Economics and EAU – Western Voices World News

by John Young

Note: This program is nearly 50 minutes long, so even heavily compressed the mp3 file is around 16 Megs

http://www.westernvoices.com/audio/john_young/jy20070430.mp3

ARE YOU OUT OF WORK, underemployed, or earning a wage that barely meets ever-rising expenses? If so, you are not alone. If not, you are part of an ever-dwindling minority. Between offshore outsourcing, relocation of facilities to foreign countries, and H-1B visas, the knowledge workers that were supposed to form the core of America’s “new economy” are getting squeezed from the top. Meanwhile, illegal aliens, Affirmative Action and the skyrocketing costs of education are squeezing from the bottom. With a staggering national debt from foreign wars and social services and soaring costs for housing and energy, productive Americans are being squeezed like never before. It doesn’t matter if a Democrat or a Republican gets elected, or which party controls the houses of Congress and the Presidency, the economic squeeze is relentless.Inflation numbers don’t tell the whole story, but a quick comparison should make the situation easy to understand. Back in 1964, the average home had only one wage earner and that earner took home $97.41 a week before taxes (1). Back in 1964, the average single family home in the U.S. cost $15,200, and the monthly mortgage payment on a 15-year mortgage was $136. The wage earner paid $1,890 in total taxes (2), meaning that the cost of a home required roughly 50% of the after-tax income of one wage earner.

But what about today? The average worker earns $543.65 a week before taxes (1), and pays $12,613 in taxes yearly (2), leaving him or her with $1,303/month from which to pay bills. The average home price in the United States is $264,540 (3). The monthly mortgage payment is $1,634 per month – which exceeds the after-tax income of the average wage earner by 25%.

What this means is that the cost of living for core expenses has increased so much in the past forty years that a basic lifestyle that could once be provided by only one wage earner now requires two. Families are now investing twice as much work outside the home just to maintain basic necessities. Far from being a tool of empowerment, the mobilization of both parents in a family into the work force has led to declining natality, with European-American couples no longer having enough children to replace themselves. Please understand that I am not arguing here that women shouldn’t be able to pursue self-fulfillment through careers. What I am pointing out instead is that most parents of either sex in the workplace are there by necessity rather than by choice, and that this economic leverage reduces the birth of children to our most productive parents while they are taxed into oblivion to subsidize the higher birthrates of people who are born into their families’ third generation of welfare.

This has led to panic among the political classes as the ever-expanding taxable population required to fund their Ponzi-scheme social welfare experiments fails to materialize. Yet, instead of making commonsense reforms such as greater child tax credits for productive couples or reforming the way the housing market works, the political class instead clamors to throw open the borders to endless third world immigration, thus putting even more upward pressure on the price of housing and downward pressure on wages for working families.

Over that same period of time while wage-earners have struggled to work more for less, a 1964 investment of $84 in the S&P 500 would have been worth $1248 in 2006 – a rate of growth roughly 300% faster than earnings over the same period (4). In other words, while working families now have to work twice as many hours per household just to keep their heads above water, people are walking away from Wall Street at the end of each day with a satchel full of cash.

What gives? How can the stock market keep going upwards on a long-term trend and generating untold wealth for a small number of people while the plight of the average American continues to get worse? The answer to such a question is necessarily complex and I can only address a small part of it today. What I would like to do is take this opportunity to explain how the approach of European Americans United to economics differs from that of the status quo, why it differs, and how our approach would benefit working families in a way that neither political party can accomplish. EAU’s principles acknowledge that the inherent differences in human biodiversity deserve respect and preservation. While this certainly means that matters of ethnicity and the undue influence of organized ethnic lobbies are germane, these are only two aspects of what we address; economics is also of great importance.

Like our perspective on other issues, our commonsense take on economics is fundamentally different from that of either international capitalists or international communists or socialists in that we believe that the purpose of an economy is to serve the people of a nation, rather than vice versa. In other words, we believe in a national economy that serves the nation rather than an international economy that serves a relative handful of wealthy self-appointed elites by wrecking entire cultures in order to employ cheap labor and expand markets. The parameters within which an economy is allowed to operate are established legislatively by the government. Since the proper role of government is to secure the safety, liberty and progress of the nation, it is a proper role for government to define the scope of lawful behavior and activity of corporations so that the pursuit of wealth doesn’t take a front seat while the well-being of the nation is ignored. Thus, the essential form and scope of a nation’s economy can – and should – be controlled legislatively.

A corporation is an artificial construct created by a governmental decree. As such, it obeys the laws created by the government that gives it life. And laws are necessary because, by its very nature, a corporation has no morals or ethics. Its only standard of value for judging the desirability of choices is profit. This is neither good nor bad – but it means the only morals you can expect a corporation to have are those forced on it by government. A government’s criteria for decision-making, by contrast, must be the well-being of the people who constitute the nation. Thus, a primary task of government is to create laws that make sure that the conduct of the economy is consistent with the best interests of the people. Unfortunately, this is just one of many places where our government has failed most miserably due to its hopelessly corrupted nature. Instead of government controlling business, it turns out that business controls our government.

A good example of how special interests combine to hurt average Americans is the H-1B Visa. The U.S. Government, at least in theory, issues H-1B visas to allow highly skilled foreign workers to enter the United States in order to work in specific industries where, according to the industry, the American workforce is not producing enough qualified workers. Under law, these H-1B workers are supposed to be employed at the same wages that would be paid to an American – but studies published in the EE Times magazine last June indicate that H-1B workers in scientific and technical fields such as engineering earn up to 23% less than their American counterparts, and that wages for everyone in these fields are now stagnant as a result (5). This stagnation of wages serves to discourage new students from choosing to enter these fields, thus perpetuating a shortage that shouldn’t exist. At this very moment, tens of thousands of technology professionals are either out of work or employed in lower-paying fields because they have been pushed out by foreigners with H-1B visas. Stories abound of IT professionals being forced to train their foreign replacements before being laid off or having entire divisions outsourced while stock prices rise and managers with no loyalty to their people pocket fat bonus checks.

Here is how H-1B Visas benefit a handful of corporate executives while crippling our nation. The wage paid for a particular skill set is a function of the number of jobs available requiring that skill set as compared to the number of workers available who possess it or can readily acquire it. If the number of available workers exceeds the number of jobs, then the wages fall, so fewer people enter those fields. If the number of workers is smaller than the number of jobs, however, then wages rise, so more people will choose to study and to acquire the needed skills. Because of this phenomenon, a shortage of workers in a given field won’t typically last more than three or four years. This dynamic is somewhat skewed by the fact that certain occupations require a fairly high level of intelligence and thus have to compete against more traditional professions for bright people like doctors and lawyers, but since these latter professions do not have universal appeal, people will acquire the training to enter a technical profession as its wages rise over the course of three or four years.

But what happens if, the minute there is a need, an employer is able to bring in someone from overseas to fill the job at below-market wages? Well, the wages fall, and thus fewer people choose to enter the field and the employer then becomes dependent on third-world labor to meet the bottom line. Meanwhile, inhabitants of the third world for whom even artificially-lowered U.S. wages are a godsend flock to acquire those skills in record numbers, thus lowering the value of the job even further. Pretty soon, the number of people in the United States taking up the study of hard sciences and engineering declines, while the acquisition of such skills in foreign countries upon which we become dependent explodes.

This is the damage done by the H-1B Visa, and the only beneficiaries in the United States are a handful of corporate executives and the political campaign funds of Congress. Here is an area where our approach is radically different. We do not believe that the solution to labor shortages (or the desire of employers to pay sub-market wages) is to import people with radically different cultures or genetics. Nor should it ever be permissible for corporations to outsource their knowledge workers to a foreign country. Nor should we ever import third-world immigrants to shore up our tax base, provide below-market labor, or provide ready votes for any political party. Rather, we believe the solution is to fix or abolish Ponzi schemes that require an ever-expanding tax base, solve the problems with inflation and housing, and create an educational system that fosters and promotes excellence and critical thinking so that we have a flexible workforce capable of taking on new challenges. Free enterprise should still exist, most certainly – but it should be free within the nation and constrained by its borders, rather than existing as a supranational entity without borders.

Our educational system isn’t helping matters. Forty million adults in the United States – 1 out of 7 – are functionally illiterate (6), and 37% of these functional illiterates – nearly 15 million – are European-American. We have an educational system that has invested untold blood and treasure into ill-advised integration schemes that have not advanced the achievement of ANY ethnic group even one iota, and invested untold billions into the education of people who are uneducably mentally retarded. Simultaneously, our public education system has been twisted into a platform for teaching every conceivable perversion under the sun.

This, again, is the result of State and Federal legislators caving to the demands of social deconstructionist special interests time and again, decade after decade. As a result of the endemic corruption of our governmental processes at all levels, our public schools have become an abominable failure. How much of a failure? At the time of the American Revolution, before public schools even existed, 90% of Americans were literate (7). Now, over 200 years later and with the dubious benefit of nearly 100 years of public education, only 86% of Americans are literate. In other words, our public schools are so bad that they are worse than no schools at all. Is it any wonder that we aren’t graduating scientists and engineers in sufficient numbers? My father, a career educator, summed up the matter by stating that anyone who graduates from public education with an actual education has done so in spite of the schools, rather than as a result.

We understands the critical role of education in not just the economic well-being of the people of a nation, but in its cultural well being as well. An educational system in the United States is intended to transmit not just the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, but also our most cherished and healthy social, cultural and ethical values along with our history in a way that promotes pride in the accomplishments of our culture. A national educational system should be based upon merit and accomplishment – for both the students and the teachers – and would educate each child to the highest level consistent with the child’s abilities. It would not waste a huge percentage of the school budget on children who, through unfortunate happenstance, could never be educated and are only there for daycare. It is critically important that we not pull resources away from tomorrow’s business leaders, scientists, and researchers in order to engage in exercises in futility.

Another critical feature of a proper economic system is to make sure that Ponzi-scheme social programs that constantly increase in size and scope and thus depend on an infinitely increasing population are drastically reformed. It is not only morally wrong to take reproductive opportunities away from the most productive people in society in order to fund the reproduction of the least productive, it is ultimately unsustainable and doomed to collapse and failure. This is because a significant portion of a person’s personality traits and intellect are inherited. Chronic welfare-recipient families who give rise to great scientists are thus the exception rather than the rule, even though programs such as Head Start are heavily funded. A nation cannot be healthy with a significant portion of its gross domestic product being spent on people who will never be productive and whose children and children’s children will be a drain that requires ever-heavier tax burdens. Such social programs should therefore carry an element of discouragement toward reproduction.

An example would be Ronald Reagan’s very modest proposal that any adult drawing welfare be required to have reversible birth control such as Norplant inserted as a prerequisite for drawing government benefits. Another excellent idea has been carried out by Project Prevention, which pays drug-addicted women a cash incentive to get their fallopian tubes tied so that the incidence of crack babies and fetal alcohol syndrome – both a huge drain on society’s coffers for decades – can be reduced. Please notice that both of these programs would require voluntary compliance rather than any sort of jack-booted thuggery. Anyone who would give up his or her fertility in exchange for a couple of hundred dollars for drugs is exactly the kind of person who shouldn’t be making babies. Meanwhile, mandatory long-term imprisonment for violent felons will take them out of circulation so that they don’t have babies that they can’t properly support.

The idea, then, is to have a population that is constantly improving in quality through the application of positive and negative incentives. Right now, we do the opposite by forcing our best and brightest to subsidize the offspring of drug pushers so they can’t afford to have children themselves. One of our goals is to reverse this equation and set things right.

Free enterprise should, of course, be a prominent feature of America’s economy since allowing people to benefit proportionately to their ingenuity and industriousness is the single best way to create positive economic progress. At the same time, the multiple layers of regulations that are so complex that entire legal departments are required for their interpretation would be abolished, and they would be replaced with simple regulations and environmental protections comprehensible to anyone smart enough to start a business. All of these specialist regulations are ultimately anti-competitive because they create a huge barrier to competition without reducing corporate dishonesty in practice. Corporate honesty can be enforced with a mere handful of easily-understood laws. Naturally, just as “gang-bangers” ignore the laws which disallow the discharging of firearms within city limits, some corporations would see fit to disobey important regulations. In that case, the corporate veil would need to be pierced and the executives responsible for the decisions prosecuted individually. This would provide a huge disincentive to ignoring issues of human safety in pursuit of profits.

At the same time, the need for and reach of lawyers should be significantly curtailed. The law in this country has been perverted from a system of justice to a system of “win at any price,” where corporations are deliberately bankrupted by politically-motivated lawsuits. Major corporations are sued for millions of dollars for serving hot coffee that is actually…hot. Lawyers play games with process service that have innocent individuals on the hook to pay all manner of judgments because they didn’t even know they were being sued.

Ultimately, while a good lawyer can be worth his or her weight in gold, trial lawyers as a whole have become a parasite on the body politic that costs people, corporations, and government literally hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We need to put this perverse enterprise out of business while still providing an avenue for those who have been truly harmed to recover a fair settlement without need for slick lawyers.

Another major reform we should undertake is reform of consumer credit. Americans are staggering under an incredible debt load paying for credit cards with usurious interest rates as high as 30%. A distinguishing feature of the American economy in the past 40 years has been for corporations to encourage people to buy things they can’t currently afford through the widespread availability of easy credit. This benefits the short-term bottom line of the corporation and transfers the risk to the credit card company. The credit card company, of course, compensates for this risk by charging such high interest and levying such high fees that anyone who uses credit to buy anything will typically end up paying anywhere from 50% to 300% more than the purchase price of the item. This “buy now, pay later” approach takes a serious long-term economic toll on the nation while benefiting corporate stockholders and bankers at the expense of the rest of society.

At the end of 2003, American homeowners had racked up $6.8 trillion in mortgage debt – an amount that had increased a whopping 64% over just a five-year period. In fact, prominent economists believe that teh only thing that pulled the U.S. out of the collapse of the dot-com bubble was homeowners pulling equity out of their homes. (8) Consider, for a moment, that even at low interest rates, a homeowner ends up paying triple the principal value of the debt in order to retire the loan, and that amounts to $20 trillion dollars that have to be paid to banks. Meanwhile, the average person owes over $4,600 for credit card purchases and $24,000 for car loans. Recent college graduates typically owe over $16,000 in student loans (9). To put this in perspective, the currently reported Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the United States is just a hair over $13 trillion (10). When you add all this debt together – and this is just personal debt and doesn’t count government or corporate debt – the American people owe bankers a quantity that is more than double the GDP!

The personal and economic toll from all of this debt is unbelievable. Foreclosure rates and personal bankruptcy continue to set records and destroy families. As I was researching this broadcast, I discovered that, according to foreclosure.com, there are currently over 1.2 million homes available for purchase because of foreclosure, bankruptcy, tax liens and similar family calamities. And that’s just the number sitting on the market right at this second. Overall, the number of homes foreclosed rose from 114,000 in 1980 to 555,000 in 2001 – an increase of 387% (11). In 1980, fewer than 300,000 Americans filed for personal bankruptcy; but that figure has grown steadily and last year 2,690,000 people filed for bankruptcy protection (12). Members of the American middle class are so saddled with debt that they are usually no more than two missed paychecks from bankruptcy. Thus, it is no surprise that two out of three people filing for bankruptcy have experienced job loss (13).

All of this debt leads to foreclosure and bankruptcy for millions of Americans, and for those lucky enough to avoid such extreme circumstances, the high debt burdens amount to endless hours of productive work that go to enrich bankers rather than the family. As a result, financial woes and money problems figure prominently among the causes of divorce. In fact, money problems are the single biggest cause of divorce in the United States. (14)(15) Divorce is extremely harmful to children as a rule, and a survey by the National Center for Health Statistics demonstrated that: “… children in single-parent families are two to three times as likely as children in two-parent families to have emotional and behavioral problems and are more likely to drop out of high school. Also many more will get pregnant as teenagers, abuse drugs, and get in trouble with the law. Compared with children in intact families, children from disrupted families are at a much higher risk for physical or sexual abuse. Children who grow up in single-parent or stepparent families are usually less successful as adults, in love or at work …”(16)

Look, this is a pretty simple equation. Up to half of all European-American children in America will grow up in a single parent home because of divorce; and the single largest cause of divorce is debt. Forget about what kind of so-called “rights” bankers may have and realize that by perpetuating a system of de facto financial slavery that benefits a handful of bankers, we are harming the next generation not only psychologically, but also in terms of their prospects for material success in the future. We must use the well-being of the next generation as a standard of value for evaluating public policy, and as a result, a centerpiece of our economic policies should be comprehensive reform of the entire consumer credit and debt system so that it works on the basis of a long-range view of what is best for the nation, rather than what is best for this quarter’s bottom line in the boardroom of a skyscraper in New York or Chicago.

An unavoidable aspect of national economic policies must, necessarily, include the separation of ethnic groups into their own distinct areas where each group enjoys self-determination. At first blush, this doesn’t look like an economic policy, but really it is. Let me explain why.

Imagine, for a moment, that I was skydiving in Africa and due to some weather phenomenon touched down in the midst of a small tribe of Bushmen. The Bushmen, also known as the San people of the Kalahari, traditionally live under some of the most strenuous conditions experienced by humankind. As a result, they are the only known racial group with intact genetic code for the sense of smell, and they can find water and food miles away. They are perfectly adapted in numerous ways to travel long distances on foot in the hot African sun in order to hunt and gather, and possess an encyclopedic knowledge of edible or poisonous plants, natural hazards, and medicinal herbs augmented by their amazing sense of smell. Imagine, now, that I have dropped into a small village of perhaps fifteen San people. Being charitably-minded, they greet me and give me some food and a place to sit. We can’t communicate with each other very well because my mind just can’t find any reference points for their unique click-language, nor can they relate to my Indo-European language. Nevertheless, we communicate the basics of food, water, danger, and other fundamentals through more or less universal sign language.

It quickly becomes apparent that, in San culture, I am like a baby who needs to be cared for all of the time. I suffer under the hot sun and require shade, my nostrils aren’t wide enough to let me breathe enough of the hot air to travel well on foot, I don’t have their particular adaptations to conserve water, I am not as fast on my feet, and most importantly, I lack their unique sense of smell. No matter that my innate intellect will allow me to learn the basics of African edibles and dangers through observation, I am always needing instruction, protection, or warning in some form or fashion and cannot supply my own fair share of food and water under those conditions. With only fifteen people in the village, five of whom are children, I become a burden on the village because I can’t pull my own weight. Then, one day an older hunter returns to the village and reports joyfully that he has found a village of my own kind. He could cover the distance in only a day, but it takes me three days to get there under his patient guidance, at which time he turns me over to the folks who have been missing me since I got disoriented skydiving.

What just happened in this story? Each people creates a culture tailored to its own strengths and weaknesses and often the mindset and other biological characteristics of the people demonstrate adaptations to specific environmental conditions – such as dark skin or resistance to malaria. Being of European ancestry, I was not just culturally out of my element among the San, but biologically incapable of assimilating into their culture as a true equal because I am not equal. As a result, I became the equivalent of a welfare recipient. But the meager production of their hunter-gatherer lifestyle could not support me without endangering their own precarious existence. Therefore, they turned me back over to my own people – not out of hatred or bigotry, but out of necessity. The lesson here is that a sound national economy depends upon racial homogeneity. It depends upon homogeneity because, as I explained already, each culture is created by, and is unique to, the people who created it, and other types of people will, in general, not do as well as the descendents of the founders of that culture. Thus, the very same San people who were so much more self-sufficient than I in the Kalahari would find themselves mainly on welfare or at best holding down Affirmative-Action jobs if they came to the United States. In other words, they would be a net economic drain on our people. It is not because one group is inherently inferior or superior to any other, but because of the fact that many factors involved in cultural assimilation are biological.

There are also cases where a minority admitted into a culture could possess higher-than-average intelligence combined with extreme ethnocentrism – and apply their efforts to change the culture in a way that would make it more friendly to the newcomers than to the descendents of the culture’s founders (17). In the United States today we have both of these situations going on at once. But there is another powerful incentive for ethnic homogeneity, and that is the lesser need for social welfare altogether because more closely genetically-related communities will actually spontaneously pitch in to help each other (18). This is why, back before the so-called civil rights movement and the enactment of the 1965 immigration law sponsored by the ADL that threw open our doors to third-world immigration, the amount of necessary social service spending in this country was quite low. Since that time we have spent trillions of dollars to “eliminate poverty” and have more poverty now than ever before.

Therefore, ethnic homogeneity is extremely important for the long-term best interests of our people in a purely economic sense. Along the way, it isn’t just good for European-Americans: is good for everyone else, too. Everybody needs an autonomous region where their best interests can be pursued without interference, and unassimilable aliens need to be returned to their point of origin. The solution for poverty or lack of freedom in foreign countries is not to come to America and bring along all of the ideas that led to an untenable situation in the homeland and thus re-create those problems here – but to go back to that homeland and make things better there. People fleeing corruption in Brazil need to stock up on armaments, return to Brazil, and straighten out their country. There are five billion people on earth, and they can’t all fit in the United States and Europe. The fewer than 10% of people on earth who are of European ancestry cannot pull up the rest of the world because by trying to do that we will wipe ourselves from the face of the earth. Rather, we must mind our own business and let other people mind theirs. The purpose of a nation’s government is not to end world poverty, but to work for the well-being of the nation. We believe that a policy of “self-determination for all” would ultimately bring about a lasting era of peace and progress, along with a sound economic system suitable for the liberty, safety, and progress of our people.

Also important economically are foreign policy and energy self-sufficiency. George Washington, our first President, who signed a law in 1790 stating that only Europeans would be allowed to immigrate to the United States, also said that we should avoid entangling alliances because otherwise other people’s fights would become our own and we would spend our blood and treasure on causes unrelated to the well-being of our nation. He was both prescient and correct. Our unfortunate alliances have involved us in World War I (19) and the Iraq War (20) at a bare minimum, with a cost of untold billions of dollars of our people’s money and an aggregate of tens of thousands of dead and permanently injured. You cannot be at war with the world and expect to live prosperously!

Here is what George Washington had to say about this in his farewell address:
“So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot.” Can the matter be any more clear?

Meanwhile, the cost of energy and the volatility of energy futures markets are causing a real dent in the average American’s wallet or pocketbook. Naturally, our government should be interested in preserving our environment for future generations, and so programs should be instituted so we don’t rely on oil for the indefinite future, especially given that the consistency of the oil supply for the next couple of decades is in serious doubt (20).

The doubtfulness of consistent oil supply gives another very good reason for ethnic autonomy. There is a good chance that declining oil supplies will bring about a condition of resource scarcity. In an ethnically homogenous country such as the United States more or less was during the Great Depression, this was painful but endurable. But in a multicultural society, resource scarcity provides the impetus for needless loss of innocent human life because of ethnic conflict (21). This can be seen all over the globe – from Botswana to Iraq. Whenever you put multiple ethnic groups in the same state and introduce scarcity of resources, conflict erupts with the predictability of sunrise. Conflicts in conditions of scarcity are only mitigated through cohesive group effort – something that cannot be achieved in a multicultural society – or through iron-fisted dictatorships like that of Saddam Hussein.

As you can see, all of these matters – ethnicity, nation, economics, energy, prosperity and conflict are interrelated. I have only scratched the surface today but I hope you have found my thoughts enlightening. Let me briefly recap what European Americans United favors:

One – Ending all H-1B Visas and Third World immigration so that Americans have jobs, including the repeal of birthright citizenship, deportation of all illegal aliens and imposition of heavy fines on employers who employ them.

Two – Reform of our educational system to a merit-based system that actually works and transmits positive cultural values.

Three – Reform of our laws affecting corporations to abolish the operation of supranational corporations in our borders.

Four – Reform of the social safety net and tax structures to improve the health and intelligence of our nation.

Five – Reform of corporate regulations and tort laws to diminish the role of lawyers and increase accountability.

Six – Reform of housing and consumer credit laws so that the best interests of the nation’s people and their posterity are served.

Seven – Ethnic separation in a spirit of mutual respect and self-determination.

Eight – A non-interference-based foreign policy that doesn’t bind our fate to that of unrelated peoples or treat any other nation preferentially.

Nine – Energy Independence.

I want to take a parting moment to point something out to those of you who have paid close attention. European Americans United whose ideas and positions actually stand for the self-determination of all peoples and thus the preservation of crucial human biodiversity. It is EAU’s positions that stand four-square against genocide or the domination of any definable people by any other people. It is EAU’s positions that preserve the dignity of the American middle class and prevent needless bloodshed and suffering.

Every other ethnic group already has its representatives. We aspire to represent the best interests of European-Americans. In the weeks ahead we will be unveiling a number of initiatives aimed at specifically addressing these issues. Please join with us and lend us your support today.

Notes:

(1) ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb2.txt

(2) The Tax Foundation http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr140.pdf

(3) http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/avghomeprice04.htm

(4) www.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pc/datasets/histretSP.xls

(5) (Requires signup) http://www.eetimes.com/issue/fp/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=AZ23JW3GZTP5MQSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=189401976&_requestid=754734

(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy#The_United_States

(7) http://www.newswithviews.com/Spivey/phyllis9.htm

(8) Leeb, Stephen (2006) “The Coming Economic Collapse: How you can Thrive when oil Costs $200 a Barrel”

(9) http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/general/2004-03-17-debtcover_x.htm

(10) http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm

(11) http://www.consumerlaw.org/initiatives/predatory_mortgage/oxley_letter.shtml Note: the author has derived his own percentage from the raw numbers.