The High-Mindedness of the British: New Zealand and the United States

Kevin MacDonald


Fairness and Freedom: A History of Two Open Societies, New Zealand and the United States.
David Hackett Fischer
New York: Oxford University Press, xxv + 629 pages.

I have to start off by saying that David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America has shaped the way I see American history and much else. He provides a compelling account of how the four main British-derived groups (Puritans, distressed Cavaliers, Quakers, and Scots-Irish borderers) differed and their struggle for dominance in America. To me as an evolutionist, a big part of the attraction is that Fischer roots these cultural differences in the distant past—in English pre-history. Thus the tendencies of the two main groups, Puritans based in East Anglia and the Cavaliers in Southeast England, go back to the murky period of English pre-history. These types (Puritans relatively egalitarian, Cavaliers elitist and hierarchical) indicate very strong cultural differences and thus likely to be influenced by ethnic-genetic differences.

Fairness and Freedom continues his comparative approach, this time comparing two different British-derived societies, New Zealand and the United States. The basic thesis is that New Zealand political culture is much more infused with “an abiding concern for fairness” (p. 14), while the U.S. is more focused on an ideology of individual freedom.

Interestingly, until the mid-20th century and then doubtless because of Western influence, there are no words for fairness in languages apart from English, Danish, Norwegian, and Frisian. Moreover, the words for fair and fairness have no Greek or Latin roots, but are nevertheless traceable to an Indo-European origin where they appear only in the above group of Northern European languages (and notably excluding German). The original Indo-European word meant “to be content,” later giving rise to the Gothic fagrs, meaning pleasing to behold and often connoting blond hair and fair complexion. It eventually came to mean something that could be agreed on by most parties—e.g., a fair price.

Advertisement

Unlike Albion’s Seed, where the focus is on deep, long-lasting and quite possibly ethnic-genetic differences in explaining cultural variation, Fairness and Freedom provides an entirely cultural explanation for the development of a universalist sense of ethics in the West:

In early ethical usage, [words for fairness] tended to operate within tribes of Britons and Scandinavians, where they applied to freemen in good standing. Women, slaves, and strangers from other tribes were often excluded from fair treatment, and they bitterly resented it. The tribal uses of fair … were full of historical irony. These ideas flourished on the far fringes of northwestern Europe among groups of proud, strong, violent, and predatory people who lived in hard environments, fought to the death for the means to life, and sometimes preyed on their own kin. Ideas of fairness and fair play developed as a way of keeping some of these habitual troublemakers from slaughtering each other even to the extinction of the tribe. …  Something fundamental changed in a second stage, when the folk cultures of Britain and Scandinavia began to grow into an ethic that embraced others beyond the tribe—and people of every rank and condition. This expansive tendency had its roots in universal values such as the Christian idea of the Gold Rule. That broader conception of fairness expanded again when it met the humanist ideas of the Renaissance, the universal spirit of the Enlightenment, the ecumenical spirit of the Evangelical Movement, and democratic revolutions in America and Europe.  (pp. 16–17)

Thus, beginning in only  a northern subset of Indo-European languages, the explanation is that there were then a series of completely cultural shifts beginning with Christianity and culminating (as Fischer later contends) in what I would see as the rather overwrought sense of fairness that now underlies the culture of Western suicide. In any case, saying that “something changed” is not so much an explanation as it is simply pointing to a set of proposed historical shifts. Fischer provides no further ideas on why these changes happened.

Fischer contends that fairness is much less important in American history compared to freedom. At present, fairness tends to be a buzzword among Democrats, while conservative thinkers at times reject the entire concept. Still, Fischer claims that “the frequency of the word fairness has been increasing in American usage during the twentieth century, though far below freedom and free. Even so, few Americans think of fairness as the organizing principle of their open society” p. 27). In England, the usage of fairness has been increasing steadily since 1800, while the usage of liberty has been in steady decline from a peak around 1780.

After briefly recounting the four main British-derived American groups described at length in Albion’s Seed (Puritans, Cavaliers, Quakers, and Borderers), Fischer describes the very different pattern in New Zealand.  The immigrants to New Zealand came from various parts of England but without strong cultural differences. They tended to be at least of the middling rank, some with aristocratic connections; most came with assistance from organizations who were keen to select on the basis of moral character and other traits. For example, a typical program required a letter from the prospective immigrant’s  vicar attesting that the immigrant was “among the most respectable of his class” (p. 57); the Scots who migrated to Otago on the South Island are described as “the better educated and religiously disposed of the lower and middle classes” (p. 60 Perhaps reflecting these processes, the IQ of White New Zealanders is slightly above the White average. Two large studies performed in 1989 and 1997 and included in Lynn and Van Hanen’s IQ and Global Inequality found that the IQ of White New Zealanders to be 101 and 102 respectively.

The basic difference between the U.S. and NZ is that the American colonists were treated horribly by the British (“six generations of American colonists were challenged by the British to fight for their rights” [p.76]). Fischer notes that the Bill of Rights is a list of specific grievances against things the British had done to the American colonists from 1760–1775. Moreover, the economic model for the American colonies was designed to benefit England rather than the colonies. All this resulted in a powerful ideology of freedom and liberty.

On the other hand, New Zealand encountered the kinder, gentler British Empire of the mid-19th century and later. The “Second Empire” as it developed in New Zealand was “highly principled and deeply Christian, with an elaborately developed sense of justice and equity. … Their acts often fell short of their ideals. But there was a constancy of striving in their lives, and they planted the seeds of an ethical system that kept growing long after they were gone” (p. 93).

Unlike in the American colonies, the British encouraged self-government in New Zealand and tried to protect the Maoris. New Zealand did not have slavery, indentured servants, or plantation economies; there was no significant number of distressed cavaliers who shaped the culture of the American South. By the 19th century, the British Empire rejected the mercantilism aimed at benefiting England in favor of free trade. But the most important characteristic of the British Empire at the time of New Zealand colonization beginning in 1840 was a greater emphasis on social justice. Colonial administrators like Captain William Hobson (“a leader of high probity … [who] recruited able and honorable men to serve in the colony” [p. 84]) were concerned about justice and fairness—self-consciously trying to uphold a universalist morality. A major result was that the Maoris were treated much better than American Indians.

Thus already in the 19th century we see a strong sense of “high-mindedness” (p. 87) and crusading moral universalism taking hold in New Zealand. Bishop George Augustus Selwyn, who became Anglican Bishop of New Zealand in 1841, was “a high-principled idealist” with a “broad ecumenical version of Christianity which in New Zealand became linked to an idea of racial equality between Pakeha [i.e., Whites] and Maoris” ; Selwyn was “a fierce defender of Maori rights” [p. 87]).

Whereas Christian missionaries seem to have been in the forefront of idealizing the (cannibalistic, very warlike) Maoris in the 19th century, these trends have become exaggerated in the contemporary culture of White guilt and idealization of non-Whites. College campuses have become hotbeds of positive attitudes toward Maoris. A military officer refers with contempt to contemporary academic “maoriolatry” (p. 96). On the other hand, the Maoris themselves have realized that their culture left something to be desired. A 19th-century chief asked, “What did we do before the Pakeha came? We fought, we fought continuously.” In the end, a great many Maoris doubtless viewed the coming of the White man in positive terms.

This high-mindedness and commitment to fairness can be seen in a much stronger tradition of socialist tendencies in New Zealand. For example, “New Zealand after 1891 began a sustained program to redistribute its lands” (p. 106), not by confiscating large estates but by government purchases when they came on the market. Fischer documents a stronger concern in New Zealand for fairness for all citizens—not without a struggle, of course, but easier than in the U.S. “In general, New Zealand had remarkably little in the way of hard-right, hard-core conservatism that was stronger in Britain, the United States, and Canada. … [Even the most conservative elements] supported women’s suffrage and other Progressive measures” (p. 324). New Zealand’s response to the Great Depression was far more in the direction of promoting welfare benefits, while the U.S. focused on programs to “help people help themselves.”

On the other hand, notions of individual liberty are relatively weak in New Zealand. A Bill of Rights was finally adopted in 1990, but unlike the U.S. Bill of Rights, it incorporated “human rights” (including “natural justice” and explicit assertions of procedural  and institutional fairness) rather than, as in the U.S., rights against state power that were so much on the mind of the U.S. founding fathers. Most New Zealanders are hardly aware of their Bill of Rights, while in the U.S., the Bill of Rights has high psychological salience to most Americans.

Scandinavian Roots of Western Egalitarianism and Sense of Fairness

In general, Fischer seems more inclined to value fairness than liberty (“On the subject of fairness, no nation in the world has more to teach than New Zealand; and no country has more to learn than the United States” (p. 403). However, he does see weaknesses in the emphasis on fairness. Most centrally, he describes the “Tall Poppy Syndrome” (envy and resentment of people who are “conspicuously successful, exceptionally gifted, or unusually creative”) (p. 386) that is characteristic of New Zealand. “It sometimes became a more general attitude of outright hostility to any sort of excellence, distinction, or high achievement—especially achievement that requires mental effort, sustained industry, or applied intelligence. … The possession of extraordinary gifts is perceived as unfair by others who lack them” (pp. 486–487).

The expression ‘Tall Poppy Syndrome’ originated in Australia but seems to be more characteristic of New Zealand. Successful people are called ‘poppies’. This tendency is perhaps not as strong as it used to be, but, although some successful New Zealanders are accepted, “other bright and creative New Zealanders have been treated with cruelty by compatriots who appear to feel that there is something fundamentally unfair about better brains or creative gifts, and still more about a determination to use them” (p. 487). Doubtless because of the same egalitarian tendencies, the New Zealand system encourages laziness and lack of achievement—workers insist that others slow down and not work hard. “Done by lunchtime” is the motto of a great many New Zealand workers.

This egalitarianism enforced by shunning is entirely reminiscent of the Jante Laws of Scandinavia which “mandate” that no one can rise above the others in the group. In my experience, the 10 commandments of Jante Law are well-known among Scandinavians as an aspect of self-identity. From my perspective, they present the archetype of the individualist-egalitarian cultural strand of Western social organization: (see here, Discussion section)1. Don’t think you are anything; 2. Don’t think you are as good as us. 3. Don’t think you are smarter than us. 4. Don’t fancy yourself better than us. 5. Don’t think you know more than us. 6. Don’t think you are greater than us. 7. Don’t think you are good for anything. 8. Don’t laugh at us. 9. Don’t think that anyone cares about you. 10. Don’t think you can teach us anything.

Such egalitarian social practices are common in hunter-gatherer groups around the world and support the general view that the most powerful strand of European culture, especially apparent after it came to power post-1800, is the culture of Northern hunter-gatherers (see here, based on  M. L. Burton, et al., Current Anthropology 37, 87–123, 1996);. Reflecting this pattern, Scandinavian society in general has a history of relatively small income and social class differences, including the absence of serfdom during the Middle Ages. A recent anthropological study of hunter-gatherers found that the economic inequality approximated that of modern Denmark (Eric A. Smith, et al.,  Current Anthropology.51(1),19–34, 2010).

Just as socialist economic practices (including national health care) and women’s rights came relatively easily to Scandinavia, they have come relatively easily in New Zealand (although Fischer notes that Scandinavian socialism was more radical than New Zealand’s). This suggests that New Zealand should be considered as having culture more typical of Scandinavia. It also suggests that these tendencies may be ethnically influenced rather than purely cultural as Fischer proposes. The ethnic argument emphasizes that two important British-derived American groups are notably missing from New Zealand, at least in sufficient numbers to influence the culture: the distressed Cavaliers and the Borderers. (The Quakers are also missing, but they are relatively unimportant in the U.S. as well.) As noted above, the distressed cavaliers are characterized by hierarchical, aristocratic, anti-egalitarian values that resulted in the slave culture of the Old South —values that are quite the opposite of any important tendencies to be found in New Zealand culture or in Scandinavian culture. And the borderers, who have had a major influence on what one might term the country music culture of rural, working class White America, have a very strong identity as Americans that has not been destroyed by the post-1960s rise of the culture of Western suicide. To an extent far greater than their Puritan co-ethnics, the borderers have a history of being more involved in clan relationships of extended families rather than merely lineal descent. In Albion’s Seed, Fischer notes that among them, “marriage ties were weaker than blood ties,” and there was a tendency to marry within the extended family—both markers of greater collectivism doubtless brought about by the centuries of wars characteristic of the border region of England and Scotland.

Unlike other British-derived groups, the Borderers have retained a strong religious commitment. In the 19th century, they showed “intense hostility to organized churches and established clergy on the one hand and [an] abiding interest in religion on the other.” They rejected the Anglican Church, religious taxes and established clergy, but for all that, they were intensely and emotionally religious. Indeed, this group is the main force behind the culture of the American Bible Belt —the religious fundamentalism that is such an important aspect of contemporary American politics. They are indeed socially conservative and a great many of them are involved in the angry protests of the Tea Party movement. They are the epitome of implicit Whiteness, flocking to implicitly White cultural events like NASCAR racing and gun shows. It’s fair to say that New Zealand has no comparable cultural influence. There appears to be no similar group with a detectable influence on New Zealand culture.

Thus the main influences on New Zealand culture would appear to be much more similar to the Puritan influence on American culture as well as the other American group highly committed to egalitarian universalism, the (relatively less important) Quakers. As Fischer notes in Albion’s Seed, the Puritans and Quakers both originated mainly from groups that had immigrated from Scandinavia in pre-historic times, and their cultures reflect the strong egalitarian universalist tendencies of Scandinavia.

The Puritan Intellectual Legacy: Fairness as a Theme in American Culture

It is noteworthy  that in Fairness and Freedom, Fischer does not emphasize the strong strand of moral universalism and concern with fairness apparent in the Puritan-descended intellectuals who dominated American intellectual life in the 19th century and continued as a dominant group until being displaced by Jews in the mid-20th century. In the 19th century, these intellectuals placed a high value on fairness—for example, strongly opposing slavery on moral grounds. They tended to pursue utopian causes framed as moral issues, with opposing sides painted in stark contrasts of good versus evil. Whereas in the Puritan settlements of Massachusetts the moral fervor was directed at keeping fellow Puritans in line, in the nineteenth century it was directed at the entire country and focused on the evils of slavery and capitalism. For example:

  • An important 19-century intellectual and orator, Orestes Brownson (1803–1876) admired the Universalists’ belief in the inherent dignity of all people and the promise of eventual universal salvation for all believers. He argued for the unity of races and the inherent dignity of each person, and he was fiercely opposed to Southerners for trying to enlarge their political base.” Like many New Englanders, he was morally outraged by the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case that required authorities in the North to return fugitive slaves to their owners in the South. For Brownson the Civil War was a moral crusade waged to emancipate the slaves. Writing in 1840, Brownson claimed that we should “realize in our social arrangements and in the actual conditions of all men that equality of man and man” that God had established but which had been destroyed by capitalism (pp. 138–39). According to Brownson, Christians had to bring down the high, and bring up the low; to break the fetters of the bound and set the captive free; to destroy all oppression, establish the reign of justice, which is the reign of equality, between man and man; to introduce new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, wherein all shall be as brothers, loving one another, and no one possessing what another lacketh.
  • Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalists were outraged by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. For Emerson, “the very landscape seemed robbed of its beauty, and he even had trouble breathing because of the ‘infamy’ in the air.” After the militant abolitionist John Brown failed in his violent uprising to free the slaves, Emerson was “glad to see that the terror at disunion and anarchy is disappearing,” for the price of slaves’ freedom might demand it. This is a paradigmatic example of what evolutionists label ‘altruistic punishment’—the willingness to right perceived wrongs even at enormous cost to self. No cost was too high to free the slaves. In the event, recent estimates of the Civil War dead put the figure at 750,000 men.
  • Both Emerson and Henry David Thoreau commented on John Brown’s New England Puritan heritage. Emerson lobbied Lincoln on slavery, and when Lincoln emancipated the slaves, he said “Our hurts are healed; the health of the nation is repaired.” He thought the war worth fighting because of it.

Thus the high-minded moralism of New Zealand was certainly not absent from America, but in the U.S. it had to contend with other strong currents of American culture, whereas there was no counter-trend in New Zealand. This interpretation is compatible with viewing the tendencies of New Zealand culture to be influenced by their ethnic heritage. Immigrant selection focused on upstanding citizenship and moral character, as described above, would seem to have preferentially favored the Northern European hunter-gatherer ethos apparent in New Zealand culture since its origins in the 19th century.

It must be said that the high-mindedness strand of the British ethnic mix that became dominant in the 19th century in England, New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, in America is proving to be a failure in terms of protecting the legitimate ethnic interests of the British-derived peoples. These attitudes have permeated the White elites of those countries and are thus more important than the attitudes, say, of the borderers or even the Southern aristocrats after the Civil War. Such attitudes are entirely appropriate when dealing within homogeneously White societies, or even within societies such as New Zealand where the Maoris do not constitute any real threat to the White majority. In such societies, high-mindedness would lead to caring for all citizens and having a sense of allegiance even to the weaker members of the society, such as the White working class and small, relatively powerless non-White minorities.

However, since the 1960s throughout the Western world, the powerful strand of high-mindedness has resulted in Western elites being complicit in the onslaught of massive non-White immigration to all countries that are dominated by Whites, including the Western European homeland. White elites have been defenseless against intellectual movements that have been framed in terms of moral critiques of the West—most importantly the Jewish-dominated movements that are the subject of The Culture of Critique. This has led to a situation where Whites will eventually become a minority in societies they have dominated for hundreds and, in the case of Europe, many thousands of years. There are many other costs as well, as established by sociologist Robert Putnam whose work indicates that multiculturalism is associated with unwillingness to contribute to public goods, lack of trust, and political alienation, as well as increased levels of conflict that even in the contemporary world is a cause of civil war in many nations.

From an evolutionary perspective, massive non-White immigration is deeply unfair to the legitimate interests of the Whites who established these societies. Because of the importance of establishing moral legitimacy among high-minded Whites, developing a sense that these immigration policies are unfair is a critical step in getting such people to reverse their course and begin to reassert their legitimate ethnic interests. In turn, that depends on establishing the intellectual legitimacy of the ethnic interests of Whites (see Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests)—that races are not interchangeable and that cultures are often radically incompatible with the deep undercurrents of Western culture.

Professorial Liberalism Has Its Blind Spots: Race, Immigration, and the First Amendment

Finally, Fischer has the typical liberal blind spots typical of contemporary academic historians. Thus he ignores race when dealing with issues like crime. For example, in comparing murder and assault rates, he ignores the very disproportionate role of Black crime in America. He notes that rates of homicide are about the same when comparing New England with New Zealand, but notes that Louisiana has a murder rate 5 times higher than both without discussing the relative importance of Black crime between Louisiana (32.4% Black) and New England (where Connecticut has the largest Black population, 11.1%; Massachusetts: 7.6%; Rhode Island: 7.2%; Vermont: 1.1% Black; Maine: 1.3% Black; New Hampshire: 1.3%; see here).  Louisiana has had the highest murder rate in the U.S. in every year from 1989 to 2010, and in 2005 78.7% of the victims were Black.  Given that Blacks commit around 51% of all murders in the U.S. (see AmRen’s The Color of Crime), and correcting for the relatively large percentage of Blacks in Louisiana compared to the U.S. as a whole (32.4% vs. 13.1%) and the rarity of White on Black homicide, one must conclude that vast majority of murders in Louisiana are committed by Blacks.

Further, when discussing the history of immigration to the U.S., Fischer never mentions the very large role of Jewish organizations pursuing their ethnic interests in creating a majority non-White America (See Hugh Davis Graham, Collision Course: The Strange Course of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique  Chapter 7.)  For both countries, Fischer makes only vague pronouncements, attributing fluctuations in immigration levels to the effects of “world wars, economic trends, political events, and social conditions. An even more powerful factor was the role of government. In both countries policy decisions explained many twists and turns in the flow if immigration. These broad trends flowed primarily from choices by policy makers, and by migrants themselves. It has always been so, from the earliest great migrations to our own time” (p. 207).

The emphasis on the role of government is a hint that policy making on immigration has been a top-down process shaped by elite policy makers. This is correct, but there is no discussion of ethnic conflict over immigration policy acting to shape those choices, no discussion of the critical role of Jewish influence in shaping U.S. policy, and no discussion of the attitudes of White majorities toward non-White immigration during the decades when massive non-White immigration has become a reality in both countries.  (Brenton Sanderson has similarly provided details on the decisive role of Jewish activists and Jewish activist organizations in shaping immigration policy in Australia in the complete absence of a popular mandate for rejecting the traditional White Australia policy. As in both countries, policy was made by elites and  not a reaction to public opinion.)

In both New Zealand and the U.S., the 1920s marked the high point of concern that immigrants be White. In the U.S., there was the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 which biased immigration to Northwest Europe on the basis of ethnic fairness (the quota for different groups depended on their proportion of the U.S. population in 1890). In New Zealand, the goal of the Restriction Act of 1920 was “a white New Zealand (p. 219)” in the words of the Prime Minister at the time, William Massey. Not long after the sea change in U.S. immigration policy inaugurated by the 1965 immigration act, in 1974 New Zealand changed its law to avoid criteria of race or nationality. Immigration surged beginning in the 1990s, with most immigrants coming from Asia. Prior to 1975, the vast majority of immigrants were from the U.K. or Ireland, and were only accepted on the basis of “character” and “bearing” (p. 221).

When discussing the racialist past of both America and the relatively mild forms of racial conflict in New Zealand, Fischer is blunt and unsparing in his indictments of Whites. And in discussing the post-1980 waves of immigration, he sees nothing but utopian harmony in American ethnic pluralism. Americans of different ethnic groups are “rapidly intermarrying,” they borrow freely form each other’s cultures, and “nearly all share a common allegiance to the founding ideas of the republic—and most of all to liberty and freedom. … Ethnic pluralism operates within a consensual republican frame, and it arises from the conditions of a free society.” Fischer is obviously unaware of the work of Robert Putnam showing a variety of costs to multiculturalism noted above (see here).

Nor does he comment on the racialization of American politics, as indicated by over 90% of Republican votes coming from Whites and around 40% of Whites voting Democrat, compared to around 80% of non-Whites voting Democrat. Non-White immigrants, 80% of whom voted for Obama in 2008, have become part of the non-White coalition that is central to the electoral success of the Democratic Party, with ominous implications for the future. Nor does he mention the much commented on anger of a great many Whites exhibited in the inchoate Tea Party movement—a movement that in my view is an implicitly White movement motivated by about concern about a future minority-White America.

An interesting tidbit that I was quite unaware of: Fischer suggests that anti-Semitism was behind the 1929 Wall Street stock market crash. He notes that the Bank of the United States, which was owned by Jews and served Jewish immigrants, suffered heavy losses. “Anti-Semitic ‘white shoe’ bankers contemptuously called it the ‘Pants Pressers Bank’ and showed no interest in supporting it. The Fed did nothing helpful, and strong financial institutions watched complacently as weaker ones went under. It was a fatal mistake. The fall of the ‘Pants Pressers Bank’ brought down others, and the dominos began to drop across the country:  659 bank failures in 1929 to 1352 in 1930 and 2294 in 1931” (p. 377).

Finally, Fischer complains about Southerners stifling free speech during the 1850s in attempting to defend the cause of slavery, but he ignores Lincoln’s assaults on free speech in the North during the Civil War. Lincoln closed down hundreds of newspapers in the North and jailed the editors as well as many politicians who opposed the war (see M. E. Bradford, Remembering Who We Are). Nor are First Amendment freedoms an inevitable aspect of the American society. In the contemporary U.S., only a slim majority of the Supreme Court is committed to rejecting “hate crime” laws that would curtail what can be said in public discussions of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Justice Elena Kagan is on record supporting a shift in majority opinion in the direction of supporting laws that would ban “hate speech.”

Further, and relevant to Fairness and Freedom, there are strong voices in the legal community clamoring for restrictions on race-related speech. A prominent example is Jeremy Waldron, a law professor who holds a professorship at New York University and an adjunct faculty appointment at Victoria University in New Zealand. Waldron, who was born in New Zealand, argues that free speech fundamentally collides with fairness in contemporary societies, and therefore advocates getting rid of First Amendment protections in the U.S.  Waldron focuses solely on the hurt feelings of the targets of speech, arguing that some examples of racially tinged speech impinge on the ability of racial and sexual minorities to live dignified lives.

Waldron would ban statements about group characteristics that I would regard as well-supported by empirical data. Waldron claims that any departure from liberal orthodoxy—e.g., that races do not have the same talents and abilities or that multiculturalism has costs to White majorities—are so obviously false that they can easily be banned without any loss to legitimate debate. Waldron claims that “In fact, the fundamental debate about race is over—won; finished.” Race is “no longer a live issue.”

This sounds more like the pronouncements of a Chief Inquisitor than someone interested in the truth about human differences.

In fact, the debate about race is not over, although the academic world can accurately be characterized as a moral community of the left in the sense of Jonathan Haidt that rigorously polices research conflicting with racial egalitarianism. Researchers such as Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, and J. Philippe Rushton who attempt to publish findings on race differences find themselves socially shunned and they quickly learn that there are steep barriers to publication in mainstream academic journals and no mainstream grant support for their research. Thus Waldron’s consensus on race is maintained by intensive policing rather than by free inquiry.

Research on racial differences is relevant to fairness because it may well be argued, as many have, that affirmative action policies that discriminate against Whites are inherently unfair because they do not take into account real differences in ability between the races. From this perspective, banning free speech on race on the basis of fairness to minorities fails to consider unfairness to the White majority.

In a way, Waldron’s call to ban free speech in the name of fairness reinforces Fischer’s thesis, since it may well be no accident that Waldron is from New Zealand and therefore values what he thinks of as fairness far more than individual freedom. But it also illustrates the point that in some cases at least there is a very real conflict between fairness and freedom which continues to play out in the contemporary world. There is indeed a strong tradition of free speech in the U.S., but, as in the past, there is no reason to suppose that this will continue into the future, particularly as the non-White majority assumes ever more power.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

241 Comments to "The High-Mindedness of the British: New Zealand and the United States"

  1. mari's Gravatar mari
    September 14, 2012 - 5:52 pm | Permalink

    The french word for fairness is justice.

    There are other words as well, equitable egale and equity in many forms They are used in many ways, a business contract in which each person gets a fair deal. A job which gives a fair wage. A fair prison sentence, neither too liberal or too much of a punishment for the crime. The french word pair is used in many ways that mean doing something on a fair basis, both parties doing their fair share of the work and sharing equally in the outcome, good or bad.

    “Distressed cavaliers” the author has been reading too many of those mid 20th century historical romances that dealt with all the glamorous upper classes who sided with Charles 1 during the civil war. A few may or may not have gone to Virginia and the Carolinas, but most either stayed at home or went to France and the Netherlands. It was only about 11 years that Cromwell ruled England. They all came back
    in 1660. Fairfax Virginia is not named after the third Lord Fairfax. He fought with Cromwell and the puritans. It is named after his great geat grandson.

  2. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    September 14, 2012 - 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Fantastic article. It is amazing to see cultural/behavioral differences among groups that go back centuries before they even came to the US. I don’t know how anyone can see that and deny that genes play a significant role in human behavior.

    Joe W*bb used to discuss the great book Albion’s Seed quite a bit. You can see the same strain of behavioral differences we observe between the North and the South well over 300 years ago.

  3. mari's Gravatar mari
    September 14, 2012 - 6:10 pm | Permalink

    “The original Indo-European word meant “to be content,” later giving rise to the Gothic fagrs, meaning pleasing to behold and often connoting blond hair and fair complexion. It eventually came to mean something that could be agreed on by most parties—e.g., a fair price.”

    This is impossible to believe. In most languages, including the latin languages there are separate words for fairness, blond hair, pale skin and good looking.

    I read this book a few years ago. I remember the general idea but no details. He did not mention for the last 100 years the quakers have been even more left wing and radical than the Jews. They worked hand in hand with the communists to start the entire Scottsboro boys scandal. They constantly placed editorials in news papers and magazines about that old southern rape control organization, 3 K claiming that they just roamed the roads lynching and burning to death any black that came along. American Friends Service Committee got massive federal funding from the Johnson Nixon war on poverty and have been going stron ever since. Google Angela Davis. She was raised and radicalized by Quakers.

    They also worked hand in glove with the rest of the radicals and the Rothschild banks to foment the civil war. Remember, the Rothschilds financed the south through Judah Benjamin. The Rothschilds also financed Thoreau, Emerson, Alcott, the Beechers to foment the civil war. John Brown’s finances came indirectly from Rothschild money.

    Through the American Friends Service Committee the Quakers are very influential in the anti White movement. They are right up there with ACLU, SPLC etc. In California they have financed and directed some of the most radical black movement and they have involved themselves in many friend of the court briefs on the anti White side of affirmative action lawsuits. Like typical hard leftists, the AFSC is committed to the myth that no black has ever committed a crime and every arrest of a black is caused by racism.

  4. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    September 14, 2012 - 6:13 pm | Permalink

    The article says:

    Whereas Christian missionaries seem to have been in the forefront of idealizing the (cannibalistic, very warlike) Maoris in the 19th century, these trends have become exaggerated in the contemporary culture of White guilt and idealization of non-Whites.

    There is no doubt that the Christian missionaries held silly, naive views about the natives that they met everywhere, and almost without exception, demonized the White and romanticized the brown. Not only did they look at natives with rosy glasses, they consistently wrote about Whites in the worst light.

    However, we should not jump to the conclusion that this is the fault of Christianity, as such. It was a particular strain of Christianity, perhaps inspired by intellectual movements that had little to do with Christianity itself. Perhaps Rousseau’s silly Noble Savage idea? Notice that other Christians were quite comfortable with the concept of inherent human differences.

    If I would make a wish come true, it would be for sincere Christians to see that many of the missionaries, whatever their value, were indeed proto-typical grand liberals, taking the side of brown natives over Whites, and feeling quite proud of themselves for doing so. And I would implore the atheists and anti-Christians not to launch into Nietzsche-intoxicated calls for the “transvaluation of all values” and the destruction of every last church on earth.

  5. September 14, 2012 - 6:23 pm | Permalink

    That means we should artificially select for Cavaliers within us and weed out the suicidal, ethnomasochistic Puritans.

    Be more genetically ethnocentric like Jews.

  6. anita's Gravatar anita
    September 14, 2012 - 6:29 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks: I completely agree with you, that this is a fantastic article. I am still working my way through my own responses to it.
    You said:
    “…missionaries..taking the side of brown natives over Whites…”

    There have been numerous missionaries genuinely standing for Christ, in ‘teaching’ natives to not murder, healing the ‘blind and the sick’ and setting the captives free.

    They have not all been silly, and we have some wonderful Islander communities in Australia, grateful to the Bringers of the Light.
    I wish Australia had done more good and less damage to the Australian aboriginals, as I am reading in the current post, happened in New Zealand.

    Humans being what they are, there are always going to be individual distortions/misinterpretations/exploitations/shredding of Tall Poppies.
    Sigh.

  7. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    September 14, 2012 - 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Kiwis were quite prominent in the Antiapartheid movements.

  8. mari's Gravatar mari
    September 14, 2012 - 6:56 pm | Permalink

    The Scandinavians may not have had serfdom, but they did not abolish slavery until the 14th century, 800 years after slavery was abolished in most of Europe. The prehistoric legend about the class system in Scandinavia was much like that of the Hindus. The Gods created 3 classes. The upper class were warriors and politicians, tall and blond and good looking. The middle class were skilled workers and traders.
    The lower class was eternally meant to serve the uppers. They were shorter, darker and ugly. The classes were actually castes in the Hindu meaning, frozen in stone for all time. Of course it did not work out that way. Although from their inability defend themselves from the arab and african hordes invading the Scandinavian countries, one would think they are descendants of the lowly workers class, just sheep following the leaders and too stupid, incompetent and afraid to defend themselves.

    Don’t most people blame the stock market crash on the pants pressers and people like Baruch and Morgan bank which is a Rothschild partner? Most historians think the pants pressers were selling everything in an effort to drive the prices down. They when the prices got very low, the pants pressers and old Joe Kennedy and others would use the money they got from selling to buy at the very low price. But the sheep were so frightened that things got out of hand and the great depression was on.

    When I read this book I thought that his ideas on the Scots Irish southerners were accurate. But the rest of it did acknowledge the German and Dutch presence in the colonies
    and the mass immigration of other Europeans from 1800 on.

    I know that great cities like Cincinatti, Cleveland and St. Louis were heavily German during the 19th and first part of the 20th century. The Germans preserved their music, customs, food and language for most of that time. Chicago was heavily German from its beginnings until the 1950′s when black terrorists began driving Whites out by murder, rape, robbery and the standard black take over tactics.

    What I detest about the English Americans is their high mindness. From the communist to the TV preacher, they are convinced that they are totally right and everyone else is wrong. Then too, they collaborated with the 20th century Jews to destroy cities and school systems, aid and abet black on White crime and create affirmative action for every ethnic group on earth except the people who arrived 400 years ago and built this country.

    The only people I know who share my views on affirmative action, black on White crime, black behavior in public, resentment of the 100 percent black and brown civil service
    and the entire anti White program are Persians. Jew, Muslin, Zoroastrian, Chaldean Catholic, other Christians, whatever, they are united against anti White measures like affirmative action. When Persians are turned down for medical school, they deeply resent the fact that they were turned down because they are White. The European Whites just say, oh well, I should have done more volunteer work for the homeless or written a better essay or whatever.

    I am not proud of my English and colonial heritage. Since I was a child all the English Americans have done is colloborate with the jews to destroy the rest of us with affirmative action, black terrorism disguised as random crime, and the anti White campaign.

    Why did Harvard hire people like Noel Ignaitiev? Why did Columbia take in dozens of Frankfort school commies?

    The English heritage is nothing to be proud of. They either knowingly colloborated with the jews or were too weak and incompetent to defend their own people. The haute wasps are not much different from the africans who sold their own people to arabs, jews, europeans whoever would buy them.

    The American goverment is now and has been our enemy since 1956. The civil war was just a looting and land grab buy those high minded English puritans. Lincoln was a dictator. He wrote just one executive order abolishing habeas corpus. That allowed him to imprison 40 thousand newspaper editors and publishers for the duration of the war.
    Thousands of others were imprisoned because they opposed the war.

    After the war the south became a poverty stricken colony of the high minded puritans. The real reason the high minded puritans started the civil war was economic. They wanted the cotton, tobacco, sugar, coal, iron, timber and the other natural resources of the south. They also got an even cheaper labor force than slaves ever were. After all, slaves had to be provided with food, shelter, clothes and medical care. After the civil war both black and White southerners were malnourished and starved for 100 years.

    Yes, I remember this book. High minded puritans indeed! Just justification for their cuthroat cannibal capitalism. 19th century they wanted the riches of the south with a starving labor force. Late 20th and 21the century they want a starving labor force of S. American indians and the Whites who resist them dead.

  9. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    September 14, 2012 - 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Let’s remember that Fischer teaches at Brandeis which is a Jew U. of the first magnitude. I’ve never been able to find out how many Jewish ancestors Fischer has, but, I seriously doubt that he has any ancestors that participated in the American Revolution or even lived in colonial America. The same with historian Henry Winecek who is even more of a diversity monger & more openly anti-White American than Fischer.

    We tend to forget that the real political-social trouble in early America was between the political establishment of the port cities & surrounding costal areas vs. the piedmont & back country. More true in the South, than in the North, but, still a factor in the North too.

  10. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    September 14, 2012 - 7:41 pm | Permalink

    @mari: Mari, your post as so many before, should be read about 100 times. Although it could be called “preaching to the choir”, I sometimes get the feeling that many of the people that post on these issues like affirmative action, quotas,etc. AND EVEN SOME ON THIS FORUM, just don’t get it. THEY JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND THE FULL, THE WIDE-RANGE IMPACT, and CONSEQUENCES these policies are having and are going to have, on themselves, their children friends and families. It is incredible, almost mindboggingly so, how laid back, how totally unconcerned and accepting European-Americans have been on government policies that are outright EXCLUDING THEM, WHILE ALL THE WHILE TALKING ABOUT HOW PEOPLE SHOULDN’T BE EXCLUDED!!!!!
    STUPID IS AS STUID DOES, IS AN APPROPRIATE MANTRA FOR TODAYS AVERAGE EUROPEAN-AMERICAN, IF EVER THERE WAS ONE.

  11. fender's Gravatar fender
    September 14, 2012 - 7:46 pm | Permalink

    @mari:

    It’s not just English-Americans. Don’t forget that before the US and Israel, England itself was the staging ground for jewish nation-wrecking for three centuries.

  12. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    September 14, 2012 - 7:51 pm | Permalink

    @mari: Hah!! Another excellent comment I myself have posted on about a thousand blogs, whenever the question arises of who is was that built up modern America. Well we all have been told the answer recently, haven’t we, everyone but whites built modern America. Just like a comment I read by Bob Dylan where he lamented America’s eternal quilt for the “people that built America”–black slaves,etc. Yet how many whites swallow this stuff without ever delving into the history of this country, where the European transplants, worked in the factories of the industrial Revolution during the ante-bellum era, and worked in conditions worse than slaves ever had, filhty, dangerous, and unhealthy, with no rights, no medical care, no forty hour work week, no OSHA,etc. I constantly marvel at the cluelessness of European Americans, concerning their knowledge of their own history and what they did and what happened to them. Great post Mari.

  13. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    September 14, 2012 - 7:56 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    We Anglo-Germanic Protestants are so terrible, that’s why all of you Roman Catholics had to come here…LOL.

  14. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    September 14, 2012 - 8:57 pm | Permalink

    @Mari
    Your everpresent, rather obsessive need to criticize has, I fear, gotten the best of you once again.

    On the subject of the cavaliers, from Wikipedia, “An anonymous pamphlet published in London in 1649 gives a glowing account of Virginia, describing it as a land where “there is nothing wanting,”…If this was intended to induce home seekers to migrate to Virginia, it had the desired effect. The Cavaliers went in large numbers; and they were of a far better class than were those who had first settled the colony. Among them were the ancestors of George Washington, James Madison, James Monroe, John Marshall, and of many others of the “First Families of Virginia.”

    On the subject of the word, “fairness”, you say, “The french word for fairness is justice.” Ahem, but you missed the part where the discussion was about the ancient etymology of the term. French is a relatively modern language, a bastardized form of latin arising after the Dark Ages. The discussion is about fairness in the sense of “social justice”, and you generally won’t find that term in non-White cultures prior to the arrival of White civilization. For example, the Chinese certainly had no concern over social equity when the Europeans arrived, and ambassadors were rather surprised at the phenomenon.

    Lastly, your proposition that the Quakers, those happy, chubby, friendly farmers, were in reality hard-core fomenters of Communism world-wide, rings rather hollow. As a group, not including a few anomalies, this is just not so.

  15. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 14, 2012 - 9:04 pm | Permalink

    “fair price” is tautological.

  16. Connor McNessa's Gravatar Connor McNessa
    September 14, 2012 - 9:07 pm | Permalink

    @Mari

    I am disconcerted and feel consternation at your continued attacks on English-Americans. Albion’s seed points out SOME of the variations in English cultures but even that is an over-geralization. I am partly English and I am descended from both the East-Anglian (semi-Scandinavians”) and the Scots-Irish Borderers (who love a good fight) and also Scottish. The English and Scottish (often from the Angle tribe of Anglo-Saxons) people were the ones who created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution so it does not make sense to attack English-Americans for attacks on freedom. I am partly German, too, but I seriously doubt that large numbers of colonial era Germans would have worked and fought and developed such a legacy of liberty. Your comments about the Persians are ironic simply because the politically correct race panderer crowd consider Persians to be non-white victims. Concerning comments on the Norse myths:The comments about the castes leave out that the middle classes were composed of powerful Thor-like figures. Ruddy men of large and powerful physique and free farmers as well as craftsmen. In no way inferior to the slender nobility. Think of the nobility as like Odin and the next class is like Thor. Most of the heroic stories of Scandinavia are of Thor. The nobility were from the intrusive Indo-European Kurgan Folk and the free landowner and craftsmen class were partly Cro-Magnon Paleolithic Scandinavians. Of course there were probably only slight genetic and ancestral variations among the English people.

    Mari, I frankly think that you might enjoy having your own anti-English website about how the English (founders of our nation) are ugly (from a previous anti-English post of yours) anti-white race panderers. That way the white people can be divided amongst themselves in the face of non-white enemies.

  17. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    September 14, 2012 - 9:23 pm | Permalink

    The English were more or less genocided in Missouri by German gangs called The Wide Awakes who formed the Union forces local to St Louis. The very nature of French and Anglo American settlement in Missouri was transformed by an influx of beer swilling German militias. Officers commanding these German Union troopers include names like Sigel and Solomon. “Kampf/Schlacht Mit Sigel!” As they were wont to say as they murdered and burned out older Settlements of white ethnic populations.

  18. anita's Gravatar anita
    September 14, 2012 - 9:32 pm | Permalink

    When I skim read this new post: “The High-Mindedness of the British:…” this morning, I thought it fantastic, and greatly looked forward to the comments, while I re-read it and processed my own thoughts.

    So far, you have not disappointed :)

    From the contributors here, I am learning aspects and facets of life of which we in Australia are largely ignorant.
    The isolation and in many ways, rejection by so many First Worlders as a ‘fourth rate’ society of convicts and workers, has in many ways been a blessing, as we worked to build our lives/future for our kids/grandkids.

    “We did not come to Australia” was the tacit aristocratic line, spoken to me by an English aristocrat.

    Alas, the past phase of our isolated Island Paradise is rapidly receding into history, and the few that are aware have limited means of connection.
    How many Australians here on TOO?

    Anyway, I appreciate Mari’s perspective, and while not au fait with many if not most of the details, I can only agree with Bobby, on the extent to which people need to wake up to what is really happening.
    I say again: please keep posting, as I feel sure more people are reading, than you might be aware of.
    And so, while some diehards here might accuse you of ‘preaching to the converted’, you are not.

    I read in a document on the internet that the first bloke of Australia worked with Israeli land developer Dadon; that these ties had to be cut when he moved into the Lodge with Julia, and yet Australian politicians travelled to Israel as guests…
    John Pilger is scathing on this subject, yet he is not widely known in Australia.
    Most Australians, when I raise the subjects discussed here, look at me as though I am from another planet, and return to the object of their interest.

    I look forward to reading more from the TOO community.

  19. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    September 14, 2012 - 9:38 pm | Permalink

    My read of history is that all human groups are capable of great slaughter, even of close ethnic groups. In fact, there is a rule of history that people tend to go to war with their neighbors! In the 30 year war, which occurred in Germany, but spilled out into Europe at large, at least 25% of the German population was killed. Think about that, that is the equivalent of 75 million Americans today.

    I was shocked to remember the numbers were so high. So, of course, White groups have attacked other White groups. All White groups have done this. It is incorrect to act as if there is one group of Whites that is somehow worse than others. Over the long stretch of history, on every continent, you see massive killing within races.

  20. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    September 14, 2012 - 9:42 pm | Permalink

    @Dan:

    Interesting about the Wide Awakes, I had not heard of them. I know the North brought in a ton of immigrants and offered them inducements in exchange for killing Southerners.

  21. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    September 14, 2012 - 10:30 pm | Permalink

    One of the first bloodbaths of the civil war was in St Louis. German Wide Awakes fired into a crowd of local Anglos killing men women and children. The incident has been suppressed in modern memory.

    The Missourans of Anglo and French stock called the thuggish German militias “Loped Eared Dutch.” Lincoln’s personal guard at inauguration was exclusively German. They were the only group that could be counted on the protect the useless charlatan.

  22. Connor McNessa's Gravatar Connor McNessa
    September 14, 2012 - 10:45 pm | Permalink

    Mari, Mari, quite contrari:)

  23. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    September 14, 2012 - 11:01 pm | Permalink

    Look up the Camp Jackson Affair. Bunch of German union militia massacre 20-30 Anglos (men women and children). “Fight Mit Sigel! Ja?”
    B’Stards.

  24. Adeimantus's Gravatar Adeimantus
    September 14, 2012 - 11:10 pm | Permalink

    The “Golden Rule” is not limited to Christianity, of course. It is found, in varying expressions, in the following other religions as well (and it sometimes applies only to members of one’s own religious group): Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
    Analects 12:2
    Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
    Udana-Varga 5,1
    Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
    Mahabharata 5,1517
    Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
    Sunnah
    Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
    Talmud, Shabbat 3id
    Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
    Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
    Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
    Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5
    (Google “The Golden Rule in World Religions” for the webpage.)

  25. September 14, 2012 - 11:30 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant: Quite so (tautological), at least absent violence-enforced regulations setting “prices.”

  26. Random's Gravatar Random
    September 15, 2012 - 2:04 am | Permalink

    The Puritan-descended New Englanders were plenty racialist in the early 20th century. In fact they pioneered eugenics, a fact which would seem to go against the idea that they were intrinsically egalitarian.

    In the case of New Zealand, I don’t see how it makes sense to blame the same culture that evidently was very selective in allowing immigrants in when the country was founded for the failure to stop non-White immigration today.

    If anything the societies valuing fairness would seem to require a stronger in-group/out-group boundary than those primarily valuing individual freedom.

    The only real problem with the English that I see is their inability to prevent the jews from infiltrating and dominating their societies, not some genetic or cultural defect that prevents them from defending their ethnic interests against clearly defined out-groups in general.

  27. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    September 15, 2012 - 2:42 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    “Fair price” is tautological.

    Only in a real free market. The market can however be controled by the government ( such as in socialist countries ) or by monopolies ( such as in capitalist countries ). In the former case prices can be kept artificially low, in the latter case artificially high. Examples of the latter are oil cartels or the diamond trade controled by Jews. Prices can also be manipulated by speculation on the stockmarket and by “hoarding”.These are the “hidden forces” in the market that the ordinairy customer doesn ‘t see.

  28. anita's Gravatar anita
    September 15, 2012 - 3:01 am | Permalink

    @Franklin R: “These are the “hidden forces” in the market that the ordinairy customer doesn ‘t see.”

    and that is so capitalistically exploited by ‘those all-seeing/ in the know.

  29. Mark White's Gravatar Mark White
    September 15, 2012 - 3:02 am | Permalink

    Amazing work Professor MacDonald.

  30. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 15, 2012 - 3:05 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant: One more cavil. It was the Fed’s expansionary monetary policy in the twenties that caused the bubble in stocks and real estate. Flat CPI and PPI don’t mean that inflationary distortions aren’t present. The same error was made by pundits during the Greenspan incumbency. CPI and PPI were flat, but the money supply grew dramatically, pushing up financial assets. When either the central bank reverses interest rate policy or the mania in the asset class can go no more, there is a crash.

    The recession 1919 was equivalent to the 29-32 episode in sharpness of GDP decline, but lasted only 18 or so months. Harding, to his credit, played golf and did nothing.

    If Hoover and Roosevelt hadn’t busied themselves trying to stop prices of wages and goods falling, there’s no reason why 18 months couldn’t have been the upshot of the 1929 crash. (Money supply shrank by one third over 29-32, so fixing nominal wages equated to awarding a thirty plus percent wage increase in real terms, pricing millions out of the workforce).

    The Jewish cabal that set up the Fed spelled the beginning of the end of the old American civilization.

  31. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 15, 2012 - 3:26 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert: OPEC would have been seen as very “fair” in the seventies, if you were a citizen of one of the member countries and revenues flowed into your country’s coffers.
    When oil hit ten bucks a barrel in the nineties, the importing countries would have been content about the “fair” price.

    If the Jews control the diamond cartel (Argyle smashed that for certain stones), then go with platinum. Nobody’s forced to buy rocks, the hen-pecked aside.

    This “fair” is pure arbitrariness.

  32. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    September 15, 2012 - 3:58 am | Permalink

    @Bobby:

    It’s the same deal in the UK where people were still dying from cholera in the 1950′s industrial North, a hundred years after the death of Prince Albert (Queen Victoria’s German beau) from the same disease.

  33. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 15, 2012 - 4:55 am | Permalink

    @Jett Rucker: “Money or your life!” I exclude from a price debate.

  34. shark's Gravatar shark
    September 15, 2012 - 5:01 am | Permalink

    Mari I really like your posts and all but these Quakers you speak of are they the same ones who begat Nixon? the ones who had segregated churches until Jim Crow was enforced(early 70′s) while Catholics integrated theirs in 1840?
    It is hard to imagine them as a group being such subversive champions of blacks but I defer to your greater knowledge of them.

  35. Lancashire lad's Gravatar Lancashire lad
    September 15, 2012 - 5:55 am | Permalink

    It is interesting to think that even a rationally based analysis such as (the Anglican) John Rawls’ idea of ‘justice as fairness’ could be culturally based. I still think there is a problem in interpreting the autonomy of the religious element in European thinking, which seems to be empirically supported, if I read the article correctly.

    On a more cheerful or at least hopeful note, you might be interested in the following video of fairness in action:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMgfuM0Ylcs
    It covers enforcement of UK immigration rules and the series is probably quite interesting from the standpoint of group differences in psychology, (e.g. disposition to tell the truth to authority).

  36. Elie's Gravatar Elie
    September 15, 2012 - 6:07 am | Permalink

    When I think of religious ideals that “guide” civilization, I think of how religious movements have led masses of people to suicide. Heaven’s Gate is a good example.

    380: Christianity became the state religion of Rome.

    476: Rome was in ruins.

    1960: Liberalism became the state religion of America.

    2056: America in ruins?

  37. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    September 15, 2012 - 7:03 am | Permalink

    I guess it is Fischer who claims that, until the mid-20th century, “there are no words for fairness in languages apart from English, Danish, Norwegian, and Frisian”. But in the book’s review, it sounds as if the claim is made by KMac.

  38. m's Gravatar m
    September 15, 2012 - 7:57 am | Permalink

    Interestingly, until the mid-20th century and then doubtless because of Western influence, there are no words for fairness in languages apart from English, Danish, Norwegian, and Frisian.

    This is a rather odd statement. As mari in her first reply mentions, the concept is not unique at all. In fact, Classical political philosophy went to great lengths to discuss what is fair, although we generally translate their idea using the word “justice.”

    We note how the entire body of Platonic and Aristotelian political/social philosophy turns on a notion of justice. The Classical understanding of justice (“giving to one what is his due”) was subsequently transformed by both practical political considerations (Machiavelli) along with the nascent liberal philosophy (Hobbes), but that does not make the idea of fairness something novel and attributable to moderns.

  39. George's Gravatar George
    September 15, 2012 - 9:06 am | Permalink

    Great work Professor Macdonald.
    The need to come to grips with the Jewish, Zionist situation is
    calling out to the Whites. I hope we can halt & reverse what seems the inevitable.
    Your a real inspiration for me proffessor.

  40. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    September 15, 2012 - 9:13 am | Permalink

    @Lancashire lad:

    On a more sad/fearful but realistic and so in a strange way hopeful….this working class video from America from a woman whose depth of feeling and bitterness shines through. This is part of the source of the energy that will save us if we are to be saved.
    All together, if not her actual words, I find her to be very moving and even poetic.

  41. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    September 15, 2012 - 9:20 am | Permalink

    I must say, never in my lifetime has there been so much high quality pro-White material available. Anyone who is remotely interested in race issues has a wealth of information and websites to choose among, from explicitly pro-White sites to the ocean of HBD blogs, which while not pro-White, prove the reality of race.

    The Anti-Whites look a bit too comfortable to me. They remind me of the Soviet leaders at the peak of their powers. They couldn’t imagine the fall awaiting them either. I don’t believe in Total Collapse theories, but I do think things can change faster than we think. The next 10 years should set the stage for some bigger changes. Maybe sooner.

    This feels like the last election we will have that plays by the old rules. Race is going to be on the table openly in the future. And some leaders will arise on the White side to take advantage of it.

  42. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    September 15, 2012 - 9:29 am | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    Very interesting video! Yes, this kind of honestly is needed. The emotion was there. I liked her mocking of the Illuminati-aholics. Very tragic, yet there is optimism if people like her are out there.

  43. Scott's Gravatar Scott
    September 15, 2012 - 9:51 am | Permalink

    I don’t think there ever was a kindler, gentler British Empire. While they were supposedly being nice to the Maoris, they were starving Hindus and Irish by the millions in Pol Pot-like attempts at genocide. Britain has no racial consciousness. They’re the original race sellouts. They only see the world in terms of what’s useful for their doomed island. And of course, let us never forget that it was Britain’s left that took political correctness from the Frankfurt School and have tried to shove it down America’s throat for 50 years. Brits believe wholeheartedly in state censorship and have successfully exported that belief to their “commonwealth.” The fact that we still have a First Amendment irritates them greatly. I don’t think they’ll give up until it’s airbrushed from the Bill of Rights.

  44. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    September 15, 2012 - 9:53 am | Permalink

    Fairness is not synonymous with justice. It is a categorically different thing.
    Justice can for example lead to the death penalty as harsh retribution.

    Fairness leads to things like abolishing the death sentence because it’s just not fair to poor minorities blah blah blah… Justice might well lead to expelling a pupil from school for plagiarism, fairness generally means turning a blind eye if the kid promises to never do it again.

    Justice might mean gutting the welfare state so that useless black mouths are not multiplied. Fairness means feeding Deshawiquas and Sheitavious indefintly. Justice is locking away a dysgenic criminal black underclass
    fairness is letting them out to commit more crime. Justice might be shooting down border jumpers. Fairness is giving them amnesty.

    See the difference?

  45. September 15, 2012 - 9:56 am | Permalink

    Excellent article, Dr. MacDonald.

    But as my wife says to her Elementary Ed students, ‘Life is not fair.’ It would appear to me, that the vast majority of minds in the West, are stuck in the realm of early elementary school, rather than advancing to manhood.

    Sadly, many White Americans, who even go to Church, tend to replace American false notions of ‘fairness’ with the Biblical doctrine of “Election”- which is ANYthing, but fair. “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” – Rom. 9:13 But in noting the concept of Janteloven, I’ll have to do some more research on this topic, before I can comment further on false theology masquerading as True.

    One point I will make, is that NZ, in its desire to be ‘fair’ has now accepted gay ‘marriage’- which is, of course, tremendously UNfair to Traditional Christian Morality- which served as the ground upon which the entire Kiwi culture was built. A case of fairness using unfairness, to enact ‘fairness.’

    Thanks for this article. Fascinating.

  46. Dark Henry's Gravatar Dark Henry
    September 15, 2012 - 10:00 am | Permalink

    This sounds more like the pronouncements of a Chief Inquisitor than someone interested in the truth about human differences.

    Prof. KMac, your article is very informative as usual, but the above sentence is rather a cheap shot, hopefully unconscious, to the inquisitors who almost always acted very fair and managed at the same time to defend their people against infiltrators. They had to do it precisely because they knew the truth about human differences.
    I suggest instead to use the word kommisar.

  47. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    September 15, 2012 - 10:06 am | Permalink

    Good point. Inquisitors were actually a good thing in moderation. Commissars? They killed Kulaks and peasants in droves.

    Edit it KMac.

  48. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    September 15, 2012 - 10:07 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    Indeed and the scale of the opportunities and threats seem to be increasing in other ways too. Very often the threat is the opportunity and vice verca, all depending on whether WN’s can out fox the enemy and work it to their advantage. Look at the Nick Griffin video…the forces behind the EDF. Just the fact they are trying to go dow such a, let’s face it, highly risky approach, should be telling us volumes about the difficulties that *they* are perceiving.
    The EDL and other ‘civic’ nationalist movements are a threat..terrible threat. But as Griffin himself implies…also an opportunity….a huge opportunity…if only we can out fox the other side.
    Then there is the turmoil Israel is in over Iran. We really need to stop the exagerations about their power. They are powerful enough, no doubt about it. But if we are of the mindset that *everything* by definition, whether it looks like it could be to our advantage or not, is part of their perfectly ochestrated plan playing out. Then our psychology is totally defeating us before we step out the door.
    Read this article. This isn’t just put on. There has been a struggle for a few years now to have Iran face what Iraq faced. Obama … for all his faults…is driving them mad. The fact he is doing this, is creating a ‘space’ for other countries to do the same. Whenever the lobby is being stood up to, this creates a space whereby other politicians will become more brave.
    This is why I hope (and expect) Obama to win.
    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=285088

  49. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 15, 2012 - 11:31 am | Permalink

    The wisdom of the old saw “Cobbler, stick to your last” could hardly find better support than in the foolish judgments on politics, society, economics, and several other fields (not excluding linguistics) that Professor Fischer makes and that KM rightly calls him on. Fischer has proved an original, tireless, and thoughtful researcher; in these qualities he is a paragon among among contemporary historians. His embrace of doctrinaire leftism in matters about which he could easily inform himself is disappointing and reprehensible.

    I leave it to Trenchant, inter alia, to blow informed holes in such bits of nonsense as Fischer’s risible claim that FDR and the New Dealers “focused on programs to ‘help people help themselves’” as a way out of the downturn in the business cycle that they managed to extend into what is now called the Great Depression.

    I prefer to pick at his false characterization of Orestes Brownson, whose settled views on virtually everything will only be misrepresented by sticking to material from 1840 and earlier. Something like 90 percent of the huge mass of written matter he produced dates from 1844 and thereafter, by which time he had repudiated many if not all of the beliefs of his Transcendentalist friends. While it is deplorably true that Brownson was a big fan of the Civil War, primarily because it would lead to forced emancipation, which he favored, he had been for years an outspoken foe of abolitionism and its adherents. He wrote with pride and truth that he and Calhoun had precisely the same views on abolition and the structure of the Union. Furthermore, he was very much in favor of separation of the races after emancipation, and he believed that all freed blacks should be considered permanent wards of the federal government, which he expected to offer them strong inducements to relocate to Africa or somewhere else outside the USA.

    Finally, to go slightly off-topic, I wish that the people signing on to the bash-mari event were a third as well informed as she routinely is. The jolly Quaker image may belong on a box of puffed wheat, but it ought to be homeless everywhere else. And while she may seem to be too tough on all strains of English settlement beyond the Puritanical one, the malign influence of that strain’s progeny—whether in the flesh or in the spirit—something that ought to be evident to all but the willfully blind, should serve to pardon any slight exaggeration on her part.

    Note, too, that she’s right to scoff at overwide generalizations about fairness as a hyperlocalized concept. It was a rather big deal for Cicero in his fragmentary (either unfinished or partly lost) treatise De legibus.

  50. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 15, 2012 - 11:41 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks: The first paragraph of your comment is far truer of British Presbyterian and Methodist missionaries of that period than it is of virtually any missionaries from earlier epochs. There were, for the most part, men with few illusions about human nature.

    Reading any of the now-available-online accounts written by the French Jesuit missionaries to the Algonquins and Iroquois is much to be recommended. The adjectives insightful, informative, uplifting, and awe-inspiring incessantly contest with each other for pride of place.

  51. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    September 15, 2012 - 12:16 pm | Permalink

    “The basic difference between the U.S. and NZ is that the American colonists were treated horribly by the British (“six generations of American colonists were challenged by the British to fight for their rights” [p.76]). Fischer notes that the Bill of Rights is a list of specific grievances against things the British had done to the American colonists from 1760–1775. Moreover, the economic model for the American colonies was designed to benefit England rather than the colonies. All this resulted in a powerful ideology of freedom and liberty.”

    In reality the North American colonists were some of the freest people in the world. They paid much less and benefited much more than their kinsmen back in Britain. Taxation and government regulation in general increased exponentially after the revolution. The British colonial system was based much less on simply extracting resources than that of other powers. This was especially true with regards to a more mercantile economy like that of the American seaboard vs the Caribbean sugar plantations. The issue was the colonists weren’t willing to pay their fair share for the French and Indian War (fought on their behalf). See for example: http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5789

    “He notes that rates of homicide are about the same when comparing New England with New Zealand, but notes that Louisiana has a murder rate 5 times higher than both without discussing the relative importance of Black crime between Louisiana (32.4% Black) and New England (where Connecticut has the largest Black population, 11.1%; Massachusetts: 7.6%; Rhode Island: 7.2%; Vermont: 1.1% Black; Maine: 1.3% Black; New Hampshire: 1.3%; see here). Louisiana has had the highest murder rate in the U.S. in every year from 1989 to 2010, and in 2005 78.7% of the victims were Black. ”

    As someone who has spent a lot of time in Louisiana and Mississippi I can definitely vouch for this, and yet it is Massachusetts who has elected a negro governor! White leftists who have no idea what it’s like to live in a largely black area were manipulated by cynical Jewish activists into seeing the promotion of “civil rights” as a way of salving their newly guilty consciences beginning in the 1960′s. Even in the South this psychological AIDS is starting to take root unfortunately.

  52. September 15, 2012 - 12:21 pm | Permalink

    Could I break in with something completely off-topic, and then I’ll say absolutely nothing more about it?

    Why doesn’t everyone here go over to the site linked below and register a username and trash that anti-white thread!! I’m sick of us allowing this garbage to be posted without opposition on MSM sites! I just posted the following at BUGS:

    I’ve exhausted myself at knoxnews.com (the forum for Knoxville’s newspaper) this past week, keeping up usernames that have our chief phrases in them, and sometimes sacrificing a bunch of usernames to keep up actual Mantra posts, and I have no energy left for today’s nonsense there, which is a thread to a silly letter written in response to a silly article run last week about our SF seminar this weekend in east Tennessee.

    The thread is nothing but anti-white garbage and one tired non-bugser post by myself, copied below. If you want to give the thread some attention, make your first post (maybe on some other topic on some other thread) very bland, since it will be pre-moderated and they will block you for even an unpleasant tone in your first post. And any bugser post put up after that will be removed and your user name possibly banned after the monitors get to it, but they do tend to be short-handed on weekends.

    http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/sep/15/dont-publicize-white-supremacists/?comments_id=2345386

    JasonRebar writes:

    “I understand the purpose of this gathering to be to effect an image change…It is clear that white supremacists are working diligently to create a more subtle and politically correct image.”

    Where do you get that silly and incorrect idea except out of your own empty head? Do you think KNS and the rest of the media have given you any actual news, or want you to have any actual news, about what “white supremacists” (the media’s term, which you have mindlessly accepted) are doing?

    If they did, I would be allowed to tell you, since I’ve been intimately involved in the new approach that’s been developed.

    And the new approach that some of the white movement is using is actually the exact opposite of what you say…it’s LESS politically correct than previous approaches, and gets white-movement videos removed now by youtube, etc. much more stringently than previous approaches did.

    But all of you, just keep on whistling in the dark about something your media will neither inform you about, nor ALLOW you to be informed about, but which nevertheless you seem to feel yourselves to be very well informed! Lol! I never cease to be amazed at my fellow humans.

    Have a great day and enjoy yourselves discussing the empty news article and the empty letter that responded to it! Ha!

    (And of course this letter writer follows her training by our PC schools and media and thinks of “white supremacists” as evil folk plotting how to mask and propagate their evil! Like a comic book!)

  53. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    September 15, 2012 - 12:40 pm | Permalink

    Fantastic review of what looks to be a promising book. Truly, the sort of thing TOO desperately needs more of. The premise helps one understand, at least in part, the roots of the cultural divisions in white America today.

    “The basic difference between the U.S. and NZ is that the American colonists were treated horribly by the British (“six generations of American colonists were challenged by the British to fight for their rights” [p.76]). Fischer notes that the Bill of Rights is a list of specific grievances against things the British had done to the American colonists from 1760–1775. Moreover, the economic model for the American colonies was designed to benefit England rather than the colonies. All this resulted in a powerful ideology of freedom and liberty.”

    A bit of overstatement, maybe? I think Robert Walpole’s “salutary neglect” had as much to do with early American ideas about freedom as anything else.

    —–

    This discussion of disparate levels of high-mindedness among whites made me think of a quote I read recently by pop-psychologist author Mary Pipher:
    “Emotionally we were opposites as well. Jim was as steady and calm as I was easily rattled and changeable. For every decision, I was the gas; he was the brakes…. Many years after we married, we had this interaction: I had terrible insomnia, and after several hours, I woke Jim to ask him what he thought about in the two minutes it took him to fall asleep. He said, ‘Pie.’ He wasn’t joking. Then he asked me what I was thinking about. I answered, ‘The Holocaust.’ That about sums us up.”

    This sort of validates my impression of the author. On the one or two occassions that I’ve briefly interacted with her, she struck me as someone with a condition I call “Charles Dickens Syndrome” – great concern for the world at large, yet relatively little empathy for (or understanding of) those in her immediate presence.

  54. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    September 15, 2012 - 1:33 pm | Permalink

    @Elie:

    Christianity extended the life of Ancient Rome. As Evelyn Waugh comments, by the time of Constantine the Romans had already lost their sense of “actuality”.

    In my understanding, the Americans have never possessed a state religion. What extended the sell by date of the present model is immigration from Western Europe. It was not the Poles, Irish or Italians who launched the civil war or formed the subsequent 2nd Republic but they gave the latter a new vitality. In the case of the Irish intelligentsia (of which MacDonald is part) they launched an indigenous cultural movement and with it some of America’s greatest mythologists. John Ford is, perhaps, the finest example. Ford’s America is now self-destructing as well as your own, Elie.

  55. September 15, 2012 - 2:01 pm | Permalink

    @buckle:

    “Americans have never possessed a state religion.”

    We have one now, the mighty Church of PC.

  56. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    September 15, 2012 - 2:28 pm | Permalink

    America worships black people. Jewish middlemen administer the rite through sports and entertainment. MLK is also the lettering used for the Moloch in Phoenician script. MLK literally is your deity. Feed your children to it in the form of street crime and tax dollars for welfare. You are tithes to pay for black pathologies.

  57. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 15, 2012 - 3:11 pm | Permalink

    @Jim: I’ve never heard of this dame, but I like the name you’ve chosen for the syndrome she evinces. One needs to be remarkably unsusceptible to Dickens’s phenomenal literary eloquence to keep from confusing the manner and matter of his prose.

    Fortunately but unsurprisingly, this harridan—what’s kept her husband from murdering her, I wonder—doesn’t write with Dickens’s genius. The words you quote make me recall the old schoolboy taunt directed at the obviously sycophantic: “Brown nose!”

  58. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 15, 2012 - 3:34 pm | Permalink

    @Dark Henry: I hope as you do.

  59. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 15, 2012 - 3:39 pm | Permalink

    “He [Fischer] notes that the Bank of the United States, which was owned by Jews and served Jewish immigrants, suffered heavy losses. ‘Anti-Semitic “white shoe” bankers contemptuously called it the “Pants Pressers Bank” and showed no interest in supporting it. The Fed did nothing helpful, and strong financial institutions watched complacently as weaker ones went under.’”

    But does Fischer provide evidence that had the bank not been Jewish, it would have been propped up? That banks were allowed to fail was not new.

  60. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 15, 2012 - 3:56 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow:

    As an additional note, propping up a Jewish bank would not have solved the problem of the stock market bubble, which had developed due to speculation. Asset bubbles always burst eventually. When that happened consumer spending plummeted, resulting in the Depression.

  61. Connor McNessa's Gravatar Connor McNessa
    September 15, 2012 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

    @Harumphty Dumpty

    I took a look at their site. I have some observations just from reading some of the posts. First, They are squabbling amongst themselves so much that it might be best to let them fight it out. Everybody who doesn’t agree with their strategy, even though they are agreed in their anti-white race pandering, gets called a racist even though they are ardent supporters of the party line. Second, whenever you see someone talking about races as “the color of his skin” and the like you are dealing with someone who is absolutely clueless about the nature of race (they are ignorant), a person who really doesn’t know a thing about race and what it means, and you are dealing with a person to whom you will never get through. Ironically, THEY are actually the closed minded doctrinaires. Ironically, they will take their dog for a walk in their beloved city (they are usually city slickers) with their pooper scooper and they will engage in conversation with fellow dog walkers. In the conversation, they will discuss the dog breeds and their temperaments and abilities, their appearance,their tendency toward certain health conditions, and their intelligence. Strangely, when talking about human races, they will deny that races even exist or that they are simply a difference in skin tone. This is not to disparage dog owners, I love dogs, although I prefer some races of dogs over some others. In their case if they love dogs, that is their one redeeming characteristic, in my book. If so, they aren’t ALL bad, just mostly. I am making a point, but it is true and it happens often. There was a magazine publisher who coined a name for them, “Hagen Dazs Liberals.” They are shallow, spoiled, effite, hypocritical, marxist doctrinaires.

    Another point, the paper itself will not only work against you, they will monitor you as you are writing and they will have a reply ready the very second you post. This actually happened to me once when I was commenting in a city online paper. I was bringing attention to a failure of the Usurper in chief and how a major problem in our area was seriously exacerbated by him and his administration. This was just when the Usurper was flying in to make an appearance at the disaster. When I pushed the submit button, a reply appeared instantly! Within a few minutes (I wrote a post that took me quite a while to write) an article appeared which mostly contained a supposed refutation of the points that I made. In this case, it was something that would really hurt the usurper in public opinion and when emotion was quite high in the region. I was actually bringing attention to a very important point and piece of research by a well-known but much maligned conservative writer. The governor used his personal charm, he looks and acts like an ever-smiling teenager even though he is middle-aged and he uses his looks and charm to fool admittedly foolish people.

    On that article, I don’t see the point. The only useful attack that I see on that particular forum is to point out that they are actually anti-white racists. Choose your battles (I don’t always do it either, though).

  62. Connor McNessa's Gravatar Connor McNessa
    September 15, 2012 - 4:19 pm | Permalink

    I missed something important that I meant to include above. Within just a few minutes of my having posted my main post which showed that the communist in chief’s administration had made it worse, an article was posted with an interview with the governor in which my points and those in the article by the marginalized but excellent conservative journalist were supposedly (but not truly) refuted. Most posts are not that effective and timely, it was a very good opportunity that time and this MSM paper showed that they monitor your posts before you even post them and that if it is a truly effective post, their staff will counter it the second you post it.

  63. Connor McNessa's Gravatar Connor McNessa
    September 15, 2012 - 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Correction: My posts are not ALWAYS that effective and timely, I had a very good opportunity that time.

  64. The Admiral On Horseback's Gravatar The Admiral On Horseback
    September 15, 2012 - 4:30 pm | Permalink

    @Dan: In English, fairness may not be synonymous with justice, but I guess the comment which mentioned this word meant that the French word justice is (and was) used to describe the same concept that the English word fairness describes.

  65. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    September 15, 2012 - 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Kiwis often have an admixture of Maori or Islander blood. So they see themselves as coloured in the South African sense of the word.

  66. Connor McNessa's Gravatar Connor McNessa
    September 15, 2012 - 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, I didn’t explain this very well, either. The paper had a reply to my post in the forum that appeared the second I posted my post, instantaneously. The comment took several minutes for me to write. Within 15 or 20 minutes, they had an interview with the Governor in which he attempted to repute my points and those of the famous journalist and the article by the journalist to which I, if I was successful, brought some attention. I don’t know if they used a keylogger or if they can see as you are writing in the window. When they can’t block you for a violation of their rules, they will work against you in other ways if they think that it will be effective.

  67. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    September 15, 2012 - 4:36 pm | Permalink

    That’s one of the things about the French, their justice is excessive. See Robespierre. If Justice is corraled it’s not corrossive. If fairness is defined properly it’s less likely to be a drag.

    Contemplating Primogeniture and the French system of equal inheritance stand as nice comparisons between justice and fairness. Or
    vice versa. Slightly different folkways very different outcomes.

  68. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    September 15, 2012 - 4:41 pm | Permalink

    @Connor McNessa:
    Well, when I read your story, I better understand what the word kommissar means!

  69. anita's Gravatar anita
    September 15, 2012 - 4:49 pm | Permalink

    Fr John+: Like your wife, I was struck as a young woman in a very White Australia, by the wise words of Han Suyin: “Nothing fair or unfair under Heaven.”
    She was working as a doctor in Hong Kong, flooded with thousands of refugees from China. She lost her job.
    Fell in love with a married Australian journalist. He was killed.
    The River of Life moves on, and no man steps twice into the same River.
    Another wise Chinese saying. We can all learn from each other and our shared experiences.

  70. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    September 15, 2012 - 5:33 pm | Permalink

    @anita: @anita:
    “No man steps twice into the same river” is not a Chinese saying. It is from the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus ( 535 – 475 BC ). Here is his full quote :

    No man steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.

    • anita's Gravatar anita
      September 15, 2012 - 5:53 pm | Permalink

      Thank you Franklin: the wisdom stayed with me through the decades, as the origins receded into my own her-story. :)
      Even as a youngster, I loved the dynamism contained therein.

  71. September 15, 2012 - 5:59 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    That’s been updated, now it’s,

    “You can never sit down in front of the same computer twice.”

    @ Connor McNessa: You’re a trip and a half. I’m afraid I had to jump off the train before it reached its final station.

  72. September 15, 2012 - 6:03 pm | Permalink

    @Connor McNessa:

    “Another point, the paper itself will not only work against you, they will monitor you as you are writing”

    Worse than that, they send some kind of energy through my computer that makes me unable to shut it and walk away to get bfast, lunch, and dinner.

  73. September 15, 2012 - 6:07 pm | Permalink

    BTW, if any are interested, I had a very successful thread there today. I think the monitors must all be out sick.

    http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/sep/15/dont-publicize-white-supremacists/?comments_id=2345759

  74. Connor McNessa's Gravatar Connor McNessa
    September 15, 2012 - 6:35 pm | Permalink

    @Harumpty Dumpty

    I guess you are saying that I was too long-winded. I thought it was important to get the information out that a marxist newspaper will monitor and counter you and pretend to be ordinary viewers posting. If you are hurting their messiah, they will go to any lengths to keep the truth from getting out. Like the famous writer (I think that it might have been Twain) I didn’t have time to write a short letter. Hard to get the idea across in 5 words. Just a heads up.

  75. Connor McNessa's Gravatar Connor McNessa
    September 15, 2012 - 6:37 pm | Permalink

    P.S. RE: some kind of energy in the computer. They even attack your computer at someone else’s site sometimes (ie. you go to SBPDL and some “anti-racist” hacker attacks your computer).

  76. September 15, 2012 - 6:54 pm | Permalink

    On a related note, Kiwi immigration to Australia is at record highs. Australia and New Zealand signed the Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement in 1973 making travel between our two nations an open-door, visa-less arrangement.

    The travel has been mostly one way and serves as a back door to Australia for all the world’s non-White refuse. New Zealand has an open door policy to the world in concert with their high minded Protestant ideals, and so with the Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement Australia gets bucket-loads of Islanders, Indians, Chinese etc all New Zealanders to a man.

    White Kiwis love to refer to themselves as Pakehas, indicating their race-blind love of mankind which is never extended to White people. They are imbued with a strong Protestant Work Ethic, the only form of religion left to the White Kiwis besides the All Blacks.

    Their favourite leisuretime activity is to drone on about the scourge of alcohol, how lazy Australians are, how racist Australians are, how the Pakehas were the very best of White people to their indigenous people, the Maori, while Australians rounded up Aborigines and gassed them at Circular Quay.

    Talking down to White Australians for being dumb, and explaining that the fact that they come here in vast numbers while their own country is hollowed out, is a matter of the Kiwis innate sense of pride and self-esteem at their genetically bred high IQ, combined with a moral sanctimoniousness that would make an English parson blush, is the Kiwi’s number one topic of social discourse, and favourite joke.

    Eg. New Zealand PM Robert Muldoon’s lolz: “New Zealanders who leave for Australia raise the IQ of both countries”. Mr Muldoon was a Baptist, a joke in and of itself.

    The contradictions in these positions do not break through to the White Kiwi’s genetic high IQ. Sadly, the mass exodus of Kiwis from high IQ NZ, to low IQ Oz, in pursuit of high wages and world class living standards, continues unabated.

    With the introduction of changes to Australian welfare laws in 2001 prohibiting Kiwis coming here from immediately accessing our unemployment benefits scheme, Kiwis are struggling. Though their work ethic remains high, as they scour the welfare laws for loopholes.

    That Australians are mighty sick of these post-Protestant Kiwis and their constant undermining of our nation is starting to form a backlash, as this article, and the long thread of comments attests: http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/growing-kiwi-exodus-mines-riches/story-fn7kjcme-1226228914699

    Note this comment, a good example of the typical Pakeha in my observation:

    ” kiwi in perth Posted at 7:13 AM December 24, 2011

    Everyone know’s most ‘aussies’ are lazy, and I have been told many times to slow down at work because you’re making us look bad… If you’re unable to secure employment then you obviously don’t have what the employer is looking for! You’re immigrants in this country too, how about you ‘aussies’ give up your jobs for the aboriginals, the true people of this country! No, you wouldn’t, would u!”

    Spoken like a true Scotsma..Kiwi.

  77. Adeimantus's Gravatar Adeimantus
    September 15, 2012 - 7:05 pm | Permalink

    @Dan: Great post. I’ve tried pointing out the MLK – Moloch co-incidence to people as well. You are the only other person I’ve come across who has made this observation.

  78. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    September 15, 2012 - 7:07 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: Great points Pierre. I always enjoy your way of bringing things that are off balance, back to a more solid position.

  79. Freki's Gravatar Freki
    September 15, 2012 - 7:13 pm | Permalink

    I don’t get it, Dr. MacDonald. Are you saying that there’s an evolutionary explanation to the egalitarians-vs-”elitists”-divide? Or is it (more likely) sub-cultural? In what sense do Scots differ (in evolutionary terms) from, say, the English or Scandinavians?

  80. shark's Gravatar shark
    September 15, 2012 - 7:57 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:
    I wasn’t bashing her. She is one of the better posters here which is saying something. It is just hard for me to reconcile the image of these Quietists who spoke in thou’s and thee’s with Commuist Manifesto types.
    Not so much the Quaker image guy as much as Gary Cooper in Friendly Persuasion.

  81. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    September 15, 2012 - 9:12 pm | Permalink

    @Dan: Dan, I don’t think the situation on Americans “worshipping” black people is clear at all. Now the American media certainly would make one believe this. Is it the huge profits tht Tiger Woods brings in that keep the media focused on him or any other black athelte that makes it seem Americans are worshipping blacks? I know tons of guys that don’t give a rats ass for any blacks in sports per se, but just like watching competitive sports. They’ll even use derogatory names for the black athletes while getting all worked up over some individual play on the field,etc. I’m not saying Americans don’t “worship” blacks, I’m saying I’m not at all clear on this assertion, which I’ve heard from people besides yourself.

  82. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 15, 2012 - 9:30 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Forget Galbraith and his abracadabra Keynesianism, try Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression:
    http://is.gd/egVvoQ

  83. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 15, 2012 - 11:15 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Forget that charlatan.

  84. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    September 16, 2012 - 12:44 am | Permalink

    Galbraith, a whore. I was in a tyre shoppe in the eighties, reading a lady’s magazine. Dr. Galbraith was interviewed and exclaimed- “Ever since I started advocating [governmental] interventionism I have not been at a loss for any material want.”

  85. Connor McNessa's Gravatar Connor McNessa
    September 16, 2012 - 1:51 am | Permalink

    @Harumphty Dumpty
    I shouldn’t have beaten around the bush in in explaining it. In June while wildfires were raging in Colorado, Oba Mao decided to show up and make political hay off of it. I truly believe it. Michelle Malkin had just written a piece showing that it was Oba Mao’s fault that there weren’t enough air tankers. That little fox really exposes some malfeasance sometimes. The paper had a reply to my first post the very second that mine went on, Hickkenloopy came out and defended Oba Mao within 20 minutes of my info posting, and the libtards and obamanoids went on the attack. I pointed out the very well proven fact that Oba Mao is not qualified under the Constitution and legal precedents’ definition of a Natural Born Citizen, that Oba Mao’s birth certificates, so-called, were all forgeries and it is well proven, and that Oba Mao claims the right to extrajudicial imprisonment and killings of U.S. citizens (proven and vociferously claimed by him and his administration, a fact, in other words), and other forms of illegal activity of Oba Mao and his administration. There is huge documentation of this and I think that moderators do not like a lot of links, so I did not include all of them. The libtards went on the attack, the moderator shut me down and didn’t allow me to defend my positions, and the intellectually challenged libtards called me a troll with multiple logins. I was only posting under Connor McNessa. Everyone knows, and there was even an article about it at American Thinker, that Democrats and leftists name-call because they don’t have a good argument and are cowards about debating honestly. I have not had a tremendous amount of experience in forums, over the years I have mostly read and even collected some important articles and eschewed forums usually, until fairly recently. It seems to me though, that the epithet troll is used by cowards when they strongly disagree with a person’s argument. Only a fool would use their own name when posting comments in the current authoritarian police state, though. I am not going to make it easy for the SPLC conmen to attack me. If that is how I am “a trip,” then so be it. I genuinely believe what I say and I do not quote facts unless they are truly facts.

  86. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 16, 2012 - 2:11 am | Permalink

    Non-governmental intervention is the Somalian model.

  87. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    September 16, 2012 - 6:05 am | Permalink

    Watching professional competitive sports these days (especially those dominated by blacks) delivers you to the multicult. It is a form of Negro worship to elevate these brutes. Many Sports were kept amateur for a very good reason. Anyway as it stands every penny spent on basketball, football
    enriches lucky ghetto thugs, Jewish team owners, agents, stadium owners and makes other blacks unrealistically hope to become sportsmen.

  88. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 16, 2012 - 9:02 am | Permalink

    @Bobby: Watch your tongue, Bobby. Parson Parsons and his CI Squad will call you an ally of Jews and gatekeepers if you keep saying these awful things.

    (Thanks anyway. It’s nice to have company whilst my own private Titanic is sunk by Iceberg Parsons.)

  89. m's Gravatar m
    September 16, 2012 - 9:20 am | Permalink

    Dan writes: Fairness is not synonymous with justice. It is a categorically different thing.

    Not so at all. You are conflating our modern legalistic notion of justice for the traditional Classical notion. As I mentioned earlier, the Classical notion of justice, or what we would today term fair or equitable, was “giving to one what was his due.” It was based on an understanding of man’s differing intrinsic natures [compare Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics].

    At the same time, after thinking about it, I can agree to agree with the author on semantics, but would state that if we define fairness by its liberal meaning then it is better to seek justice (in its Classical sense) than to seek fairness. In fact, the word “fairness” could well be abandoned as we attempt to recover what has been lost through our acceptance of modernity.

    Liberalism has so infected our psyche that to even speak of an older more traditional time seems very out of character. So we often end up talking across one another. Obviously the author is using a modern notion–one grounded within liberalism prevalent since the 17th C., and one that discovers fairness based upon equality.

    Therefore, the author’s statement that there was “no word for fairness”…etc, while likely true given his etymological research, runs the risk of being a conceptual anachronism unless we can separate out different types of thinking. That is, the concept of fairness was never a liberal idea from the beginning, but its meaning changed over time, and a now new word is used to denote this change. What the author is saying is that liberté, égalité, fraternité are modern political and social ideas, and who can argue that point?

  90. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 16, 2012 - 9:59 am | Permalink

    @m: My hat is off to you for a very well reasoned and expressed analysis. You make my earlier point better than I myself did: Cobbler Fischer has not simply failed to stick to his last; he has built a shoe factory while claiming to be doing no more than make a single pair of shoes. This is mission creep on steroids.

  91. MOB's Gravatar MOB
    September 16, 2012 - 10:09 am | Permalink

    KM writes: “until the mid-20th century and then doubtless because of Western influence, there are no words for fairness in languages apart from English, Danish, Norwegian, and Frisian. Moreover, the words for fair and fairness have no Greek or Latin roots, but are nevertheless traceable to an Indo-European origin where they appear only in the above group of Northern European languages (and notably excluding German).”

    Given my Lower Saxony ancestry, those last three words don’t “feel” right to me! East Frisia or Eastern Friesland is a coastal region in the northwest of the German federal state of Lower Saxony. Here’s the Friesenlied that always brought tears to my father’s eyes when Karl the waiter would sing it years ago (note different pronunciations in these two versions):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2cTCmOlDJA

  92. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    September 16, 2012 - 10:11 am | Permalink

    @Pat Hannagan:

    Thanks for this insight into ANZAC tensions. My own limited experience extends to an Australian lady I met many years ago in London. A vision of physical beauty, she informed that she had “once lived with a New Zealander”. In the confused vanity of youth, I took this as an inducement to ask her out on a date as in, “if I am prepared to copulate with a New Zealander then I would certainly step out with an Englishman”.

  93. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    September 16, 2012 - 10:16 am | Permalink

    Interesting reading material, for sure; thanks Kmac. It certainly does appear that this nebulous, misbegotten, and hypocritical Anglo concept of “fair mindedness” has, indeed, glommed into the self-destructive White racial death wish delirium that pervades the White western world today. The smug conceit of those afflicted with this kind of delusional, toxified mindset is nauseating, when one reflects upon it. Liberalism is truly a racial death wish.

  94. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    September 16, 2012 - 11:21 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:

    Pierre, you haven’t missed much by missing Mary Pipher. She’s just another self-anointed guru who sees herself in the humble role of life coach for the planet Earth.

    Thanks for the reply. I enjoyed your comments.

  95. Rob's Gravatar Rob
    September 16, 2012 - 1:02 pm | Permalink

    @Dan:

    Fairness is not synonymous with justice. It is a categorically different thing.
    Justice can for example lead to the death penalty as harsh retribution.

    Fairness leads to things like abolishing the death sentence because it’s just not fair to poor minorities blah blah blah… Justice might well lead to expelling a pupil from school for plagiarism, fairness generally means turning a blind eye if the kid promises to never do it again.

    Justice might mean gutting the welfare state so that useless black mouths are not multiplied. Fairness means feeding Deshawiquas and Sheitavious indefintly. Justice is locking away a dysgenic criminal black underclass
    fairness is letting them out to commit more crime. Justice might be shooting down border jumpers. Fairness is giving them amnesty.

    See the difference?

    You have some odd notions of what fairness is.

  96. dixie's Gravatar dixie
    September 16, 2012 - 2:17 pm | Permalink

    @ “….in Western elites being complicit in the onslaught of massive non-White immigration to all countries that are dominated by Whites, including the Western European homeland. White elites have been defenseless against intellectual movements that have been framed in terms of moral critiques of the West—….”

    All White “western elites” are not equal and there are many “white” groups. Any discussion of immigration in America is completely useless without discussing the Catholic Lobby, it really is. And the willful suppression of that issue does not serve the cause. In fact, it makes it appear dishonest.

    Overwhelmingly, the “elites” of the west who have been seen to push “immigration” have been not only jewish but also catholic. And the “white” countries most affected are Northern European countries. Part of the reason their issues are being examined is to answer “why don’t they fight,” and yet it is often asked by the very same sub-white groups that are perceived to be doing the attacking!

    The main change in the u.s. was the importation of “whites’ from southern and easter europe (the catholics and jews). Both are a different people from the “americans” (the English-Scots who made up the “four ways of albion” and who are from a very close geographical area— it could be driven in a day).

    The Latin group has identified itself as Latin— and to many of them, they are more Latin than white. Romney identifies as Latin, as does Ryan, and this underpins their open borders policies. They ARE NOT “an endangered population” (as they conceive THEMSELVES). Many identify as Latin, not white, and see living among other Latin populations (who are non-white) as very normal.

    To be honest— what COULD the Northern Europeans in America do about this? They have absolutely no power! They have no area where they can live! As soon as they speak, even in the “white movement” they are called “divisive,” since “we’re all white here.”

    It’s a real problem.

  97. Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
    September 16, 2012 - 2:31 pm | Permalink

    @dixie: Catholic elites in Northern Europe?

    Do tell!

  98. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    September 16, 2012 - 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Fairness, is bankrupt concept when applied to non whites. That’s my tongue in cheek point.

  99. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    September 16, 2012 - 3:25 pm | Permalink

    @Athanasius: Exactly what I was thinking. Tons of Catholics in Sweden, Denmark, Norway…a few of the most “tolerant” nations in the world towards non-white immmgration?

  100. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    September 16, 2012 - 3:52 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby:

    The Irish have abandoned their Catholic faith in exchange for money and now have an immigration problem as well as (now) no cash. The reality is that immigrants follow the money not the religion.

  101. shark's Gravatar shark
    September 16, 2012 - 4:06 pm | Permalink

    @Athanasius: It isn’t a Papist dominated elite there in the Brussells’ politburo trying to get the northern Proddys to keep sending indulgences to keep the Catholic PiiGS propped up and open up their countries to poor third worlders?
    The RCC is not the same one that Charlemagne helped found it is a different one today that aids and abets the jew and global Catholic syndicates to get the Saracens in. This way they weaken the Calvinist. I include Anglican,Episcopals or Anglo-Catholics also-They aided the Jew in South Africa in destroyin what the Calvinists Boer’s created. These people are the best friends the Joo ever had.

  102. dixie's Gravatar dixie
    September 16, 2012 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Also—

    Generally, what “freedom” means to other WHITEs is impossible for the more generational population to even understand.

    Eg: What can “freedom” (as ex-fronteirsman see it) mean to a fascist— in the sense of the current Militarist-Corporatist-Medicalism? The Latin population on seems to construe “freedom” as multi-racial militarist-corporatism (neo-cons). — As if they married up “anti-racism” with Latin political structures (the political expressions of catholicism). But to protestant Americans, (and that’s who is really being discussed) a multi-race Mussolini is perceived as the most unappealing of all possible worlds.

    Some go on about “brainwashed zionist-christians” when Generational Americans (protestants) don’t vocally critique Jews, but it has less to do with “brainwashing” and more to do with how Jews embraced American culture versus Latins. The Latins —held by dogma— don’t seem to enjoy freedom of thought in the same way (it is seen as frightening; it could lead them into heresy, which then has murderous consequences or at least ex-communication, a mindset for which they cannot be blamed, since this was the deadly reality of all south europe (and most central europe also). Latins carry a legacy of being killed unless they professed certain IDEAS. Their reality has become reality in America now, with things s/a Janet Reno’s Auto Da Fe at Waco, (a warning to the “heretics.”) Worse, a commie jewish faction has latched onto an equally punishing Latin faction—a horror to watch from the outside.

    –and if you say all this, they can take it very personally. They write endless articles about the flaws of protestants, the need to eradicate them (genocide), how they destroyed the u.s., etc.— (never even suspecting how tough one has to be to stand up to all their battery)— and yet they cannot take the slightest criticism.

    Latins lack the jew’s paranoia. So they seem less schooled in regards to how they look from points of view other than their own. Latins made the mistake more often of believing their own press. Or that others’ silence is acquiescence. Nor do Latins have knowledge of how much many Americans had hoped for a country outside their influence, outside all catholic europe– or why. The Americans feel they should have a ‘right’ to reject catholicsm, its legacy, its social structures, its propositional rather than relational nature, etc…

    But to Latins their “host nation” (rapidly vanishing) is often just full of nuts, stupid crazy hereticals, etc.. The jews have no teaching against protestants in the same way (only about goys generally); and certainly no order devoted entirely to eradicating them, which catholics do have.

    Of the open border: it has now changed a North European, historically very protestant nation into a nearly majority catholic country in just 60 years.

    Clearly, a corporatist-governmental alliance was necessary in order to print all the bilingual materials we see today —not in Hebrew— but in “Latino” Spanish.

  103. dixie's Gravatar dixie
    September 16, 2012 - 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Athanasius
    @dixie: Catholic elites in Northern Europe?

    No… That the catholic elites in the U.S. (like Hart of the Hart-Celler Act that opened the border, an RC banker) are as responsible as jews for the open border situation.

  104. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    September 16, 2012 - 4:41 pm | Permalink

    @buckle: Thank you buckle. It seems that every once in a while, we all need a brisk kick in the pants, whenever we forget the all important role money plays in the world of International Banking that we live under. I recently read that even a life sustaining neccessity, FRESH WATER, is being privatized and bought up very quickly, by corporations like NESTLE.

  105. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 16, 2012 - 5:42 pm | Permalink

    @Jim:

    … humble role of life coach for the planet Earth …

    I love it. I suppose this is the proverbial dirty job that someone has got to do. Or could it be—as Bloomberg, Obama, and the other immigration voluptuaries would have us believe about virtually all occupations—one more job that white Americans just won’t do?

  106. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    September 16, 2012 - 6:18 pm | Permalink

    @dixie: dixie, when you said,

    “clearly a corporatist-governmental alliance was neccessary to print all the bilingual materials we see today–not in Hebrew–but in “Latino” Spanish.”

    I couldn’t agree more with you on this point. It’s one of the aspects government is up to its neck complicit in when it comes to illegal immigration from Mexico and elsewhere. Americans are clueless, as they are being used along with the vast riches of this country, to finance the elites North American Union Plans, endless foreign wars, and endless immigration schemes. Imagine how much richer Americans would be, how many more prospects for jobs at every level and how low our taxes could be, if it weren’t for the evil elite in control of the two party system, Wall Street and the Corporations. These traitors have involved American citizens in “projects”, that have sucked away our wealth, spirit and future.

  107. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 16, 2012 - 8:43 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Somalia is better on virtually all metrics without a central government than when it had one.

    Somalia will never be Switzerland on account of the Somalis, but that’s an apples/oranges comparison.

  108. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 16, 2012 - 8:47 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Hong Kong is an example of light State intervention. More Johnny Walker Black than Black Hawk Down.

  109. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 16, 2012 - 11:45 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    “Somalia is better on virtually all metrics without a central government than when it had one.”

    Proof?

  110. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    September 17, 2012 - 3:26 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow:
    Proof is that the Somalians are leaving their anarchic paradise in droves. That is why you find Somalian refugees all over the world. That is the kind of “utopia” Trenchant wants for you too!

  111. Volksverhetzer's Gravatar Volksverhetzer
    September 17, 2012 - 8:14 am | Permalink

    Fair was most likely meant beautiful, shining in the beginning, from whence it got the two transfered meanings, as in fair as being blonde and then fair meaning justice, equal judgment, the same law for Loke and Thor.

    A fair law was thus a beautiful law, and one can argue that beauty and radiance is connected to what we would call fair play in sports. Only if people are kept from cheating, and everybody follow the rules, will complex beautiful patterns emerge. If there where no fair play in sports, the most important trait could become the ability to poison your opponents, or any other dirty trick that today is illegal, rather than working on your own skills.

    Also for a concept like fairness to evolve, punishment for cheaters would have to be strict enough that the concept managed to become a stable part of society in the way people talked and understood their world.

    It is my belief that once the white masses have learned by their own experience that the other races have no concept of fairness, that they will start to discriminate back.

  112. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    September 17, 2012 - 9:41 am | Permalink

    @Volksverhetzer:
    That a word likefair can have the meaning of both “beautiful” and “good” is probably not unique in languages. In Greek the word kalos also has both these meanings, as has the Arabic word hasan. These are two other examples that I know of, there probably exist more in other languages.

  113. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 17, 2012 - 9:49 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert: No. It may be 2.7 percent of what makes up the truth (then again it may not), but it’s a long way from having any true explanatory power given the almost labyrinthine complexity of the situation in that hellhole. Absent an explanation on this thread involving more than fifty words, my own candidate for the single best reason for the Somali exodus—at least the large part of it directed toward western Europe and our own overfriendly shores—is that they have been actively encouraged to exit by our Tribal masters, in this instance wearing one of their favorite hats: that of Uncle Sam.

    And what has been the prime mode of encouragement? Why, cash and a guarantee of a place to live, of course, along with promises of yet more cash when the first batch runs out!

    Make them pay their own freight across the Atlantic or even the Mediterranean and subject them to surveillance, unemployment as illegals, and deportation as criminal aliens and guess what?—they will rediscover the joys of their homeland in Olympic record time.

  114. September 17, 2012 - 3:09 pm | Permalink

    @buckle: I reckon your youthful instincts would be fairly close to the mark.

    A nickname for Kiwis, amongst others, is South Seas Poms. Observant Ozzies have noted many similarities between the Kiwis’ national character and that of Poms. There is an equivalence of sorts, mostly along the lines of their shared “high-mindedness” as this essay relates.

    Your Ozzie beauty is not saying the Kiwi is the low benchmark, but rather that she has a tolerance for the English, as demonstrated by her living with one derived from the Pacific.

    How did it end up anyway?

  115. September 17, 2012 - 3:29 pm | Permalink

    @Pat Hannagan: Which is not a go at you btw Buckle. I do see many variations with national character of White nations. We are a diverse lot, one of the reasons why I don’t see how a one size fits all WNism will work.

    Kiwi high-mindedness extends from their Scots heritage, along with their English ancestry. Protestant Scots exhibit a reservedness and closed-off attitude, often of immense disdain. Like they just trod in dog’s sh*t when having to speak with you.

    The English on the other hand, whilst also being high-minded, are far more outgoing and gregarious than Scots and Kiwis.

    American national character is one of a profound need to “fix the world” and remake it in her own image. I see this exteneded in WNism. Personally I am in favour of a WNism that recognises the need for union under the broad banner of our shared urgency in forming a coalition, but at the same time recognising that each White nation has its own national character which should be preserved and celebrated. It is a Catholic approach I suppose, and as such, doomed to fail.

  116. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    September 17, 2012 - 7:20 pm | Permalink

    @Pat Hannagan:

    Catholics are detested around here as you know. What the anti-Catholic WNs can’t see is that even if they get their own way there will be bloodshed. The American Civil war was a protestant affair into which papists were co-opted. Perhaps that explains why no film about the War “ever made a nickel” as a Jewish producer famously commented. The prods prefer to watch Italian gangster films so the Jews dutifully serve them up as a form of spiritual consolation to their hosts: “At least we’re not like that lot!”

  117. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 17, 2012 - 7:26 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow:Somalia, a comparative study, as per your request:

    http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1861

  118. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 17, 2012 - 7:28 pm | Permalink
  119. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 17, 2012 - 7:36 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:Conflict is innate to humans. Which do you think better for the average civilan, a massive war under a centralized power, or local, circumscribed conflicts under competing warlords?

    Somalis left because of war, not because of the lack of central authority.

  120. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    September 18, 2012 - 2:22 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant: @Trenchant:

    Somalis left because of war, not because of the lack of central authority.

    And why was there a war if not because of the lack of central authority?

  121. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 18, 2012 - 3:56 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    The notion that Somalia was a state until 1991 and not thereafter is a semantic argument. Conditions were reportedly better when the Islamic Courts Union had at least some control of state functions, and there was less chaos (but that makes the opposite case than the one you make). And, of course, Bush and Cheney could not have that.

  122. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 18, 2012 - 9:15 am | Permalink

    @Pat Hannagan:
    @buckle:

    Thanks to you both for these comments. Splendor veritatis and all that.

    I can’t resist adding that when I was in Sydney (late 1968), I chatted with a very nice girl who worked at the hotel where I was staying. I wasn’t then familiar enough with Ozzie and Kiwi accents to spot that she sported one of the latter. When I expressed some small surprise at her origins, she said, “It’s easy to tell us apart. Australians all speak through the nose!” I thought but was polite enough not to say, “And you don’t, sweetheart?! You could have bloody fooled me.”

    Besides, she was really pretty.

  123. Oxfordshire girl's Gravatar Oxfordshire girl
    September 18, 2012 - 4:53 pm | Permalink

    There’s an old saying in New Zealand, “it’s not what you know but who you know that matters”. Clans DO operate closely via family trusts and nepotism, but this is not well known. I suggest reading some of the less commercial expatriate forums like emigratetonewzealand blogspot to find out more about New Zealand. Public and private logic are very different animals in New Zealand. There is a public cultural stance of “fair go”, but the well-hidden underbelly is nasty. Very cutthroat. No intellectual folkway exists here. It is also a cultural wasteland outside of the Maori tribal practices.

    A joke which describes the “public fair go stance”:

    50,000 Kiwis meet in Eden Park for a “Kiwis Are Not Stupid” Convention.

    Helen Clark says, “We are all here todiy to prove to the world thet Kiwis are not stupid. Ken I hev a volunteer.”

    Carlos Spencer gingerly works his way through the crowd and steps up to the stage.

    Helen asks him, “What uz fufteen plus fufteen?”

    After fufteen or 20 seconds Carlos says, “Eighteen!”

    Obviously everyone is a little disappointed. Then all 50,000 Kiwis start chanting, “GUV HUM ANOTHER CHANCE! GUV HUM ANOTHER CHANCE!”

    Helen says, “Well sunce we’ve gone to the trouble of gitting 50,000 of you un one place end we have the world wide priss end global broadcast media here, I thunk we ken guv hum another chance.”

    So she asks, “What uz sivven plus sivven?”

    After nearly 30 seconds he eventually says, “Ninety!”

    Helen is quite perplexed, looks down and just lets out a dejected sigh – everyone is disheartened.

    Carlos starts crying and the 50,000 Kiwis begin to yell and wave their hands shouting, “GUV HUM ANOTHER CHANCE! GUV HUM ANOTHER CHANCE!”

    Helen, unsure whether or not she is doing more harm than good, eventually says, “Ok! Ok! Just one more chance…What uz two plus two?”

    Carlos closes his eyes, and after a whole minute eventually says, “Four!”

    Throughout the stadium pandemonium breaks out as all 50,000 Kiwis Jump to their feet, wave their arms, stamp their feet and scream…

    “GUV HUM ANOTHER CHANCE! GUV HUM ANOTHER CHANCE!”

    Anther joke, about Australasian “resentful plebe” attitudes, illustrating a point you make above in your review:
    An Aussie a Yank and a Scotsman were traveling in a car when suddenly out of no where a truck hits them and they are killed instantly. The three dead are taken to the morgue, on arrival and when they were being tagged and put on ice the American awakens, natualy the morgue attendant was taken back about this and inquires on what happened. the Yank goes on to explain the sudden headlights of the truck, a long dark tunnel with a light at end. the pearly gates with St. Peter standing guard. As we entered the gate St. Peter said that since we were young and in the prime of our lives for a small consideration we would be sent back to the other side, so a i paid $100 bucks and here i am. The morgue attendant says that explains you what about the two guys, and the Yank replies when i left the other side the Scotsman was haggling over the price and the Aussie was waiting for the government to pay for him.

    and
    A pregnant Aussie and a pregnant kiwi are sitting on a park bench knitting jumpers for there unborn babies, the Aussie says to the Kiwi lass,
    “I hope mine’s a boy, cause I’m using blue wool”. The Kiwi has a think about it and a few minutes laters says,
    “Hope mine’s retarded, I just ####ed up the arms.”

    and

    “”How do you set a Kiwi up in a small business?”
    “Give him a big one and wait”.

  124. Seattle's Gravatar Seattle
    September 18, 2012 - 5:43 pm | Permalink

    “In the case of the Irish intelligentsia (of which MacDonald is part)”

    I’d really like to know whether MacDonald sees himself as part of the “Irish Intelligentsia”.

    I’d really like to know his take on Anglo-Irish relations in the US too.
    I believe there are sharp differences between the East and West in regard this relationship; I suspect something of the FJT frontier egalitarianism diminished the Eastern hostilities. But, it’s something you should address at some point.
    I think you avoid it because you want to focus on the commonality of whites in the US (honestly viewing those differences as relatively minor, and also seeing unity as essential to realize any of the changes you seek). But, in so doing, you leave out a lot.

  125. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 19, 2012 - 1:50 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert: War subsisted with and without a central authority.

  126. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 19, 2012 - 1:52 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow:By that logic, the extreme order of North Korea must render it a very attractive domicile.

  127. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    September 19, 2012 - 3:43 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:
    Can we not have something in between the two extremes of Somalia and North Korea? Call it Normalistan.

  128. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 19, 2012 - 2:13 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    False choice.

  129. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    September 19, 2012 - 4:35 pm | Permalink

    Dr. MacDonald, I have been wanting to say this for sometime now. I am gratefull to you professor, for being concerned with what you see as the ongoing denigration of European-Americans in this nation, and the fact that you put yourself out there to try and right this situation.

    I don’t for one second believe that you have feelings of ill-will for any particular ethnic group, but rather, are rightly concerned about the ongoing feelings of ill-will towards European-Americans, by our government, ethinic power groups of all kinds, and even misguided European-Americans, regardless of part affiliation. Just wanted to say thanks.

  130. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    September 19, 2012 - 4:41 pm | Permalink

    @Oxfordshire girl: Really funny jokes!! Thanks for taking the time.

  131. September 19, 2012 - 7:13 pm | Permalink

    For those of you who deride government intervention, please refer to the following:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chart-day-803-years-global-inflation
    Note that the 20th century was the century of giving up government control over trade, banking, and other controls needed to maintain a nation.
    Gro Harlem Brundtland, one of your hated socialists, astutely remarked that when a country gives up control of its trade, allows foreign control of its natural resources, and runs up large debts to foreign creditors, it ceases to become a country.

    All who have done so are now referred to, by the media, as “Western style democracies”, which I call dollar democracies, due to the mentality of the “market” deciding everything. No price fixing, insider trading, or market manipulation occurs because there are no regulations for the gambling addicted traders in the big casino on Wall Street.

    I have met many Kiwis and Australians over the years, and have maintained some contact. The differences between them are similar to the differences between Canadians and Americans. Generally speaking, Aussies and Yanks are more brash, polarized, and reactionary. Perhaps it would be more correct to say were rather than are.
    Thanks to the global economy run by various branches of the internationalist Jews, were all up the creek, not only without a paddle, but in a leaky boat. Globalism means no borders for countries, no capital restrictions, and foreign ownership of everything in your life, except the miserable speck on the planet that you have manged to purchase.

    You can’t have a country without government control, of some sort, that will define borders, and who will live within them. You can’t have a country by losing control of trade, allowing foreign control of natural resources, and running up large debts to foreign creditors. Nationalism is the key. That is why New Zealand was the target for a makeover of its economy in 1984. It was a prosperous country with a high level of government control. Canada has also been a target for the past 40+ years for the same reason. We are now a Zionist Occupied Government, no better than the US, waiting for the next orders from Tel Aviv.

    All nationalists are branded racists, ignore that. True nationalists do whatever it takes, across the political spectrum to define the nation. If that means nationalizing banks or key industries, then so be it. If that means allowiing well regulated competition in some ares, then so be it. If that means revoking landed immigrant status or citizenships, then so be it. Those things cannot be done without a government.

  132. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    September 19, 2012 - 7:48 pm | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon:
    I know very little about high global finance. I confess to being tempted by your position. (call me a fickle female). What I do not understand is, if you are right what have all these donors been buying all these years? It seems that the more laws they make the more we get of the opposite of the announced intentions of the law.

    You may not be a fan of George Washington but I agree with his assessment of government. “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

  133. anita's Gravatar anita
    September 19, 2012 - 8:59 pm | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon:
    very well said.
    ‘True nationalists do whatever it takes, across the political spectrum to define the nation’
    We have a PM whose partner has a track record of working with/for an Israeli land developer. He had to cut this, when he moved into the Prime Ministers residence.
    Nevertheless, Gillard does exactly as she is told by the UK and Washington.
    She wrings her hands over the leaky boats that continue to come here. Border control? lol
    Gillard has a mantra, that she has a vision for Australia, which has never actually been articulated.
    She treats Australians like pathetic dumbos, and yes, they let her, altho many are seething and outraged.
    There are people in Australia, as in America, working on eliminating the ‘corporate appointed’ politicians in favour of properly politicians elected by the people.
    i.e returning to the basics of the Constitution.
    meanwhile, the following quote from John Pilger, whose work I greatly respect:
    “Who spoke out against Julia Gillard’s junket to Israel in the wake of the massacre of 1400 people in Gaza, mostly women and children, and her unctuous support for their killers? ”

    The very real problem here, as elsewhere, is that the police state that we truly are, silences those voices which speak out, using whatever means work!

  134. September 19, 2012 - 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Nationalism is a bit of a problem though* when it comes to the Anglosphere nations. The reason for that, I would suggest, is due their traditional Protestant makeup. The more Protestant one is, the less nationalistic one becomes.

    One cannot understand the trajectory of the West, especially post WWII, without understanding the Protestant mind, especially that of the WASP. With that in mind, I would also add that religion is an expression of race within environment. So, I am not arguing from a theological sense but rather that the theology of various Christian religions expresses the racial, and thus cultural, characteristics of those people who formulate the religion.

    For example, why is it that the most famous fascists of the 20th Century were all Catholic (not necessarily observant, but from a Catholic milieu): Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Salazar.

    Why is it that the most prominent anti-fascist forces in the world today, and at the time of WWII, were Protestant?

    This is the problem for a broad *universal* White Nationalism. And that is exactly what is being proposed by the WN movement; a universal White. (Yet we have this funny little antagonism of the anti-Xtians – won’t mention names – and their mono-causalist gripes against universalist Christianity.)

    Catholicism is an expression of hierarchical thinking and desire, hence fascism is the natural home for a secular Catholic. Protestantism is a reaction to hierarchy, hence the nature of post-Protestant nations being one of individualism run rampant. Protestant nations are noteworthy for their eternal schism, not only in religion but with other White nations.

    The modern post-Protestant Protestant (PPP) will always be a protestant in that he is characterised in his extreme element as a paradox of self-loathing and self-worshipping. In his former glory he was a supremacist, and his capitulation he is a dog-in-the-manger. Having won the battles but lost the war, rather than apologise and ask for rapprochement, the PPP instead is determined to throw his national gates to all and dundry so that none, but none!, of his kin may ever feel happy again. Especially so that the PPP himself is so miserable in the world that he “won” and created.

    For example, in search of the website recommended by Oxfordshire Girl, I came across this quote by an ex-pat Kiwi:

    Funnily enough in 1964 Donald Hume, a British social commentator coined the term the ‘lucky country’ to describe Australia. It is often interpreted as a positive statement but it was anything but. What he actually said was that ‘Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck’.

    I would have to say I share his thoughts.

    It could never be my country and I guess I am forever a Kiwi but I could make a home there – for a while anyway.

    Well, it wasn’t Donald Hume but Donald Horne who said that famous quote on Australia: “.Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck.”

    It’s a typically Anglican perspective of fellow Whites who, due to low birth status, cannot ever rise to the glory that is an Anglo. And, should he do so, then never again, as the floodgates are let open.

    Horne also is famous for, As editor of the flagship magazine The Bulletin, he removed the magazine’s long standing motto “Australia for the White Man”, an action in which he took great pride.

    And we wonder how the Jew came to such a stranglehold on our nations?

    This is how Donald Horne characterises the Australian religious makeup of his youth:

    “One of the really important ways in which people distinguished themselves from each other at Muswellbrook when I was a child was through their religion. They didn’t necessarily go to church but to be a Catholic to the non-Catholics was to be almost sub human and to be a Methodist was to be pretty low class, it was only us Anglicans and Presbyterians who felt assured in the world and the

    Presbyterians were really only assured because they were kind of honorary Anglicans.”

    It is an accurate representation. Yet, as stated above, rather than rapprochement, Horne was an annihilator of White Australia.

    Narr:
    After University, he made the obligatory trip to live and work in England. Returning to Australia, he edited journals and magazines. He later went into what he calls “a period of exile” in an advertising agency. Then came the extraordinary success of “The Lucky Country” in 1964

    Donald Horne
    ” I seemed to be able to put into it all kinds of new ideas and new approaches that were already in the heads of many people, but I kind of crystallized for them. I’m not being boastful, in a sense it was a kind of a community effort in which I articulated for lots of people what they were already thinking. And that is about the only way in which you can influence people, and that is by telling them something that they already believe or partly believe.”

    Geraldine Doogue
    It seems to me that you have actually created, dare I say, a form of religion out of Australia, out of pursuing this constructive version of Australia. You’re interested in doctrines that it might follow, rituals it might follow. Would that worry you if you thought of yourself as doing that?

    Donald Horne
    Well if you define it like that it wouldn’t worry me.

    Geraldine Doogue
    It wouldn’t?

    Donald Horne
    If you define it like that, I have done that. Yes I’ve tried to describe the kind of doctrines and rituals, ceremonies, icons, myths and legends of Australians, yes I’ve tried to do that. And if that’s all you mean by religion that’s okay. If you mean a kind of mystic belief I’d go a bit easy on that.

    *Understatement.

  135. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    September 19, 2012 - 10:23 pm | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon: Absolutely agree with your message on globalism, which is another word for internationalism. For the globalists, nationalists are deadly enemies, which is why we see all of the weird things in the U.S. that constantly put down the idea of “citizenship”. With the elite in the U.S., there is no room for citizens, in a globalist empire wannabee. Only world “citizens’, which is obviously an oxymoron. People without a nation, are usually in deep trouble, especially in times of crisis. Just refer to the Europeans that had no country when the borders changed.etc.

  136. September 19, 2012 - 10:25 pm | Permalink

    Sorry for the long comment, most of which is copying PPPs, but I have much to say on PPPs, and do want to source my conclusions.

    Today we have a fascinating imbroglio within the flagship school of the formerly Methodist, now Uniting Church (ha! Uniting, good one).

    Andrew Bolt writes of: “Whose school is this, anyway?”

    (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/whose_school_is_this_anyway/)

    “The Uniting Church has lost control of this savage dispute over the sacking of Methodist Ladies College principal Rosa Storelli, perhaps in more ways than one:…”

    ’MLC is a Uniting Church school. The board has significant autonomy but they also have an obligation to be part of the Uniting Church.’’

    Which makes this fact about the board chairman interesting:

    …The Jewish panellist was Louise Adler…

    Also on the MLC board is Ahmed Fahour:

    … this Muslim success story…

    How many of the board are Uniting Church worshippers, or even Christians?

    As one person in comments notes:

    For God’s sake, the Uniting Church these days is the Greens Party at prayer. Give me Fahour any time.

    Whilst it is true that the Uniting Church is the Greens at prayer, the solution is not to promote a Muslim to its board. Nor have a Jew as Chairman. Yet, that is the way of the PPPs.

    The one thing a PPP will never suffer is to be associated in any way, shape, or form with people of the hoi polloi. Better to burn in hell than suffer the indignities of noblesse oblige (a French term, thus Catholic). Better to sunder your church, give it over to Muslims and Jews, than to be in service to your people, for better or ill.

    The PPP cannot endure noblesse oblige, even though he does consider himself of the nobility, because the PPP abjures authority. The PPP detests chain of command, anonymity in service, and restraint. After all, his initial break, and those who still remain Protestant today, is and are marked by their anti-clericalism. How dare anyone tell a PPP that his behaviour should be restrained for the good of the masses. “The masses?!” he asks. “The masses be damned!”

    So it is, and so it goes.

    Yet, it’s not a forlorn task to unite our disparate peoples to the one cause, our racial self-preservation. But, to get there we must divide through for our differences. I cannot see that the U.S.A. could ever become a fascist nation, because it is not an expression of her founding and majority people’s way. They are individualists, people of rights. For them at extreme they have Libertarianism, and perhaps in that political philosophy they may retake their nation.

    And just as so, Libertarian ways are not that of the most non-Anglo nations. A form of fascism is their way, because it is natural to their racial and cultural disposition.

    What we all need do is accept our different paths but overwhelmingly agree to coalesce in our one point of commonality: our racial and national preservation.

  137. September 19, 2012 - 10:38 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: Ha, your Kiwi was right though. To speak Strine (Australian) one must talk through the nose.

    I’ve heard somewhere that this method of speaking came about out of a need to keep the flies out of our mouths in the summer months.

    Oxfordshire Girl does a pretty good impression of a Pakeha/Kiwi.

  138. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 20, 2012 - 8:53 am | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon:
    Consumerism and credit explosion is ultimately a consequence of the growth in the money supply, the latter under government control.

    The 20th century is the only epoch in human history where a fiat money monopoly prevails in all countries. Previous instances of irredeemable paper money have been localized, and so the disaster of hyperinflation has always been contained within national borders. Now we witness a race to the bottom, a challenge between rival central banks to erode the value of their monies.

    Bernanke, with QE III, is writing an impressive Greek tragedy with the whole world as his cast.

  139. September 20, 2012 - 11:23 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:
    I suspect they have been buying “tomatoes”.
    http://www.tomatobubble.com/id39.html

    As Dr. MacDonald has described, all of the Jewish led ideas movements are in self interest. When you own a government, the rhetoric will be the opposite of the effect as described by Orwell.

    Washington had his faults, e.g. he gained weight during the winter that troops in Valley Forge were starving. He pleaded their plight but was not prepared to make his own sacrifices. That said, there was a certain wisdom he and his contemporaries had that has been lost today. The Canadian Confereration was “peace, order, and good government”. It was not as successful as the lofty pronouncements, but, in the big scheme of things, normally benign. Since our Constitution in 1982, “peace, order and good government” as been rare, Where in Confederation, governments would be involved for the good of the country in broad terms, it now acts as it does in the US, as an attack dog for globalists.

  140. September 20, 2012 - 11:34 am | Permalink

    @anita:
    I am not familiar with recent political structure in Australia. At one time, I know they had, as Canada does, the British Parliamentary System. A first past the post system where someone can be elected with less than 50% of the votes. In the old days, the MPs were more responsive to the constituents, and “backbench revolts” were not uncommo, as the MPs knew policies would be unpopular at home. I can’t remember the last time that happened. More power has been concentrated in fewer hands. Those hands take orders from Tel Aviv, sometimes via Washington.

    As I have stated previously in other posts, “Western Style Democracy” is code for owned by the Jews.

  141. September 20, 2012 - 12:10 pm | Permalink

    @Pat Hannagan:
    National Socialism is not fascism. Whatever Hitler’s shortcomings, the NS movement understood that in order for a country to truly be a country, isolation from the international banksters was necessary. Why else would Judea declare War on Germany so shortly after the NSs forming a minority government.

    The purpose of the Holocaust narrative is to prevent the examination of the German economic miracle, which included issuing its own notes only for goods or services received, and trading commodity for commodity rather than using the value of the commodity being processed through the International Bank of Setlements.

    All wars are economic wars, and the wars of the past century have been about removing governments that have the audacity to think they can move away from the clutches of the banksters. Germany, Norway, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, and Venezuela to name a few.

    As for the religious tendancies, the Holy Roman Empire was the Vatican controlling all commercial aspects in all of the countries. “Protestantism” became the vehicle for the German princes to rebel. It was not a rebellion against hierarchy as much as resentment of a foreign power controlling them. They replaced the RC Church/Empire hierarchy with their own heirarchy. Unfortunately, this opened the door for the ever opportunistic Jews.

    As for the PPPs, France and Spain suffer the same problems of having thrown open their borders. The Anglican Church, in its “high” form is RC in all but name. Count Britain in on that one too. Italy is now the next target. Serbia was attacked and destroyed because it resisted.

  142. September 20, 2012 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:
    “Now we witness a race to the bottom, a challenge between rival central banks to erode the value of their monies.”

    The central banks are not rivals, they are partners. Even Canada, where the Government of Canada, via the Minister of Finance, is the sole shareholder ot the Bank of Canada, there is collusion. In a ridiculous legal decision by our Supreme Court 50+ years ago, they ruled that the government could not direct the bank to do its bidding. So much for shareholder rights.

    The BofCs charter allows the government to borrow at no interest to run its business, just like NS Germany. That hasn’t happened for decades. The latest Governor of the BofC is, once again, from Goldman Sachs, a Rothschild front. Guess where we’re going.

    The best US example is the Bank of North Dakota, a state owned bank. While not perfect, as there is a large agri-business presence in Norht Dakota, it has helped local businesses grow since it was established in 1919.
    http://banknd.nd.gov/

    Pontification will not stop the globalists.

  143. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 20, 2012 - 12:29 pm | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon:

    The Anglican Church, in its “high” form is RC in all but name.

    With respect, Curmudgeon, you’re confusing smells and bells with dogma and doctrine.

    Pre-Vatican II, high-church Anglicans believed not a quarter of what RCs did and insisted dogmatically on none of what was believed. Nowadays, sadly, the situation is largely reversed: the official Catholic Church proclaims even less than the high-church Anglicans do and insists on assent to almost literally nothing—except the transcendent importance of Vatican II.

  144. September 20, 2012 - 12:31 pm | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon: @Trenchant:
    “Now we witness a race to the bottom, a challenge between rival central banks to erode the value of their monies.”

    The central banks are not rivals, they are partners. Even Canada, where the Government of Canada, via the Minister of Finance, is the sole shareholder ot the Bank of Canada, there is collusion. In a ridiculous legal decision by our Supreme Court 50+ years ago, they ruled that the government could not direct the bank to do its bidding. So much for shareholder rights.

    The BofCs charter allows the government to borrow at no interest to run its business, just like NS Germany. That hasn’t happened for decades. The latest Governor of the BofC is, once again, from Goldman Sachs, a Rothschild front. Guess where we’re going. Remember, asset backed commercial paper is a Canadian invention.

    The best US example is the Bank of North Dakota, a state owned bank. While not perfect, as there is a large agri-business presence in Norht Dakota, it has helped local businesses grow since it was established in 1919.
    http://banknd.nd.gov/

    Pontification will not stop the globalists.

  145. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 20, 2012 - 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Do not worry about significant inflation. If that appears, the Federal Reserve will cut it off. Why? Because they are bankers more concerned about the value of their interest-bearing assets than with fighting unemployment among workers (see Paul Volker during the early 1980s). Loose monetary policy in an economic crisis does not produce much stimulus or inflation anyway because people continue to hoard cash. As FDR’s treasury secretary famously said, it is like pushing on a string. Only fiscal stimulus does much.

    By the way, here is a link to an interesting collection of articles on Austrian economics. Click on http://world.std.com/~mhuben/austrian.html

  146. September 20, 2012 - 2:12 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:
    The Anglican Church went through a slow version of Vatican II, well before Vatican II. A school friend’s father was an Anglican priest born pre WWI. While not hearing directly from the father, the friend would comment on the father’s concern about where things were going, church wise.
    Henry VIII’s creation of the church was a political, not religious move. It allowed him to dump used goods: his brother’s widow, a foreign, non male producing hag, and ransack the RC monasteries – stealing their wealth and lands at the same time. This all made sense to his syphilis infected brain. I know there is controversy about that one, but considering the courtesan culture of that age, it is entirely likely.
    The Cromwell loonies and post Stuart Jewish sycophant Royals, particularly the Germans, could have cared less about an “Anglican” Church of which they were the titular head.

  147. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 20, 2012 - 2:20 pm | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon:

    Interestingly, Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, thought John Maynard Keynes was correct on economics.

  148. anita's Gravatar anita
    September 20, 2012 - 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Yes Curmudgeon the Australian political system is like Canada: the Westminster system of parliament, lap dog to London/Washington/Zion.
    Yesterday on Hang the Bankers website I read of how the New World Order NEEDS Australia.
    Those of us with fingers on the pulse have known this for 2 years.
    The outraged are largely silenced, while the PM and her cronies kiss kiss their allies, and as I said elsewhere, Gillard is off to NYC/UN General Assembly to discuss, amongst
    other things (notable Australia’s seat on the Security Council) the Millennium Development goals.
    I know very few people still discussing these, as the objectives disappear out of sight, in our world on the precipice of catastrophe, and unconscionable multitudes of deaths everywhere.

  149. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 20, 2012 - 6:55 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: That list of strawmen was previously brought up by Will Fredericks and refuted. The author is uninformed or has only read Rand and her Objectivist nonsense.

    Mosely agreed with Keynes? I rest my case.

    If you think inflation is not going to be a problem, then Ben’s got a stack of Treasuries to sell you at close to zero running yield.

  150. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 20, 2012 - 7:20 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    That is no refutation, and there were many more authors than one. As for inflation, it already isn’t a problem, hence the surfeit of Treasury buyers.

  151. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 20, 2012 - 8:44 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Inflation is an enormous problem! Have you seen the government’s list of items excluded from the roster of things with which the inflation rate is calculated? The list includes virtually every necessity for a bearable lower-middle-class standard of living.

    Friend Trenchant, can you help me out here with a link?

  152. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 20, 2012 - 8:49 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow:
    @Pierre de Craon:

    My point being that not only is the deck stacked against us, but the guy holding the pot and calculating the tab is screwing with the count.

  153. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 20, 2012 - 9:11 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Good luck with your investments.

  154. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 20, 2012 - 9:40 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: There’s a good chart of a proxy for expected inflation here – http://is.gd/ZqPQWI
    You can see that the m.o. of the Fed in the recent past has been to wait for the “deflationary” scare and then turn on the spigot (let’s forget that that has produced little more than a rise in asset prices, certainly not a robust recovery). Now the spigot is being left turned on, absent any collapse.

    Both the Fed and the ECB have been explicit in their desire to print up whatever it takes, and their actions have matched the rhetoric. Hence at some point in the future, some prices will rise more that they otherwise would. (Food, water, imposts, power, gas? I suspect anything in the essentials category).

    To your point, of course, price indices are always inherently arbitrary (could it be otherwise?). Only an ingenue would imagine that a government, whose disbursements were indexed to the CPI (pensions, inflation-linked contracts, etc.) would not be sorely tempted to tinker with said index to lower its outgoings. Don’t even get me started on hedonics. John Williams corrects for these, and comes up with a much larger rate using the former methodology (flawed though it may be in a theoretical sense).
    http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-438-public-comment-on-inflation-measurement

  155. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 20, 2012 - 10:35 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Good luck with your metaphysics.

  156. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 21, 2012 - 12:06 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Animal spirits, indeed!

  157. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 21, 2012 - 1:55 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Yes. Keynes’s term for confidence — critical, as history shows, to the economy.

  158. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 21, 2012 - 8:57 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant: Re the Williams/CPI link: just what I was thinking of! Thank you. I recall someone in Triple R (LR? MR?) laying this whole scam out in detail, but that was twenty years ago, and my records and files are in terminal disarray.

    Incidentally, is hedonics also a term used in economics (i.e., with a particular significance), or was your reference to it simply within the usual psychological context?

  159. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 21, 2012 - 10:57 am | Permalink

    @Curmudgeon: Thanks for the personal-experience dimension.

    It’s been frequently said that the Oxford Movement cost the Anglican clergy many of its serious Christians. Your chum’s dad’s complaints and concerns seem to strongly second that view.

  160. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 21, 2012 - 11:50 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Truly a confidence man, Keynes.

  161. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 21, 2012 - 12:20 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: Yes, I was referring to the use of hedonics in the composition of price indices (http://is.gd/XPTLE3).
    The whole empiricist approach is epistemologically bankrupt (or I should say metaphysical, depending on some abstracted shopping bask of the abstracted average man). Your price index includes Greek yogurt and books, mine linen sheets and sheep’s Fetta, how do we fuse our different tastes into a meaningful aggregate?

    http://is.gd/fhArmG
    In these four score pages, Hoppe returns economics to the rationalist tradition, away from its phoney, mechanistic, model-making, contemporary form.

  162. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 21, 2012 - 12:31 pm | Permalink

    The Treasuries bubbles around the world make the real estate and the share bubbles look modest by comparison. Interesting times.

  163. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 21, 2012 - 1:49 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant: Putting Saville’s chart to one side, do you think he’s in earnest in describing Bernanke as stupid? That is, stupid rather than sage anent his fellow Tribesmen and contemptuous anent the rest of us? Can Saville be that blind, or is he ensuring his livelihood?

  164. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 21, 2012 - 1:57 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    The Austrians — truly incompetent men. Click on (and then download) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1024311

  165. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 21, 2012 - 7:49 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:This thread should suffice to show how legion are the believers in “animal spirits”. These are true believers, not Easter Day, Christmas Day parishioners. So my take is that Bernanke is so schooled in his Harry Potter orthodoxy, that he believes he can ameliorate things.

    Saville couldn’t say “Jew” without kissing goodbye to his career in financial services. By the way, he’s got a very sound grounding in economic theory which he brings to his brief market analyses. You could learn more about the real world by scouring his archives than doing an entire undergraduate degree in finance or economics.

  166. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 21, 2012 - 8:17 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: I’ve got a deal of sympathy for Vienneau’s attack on Hayekian triangles. In fact, I don’t hold Hayek’s theorizing in high esteem on much at all. I see him as more an intellectual son of Wieser, not Menger. Hayek’s confusion in the Socialist Calculation Debate of the early 1920′s certainly was an own goal. If you are interested in de-homogenizing Hayek and Mises, the latter whom I hold to be theeconomist of the 20th century, this is a good start:
    http://is.gd/MogBZM

  167. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 21, 2012 - 8:43 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:Bernanke and Greenspan, are steeped in the Baba Mezia 59b mindset.

  168. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    September 21, 2012 - 8:45 pm | Permalink

    News & Jews … News & Jews … all we get around here is News & Jews …

    Did you hear about the latest conspiracy theory? Are you on fire about the latest round of emails? One year it is that Obama is a secret Muslim president! 20 years ago it was Vince Foster! 40 years ago it was the Trilateral Commission! And somewhere there is always some hyperventilation over the Jewish Conspiracy (why do we need to worry over a Jewish conspiracy when they say openly how they feel about Whites?). This has been repeated for 60 years. It goes nowhere. To put it mildly, this is a rut. Is there no one who can simply be pro-White because they are pro-White?

  169. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 21, 2012 - 8:49 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: This would be a more fitting target for Vienneau:
    http://ead.univ-angers.fr/~granem08/IMG/pdf/DT-GRANEM-09-34.pdf

  170. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 21, 2012 - 9:55 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    This thread should suffice to show there are still believers in metaphysical economics.

  171. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 21, 2012 - 10:28 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Interesting material here on Austrian metaphysics. Click on http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm

  172. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 5:11 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Care to explain how you would create an aggregate of consumer prices or producer prices without pure arbitrariness?

  173. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 5:28 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Straight away the précis lurches into mis-characterization. Austrians reject the methodology of the natural sciences – empiricism – but not logic, nor theory. The human sphere is absent of all the prerequisites for the empirical method – too many variables, too few constants, no reproducibility, etc.

    It’s amusing to see appeals to authority on this website, of all places. I imagine that because the MacDonalds of this world are rare and shunned by academe means they’re wrong.

  174. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 6:25 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: From your critique:
    “With so many counter-forces and trends, why should these statistics be accepted as meaningful? [so query the Austrians]
    A good analogy is the study of gases…”

    No, humans don’t behave like gases, but let’s not worry about reality, we want to mathematize them, and so need their behaviour to conform to our (natural science) models.

    I guess saying I like my wife 2.8887 times my sport car makes me more accurate.☺

  175. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 22, 2012 - 1:08 pm | Permalink

    It’s amusing to see the hostility to empiricism on this website of all places.

    Austrian metaphysics dismantled yet again. ;-)
    Click on http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

  176. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 22, 2012 - 3:49 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: It’s a little difficult to see, sir, why you are so heartily defending the economic theory that has been regnant throughout the Western world since prior to World War II, is thus implicated in the West’s ongoing economic and monetary near-collapse, and is furthermore the Tribe’s chosen vehicle for our economic, indeed overall, subjugation to it. Shouldn’t it be 100 percent suspect for these reasons alone? The Tribe’s open hate for Austrian economics—despite the fact that most of its principal progenitors were themselves Jewish—is also most revealing. (As a Catholic, I myself have no use for Mises’s unconcealed hostility toward Catholicism nor for Rothbard’s never retracted defense of abortion on demand, but I have yet to be shown how these, I freely grant, nonincidental positions have any impact on their economic analyses.)

    May I suggest, too, that empiricism, as with any other ism, should never be ipso facto expected to generate applause. Outside its proper sphere, which is the natural sciences,

    empiricism:positivism::being open-minded:having a hole in the head

    i.e., it is frequently no better than a polite name for a terminally disabling condition.

  177. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 22, 2012 - 3:52 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:

    I apologize for failing to close the italic code.

    … that empiricism, as with any other ism, should never be ipso facto expected to generate applause. Outside its proper sphere, which is the natural sciences,

    empiricism:positivism::being open-minded:having a hole in the head

    i.e., it is frequently no better than a polite name for a terminally disabling condition.

  178. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 22, 2012 - 8:17 pm | Permalink

    “As a Catholic, I myself have no use for Mises’s unconcealed hostility toward Catholicism nor for Rothbard’s never retracted defense of abortion on demand, but I have yet to be shown how these, I freely grant, nonincidental positions have any impact on their economic analyses.”

    Exactly. The problem is with the metaphysicians’ hostility toward empirical reality. By the way, for the take of another Jew throwing in his two cents worth, click on http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/12/the_hangover_theory.html

  179. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 8:28 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Still waiting for your concrete attempt to synthesize a price index, and explain your logic in so doing…

    Could it be that you don’t know how?

  180. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 8:42 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Caplan is a serious interlocutor, one who has actually read the material. That alone sets him aside from the dilettanti.

    Still, he’s wrong on the whole indifference argument.
    http://direct.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_1.pdf

  181. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 9:00 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: Let’s assume that markets are perfectly competitive, that humans react only to economic incentives, that prices series are continuous, that a product is homogeneous, that information is perfectly evenly distributed, that there are no transaction costs…

    Neoclassicism is a world of fairy-story premises, dreamed up so calculus can be used. Austrian: I bought boysenberry ice-cream, so it must mean I preferred it to macadamia ice-cream that I didn’t buy.

    Neoclassicals: I bought boysenberry because I preferred it 2.346 times to macadamia.

    Which of the two is incontrovertible? Which is the realist position?

  182. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 9:13 pm | Permalink

    Realism à la Keynes: Bomb all the industrial plants in Texas. Rebuild the capital structure from scratch. GDP rises (activity!), therefore economic growth ensues. To become even wealthier, repeat the process across the entire country.

    Realism à la Bernanke: Print little bits of green paper. Not too little and not too much. Rely on my inner voice to hit the perfect figure. Can’t explain it, but friend Greenspan used to get his inspiration in a warm bath, listening to jazz. Billie Holiday was one he swore by.

  183. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 9:25 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Economic science is prediction, according to the prevailing positivist paradigm. So where will the S&P500 be at this time next year?

  184. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 22, 2012 - 9:56 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant: No argument. I put my own comment poorly, in that I failed to make clear that many charges of anti-empiricism I’ve seen directed against Austrians confuse positivism with empiricism. I ought simply to have said so and left it at that. Sorry to add to the confusion.

    I’m a vanilla man, actually.

  185. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 10:18 pm | Permalink

    “there are no constant relationships between human action and the conditions of action that could be described by stochastic laws. In short, there are no stochastic laws governing human behavior. No human being can therefore base all of his decisionmaking on probabilistic insights. Ex post he can classify past events in stochastic models, but these models cannot solve the main problem of his decision-making, which is to anticipate a unique constellation of the future. Hence, such modeling is also irrelevant for the scientific explanation of human action.”

    Hülsmann, on real humans, not the robots of neoclassical economics.

  186. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 22, 2012 - 10:37 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    “So where will the S&P500 be at this time next year?

    You should be able to divine that with your metaphysics. Could it be you don’t know?

  187. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 10:39 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: A plain vanilla guy, ice-cream included, I dare say.

  188. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 10:40 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: No, I’m not ashamed to say I don’t know, nor will my economic theory give me an answer. And yours?

  189. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 10:42 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Still waiting for your index.

  190. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 10:53 pm | Permalink

    “Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have ‘assumptions’ that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions”

    Friedman. Down the Rabbit Hole we go.

  191. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 22, 2012 - 10:58 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Maybe you can email Mike Huben and ask him for an S&P500 price one year hence if he’s so smart, or you can’t come up with the goods.

  192. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 22, 2012 - 11:00 pm | Permalink

    “Still waiting for your index.”

    I don’t have one. I’ll take a look at what your metaphysics indicates.

  193. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 22, 2012 - 11:03 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow:

    I don’t have one. I’ll take a look at what your metaphysics indicates. Could it be that you don’t have one?

  194. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 22, 2012 - 11:05 pm | Permalink

    Sorry about the duplicate post.

  195. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 22, 2012 - 11:07 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Maybe you can email your cult leader since you can’t come up with the goods.

  196. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 23, 2012 - 1:38 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: I don’t have to. I’m not touting a economic that promises that. You are.

  197. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 23, 2012 - 1:39 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant: “an economic theory” : erratum corrige.

  198. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 23, 2012 - 12:38 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant: @Trenchant:

    So much for metaphysics.

  199. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 23, 2012 - 1:04 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    I met a guy who teaches meteorological science and can predict just how hot it will get a year from today. ;-)

  200. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 23, 2012 - 6:44 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: You are not a serious interlocutor. Sloganeering doesn’t hide your lack of understand the methodology for which you barrack, much less that of its rivals.

  201. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 23, 2012 - 7:59 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    You’re projecting.

  202. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 23, 2012 - 11:15 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Pop psychoanalysis?

  203. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 23, 2012 - 11:46 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Pop metaphysics?

  204. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 24, 2012 - 8:41 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant: Apropos extreme lack of seriousness, confusion of empiricism and positivism, and a terminal case of sophomoric Making-All-Things-New-in-Moi, read John Derbyshire on Hoppe from VDARE today.

    What the otherwise very astute Edmund Connelly, inter multa alia, sees in the guy beats the hell out of me.

  205. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 24, 2012 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:

    Apropos extreme confusion, read your earlier posts on Jews.

  206. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 24, 2012 - 12:29 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: http://is.gd/fhArmG

    If he’d actually spared the time to read the very brief paper above, he would have realized that the empirical approach is fine for economic history, but not for theory. Mind you, even a moment’s consideration would tell him that if there were any way to accurately model human behaviour, Wall St. would be bereft of fund managers. All purportedly predictive systems are backward looking, as the 1987, LTCM, Nasdaq, 2007 real estate/derivatives debacle, show.

    Rockwell joining La Raza was pretty well spot on, I must say.

  207. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 24, 2012 - 12:32 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: You call that an informative comment? Please stop expecting others to do your thinking for you.

  208. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 24, 2012 - 12:38 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Rockwell joining La Raza was pretty well spot on, I must say.

    Damn straight. I’ve frequently complained of the same thing.

    Still, (1) one swallow doesn’t a summer make, and rather more apropos, (2) it’s an easy target, and I can’t help thinking that in part Derb’s point in bringing it up is to associate Hoppe with LR/La Raza and thereby cut Hoppe down to size—his (i.e., Derb’s) size.

  209. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 24, 2012 - 12:48 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:

    You can’t even think for yourself. Go read your Bible.

  210. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 24, 2012 - 12:51 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Metaphysics is just a way of dodging.

  211. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 24, 2012 - 1:07 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    “2007 real estate/derivatives debacle”

    That was one of the easiest predictions of all time. You weren’t paying attention. Real estate prices had deviated far from their 100-year trend line with no good explanation, and prices were rising much faster than rents. I knew what would happen when the bottom fell out and the wealth effect kicked in. Look back at old articles by Robert Schiller, Dean Baker, and others.

  212. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 24, 2012 - 1:09 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow:
    @Hedgerow:

    Thanks for these most revealing comments. They will doubtless win you several attaboys from your fellow Bud-quaffers.

  213. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 24, 2012 - 1:10 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow:

    Make that “Shiller.”

  214. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 24, 2012 - 1:20 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:

    Set down your Bible, and read your earlier posts.

    In essence:

    Jews who agree with me = good, no ulterior motives.
    Jews who disagree with me = bad, sinister motives.

    And no further explanation required.

  215. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 24, 2012 - 2:55 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: So you read comments through a haze of Bud fumes, do you?

  216. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 24, 2012 - 3:30 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:

    You apparently write them swilling Christian Brothers. ;-)

  217. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 24, 2012 - 9:09 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Remember what you’re supposed to be defending, your neoclassical paradigm. Markets are efficient, so bubbles cannot develop (see Greenspan, etc.).

    Obviously you, Shiller and others could see a mispricing (what happened to your EMH?), but the majority (ie. the market) couldn’t, otherwise prices would have already reflected that. And it’s not as though other players didn’t have the same historical information (price series for 100 years of rents, real estate prices).

  218. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 25, 2012 - 12:01 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    You are attributing to me positions I do not hold. And the issue is why so many economists missed the obvious. That is now the subject of debate. Was it incompetence, bad faith, or both? And if it was bad faith, what was the motive? One thing to keep in mind is that no other social science is as closely tied to the economic elite as is economics.

  219. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 25, 2012 - 3:02 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: No, you have been championing the empiricist-positivist position, as opposed to an a priori-deductive approach to economics.

  220. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 25, 2012 - 3:42 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Yes, empiricist. You are a metaphysician.

  221. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 25, 2012 - 3:46 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    “2007 real estate/derivatives debacle”

    How could you possibly miss it?

  222. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 25, 2012 - 5:54 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow:My comments refer only to economic theory, not whether I forecast the meltdown or otherwise. As you say, only a dolt would have missed it.

  223. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 25, 2012 - 10:41 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Provide specifications for your idiotic charge, Bud-head. I won’t add “or shut up,” because you have demonstrated that you lack the metamuscular coordination to do so.

  224. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 25, 2012 - 12:02 pm | Permalink

    The empiricist who confuses punting (probabilistic calculation based on historic performance) with theory. The theory of gut feel.

  225. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 25, 2012 - 12:25 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:

    You just proved my point.

  226. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 25, 2012 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    You need to get a new theory.

  227. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    September 25, 2012 - 2:55 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow:

    You just proved my point.

    What I “proved” is simply that you are all mouth. You are a fraud, a slanderer, and a liar. And as your persistent, willful refusal to heed the facts and evidence in Trenchant’s arguments and links have (without his intending to do so) demonstrated, you are a fool, too. I leave you to play with your soulmates, mark and Z.O.G.

  228. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 25, 2012 - 8:02 pm | Permalink

    I’ve studied the form guide. I know the track. Met some jockeys. Had some wins. Got a calculator.

    I now have a universal (non case-specific) theory of thoroughbred racing.

    No, I’m perfectly serious.

  229. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 25, 2012 - 8:20 pm | Permalink

    My revolutionary work will transform racetrack betting from an art to a science.

  230. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 25, 2012 - 9:52 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:

    Lighten up on the Christian Brothers, maggot.

  231. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 25, 2012 - 9:57 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    If the track were wet, you would miss it.

    “2007 real estate/derivatives debacle”
    Again, how could you possibly miss it?

  232. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 26, 2012 - 3:02 am | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: My theory includes empirical elements such as weather (only historic weather patterns extrapolated so far, but I’m working on something that will encompass its future behaviour, too). Exciting times for quants.

  233. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 26, 2012 - 1:19 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    If the horse becomes lame, its prospects are poor — not a good bet regardless of your metaphysics.

    “2007 real estate/derivatives debacle”
    Again, how could you possibly miss it?

  234. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 26, 2012 - 7:28 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: How did the neoclassical models fail to anticipate 2007 when it was obvious to mug punters?

  235. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 26, 2012 - 9:29 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Ask a neoclassical economist or a Keynesian one who missed it — bad faith maybe. Was it incompetence? You would be in a better position to answer that. How could you possibly miss it?

  236. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 26, 2012 - 10:00 pm | Permalink

    Some of those who warned of the developing crisis: Dean Baker, Stephen Roach, John Cassidy, Robert Shiller, Kevin Phillips, Business Week, The Economist.

  237. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 26, 2012 - 11:48 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: Good punters exist, of that I have no doubt. Nothing to do with any theory, though.

  238. Hedgerow's Gravatar Hedgerow
    September 27, 2012 - 12:56 pm | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    You need a new theory.

    As economist Dean Baker pointed out, anyone with that occupation who missed the largest asset bubble in world history should look for another line of work — can’t argue with that.

  239. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    September 27, 2012 - 7:36 pm | Permalink

    @Hedgerow: What theory?

1 Trackback to "The High-Mindedness of the British: New Zealand and the United States"

  1. on September 20, 2012 at 2:31 am

Comments are closed.