Daily Stormer

Fifty-Year Mortgage? Is This a Joke?

Andrew Anglin

Introduction (Unrelated to Main Article Content)

The development of my TV show is at a bit of a standstill as I await my dear partner to acquire better internet access. We will begin doing a fake podcast soon, as I practice my ability to speak without constantly saying “um.” It’s a complex developmental journey for me personally. Regrettably or not, some of my oratorial eccentricities are simply going to have to be incorporated into my professional presentation. Speaking has never been my strong suit, but as Master Yoda said, “weakness can be a strength if you shamelessly embrace it.” A challenge is always good, particularly a challenge such as this, where there is actually no objective bar by which to measure success. Even the standard internet bar of popularity does not apply to me given the censorship.

We should always push ourselves. I could have moved into a different format of writing, or I could have just quit the internet and worked at well-paying writing jobs. But I like being creative, and I like creative challenges.

Point being: I have some time to write now, and I think with most of the groundwork having been laid for the show, even once the fake podcast gets going, I should be able to keep a writing schedule that keeps people happy and keeps people visiting the site. I also think the article by Tony went over well, and he may start contributing more. I’m also open to other contributors in the future, if they are good enough.

Beginning of Main Article Content

Yesterday, I sat down with a plan to write about Trump’s fifty-year mortgage scheme. However, that quickly went in another direction, as I decided that the ridiculousness of the failed tariff scheme and its theoretical connection with the Silicon Valley transhumanist utopianist agenda was a topic worth covering in some detail. (To be clear: that was indeed a theory I was presenting. However, it is not a theory that the Silicon Valley people gave Trump more money than the Israel people, and it is not a theory that the Silicon Valley people have an agenda to create chaos in order to establish a new world order. Given that the tariffs made no logical sense on any level, it seems to be the simplest possible explanation that that whole mess was part of a larger program to create a new order in America. The fact that we now see it leading into a potential UBI type program further goes to bolster that theory. But although I think it was clear enough from the context, I will state now that the conclusion I drew was necessarily a theory, as without someone leaking documentation of insiders saying it was the goal, it couldn’t ever be proved. However, I have not seen anyone explain what the purpose of those taxes were.)

The fifty-year mortgage thing is much less important than the Silicon Valley conspiracy, particularly given that it is unlikely to ever happen and is just one of these things that Trump throws out there. Still, thinking about this has caused me to think various thoughts I find worth sharing.

Needless to say, a fifty-year mortgage is a kind of lunatic concept. However, after:

  • The tariff lunacy (see yesterday’s article)
  • Claiming the Epstein files don’t exist and if they do exist they are fake, then attacking his own supporters and vowing revenge on them for talking about the Epstein files
  • Refusing to end the Ukraine war despite no one being able to explain why it should keep going if you don’t believe, as the liberals did, that “hurting Russia” is valuable for its own sake because Russians are white Christians
  • Attempting to do a regime change in Venezuela in the weirdest way possible
  • Blowing up random boats that can’t possibly cross the ocean and claiming they are drug boats headed for America (instead of just easily interdicting them, and then sending out Tubs McGee AKA Jim Bowman to pretend to be a badass talking about murdering random people)
  • Inventing the term “narcoterrorism” (are they distributing drugs for political purposes? If not, how is that a word?)
  • Attempting to deal with tens of millions of illegal immigrants by rounding them up one by one
  • Everything Pam Bondi has said since she took office (including when she told Stephen Miller’s wife that “hate speech” was illegal and she was going to start arresting people for it, and when she appeared before Congress and acted like she was a panelist on Piers Morgan)
  • Everything that Kash Patel has said since he took office (including that his girlfriend, an alleged Israeli spy, has done more for the country than most Americans will do in ten lifetimes by singing very terrible songs, which remind you just how good Toby Keith’s “Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue” actually was)
  • Taking full control of the curriculum of colleges and forcing them to teach that everything Israel does is good
  • Using the FCC to threaten to remove Jimmy Kimmel from the air
  • Deporting people for not supporting Israel hard enough
  • Threatening to invade Nigeria (“with guns blazing,” mind you, like in a cartoon such as Quick Draw McGraw)
  • Attacking healthcare while expanding the military budget to $1 trillion and refusing to make any serious attempt at actually deporting people (as well as a refusal to shut down H-1B, instead “reforming” it in a way that allows new regulations to be easily bypassed in like six different ways)
  • etc.

no one should be surprised by lunatic concepts coming out of this administration.

The first thing to understand about this is that the mortgage system itself is a huge part of what has driven up the cost of homes. Mortgages allow people who can’t afford homes to buy them, and because there is a limited supply of homes, it raises the price. The difference between the cost of the wood, concrete, and plastic that homes are made out of (plus the labor), and the cost of the home, is in large part a result of the mortgage system. If people were required to save up to buy a home in cash, homes would be much cheaper across the board.

Here’s a bit of math:

That is with the current 6.25% interest you will currently get on a fixed rate mortgage.

Here is the same equation as above on a 50-year mortgage:

The bank makes all that money.

It appears very similar to a kind of debt slavery, to spend your time working to pay the bank.

Is a House Even Something You Want?

There is a bigger question here with all of this “can’t afford homes” hysteria, and that is the question of whether you even want or need a home, or if it is just something you assume you should do as part of your adult life trajectory.

Mortgages may make sense for someone investing in real estate. If we take the example of the $400,000 home, that should rent for an average of $3,500 a month. So, you might go for a slightly shorter mortgage, but as long as the rent is paying the mortgage, you’re effectively getting the house for free, then after that, you’ve got cashflow from rent. This makes sense, particularly given that as long as the rate is fixed, you are going to benefit from inflation. (The primary residence homeowner is also benefiting from inflation, but because they are living there and not collecting rent, they are tying up money that could be invested elsewhere making profit.)

Following from that, if you do want to own a home, it makes more sense to buy it and rent it out until it is paid off. If you structure the mortgage strategically, you can both make the payment with the rent money and pay your own rent in a small apartment. (This is all a single man really needs – virtually my entire adult life I’ve lived in studio apartments. I don’t even like having a separate bedroom. I like the kitchen/table/desk/bed all in the same space.)

If you are young, and trying to make money, there is a good argument against buying a house. Unless you’re married and you have kids, tying up that money just doesn’t make any sense. If you’re unmarried, I don’t think a man should buy a house unless he can buy it in cash, and even then, it should be less than a third, probably less than a quarter, of his net worth.

This is not the 1950s. You don’t have a path laid out for you where you get a job, get married, have kids, work, retire to go fishing and spend time with the grandkids. You can’t really get married. I mean you can, people do it all the time. But it is generally a horrible idea because women are horrible and in the West, women have all the power in a marriage. As we’ve been over a trillion times, if she gets bored at any moment, she can leave you and take half your money and go on a cocaine party spree with the blacks. When you get married, you are betting your entire life on the hope that this bitch will never get bored.

There are various ways to mitigate risk. If you can find a girl with a father you are sure will side with you if she tries to divorce you, that mitigates a lot. However, a girl’s father is going to be in his forties, and just as controlled by his wife as you will be, meaning in most or virtually all cases, he won’t be able to side with you even if he wants to, for fear he himself will get divorce raped. Mothers and daughters are doing porn together. This is a popular genre of porn. Poor Charlie Sheen, who is currently in the media on some kind of “losing” tour, has a daughter who does porn with her mother. I think it is softcore, but mommy-daughter hardcore is a thing. Do you think women won’t do divorce together? This is what women do. They egg each other on, justifying each other’s behaviors. That was the only notable bit of insight in the third season of White Lotus (which was a steep drop-off in quality, quite frankly).

If the girl is a virgin, she’s like 15 times less likely to divorce you. Virginity is the single biggest determiner of divorce. A virgin forms a psychic bond with the man. It becomes strange for a woman to think about sex with another man, as she associates the act itself with the only man she has done it with. If a woman has had sex with other men already, the fact that you did a marriage doesn’t have an effect on the fact that her brain is imprinted for multiple partners. But where are you going to find a virgin, given these age of consent laws? There aren’t any 18-year-old virgins. And even if the age of consent is 16, it’s hardly even plausible in the West to find a 16-year-old to marry.

I am a millennial. I know a lot of people who got married. All of them are either divorced or on the edge of it. I’ve seen different strategies. I’ve seen “just do everything she says, try not to make her mad.” I’ve seen “act alpha and try to be the boss.” I’ve seen crying and begging and I’ve seen yelling and threatening. And everything in between. None of the relationships have worked. It’s possible that younger girls will be less extreme, given that there seems to be a cultural rejection of the “trade having everything for free and a man who works all the time to take care of you for a vague and fleeting abstract notion of ’empowerment’” among girls under 25. But even if that is their thinking, it does not imply any sense of duty.

Also, the “find a religious girl” is a ridiculous strategy. Firstly, there aren’t very many religious girls. Secondly, all Protestants and most American Catholics now tolerate divorce. Protestant churches have “counselors” who will advise women to divorce over even very mild physical discipline by a man. They will say a slap or a push are universal cause for divorce.

Furthermore, and this should be obvious but apparently it isn’t: a religious virgin, even of middling attractiveness, is like one of those crystal skulls from that Indiana Jones movie about crystal skulls. I think it was called “Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls.” Really a sickening movie. First they attacked the Nazis as evil, then they attack the communists as evil. What’s next, Indiana Jones vs. Metallica? “Everything cool is evil, so sayeth George Lucas, avatar of the Jews.” Point being: there are few things rarer or more valuable in the United States than a religious virgin. What that means is that she has her pick of the litter. She has the ability to marry an extremely high value man. Given that you are a Daily Stormer reader, you are presumably an above average specimen of masculinity (and/or a schizophrenic teetering on the edge). But even at “above average,” you are not “elite.” If you were elite, you would formulate some scheme, marry a girl in Eastern Europe or South America, keep her in a house guarded by neo-Nazi thugs on steroids with neck tattoos, and just go see her in your private jet. You would actually probably have many such setups around the world. Imagining that you are capable of swinging the top prize of women is delusional. Further, I won’t go into my whole thing about how even the most attractive, rich, and powerful men in the world have been divorce-raped. But you all know that bit.

Marriage is not something you should think about until you have the money and power to make it at least theoretically feasible. These are the times we live in. Therefore: unless your house is also a really good investment for some reason (i.e., it’s in a neighborhood that is in the process of being gentrified or you have studied maps showing that it will be gentrified – a difficult proposition given the old Obama-era “burying them in niggers” rules about flooding majority white neighborhoods with “multifamily” public housing), there is no reason to buy a house. Only buy it as an investment and you have to know something to know if it is an investment.

This clip of billionaire Charlie Munger saying “I don’t care if single people ever get a house” is old but recently went viral.

People got mad. But what he is saying, that a house is not really an investment and you should only buy it if you need to live there, is a rather popular sentiment among financial people. They cite the cost of maintaining a house and the appreciation being related primarily to inflation.

I’m not an investment advisor. A lot of people view real estate as by far the best investment, given that land is necessarily a conservative investment, given that it will always be worth something. Of course, in most places, the house is worth more than the land it is built on. Which seems counterintuitive.

But financial advisors do often advise against viewing a personal home as an investment. Again, in my experience, as far as single family homes go, the best investment is in a place that has a lot of blacks but where, in some period of time, the blacks will be priced out. Obviously, if you have kids, you don’t want that, but if you’re single and you’ve got a gun, it might be fine.

Here is Gary Cardone, a real estate investor, telling you not to buy a house.

He says when you are building your wealth, it is better to invest in business, instead of tying up a significant percentage of your net worth in a home. As he says, the fifty-year mortgage makes it dumber, but regardless, the house is a liability, not an asset. I have heard RFK’s bit about how young people should own homes, because it builds equity, and it is just total boomerism. Is equity in a home you’re paying a mortgage on worth more than you would make simply investing in the stock market conservatively, or gambling on crypto?

And then there’s this:

If I was forced to give advice on all of this, I would tell people to buy a cheap rural house with a lot of land. Not really though. At this point, my actual advice is to simply leave America.

Regardless, This is Definitely Not a Solution

What Trump is ostensibly attempting to address is the fact that the average age of first time homeowners is now 40. This is ridiculous, and a much worse situation than in most third world countries. The merits of a 30-year mortgage can be weighed. It is a banking scam, but it has certainly worked out for some people who have bought homes that drastically increased in value at a fixed rate while inflation was going wild.

Fifty years only slightly lowers your monthly payment, and nearly doubles the amount you end up paying in the end. Boomers bought homes in cash or with short mortgages. The country is supposedly richer than ever, so why can’t people buy houses?

There are various issues. But the biggest issue is immigration. That is what is creating this “affordability crisis.” The second biggest issue is out-of-control government spending. No one voted for America to become an empire. It doesn’t benefit Americans in any way. The average age of a first time homebuyer in Norway is 28. Basically everyone in Norway is rich. Norway also has all kinds of government benefits. And so on. They’re not filled with immigrants, they are not running an empire, people can lead good, normal, middle class type lives, which is really what most people want.

Some people dream of being rich. Probably Americans dream of that more than people in most other countries, because America has such a vapid, soulless, materialistic culture. But humans in general want to live in a relatively comfortable house, be able to afford to have a family and send their kids to good schools, have some nice consumer electronics, buy high quality groceries, eat out a few times a month at a nice restaurant, go on a nice vacation once a year. That is the basic framework for normal humans, which is what we generally call “middle class.”

The middle class has been systematically crushed in the United States. A fifty-year mortgage, where you pay 3 times the cost of the home, is a dumb gimmick in a long line of dumb gimmicks that never even pretend to attempt to address the root causes of income inequality in America. It’s like blowing up random boats to address the fentanyl crisis. The root cause of the fentanyl crisis is the fact that a bunch of people want to do fentanyl. Frankly, if we just do basic game theory, becoming a fentanyl addict might be a valid choice, given the other choices people have. So you need to ask “why is becoming a fentanyl addict considered a reasonable life path in this country?” The answer would go to the dissolution of the family, the end of religion, the fragmenting of social bonds, and several other things no one wants to talk about because the solutions would not benefit the agendas of the ruling elite class.

The problems this country has are now all so bad that it appears as though any attempt at a solution can only make things worse. If fifty-year mortgages were to become a widespread thing (it’s unlikely they will, but if), the new people who would become eligible to enter the housing market would drive up demand to the point that the fifty-year mortgage would be the same price as a thirty-year mortgage is now. That would be very profitable for banks, but not to anyone else.

Fixing Society

The only way to fix society would be to fundamentally restructure it. Ironically, this is the plan of the Silicon Valley people I talked about on Tuesday. And I think a lot of people will go along with their plan, because the current situation is so ridiculous. The idea of sacrificing certain freedoms in exchange for a livable apartment and a monthly cash allowance from the government would currently appeal to quite a high percentage of the American population.

A lot of New Yorkers who voted for Trump also voted for Mamdani. This is the situation. People are just supporting anything that seems different. They’re not voting for ideology, except on the basis that maybe some ideology will fix their situation. These ideological concepts are a luxury for people without serious problems. Americans, at least young Americans, have serious problems and do not have the luxury of ideology, so they will just support whoever and whatever.

In order to fix society, you would need some kind of cultural revolution that unified people. Interestingly, opposition to Israel and Israeli influence in America is serving as a uniting factor for young people.

I’ve always thought opposition to Jews was a great place to start.