Building Your Future
The savings and loan debacle
by Revilo P. Oliver
THE SCANDALOUS AFFAIR of the Savings & Loan Associations, also known as Building & Loan Associations, has received relatively little attention from its victims, the American taxpayers. Perhaps the world’s beasts of burden are so used to their servitude and the yoke about their necks that they realize it would be futile to complain when they are goaded.
There have, of course, been articles in the press, more or less openly predicting that the worst is yet to come. The best that I have seen in a periodical of wide circulation is the series of articles in Forbes by Ashby Bladen, of which the first, in the issue for 21 March 1988, shows that he clearly understood the political causes of the debacle, although he prudently refrained from tracing them to their source.
The details of the malodorous fraud were set forth in an incisive article by Stephen Pizzo, Mary Fricker, and Paul Muolo, “Inside Job,” which appeared in Playboy, presumably in the issue for December 1989, of which a kind correspondent has sent me photocopies. It describes the amazingly audacious swindle carried out by unsavory individuals who are named, and whose antecedents, criminal affiliations, and police records should have prevented even naive persons from entrusting them with so much as one dollar.
Most significant is the blatant ostentation with which the thieves displayed their corruption, traveling in their own private jet planes, living in conspicuously wasteful luxury, proudly displaying vulgar prodigality, and giving lavishly expensive parties at which they provided teams of highly talented whores for their guests. You may at first sight wonder why the many individuals who witnessed the ostentatiously spendthrift antics of the heads of the various Savings & Loan Associations, and knew from the press of some of their patently spurious investments, did not immediately withdraw whatever funds they had entrusted to persons whose apolaustic prosperity could not have been honestly attained. You will see the reason at once: they knew that no matter how much had been stolen, the solvency of the agencies was guaranteed by the taxpaying animals in the United States.
When you read the article you may wonder at the cleverness of scoundrels who can make $30,000,000 disappear overnight, and loot a single agency of $540,000,000 by making loans to pals who intend never to repay them. Individuals so talented might have been useful in really high finance on the international scale, if they had prudently arranged to have their depredations concealed.
What is clear is that the debacle had been foreseen, if not planned, by the thieves whom the dim-witted taxpayers elect to form the Congress of the United States. A politician, as Mencken observed, confesses that he is a liar, a thief, and a scoundrel, but his racket demands a certain animal shrewdness in addition to the talent to tell nonsense convincingly to the gullible majority of voters. This requires an intelligence which must have perceived the consequences of freeing Savings & Loan Agencies from regulation while making the taxpayers guarantee their solvency. Not even the most fatuous uncle would tell his favorite nephew, “Go, have fun, and I will honor all the cheques you write on my account.” That, in effect, is precisely what the Congress made the taxpayers promise.
Congressional complicity is further demonstrated by the efforts of Senators to prevent inquiry into the affairs of obviously bankrupt associations. Whether the Senators received remuneration in the famous brown paper bags that some, when thoroughly soused at lunch, forget and leave on the table, (1) or merely followed the political rule, asinus asinum fricat, is uncertain.
(1. Several years ago, the retired maŒtre d’h”tel of the Senate restaurant reported in his memoirs that when the drunks happily staggered from their tables, they sometimes left behind paper bags, some of which, if I remember correctly, contained as much as $100,000 in tightly-packed currency.)
The world’s beasts of burden will be taxed $285,000,000,000 (two hundred and eight-five billion dollars) to pay for the fun of the heads of the associations that have thus far become bankrupt, and the authors of the article estimate that each individual tax-payer will have to contribute at least one thousand dollars.
But, after all, why not? The stupid creatures have long consented to be taxed for “foreign aid,” and to provide prosperity for the Kikes in Israel and for boss niggers in “developing” countries, and nothing can be more certain that creatures so low in intelligence that they would consent to be taxed for “foreign aid” to anyone have become a species of mammal that is no longer viable.
There is, therefore, nothing scandalous or immoral about the looting of the Saving & Loan Associations. If the American imbeciles are willing to give part of their incomes for “foreign aid,” they certainly cannot logically object to financing the high-jinks of Jews and other spoilers in the United States, where the money was spent.
Even the most perceptive writers on the subject of the Saving & Loan Associations seemed to treat the matter as unprecedented and unconnected with anything in the past. They do not see that what happened to the Saving & Loan Associations was already determined in 1932.
We are entitled to assume that the future of the United States had been planned, at least in general outline, in the fateful year 1913, when the Congress, at the behest of Sheenies despatched from Germany for that purpose, and in return for bribes that are said to have been absurdly small in comparison with what was sold, violated the Constitution to subject the American people to the owners of the Federal Reserve, for which preparation was made by the Communist device of the Income Tax.
An obvious first step was the First World War, which not only inflicted death, destruction, and bankruptcy on the Aryan nations of Europe and established the Bolsheviks in Russia, but in the United States killed many young Aryans, forced both Federal and state governments to contract enormous debts to the usurers, and, perhaps most important of all, deformed our social structure and demoralized American society.
That war was followed by a blind American reaction, which was speedily contained and reversed by the simple device of precipitating the so-called “economic depression”, and thus electing a government of traitors, headed by our great War Criminal, in 1932.
By that time, the future of Savings & Loan Associations was already determined, because the local associations were then eminently safe investments for persons who were content with a modest but secure return on their capital. It was necessary to convert the Americans form saving and investing to spending and borrowing from the usurers. At one time, “New Deal” propaganda even claimed that it was “unpatriotic” to save money: that was “hoarding” and delayed “recovery” from the “depression.” It was everyone’s duty to spend everything he had.
Led by venal politicians and dim-witted dupes, Federal, state, and local governments borrowed and squandered immense sums, ostensibly to “prime the pump” or construct “improvements” that were spendthrift’s luxuries when financed by debt, but actually for the purpose of sabotaging and demoralizing the nation’s economy and taxing everyone to pay ever more interest to usurers for imaginary loans, in a progression of which the only possible end will be the bankruptcy of an impoverished nation and its stupid inhabitants.
That is how, by design and crafty deceit, Americans were converted into “a nation of borrowers and spenders,” as Mr. Bladen said in 21 March 1988. Were converted, in other words, to a feckless horde of imbecile spendthrifts.
It is true that many felt misgivings when they saw the vogue of policies patently foolish, but they were usually befuddled by the sophistries of shysters who called themselves expert economists and spoke nonsense with assurance and authority. Naive persons assumed that such big brains must perceive factors too abstruse to be tested by common sense.
Financial folly was authorized by the pretentious economics devised by John Maynard Keynes, who claimed that nations and individuals could make themselves rich by spending money borrowed from usurers. His strange and, no doubt, crafty theory (2) was eagerly accepted by the vampires who batten on the credulity of the ignorant, and they financed a propaganda of intensive deception that induced persons who seemed to be both sane and sober to countenance the theft of their property.
(2. Keynes was an intelligent man and he cannot have believed what he said. When you read him, your first impression that what he recommends is a moderate use of inflation, and that the guilt falls on politicians who violate that advice, but if you pause to reflect on his proposed remedy, you will see that it really amounts to what a proverbial metaphor in Sanskrit describes as trying to extinguish a fire by feeding it enough wood to glut its appetite. Keynes was a noted pervert, and emotionally unstable. The late Malcolm Muggeridge, who was well acquainted with Keynes and the circle about him, believed that Keynes devised his economic hokum to take vengeance on society, which he blamed for the loss of a favorite “boy-friend.” If you reread Keynes with that in mind, you may see in certain quirks of vocabulary and style corroboration of Muggeridges’s opinion.)
The purpose of the “new economics” was not merely to loot the nation; that was just the preliminary to the reinstitution of slavery.
It is obvious, of course, that slavery depends on making the slave totally dependent on his owner for the necessities of life. That required the abolition of private property — real property — before the boobs could be successfully enslaved.
As we all know, the very first targets of the “financiers” were the agrarian part of the population. Ownership of land gave a real independence, even after ownership was impaired by the imposition of taxes to be squandered in various kinds of do-gooding. A steady pressure since the 1920s reduced American farmers, once the largest potentially cohesive segment of the population, to a small minority, totally dependent on regulations and handouts form the Federal government, and now being gradually but methodically dispossessed and replaced by coolies from the Orient.
In American towns, the local owners of local hotels, grocery stores, comparatively small factories, and other businesses had a certain limited independence. They have been replaced by the hirelings of enormous corporations of unascertained ownership — hirelings who own nothing, not even the houses they are “buying” at usurious rates on long-term mortgages, and of which they will have to sell their equities, if any, when their masters transfer them to other posts.
Now real estate is really rented from the governmental thieves who impose taxes.
The few corporations that were safe investments so long as there was any social stability have been crippled or looted or are parlously near to being taken over by the enemies of the American people. Government bonds, once thought safe investments, have been made one of the most outrageous swindles by inflation of the currency.
The American serf, soon to become notoriously a slave, now exists to work about five months of the year for his owners, and is temporarily allowed to work the rest of the year for himself. But he is, in fact, owned by the Federal reserve — totally owned since the last bits of money were taken form the uncomprehending creature and replaced by trading stamps, bits of intrinsically worthless paper of which the purchasing power is being steadily and rapidly reduced, and which will soon become entirely worthless, unless, perhaps, the bits can be “recycled” to manufacture more useful paper.
The Building & Loan Associations that have been and will be made bankrupt were, of course, doomed, long before the present scandal, by manipulation of the currency. They had entered the current phase with much of their funds in loans at interest rates of 6%, 5.5% and sometimes even 4.5% on contracts prohibiting rapid repayment.3 Naturally, the dividends they paid investors were only 5% or less.
Before the national economy was thoroughly sabotaged, the Saving & Loan Associations could count on a steady recovery of their invested capital as the borrowers paid off in monthly installments the mortgages on the homes they were buying. Almost all such associations therefore guaranteed to their investors the right to reclaim their investment at any time on very short notice. When the Federal Reserve began to ravage the economy by setting high rates of interest, with the hypocritical pretense they were trying to check the inflation they were simultaneously creating, many persons quite naturally wanted to withdraw their capital from the Associations in order to profit by the higher returns that were available elsewhere, often directly form the U.S. Treasury. When the reserves that had been thought an ample cushion against fluctuations were exhausted, the Associations had to borrow at rates capriciously set by the usurers, sometimes more than twelve percent, to honor withdrawals of funds, which they were receiving from their borrowers much lower rates of interest.
(3. Rates of interest differed in many states, but were always below the legal maximum, because the original purpose of the associations was to encourage persons of moderate means to own their own homes, for that, in a sane America, was regarded as the foundation of a stable society. In most states, the maximum legal rate of interest was 7%, although Texas and a few other ‘Western’ states allowed 10%. Mortgages on real property in excess of the legal rate were invalid, and the courts usually were reluctant to permit evasion of the legal limits by “finder’s fees” or collecting interest before it was earned. In the 1950s, when many insurance companies had a surplus of funds to invest and were debarred from speculative investments, they offered loans on real estate at the low rate of 4.5% provided the borrower would agree not to repay the loan in less than thirty-five years; some Building & Loan agencies tried to meet that competition.)
Obviously, even honestly managed associations were put under stresses that made them financially unstable by the end of the 1970s, often before. The looting described in the article in Playboy that I have cited was, so to speak, merely the icing on the Federal Reserve’s delicious cake.
The looting will help put white slaves securely in the ergastula they built for themselves. The slaves seem proud of their fetters, of the iron collar they riveted about their own necks. They are so accustomed to their bonds that they cannot imagine what it would be like to be freemen, as Americans once were.
Many Americans with moderate incomes still believe that Old Ronnie lowered the income tax, although many of them had to pay more last year with the abolition of certain exemptions and allowances, and will, of course, always pay much more by virtue.
* * *
Source: Liberty Bell magazine, June 1990