Header Image


Bad Eagle Journal

Jihad-Free Holiday Gifts: Check That List Twice!

by David Yeagley · December 28, 2012 · 31 Comments ·

What do Caribou Coffee, Church’s Chicken, J. Jill, and PODS Moving and Storage have in common?

They are all owned by Muslim Brotherhood-linked Arcapita Bank (formerly known as First Islamic Investment Bank).

Unlike most banks, Arcapita boasts a “spiritual advisor”–none other than Hamas-linked terrorist Youssef al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi, you’ll remember, is the current spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was exiled from Egypt under Mubarak, but now he’s b-a-a-ack, thanks to U.S. support of the “Arab Spring”.

Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi

This is the same Qaradawi who has defended Hitler, pushed for Islamic countries to acquire nuclear weapons for use in jihad, and confirmed that chopping off hands for stealing–as taught by Muhammad (Qur’an 5.38)–can be re-introduced into the “new” Egypt at a later date, as Egyptians learn to submit to orthodox shari’a.

Arcapita, presumably short for “Arab Capital”, buys and sells businesses at a profit. The current list of their holdings is available in their 2011 annual statement (pages 12-13). (If there’s no “exit date” listed, they still own that company.)

Arcapita is based in Bahrain, but it’s U.S. HQ is in Atlanta. First Islamic Investment Bank changed its name to Arcapita in 2005, after the Qaradawi connection went public. They had tried “Crescent Capital” for their American branch, but apparently decided the Islamic link was still too obvious with that moniker. Muslims know that Islam is not selling well in the West; they are careful to conceal Islamic ties with name-changes so consumers cannot connect the dots to brand names or distinguish between products that fund terrorism and those that do not.

Arcapita’s spiritual advisor serves on the bank’s “Shari’ah Supervisory Board” (see p. 113) to ensure that all financial transactions are shari’a-compliant, or SCF. What does SCF include? That varies somewhat depending on which Islamic legal school one is consulting, but always bans anything involving “gambling, alcohol, pornography, dealing in pork products, or interest payments.”

Although Qaradawi no longer serves on that board–he resigned shortly after his involvement with Arcapita went public–it is clear that the firm’s allegiance to Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood remains the same. One of the board’s four members, Muhammad Usmani, is involved with both the Islamic Society of North America see p.62)
and the Islamic Circle of North America (see p. 40), both MB front groups. In 2010, Dow Jones dropped Usmani as an Islamic Index advisor when it discovered his terrorist connections.

Three of the four members belong to the Islamic Fiqh Academy, also MB. When it comes to Islam, connections to terrorist networks are never far away.

The Shari’a Board ensures Arcapita’s compliance with Islamic law. Shari’a is the total package–state, religion, finance, dress code, and social mores all rolled into one. As a former Muslim Brotherhood leader put it, “Islam is . . . a practical way of life for all mankind”, “divinely-ordained” that provides a “total view of the universe” (Sayyid Qutb, Milestones Loca 1028, 640, 1145, 1174, 1135, 270).

That “way of life” dominates all Muslim business dealings and may explain why Obama’s aides often meet with lobbyists–many of them Muslim–at Caribou across from the White House. Meeting off-site ensures that the FBI and Secret Service are not privy to these trysts and MB visitors won’t be recorded on the official White House log books. If you can support a jihadi business at the same time, why not?

How do Arcapita and the Muslim Brotherhood fund terrorism? Through voluntary as well as obligatory financial donations to terrorist causes and networks. One of the five mandatory pillars of Islam (six if you count jihad) is zakat, loosely translated as alms given to help poor Muslims or to advance the cause of Islam. The Qur’an specifies that every Muslim–except those who are infirm or indigent (Qur’an 48.17, 9.91-93)–has an obligation to participate in jihad, and they can do this in one of several different ways: as a shahid (human bomb), by devoting themselves to religious studies and convincing others to become “martyrs” (Qur’an 9.122), or by supporting mass murder via material and financial donations (Qur’an 8.74, 4.85). Take a wild guess as to which option is most popular with living Muslims.

Since zakat is obligatory anyway, why not make that your official jihad contribution? The positive reinforcement side of paying zakat promises Muslims a home in Paradise (Qur’an 27.3), while neglecting to pay it reserves a place in hell just for you (Qur’an 63.9-11).

The amount of zakat varies by country–anywhere from 2.5-20% of all taxable assets. The method of collecting zakat also differs. Some Islamic countries levy zakat as a tax; in others, its collection and distribution may be regulated by the state but the amount given is determined by the donor. In non-Islamic countries, zakat is often donated to a Muslim “charity” of choice or collected by the local mosque for redistribution.

Businesses in Islamic countries are expected to meet this religious requirement by providing major financial support for various charities. And how does Arcapita fulfill its obligation? By “Setting aside a percentage of net income each year [zakat], the Bank seeks out projects with a particular focus on education, healthcare and social welfare . . . the Bank is committed to an active program of social investment . . . The Bank also contributes to a range of educational programs and academic research around the world.”

Well, that certainly sounds impressive–who wouldn’t support education, healthcare, and social welfare? Who would suspect that such laudable goals would be linked to jihad? Anyone who has a nodding acquaintance with taqiyya and the Qur’an.

The rules of zakat stipulate that it be given only to Muslims (Reliance of the Traveller h8.24). Charity to kuffar would be tantamount to aiding and abetting the enemy. Consequently, the benefactors of Arcapita’s donations are Muslim organizations in Bahrain, Muslim students intent on spreading Islam in the West, and endowments for Muslim professors and shari’a finance research at Harvard, Columbia, and Duke universities. That’s the Muslim Brotherhood way of saying that Arcapita indoctrinates kuffar in Islam on some of our most liberal and prestigious campuses.

There’s a bit of silver lining to this story. Arcapita filed for bankruptcy in March. In October, a judge approved a bankruptcy loan, but Church’s Chicken, J. Jill, and the rest may not be Islamic much longer.

It would be nice to think that increasing public awareness and boycott of jihad finance is the root cause of the bankruptcy. In reality, it’s difficult for those outside Arcapita’s inner circle to determine why the bank is failing. One thing we do know: the strictures of SCF pose problems for would-be investors in the best of times, especially kuffar businessmen. Because SCF does not permit charging interest on loans made to Muslims, yields for the average investor may be abnormally low. It also means Arcapita may not have ready access to some assets. The logistics of shari’a compliance may scare off Western investors, not to mention the general global recession. Whatever the reason, we can count this as an early Christmas gift for those of us who shudder when U.S. dollars are converted into the murder of our countrymen.

Like most Islamic organizations, Arcapita is savvy enough to re-define its jihad donations as “social causes”–a phrase worshipped by the liberal West. The bank prides itself in ” . . . a sense of social responsibility in all of its business. This approach represents the basic requirements of Islamic principles . . .”

Well, not really, but that’s taqiyya at work.

“Social”–the magic “s” word–is imbued with the power to whitewash even the most diabolical schemes. The entire Western Hemisphere trumpets “social justice” without ever really defining it. Everyone from the Vatican to the UN to the Muslim Brotherhood brandishes the phrase with impunity. No one dares question truth or motive once “social justice” is invoked. Strange alliances are cropping up under the social banner, when in reality it’s merely a means to each group’s ultimate goal of world domination. Thanks to the historically unprecedented success of Western socialist propaganda, even the simplest financial transactions of buying or selling a product are now replete with “social” significance.

In the world of global finance, it may become increasingly difficult not to participate in jihad and other satanic causes. The complex network of international investment groups and subsidiaries facilitates in obscuring parent companies and their true goals. The new Shariah Finance Watch website, created just a year ago, continues to illuminate these nefarious connections, but it’s a web of endless mutations.

Today, every monetary decision comes preloaded with ideological baggage in today’s world. From a biblical perspective, this is part and parcel of the end times. The book of Revelation associates the mark of the beast with the ability to buy or sell in the last days of earth’s history (Rev 13.16-17). This same passage, contrary to the Democrat mantra, makes it clear that “the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves” may all be branded as supporters of the beast. It’s not just the fictional “one percenters”. No one is exempt from spiritual judgment; no one is immune to the influence of the beast–except for those who “keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus,” (Rev 12.17)–and we do so by His grace (Eph 2.8).

We would do well to consider the causes our money supports. When you buy that fried chicken or receive the next J. Jill catalogue at your home, remember to what activities your purchases may be contributing. The end of the world–and the ultimate triumph of God’s Kingdom–will be brought about through global finance, geopolitical machinations, and natural disasters. Although we cannot control the spiritual forces that wreak this havoc (Eph 6.12), we can decide now not to participate in evil causes. We can discipline ourselves to forego our favorites–and perhaps use some of those funds to support the Gospel instead.

Article by guest author,
Emily Bryant
Tea Party Activist

Posted by David Yeagley · December 28, 2012 · 8:51 am CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal

Read More Journal Posts »

31 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Thrasymachus // Dec 28, 2012 at 8:11 pm   

    Ah! The “social justice” movement!

    All I can say is that, were I in university, I might well consider writing a doctoral thesis on the history and meaning of this phenomenon: With whom did the concept originate? How is it to be defined most clearly? What political movements purported to be endowed with it? What are its ultimate aims? Is it part and parcel of Cultural Marxism? Does it attempt to thwart Divine Justice (obviously not openly or even consciously) by replacing it with man-made justice? Or is it an attempt to “assist Divine Justice”?

  • 2 Asaph // Dec 29, 2012 at 8:31 am   

    As ominous as that list is, I have the feeling it is far from complete.

    We recently had a real estate transaction fall through. Century 21 was involved. I’m not so disappointed now.

    I have to wonder about large chains of all kinds and the parent companies that own them.

    As you say, sooner or later it ALL comes under the umbrella of world-wide rebellion and apostasy, and God’s people will neither be able to buy or sell.

    We see what happens to some companies when it is learned who and what they align themselves with – consumer embargo. Same with entire countries. It is no longer a stretch to believe such attitudes and fears will force God’s people into corners where only the heavenly Father can be trusted and looked to for help and sustenance.

    Not being able to buy or sell, at any price, is a huge barometer of what kind of hatred and fears will be playing out at the end of time.

  • 3 Caribou Coffee, Church's Chicken owned by Muslim Brotherhood-linked bank | // Dec 29, 2012 at 11:29 am   

    […] is the extraordinary expose: “Jihad-Free Holiday Gifts: Check That List Twice!,” by David Yeagley, December 28:What do Caribou Coffee, Church’s Chicken, J. Jill, and PODS Moving and Storage have […]

  • 4 David Yeagley // Dec 29, 2012 at 9:23 pm   

    Asaph, I think the Collective Conscious of world society (connected through media, anyway) is gearing up for the Global Group, whether they realize it or not. But, I’m thinking they are all beginning to realize it.

    New TV show, “Person of Interest,” is a classic bit of evidence of the hyper self-consciousness of the thinking human race. There are no thoughts, no feelings, no actions, that are not known or knowable by others, by watchers.

    It is no stretch then to conceive of divine Judgment, based on “records” of every word and deed, and thought. It all registers. It’s all being watched.

    This is an incredible time to be living in!

  • 5 Emily Bryant // Dec 29, 2012 at 10:57 pm   

    No question this is only a drop in the bucket, though it is a complete list of American companies that Arcapita owns from which consumers might purchase.

    I’m looking for housing myself currently and there are many real estate companies that are willing to do SCF loans and mortgages. Guidance Financial is one of them; they are a Muslim run company that acts as a middleman for Muslim clients and deals with many major real estate companies.

    Most int’l business makes concessions to Islam on one level or another. IKEA has learned the hard way that concessions to countries like Saudi are not always appreciated in its broader and more lucrative Western market.

  • 6 Emily Bryant // Dec 29, 2012 at 11:06 pm   

    What really stymies me (infuriates might be more appropriate) are the Westerners that are oh-so-ready to cry foul when women are marginalized, yet they refuse to connect that with Islam and the Qur’an. They simply refuse to connect the dots–and it’s not hard when there are only two dots.

  • 7 Emily Bryant // Dec 29, 2012 at 11:15 pm   

    I would love to know when “social” and “justice” were first paired together and by whom. Many of the stupid phrases that just seem to pop into the vernacular originate with the UN, and many of those are introduced by the OIC (MB) in the form of a resolution. Such is the history of the new term of “hate speech”–created and defined by the MB, and always meant only to protect Islam.

    The Vatican used “social justice” multiple times in their recent statement on “Toward a Global Public Authority”–which calls for global communism with the Vatican at the head. They used to spread that same mssg as “liberation theology” in the 60s/70s; I don’t recall “social justice” being used in the documents I’ve read from that period, but maybe there are some examples out there somewhere?

  • 8 Thrasymachus // Dec 30, 2012 at 12:04 am   

    The earliest example of the words “social justice” in my personal reading is found in the book The Religions of Man (1958) by Huston Smith.

    Also, if you type “social justice images Marx” into your search engine, you will find a communist poster image with those two words emblazoned on it. Lenin, Engles (?), and Marx are on it. (Be sure to select “images” for your search results category.)

  • 9 Bonus Gift // Dec 30, 2012 at 3:44 am   

    As Thrasy points out almost all these words can be traced back, in way or form, to Marxism. More recently, say since WWII, ‘cultural Marxism’ would be the falsifiable quasi-religious version of communism/Marxism that keeps these types of abominations going. I would strongly recommend the following to anyone who wants to better understand our enemies who literally wish us dead (i.e., any patriots, and especially European Christian ones): Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault by Stephen Hicks. I know it helped me, it might help others.

  • 10 whitetrash // Dec 30, 2012 at 9:27 am   

    Capitalism is like a deficiency of a society’s immune system. Marxism is like a virus that attaches itself to the host and grows because of that immune system deficiency.

    As long as you have a capitalist system, you will have to contend with Marxism, which, like a virus, mutates constantly to avoid eradication.

    There is no cure, there is only remediation. If you are going to have a capitalist economy, you have to medicate it with sensible regulation. Failure to properly do so, leads to precisely what we are seeing today.

    There was a reason the the WWII generation put in all of those regulations (particularly on the financiers) that contemporary Republicans ripped out in worship “getting rich.”

    Sew to the wind, reap the whirlwind….

  • 11 David Yeagley // Dec 30, 2012 at 9:42 am   

    When I was teaching at OSU-OKC (1996-2001), I began to teach that there was such a thing as global capitalism. Capitalism without bounds, definitely leads to globalism. Not sure whether it leads to Communism, though.

  • 12 WHEELER // Dec 30, 2012 at 11:02 am   

    The term “social justice” replaces the phrase “political correctness”. The term “political correctness” was coined in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. It is the carrier of Marxism into culture; thus “cultural marxism”. When a professor wrote about this history and the connection of Political Correctness with Marxism did the “powers-that-be” changed that to “social justice” which continues the work of political correctness but under different terminology. Social Justice is now the new code word.

    As Willie Martin pointed out, Communism is a Talmudic ideology. Karl Marx was taught by Rabbi Hess. Communism is about bringing about “The Messianic Age”. Everything in the last 400 years has been about that. Social Justice is about making mankind prepared and engaged in bringing about the Messianic Age of the Jews so they can have their ‘Messiah’. It is all about them.

    Inherent in PeeCee, i.e. social justice, is extreme egalitarianism and deracination. Deracination is very important and the ability to “not-discriminate”. Tolerance and diversity for all. For that is Globalization. See, marxists have taken Antonio Gramsci serious. In order to have the politics, one must first have the culture. “Culture Defines Politics”. Social Justice is Marxist Culture that will bring about the politics of Globalization. One World, the Unity of Man. World Peace. Democracy. Egalitarianism.

    Welcome to the Messianic Age. Now, all we have to wait for is their “messiah”, or in our parlance, the Anti-Christ.

  • 13 whitetrash // Dec 30, 2012 at 11:25 am   

    Capitalism does not lead to Communism, Doc. It presents a host for Communism. Prior to the industrial revolution, there was no Communism. If you are going to have a Capitalist system, global or otherwise, Communism is a virus that you will have to contend with. The less restrained Capitalism becomes, the more virulent the mutation of the virus.

    Government must regulate Capitalism. It must control it. The notion of government as the enemy, and it’s role of regulation as a Socialist agenda is and idea propagated by short sighted and greedy Capitalists who could not care less about the nation or the people. The WWII generation were not such fools as the current generation.

    It is no coincidence that the headlong push for deregulation has been attended by a naked increase in Cultural Marxism.

    The enemy is Wall Street, not government, and they spend billions of dollars to convince you otherwise.

  • 14 David Yeagley // Dec 30, 2012 at 1:15 pm   

    WT, do they know what they’re doing? Wall Street, that is. How much is intentionality, and how much inevitability. Are there not actual economic “laws?” An airplane flies by natural law. With speed, air becomes a force, etc. Combination of laws, but, laws.

    People have needs (for survival). These are found in natural resources. I’m beginning to think “economy” is all about MIS-distribution, or MIS-appropriation of resources. There has to be enough here, for everyone.

    The imbalance is connected to human behavior. Now, is that intentional or unintentional?

  • 15 David Yeagley // Dec 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm   

    Wheeler: Communism may have certain superficial similarities to what is generally the Gentile view of Judaism.

    But, it is not Biblical, otherwise, how could there be a law, “Thou shalt not steal?”

    I’m not saying that Jews invented capitalism, either. But, close.

    The history of the world is an in-house Jewish conversation. Why fight the fact that it is Jewish? We’re all welcome to participate, in any case!

  • 16 Bonus Gift // Dec 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm   

    I have to agree and disagree with you whitetrash. I agree that communism is parasitic on capitalism. But by my reckoning/definition there was capitalism before there was Christ (let’s keep it simple and say capitalism is the uncoerced exchange of goods and services between people that does not include negative externalities). In my mind it is the only human economic system that is ethically and morally consistent as well as it does not require coercion or force (it could, but that is not its raison d’être unlike communism where that is its method and goal; see, e.g., Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose”, although I disagree with his pure “free trade” push). Where we differ, is that government doesn’t need to do much and especially today I do not think we suffer from a lack of regulation. The solution to too much regulation, to too much government, to too much debt, etc., etcetera is not more of the same, it’s less of each (and in some cases none). Yes, for example, Wall Street types did push for “deregulation” but it did not result in fewer regulations just the elimination of specific things like Glass-Steaggal in order to become more self-sufficient in what I would call quasi-money printing and some might call “shadow banking”. The parasites saw an opening and had no intent of getting rid of regulations that protected them from capitalism, they primarily wanted access to subsidized funding by eliminating things like Glass-Steaggal. Remember, Jesus only became violently angry at the money changers, and I can see why. It’s the parasitic element that makes us cringe, but that isn’t what capitalism is about (i.e., coerced advantage in the markets). Also, remember Wall Street were the primary backers of Barry Soetoro (and RINOs, but they really like democrats & related cultural Marxists and hate deregulation that would make finance more competitive &/or reintroduce the gold standard, etc.).

    The likely difference now, and as pointed out, is that post industrial revolution there is substantially more potential wealth for something inherently parasitic like communism to latch onto. But alas just as it gains dominance over all things in the U.S. we are at the end of that road where as Thatcher stated, they “have run out of other peoples’ money” (i.e., capitalism generated). I am often horrified that most so called citizens really cannot see the writing on the wall even as the wall is now steadily approaching them and within range of running them over. The Founders and our elders were largely correct about the business of America really should have been about the business of America and the meager government revenue for its limited tasks really should have been through tariffs. I’ll stop there, but there is nothing wrong with capitalism, but there is a world wrong with communism and globalism (pun intended).

    And, finally, yes, Jews domiante Wall Street and are overwhelmingly backers of the cultural Marxists. The money changers are back, but this time they demand “globalism” and your guns, and not deregulation and limited government or debt.

  • 17 Thrasymachus // Dec 30, 2012 at 1:58 pm   

    Here’s one article I found on the origin and coining of the term “social justice” —

    “Luigi Taprelli was a Catholic scholar who coined the term “social justice” in the same decade Germans Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published their book, The Communist Manifesto. Not a coincidence.”


    Potter Williams Report: Social Justice Debunked

  • 18 whitetrash // Dec 30, 2012 at 2:11 pm   

    Bonus Gift:

    Agreed that the system does not require excessive regulation, and further agreed that much of the regulation in place amounts to parasitic activities within government. But at the end of the day, we choose our leaders under our from of government. When the leaders we choose appoint justices who rule that corporations, ( a government construct from the git-go) are people too, we reap what we sew.

    It is not about the quantity of regulation, but the degree to which regulation is applied. Less is indeed better in most cases, but the very roll back you cite, Glass-Steaggal, was a disastrous, and bi-partisan event. It comes as no surprise that Obama… the alleged Socialist, balked at re-instating that firewall, and ignored the admonitions of Paul Volker who strongly urged the re-construction of that type of firewall. If we are to talk about those who play with “other peoples money”, I would suggest that the financiers put the Socialists in the shade regarding that activity. The government, including Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, did not make 40% of my 401K disappear. That was the Banksters speculating on bad loans by insuring their losses. Period. Then they cried that the big bad gub-mint made em do it. And damned if half the American public bought that line of nonsense.

    Understand, I do not object to Capitalism, and agree it is the best system yet devised. But to some degree, it must be regulated, if for no other reason, than to protect the system from it’s inclination to explode. And if not the government for this role…. who?

  • 19 whitetrash // Dec 30, 2012 at 2:52 pm   

    Hi Doc,

    There is no doubt in my mind, that in terms of their own short sighted gain, Wall Street Banksters know exactly what they are doing. More mathematicians are hired by Wall Street than all of the engineering disciplines combined. Why? To obscure the scams.

    But it’s not just Wall Street. Let’s take the Twinkie debacle. It was those damn unions that undid the snack cake right? Well they certaily played a role. But wait… the executives are bailing with fat checks, and the pensions of the employees are in doubt. Fancy that. And the investors? Who cares about them? The imperial executives? Fat chance. After the workers, the investors are the odd folk out.

    Talk about playing with other peoples money. When you can buy politicians, radio hosts, and a news network, you can pretty much fool most of the people, most of the time.

  • 20 Thrasymachus // Dec 30, 2012 at 3:04 pm   

    “Talk about playing with other peoples money. When you can buy politicians, radio hosts, and a news network, you can pretty much fool most of the people, most of the time.” — WT

    Seems like a reasonable statement to me. Add to this the money to “buy” or control the teachers union, select the university professors (discarding those whose views you disagree with), and purchace most of the print media as well (Liberal Elites won’t allow ideas they find politically inconvenient into print in the major publishing houses) — and finance the production of the popular culture — and you’ve got pretty much all the bases covered, don’t you think?

  • 21 David Yeagley // Dec 30, 2012 at 5:45 pm   

  • 22 David Yeagley // Dec 30, 2012 at 5:53 pm   

    There is the practical application of Communism, and then there is the pure theory. After Marx, there were Jews who actually tried to kick it up a notch, like Trotsky, or more recently, Isaac Deutscher.

    Ideally, Communism was a way for Jews to hide their identity, so they wouldn’t be targeted. It was to be another, more effective survival technique of the diaspora.

    But the grit of it all comes down to dictatorship, the exaltation of a very few, and the denigration of all others. There is no middle class, really. Lower and middle are made equal–by lowering the middle.

  • 23 Bonus Gift // Dec 30, 2012 at 6:02 pm   

    WT & Thrasy:

    Firstly, I am not against regulation. It’s just my knee-jerk reaction is to simplify it as much as possible. For example, without fiat money I do not think Glass-Steaggal is necessary, but with fiat money things like it sure are. That is, if you cannot print money and loans out of thin air then separating banking from brokerage isn’t necessary in my mind.

    Secondly, regarding the mathematicians on Wall Street you are more correct than you could know WT. In addition, and bringing it full circle, a good deal has to do with the equivalent of cultural Marxism in academic finance (that could be a subject in and of itself), and that the head people have little or no clue.

    Thirdly, yes, you get what you elect, by definition, but this implicitly assumes people had choice and/or knew better. They really effectively did not. Not in terms of who they voted on (e.g., McCain/Soetoro, or Romney/Soetoro – essentially its RINO/cultural Marxist light vs. hard core cultural Marxist) or how the issues were presented (e.g., complete gun control or major gun control in the wake of a massacre caused by what is likely a drugged out crazy person who stole the guns in order to do the shooting in a “gun free zone, etc. while gun deaths in gun free Chicago continue to increase, etcetera). It is a depressing fact that most people (not you two or most people that visit this site) are open to suggestion so that controlling the media is huge in the effort to slowly boil the frog that is the country. Most people simply do not critically think about things as say DY or you two do, which is why, incidentally, I think we value DY and his site (and, incidentally, I am amazed that sites like DY’s are still allowed on the Internet). Both parties have trended toward cultural Marxism as the media has essentially made it impossible to present a nationalist or pro-American view on just about anything (also economics, law, culture, etc.). Possibly Pat Buchanan was the last closest thing to a nationalist perspective and he had virtually no chance, for example. We have been slowly and methodically driven into the ground by people and groups that effectively take what wealth that was created and use it against us. As oddly Ron Paulish as it might sound, this would have been well nigh impossible without such things as fiat money (as well as media, academia, and politicians being able to be bought with the same source of “free” money and/or perverted wealth). I don’t completely blame an idiot for being an idiot and subject to media and other forms of control and suggestion, I direct my blame more toward the people who knew what they were doing and did it anyway. To know that you are effectively killing the goose that laid the golden egg yet hate the country and its people so much that you want them dead, now that is evil in my book.

    Lastly, yes, the average American was stupid and trusting; yet it isn’t a sin to be stupid, it is a sin in my book to be ignorant especially when the information is staring you in the face. Now that I agree that we have ourselves to blame; yet, for example, how can I blame the Tibetans for being overrun by over a billion red Chinese? Did they get the Dalai Lama they deserve? We are mostly pre-programmed to be optimists and not necessarily doubt authority, expecting the average American to grow a pair and begin critical thinking when they were always told all was/is well and the easy life is just around the corner. Could we really expect the average person to figure out what was in store as they have no idea up until the moment they step into the reeducation camp or a relative goes missing. The time is late, and I hate what has happened and hate that people didn’t listen to me, but I cannot say in all honesty they are to blame for the perversion of the media, academia, politics, and society in general that brings us to this sorry moment in our history. Again, what most upsets me is the large number of people that don’t even want to know the truth or what is planned to be in store, now they should have some explaining to do on Judgment Day.

  • 24 Thrasymachus // Dec 30, 2012 at 6:45 pm   


    I wasn’t following every facet of the discussion of economic systems, so my comments only were given in reference to the use of money — especially tax revenue — by the wealthy Liberal elites as the source of their continued actual and concrete political power. For, you see, it is my strong belief that the Federal Income Tax is a violation of the US Constitution. Indeed, the basic system of government we live under in our times would be quite foreign to the Founders.

    I agree that most people are followers by nature and cannot be expected to take leadership responsibility into their own hands. It has been the corrupt leadership which has brought us to our present condition.

  • 25 whitetrash // Dec 30, 2012 at 9:04 pm   


    Absolutely. The prevailing line of thought is that the Cultural Marxists exist at the expense of the tax payer, and this is correct. But that is only part of the story. Corporatism LOVES Cultural Marxism. Why? Because it aids them in defusing anything like a consensus among the governed. Ever heard of the “Great Consensus?” If you have, then you understand what I mean. If you haven’t, then do a little reading on it. You might be surprised.

    The WWII Generation proudly paid far more in taxes than we do. Libertarianism was the domain of crackpots in their time, and rightly so. There is a reason they had no use for Ayn Rand, who by any definition was a complete tool.

    So it is not the level of taxation that is the issue, as much as what the taxes are used to fund. Throwing the baby out with the bath water plays right into the hands of the ruling elites… Liberal, Libertarian, or otherwise.

  • 26 whitetrash // Dec 30, 2012 at 9:23 pm   

    Bonus Gift Wrote:

    “For example, without fiat money I do not think Glass-Steaggal is necessary, but with fiat money things like it sure are. That is, if you cannot print money and loans out of thin air then separating banking from brokerage isn’t necessary in my mind.”

    That’s a very interesting argument. But is it not true that when markets were tied to the price of gold, economic downturns were more frequent and severe? I have several very sharp Libertarian friends who identify who make this argument about fiat money and the Gold Standard, and it is very compelling in theory, but the practicality of it troubles me.

    “Now that I agree that we have ourselves to blame; yet, for example, how can I blame the Tibetans for being overrun by over a billion red Chinese? Did they get the Dalai Lama they deserve?”

    Another good point. But I would argue that what happened in Tibet was the result of a more powerful nation state imposing it’s will on a smaller weaker one. I get your analogy, but I still have my doubts about a self correcting market in a Capitalist System. There is simply no example of a large nation state having achieved that happy status. Not that I am aware of anyway.

    The chronic problem with Capitalism resides in monopoly and corporatism. These weaknesses give the Marxist Virus it’s gateway. At the end of the day, a corporation exists at the pleasure of the government that allows it… not the other way around. And we are surely agreed that a private owner of an enterprise is a very different thing than a corporation. There is no reason for a corporation to exist at all, save for large capital formations necessary to build railroads or distribute products of value to the people of the nation. When corporations begin to flood the political system with money to influence elections… the monkeys are running the zoo.

  • 27 whitetrash // Dec 30, 2012 at 9:36 pm   

    One caveat: In a written forum, it is easy to come across as harsher than intended. So let me add that while I am skeptical of Libertarianism, and positively disdainful of Ayn Rand… I regard contemporary Libertarians as some of the more interesting and informed folk with whom I engage in debate. I seldom agree with them fully, but find that they are well informed and thoughtful, which is an increasingly rare combination of attributes.

  • 28 Bonus Gift // Dec 31, 2012 at 3:57 am   

    Regarding corporations, I have no particular attachment to and do not feel they are required for capitalism (i.e., as I would define it). In my mind the primary function of the corporate form is limited liability (i.e., owners at worst can lose whatever their investment is and no more). We can see that financial firms with limited liability is problematic. Personally, and given the fiat nature of things, I’d get rid of limited liability for finance firms (i.e., they should be more like the traditional Lloyds of London; which was more of a private partnership with an economic interest in seeing that their real risks were minimized); but, of course, I’d prefer that simply all honest economic entities be shut down if they create negative externalities (e.g., like most large corporations today do, largely because they have captured the vast majority of politicians).

    Regarding Libertarians, I agree with your point about at least they tend to debate things in the classic respectful way of debate. Where, at least, I think we both disagree with them is their ideological insistence of several key things: for example, “free trade”, and “immigration”. For example, Libertarians insistence on open borders is based on the implicit assumption that we are all the same. B.S., individuals are different and groups are different (at least on average, if not in magnitude as well), therefore, open borders is insanity and doomed to destroy the country receiving the “immigrants”, Libertarians’ protestations notwithstanding. Also, of course, the current version of “free trade” is “neither free nor fair.” The Founders had it right, fund government with tariffs and be careful allowing foreign nations to effectively shut down domestic industry and farming.

    Regarding the Gold Standard, and although I like Ron Paul, I have no particular ideological axe to grind, BUT I noticed that as a simple method it has made it rather difficult for essentially predatory parasites to screw the average person over. This following are historical facts (and therefore not really open to much interpretation – see, e.g., Peter Benholz’s Monetary Regimes and Inflation and “This This Time is Different” by Reinhart and Rogoff): (1) All cases of hyperinflation in recorded human history have happened under fiat regimes (BTW, which all resulted in economic catastrophe and not just a temporary economic setback) and none under a metallic standard. (2) Virtually all cases of high or accelerated inflation happened under a fiat standard (3) Most, if not all, cases where countries had an economic recession or depression under a gold standard the monetary and exchange rate regime was at worst partially complicit in the event (i.e., it is very difficult to unwind what happened economically, but it is really hard to say that having a metallic standard, such as a gold standard, was the root cause). (4) Since industrialization, in over 90% of the cases where deficits essentially blew up the economy the causal cycle was (1st) government deficit spending, i.e., bad fiscal policy first, which led to (2nd) money printing, i.e.,, bad monetary policy, rinse and repeat until eventually you get a (C) banking and/or financial crisis, which leds to an (4) economic recession/depression (i.e., a solid metallic standard only retards this cycle and does not accelerate it). Therefore, nothing in macroeconomics is a truly controlled experiment, but the case against what we have is overwhelming and something like a gold standard with limited ability to lever looks pretty darn good.

  • 29 Emily Bryant // Dec 31, 2012 at 3:01 pm   

    Update on Arcapita’s current holdings:

    Arcapita sold Caribou in October 2011 but neglected to list the sale in their 2011 Annual Statement summary.

    Church’s Chicken was sold in July 2009. (see p. 12)

  • 30 Emily Bryant // Dec 31, 2012 at 3:05 pm   

    My apologies to Church’s and Caribou! And my thanks to the commenter who pointed out these discrepancies. I did some more checking and he is correct; not sure why Arcapita didn’t list the Caribou sale in their year-end report.

  • 31 richardthelion // Feb 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm   

    There is nothing more pathetic then an American Indian attacking islam and defending israel. Any native american with 2 brain cells above the average shrimp should see how Israel steals the land from the Palestinians, just like how the ‘white man’ came and stole your land, your culture, your religion and everything you had leaving you with but an inch of land vs. what you used to have. Your website and your remarks about Islam, Arabs and Israel have to be the most stupid of all that I ever read. Hearing all this crap from a typical WASP comes at no surprise, but from an American Indian! Dream on with your bold headed eagle mr. patriot, and continue to talk like the slave you are. Only a slave utters the nonsense you do.

You must log in to post a comment.