visible and malodorous turds floating by on that river of filth. The Internet has shone a light on failure and corruption, but even the mainstream media take note, if only in passing, before it exculpates those responsible.
Exposure and anger concern the powers—they threaten the façade of legitimacy—but outright rejection would be intolerable. Never has an aristocracy exercised such power, lived so opulently, and received such publicity, adulation, and deference. Popular discontent given full vent and expression would threaten all that, and could lead to prison, or worse.
Hillary Clinton embodies the power, wealth, and corruption of the aristocracy, which confronts the most serious threat yet to the world order it erected after World War II. It embraces her not merely because she is emblematic, but because she will implement naked repression and wage wars, its last resorts to hold on to power. She’s never met a “national security” measure or war she didn’t love. The FBI’s refusal to recommend charges despite Hillary’s obvious criminality appears to be the aristocracy’s take-off-the-kid-gloves moment.
In their folly, the rulers have isolated themselves from the ruled. Never underestimate the former’s stupidity, born of isolation and arrogance, nor the intelligence and resourcefulness of the latter. Resort to repression and war is weakness, not strength, and in so doing, the aristocracy is taking a gamble it cannot win.
It is a curious sort of tyranny that extracts its sustenance from the tyrannized, must borrow from them, and relies on them to accept its intrinsically valueless scrip as a medium of exchange. How strong can a tyranny be if it can be brought to its knees if the tyrannized were to stop working, lending, or accepting its scrip? If that seems farfetched, observe the frantic exertions the powers undergo to stop systemic runs on banks and other financial institutions. Why? Because all financial institutions are leveraged speculators, and if what they hold as assets decline in price sufficiently, their equity is gone and they are bankrupt. Bankrupts by definition cannot pay all their liabilities, and those liabilities are the public’s assets.
As we saw in 2008, once enough assets are meaningfully impaired (as they inevitably will be, again), the whole scrip-based financial system unravels. Ultimately governments backstop much of the financial system’s scrip-based liabilities with…scrip based liabilities! The only thing that gives those liabilities any value are people’s willingness to accept them and an implicit and often broken promise by politicians and central bankers not to create too many of them. Right now, they are breaking that promise and doing everything possible to undermine the value of their own scrip. That’s Alice in Wonderland, not 1984.
If the aristocracy’s dreams come true, they will destroy what’s left of the illusion of value of their scrip and consequently, destroy their ability to acquire resources outside commandeering them, or theft. That’s a one-off, as Venezuela has demonstrated. People stop producing; businesses close or flee. Totalitarianism isn’t free. Prisons, concentration camps, weapons, soldiers, surveillance, and police cost money, and the expense is only partially offset by slave labor, which, once all its costs are properly accounted for, confers very little, if any, economic benefit.
But, never underestimate the stupidity of the aristocrats. Let’s say the US government descended into full-on totalitarianism. This is the same government that couldn’t subdue Vietnamese in Vietnam, Afghans in Afghanistan, Iraqis in Iraq, Syrians in Syria, Libyans in Libya, or Yemenis in Yemen. Nevertheless, it will attempt to subdue Americans in America, who collectively are far better armed (thank you, NRA) than any of the insurgencies in those other countries.
Of course, many Americans are sheep so the resistance would be a subset, but the daunting math of fighting insurgents on their own territory, according to military expert Richard Maybury, is about 20 military personnel for each domestic guerrilla fighter. So even if only a million US insurgents resist, probably a low estimate, it would require 20 million government personnel to suppress them, not to mention what would be necessary to maintain order should any collateral chaos and violence, including racial and ethnic animosities, erupt. Currently, there are a little over 2 million active and reserve personnel in the military, and about 1.1 million in law enforcement, and some of both are administrative personnel who would not participate in suppression or combat. The government is stockpiling weaponry, but where does it find at least 17 million recruits to pull the triggers and drive the MRAPS, and with what will it pay them?
Pity the police and the military. They will be caught between the dictates of an aristocracy that couldn’t care less about them and an insurgency bent on killing them. They would be ordered to fire on fellow Americans: neighbors, friends, and family members. There are plenty of praetorian thugs who would do so, but some would quit. Some might join the resistance, providing expertise and leadership. Already retired police and military, disgusted by the current state of affairs, would be another potential resistance recruiting pool.
Incidentally, today’s command and control systems require computers. The Chinese and Russians have hacked sensitive government computers with impunity. If the US government went after its own people, would there be any shortage of home-grown hackers volunteering to bring down its systems?
To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, if the aristocrats make peaceful and necessary change impossible, they will make violent resistance inevitable. It’s not a war they can win, but if it’s a war they are too foolish and arrogant to avoid, bring it on.
- Where The 'Richest' Live
To be considered in a top 1% earner in the United States, the magic number that must be reached is $521,411 per household.
However, as VisualCapitalist's Jeff Desjardin explains, it turns out that on a county level, the income of the Top 1% varies wildly based on location.
For example, if you want to be in the “1% Club” in New York City, you’re going to have work extremely hard, get very lucky, or preferably, manage some incredible combination of those two things.
Meanwhile, if you want to be in the crème de la crème of the social scene in Jackson, Kentucky or Chattahoochee, Georgia, things might seem a little more realistic. In fact, if you’re doing well for yourself, you may even be able to do it based on your income today.
Courtesy of: Visual CapitalistThe above map by HowMuch.net, a cost information site, shows the average income of the top 1% by county.
Here’s the breakdown by county:
Richest Counties by Average Income of Top 1%
- Teton, Wyoming – Average Income: $28,163,786
- New York, New York – Average Income: $8,143,415
- Fairfield, Connecticut – Average Income: $6,061,230
- La Salle, Texas – Average Income: $6,021,357
- Pitkin, Colorado – Average Income: $5,289,153
- McKenzie, North Dakota – Average Income: $4,709,883
- Shackelford, Texas – Average Income: $4,585,725
- Westchester, New York – Average Income: $4,326,049
- Collier, Florida – Average Income: $4,191,055
- Union, South Dakota – Average Income: $4,106,670
Poorest Counties by Average Income of Top 1%
- Quitman, Georgia – Average Income: $127,425
- Taliaferro, Georgia – Average Income: $139,439
- Wade Hampton, Alaska – Average Income: $149,639
- Robertson, Kentucky – Average Income: $152,637
- Chattahoochee, Georgia – Average Income: $158,749
- Glascock, Georgia – Average Income: $169,027
- Shannon, South Dakota – Average Income: $174,433
- McCreary, Kentucky – Average Income: $177,132
- Menifee, Kentucky – Average Income: $177,192
- Jackson, Kentucky – Average Income: $178,917
MAKING THE TOP 1%
Taking the top spot by a long mile is Teton, Wyoming – the county home to the affluent Jackson Hole ski area, and 40.4% of the famous Yellowstone National Park. The Top 1% that live near Old Faithful are particularly well-off, making an average of $28.2 million each year!
New York City is another place that needs Gordon Gekko-like income to make it into the top ranks. An income of $8.1 million will put you on par with the average one percenter there.
Meanwhile, you don’t need a private jet to be one of the wealthiest people in counties in Georgia, Alaska, Kentucky, or South Dakota. If you make $180,000 per year, you are actually doing better than the average member of the Top 1% in many of those places.
The rural county of Quitman, Georgia, has the lowest average 1% income at $127,425 per year.
- If The Shooting Of Dallas Police Surprises You; You Haven't Been Paying Attention
Submitted by Dan Sanchez via The Foundation for Economic Education,
Five police officers were killed and six were injured in Dallas lasst week when reportedly a lone sniper opened fire during a protest of the recent police killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. This mass shooting was a despicable act of murder.
It was also blowback.
“Blowback” is a term generally reserved for foreign policy. It refers to the reverberating ill effects of foreign interventions. Ron Paul famously and persuasively characterized the 9/11 attacks as blowback from decades of US warfare and imperialism in the Greater Middle East.
In the 1980s, American support for the anti-Soviet Mujahideen in Afghanistan helped lay the groundwork for what would become Osama bin Laden’s jihadist network, Al Qaeda. And in the 1990s, further US interventions in the Middle East spurred the jihadis to turn on their former sponsors and to wage a terrorist war on the west that culminated in the attacks on September 11, 2001.
The outrage elicited by those attacks provided cover for a massive US-led war for the Greater Middle East that rages to this day. That Long War has only served to plummet the entire region into chaos and carnage, which has caused the number of jihadis and would-be terrorists to grow exponentially. As a result, western civilians continue to suffer blowback in the form of terror attacks in San Bernardino, Orlando, Paris, Brussels, etc. These attacks are fueling Islamophobia and driving calls for further violence and repression against Muslims.
Collective Punishment
The motor of this spinning cycle of reciprocal bloodshed is collectivism. Seeing fellows attacked prompts fear and anger. Fear and anger focused by the lens of reason pinpoints individual offenders for the delivery of justice. But refracted through the lens of collectivism and primal reaction, fear and anger disperses into indiscriminate terror and hate, which scatters to cover whole populations who are ascribed collective guilt and prescribed collective punishment.
This collective punishment of innocents then prompts fear and anger among the targeted population. If they too are afflicted with collectivism, some of them will also succumb to terror and hate, which will be expressed in retaliatory indiscriminate violence: blowback. This collectivist retaliation begets further collectivist retaliation, and the cycle of violence spins out of control.
The Home Front
But this phenomenon is by no means restricted to international affairs. It can characterize civil unrest as well. Again, what we saw last week in Dallas was, if not something even more diabolical, blowback.
The American people feel under siege. Different populations feel besieged by different forces. Black Americans especially have suffered decades of persecution by the American “justice” system: police brutality and harassment, mass incarceration, being nickel-and-dimed by tickets and fines, etc. And especially since the summer of 2014, they have been seeing a litany of viral photos and videos of black Americans having been gunned down, throttled, and broken by the police.
This violence too is driven by collectivism. Law enforcement officers are granted an exceptional status in society: a special dispensation to mete out violence with impunity. This caste privilege has instilled deep tribalism in many police officers, which is amplified by training and police union propaganda. Cops are trained to be obsessed with “officer safety” and to effectively treat those outside the “blue tribe” (whom they ostensibly “protect and serve”) as an enemy population: as if every American they detain is a potential quick-draw gunman ready to shoot them down in a millisecond. This paranoia, combined with the impunity of the badge, is what makes an encounter with the police so potentially lethal: especially for black civilians.
Take the collectivism of “blue” tribalism explained above and add, for some individuals, the collectivism of racial terror (irrational, hateful prejudice that every black male is a potential super-predator), and you begin to understand the epidemic of police violence against American blacks.
Hate and Terror
This police violence has elicited thoroughly justified fear and anger. Virtually all of this emotional response has expressed itself in peaceful protest, led by the Black Lives Matter movement.
However, for some already-unstable individuals, it can boil over into terror, hate, and indiscriminate violence: blowback. Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley was filled with hate when he killed two off-duty NYPD officers in 2014 following the killing of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. So was whoever killed five police officers in Dallas yesterday following the killing of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling.
True justice is always individual and never collective. Badges do not grant extra rights, but neither do they negate the human rights of officers. Victims of police violence have a right to protect themselves from current attacks with proportional defensive force against actual perpetrators. They or their heirs also have a right to secure restitution from the specific individuals who violated their rights. But collectivist “retribution” is neither defense nor restitution.
Just as international terrorism is often blowback from international war and occupation, the sniper attack on cops in Dallas last week was blowback from American police acting as a domestic army of occupation. And just as the victims of terror attacks do not deserve to be killed for the crimes of war-making politicians, the victims of yesterday’s shootings did not deserve to be killed for the crimes of other cops.
This police violence has elicited thoroughly justified fear and anger. Virtually all of this emotional response has expressed itself in peaceful protest, led by the Black Lives Matter movement.
However, for some already-unstable individuals, it can boil over into terror, hate, and indiscriminate violence: blowback. Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley was filled with hate when he killed two off-duty NYPD officers in 2014 following the killing of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. So was whoever killed five police officers in Dallas yesterday following the killing of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling.
True justice is always individual and never collective. Badges do not grant extra rights, but neither do they negate the human rights of officers. Victims of police violence have a right to protect themselves from current attacks with proportional defensive force against actual perpetrators. They or their heirs also have a right to secure restitution from the specific individuals who violated their rights. But collectivist “retribution” is neither defense nor restitution.
Just as international terrorism is often blowback from international war and occupation, the sniper attack on cops in Dallas yesterday was blowback from American police acting as a domestic army of occupation. And just as the victims of terror attacks do not deserve to be killed for the crimes of war-making politicians, the victims of yesterday’s shootings did not deserve to be killed for the crimes of other cops.
Collectivist retaliatory violence is not justice. It is despicable warfare and murder. That does not change the fact that refraining from collectivist violence is not only the right thing to do, but is also the best way to avoid collectivist retaliatory violence: that is, to avoid blowback. We are not “blaming the victim” when we counsel a foreign policy of peace. It is not only right; it is also the best way to be safe from terrorism. Neither is it “blaming the victim” to counsel a domestic policy of justice. It is not only right; it is also the best way to be safe from civil unrest and domestic terrorism.
That does not change the fact that refraining from collectivist violence is not only the right thing to do, but is also the best way to avoid collectivist retaliatory violence: that is, to avoid blowback. We are not “blaming the victim” when we counsel a foreign policy of peace. It is not only right; it is also the best way to be safe from terrorism. Neither is it “blaming the victim” to counsel a domestic policy of justice. It is not only right; it is also the best way to be safe from civil unrest and domestic terrorism.
- Peak Polarization – Why Investors Should Really Worry About The Next Election
It will come as no surprise to anyone that the relative polarization within America's body politik is at its highest ever (in both the The House and Senate)…
but while the decision-making process remains mired in quagmired partisanship (with no party able to dominate)…
The Federal Reserve is there to ensure that politicians do not have to "go back to work," no matter how pissed off the peasantry gets…
However, with the uncertainty surrounding the upcoming election near record highs there is one scenario that US equity investors should be very afraid of with regard the President/Senate/House combination…
Simply put, as JPMorgan details, if Trump wins in November (Republican president) but control of The Senate is lost (to the Democrats) while Republicans maintain control of The House, then US equity investors may want to take cover. Ironically a Hillary victory and the status quo of Republican House and Senate has historically been the most 'bullish' for US equity investors.
Source: JPMorgan
- Did Citi Just Confiscate $1 Billion In Venezuela Gold
Just over a year ago, cash-strapped Venezuela quietly conducted a little-noticed gold-for-cash swap with Citigroup as part of which Maduro converted part of his nation’s gold reserves into at least $1 billion in cash through a swap with Citibank.
As Reuters reported then, the deal would make more foreign currency available to President Nicolas Maduro’s socialist government as the OPEC nation struggles with soaring consumer prices, chronic shortages and a shrinking economy worsened by low oil prices. Needless to say, the socialist country’s economic situation is orders of magnitude worse now.
According to El Nacional, “the deal was for $1 billion and was struck with Citibank, which is owned by Citigroup.”
As Reuters further added:
“former central bank director Jose Guerra and economist Asdrubal Oliveros of Caracas-based consultancy Ecoanalitica said in separate interviews that the operation had been carried out. A source at the central bank told Reuters last month it would provide 1.4 million troy ounces of gold in exchange for cash. Venezuela would have to pay interest on the funds, but the bank would most likely be able to maintain the gold as part of its foreign currency reserves.”
On paper yes – very much as any comparable gold leasing operation conducted by sovereign nations with central banks – but the actual physical gold would be transferred to an unknown vault of Citi’s choosing where it would become an asset controlled by the bailed out US bank.
We note this peculiar gold swap case because something curious took place overnight. On the same day that Venezuela announced it would seize a local Kimberly-Clark factory after the US consumer-products giant announced it would shutter its Venezuela operations after years of “grappling with soaring inflation and a shortage of hard currency and raw materials”, Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro said on Monday that Citibank planned to shut his government’s foreign currency accounts within a month, denouncing the move by one of its main foreign financial intermediaries as part of a “blockade.”
Among the many reasons why the sudden departure is surprising is that due to strict currency controls in place since 2003, the government relies on Citibank for foreign currency transactions, meaning that suddenly Venezuela’s financial “blockade” is indeed about to get worse.
“With no warning, Citibank says that in 30 days it will close the Central Bank and the Bank of Venezuela’s accounts,” Maduro said in a speech, adding that the government used the U.S. bank for transactions in the United States and globally.
In typical bluster, Maduro added: “Do you think they’re going to stop us with a financial blockade? No, gentlemen. Noone stops Venezuela.”
What Maduro did not mention is that among the central bank accounts closed by Citi will be at least one, rather prominent, gold swap launched just over a year earlier.
Reuters adds that Citibank, could not immediately be reached for comment about the purported measure against Venezuela’s monetary authority and the Bank of Venezuela which is the biggest state retail bank.
With the OPEC nation’s economy immersed in crisis, various foreign companies have been pulling out or reducing operations. However, few of them held over $1 billion in Venezuela gold as hostage.
So during his next address, perhaps someone inquire Maduro if as part of its “blockade” Citi also absconded with a substantial portion of the country’s gold reserves, and if so, which other banks have comparable “swap” arranagements with the insolvent nation?
Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez, who spent the last years of his life repatriating Venezuela’s gold is spinning in his grave.
- The "Mystery" Of Who Is Pushing Stocks To All Time Highs Has Been Solved
One conundrum stumping investors in recent months has been how, with investors pulling money out of equity funds (at last check for 17 consecutive weeks) at a pace that suggests a full-on flight to safety, as can be seen in the chart below which shows record fund outflows in the first half of the year – the fastest pace of withdrawals for any first half on record…
… are these same markets trading at all time highs? We now have the answer.
Recall at the end of January when global markets were keeling over, that Citi’s Matt King showed that despite aggressive attempts by the ECB and BOJ to inject constant central bank liquidity into the gunfible global markets, it was the EM drain via reserve liquidations, that was causing a shock to the system, as net liquidity was being withdrawn, and in the process stocks were sliding.
Fast forward six months when Matt King reports that “many clients have been asking for an update of our usual central bank liquidity metrics.”
What the update reveals is “a surge in net global central bank asset purchases to their highest since 2013.”
And just like that the mystery of who has been buying stocks as everyone else has been selling has been revealed.
But wait, there’s more because as King suggests “credit and equities should rally even more strongly than they have done already.”
More observations from King:
The underlying drivers are an acceleration in the pace of ECB and BoJ purchases, coupled with a reversal in the previous decline of EMFX reserves. Other indicators also point to the potential for a further squeeze in global risk assets: a broadening out of mutual fund inflows from IG to HY, EM and equities; the second lowest level of positions in our credit survey (after February) since 2008; and prospects of further stimulus from the BoE and perhaps the BoJ.
His conclusion:
While we remain deeply skeptical of the durability of such a policy-induced rally, unless there is a follow-through in terms of fundamentals, and in credit had already started to emphasize relative value over absolute, we suspect those with bearish longer-term inclinations may nevertheless feel now is not the time to position for them.
And some words of consolation for those who find themselves once again fighting not just the Fed but all central banks:
The problems investors face are those we have referred to many times: markets being driven more by momentum than by value, and most negatives being extremely long-term in nature (the need for deleveraging; political trends towards deglobalization; a steady erosion of confidence in central banks). Against these, the combination of UK political fudge (and perhaps Italian tiramisu), a lack of near-term catalysts, and overwhelming central bank liquidity risks proving overwhelming – albeit only temporarily.
Why have central banks now completely turned their backs on the long-run just to provide some further near-term comfort? Simple: as Keynes said, in the long-run we are all dead.
- An Ordained African-American Minister Asks "What If Whites Strike Back?"
Authored by Mychal Massie, originally posted at Mychal-Massie.com,
It would serve race mongers well to consider that even a docile old dog will bite you if you mistreat it often enough and long enough. Tangential to same is the reality of the “laws of unintended consequences.”
I’m tired of seeing, reading, and hearing white people blamed for everything from black boys not being able to read to whites being privileged because of the color of their skin. If I am tired of these Americans being used as scapegoats to further the agenda of race mongers, then it is a sure bet that those being unjustly vilified are especially weary of same.
This isn’t 1860 and it certainly isn’t 1955. There are no slaves in America and there are no Jim Crow laws dictating access based on skin color. Specific to that point it is time to remind people like Obama, Al Sharpton, and the New Black Panther Party that the racial discord they are fomenting can become the harbinger of their own peril.
Obama foments racial unrest and a racial divide to further his neo-Leninist agenda. Sharpton foments racial unrest for personal gain. The New Black Panther Party foments racial hostilities and the demonization of whites in the foolish belief they can bring about a Western version of apartheid where blacks rule.
Too many blacks have lost sight of the fact that it was Africans who were responsible for the enslavement of other Africans. It was war, invasion, conquest, and various caste systems that contributed to slavery. And although one would be hard-pressed to believe it from the invented myths that masquerade as fact, persons of color were not the only slaves.
From Genesis to the Sudan of today, slavery has been a staple around the world. And it should be noted that given the first opportunity in America, the former slaves of color became owners of those whose skin color matched theirs.
But unlike the rest of the world, America had the good sense and decency to end slavery. In America, there is no caste system, and yet at every turn we are bombarded with how bad blacks have it because of whites and how unfair the so-called “white system” is to blacks.
All people, including those who are here illegally, have it better in America than they would have it anywhere else on earth. And yet blacks are encouraged to blame their ills on whites.
Therein the “laws of unintended consequences” come into play. America has shed the blood of her people on her own soil to ensure the freedom of all Americans. Americans joined hands with blacks to end Jim Crow. And, to the detriment of all concerned, political correctness and guilt have contributed to discrimination against whites vis-a`-vis race-based affirmative action initiatives.
Still the bastardization of whites continues. White law enforcement personnel are labeled racist for defending themselves against black criminals, especially when bad things happen to the black criminals.
To put it succinctly, the single greatest non-biblical truth today is that many times the majority of blacks are their own worst enemies. Many blacks go through life with a chip on their shoulder and bad attitudes toward whites. Many blacks growing up in dysfunctional single parent or no parent homes are loathe to realize that their lives are the result of bad decisions made by their families that adversely affect their adulthood – its not the white man.
But as I said, there is a thing called “the laws of unintended consequences.” To that end, sooner or later a pendulum reaches its arc and starts to swing back in the other direction.
How long before white people, many of whom are growing increasingly resentful at being falsely maligned, decide to respond in kind? How much longer will whites stand by and allow the likes of Sharpton and Obama to continually cast them as racist villains?
If the 1915 silent movie, The Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith, which depicted blacks as unintelligent and sexual predators of white women, (which was a lie) gave rise to the resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan, what can we expect to be brought about by the heathen behavior of many blacks today?
Many blacks are quick to attack those of us who condemn the untoward, barbaric behavior of some blacks. They curse us for not glossing over their behavior and for not engaging in “blame whitey.” But if a phony movie was able to give rise to at least two generations of condemnation of blacks, what will the in-your-face belligerent hostilities so many of them exhibit today ultimately result in?
America has figuratively bent over backward to assuage its perceived guilt but for many blacks that is not good enough. They accuse and self-alienate but do nothing to incorporate the greatness of America into their lives.
How much longer will America allow blacks to vilify those who have done them no harm – even as blacks attack, terrorize, and condemn those who truly do just want to get along?
* * *
About Mychal Massie
Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of the conservative Capitol Hill think tank, Project 21; and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. Read the entire Bio here
- Caught On Tape: State Department Refuses To Answer Any Questions On Arming Syrian Rebels
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
If for some bizarre reason you still have any faith left in the U.S. government, this should take care of it.
"Thanks for the question… and we have no comment because there is an ongoing investigation.." rinse. repeat.
Why hold a press conference at all?
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...