|
|
|
The Bear’s Lair: Washing their hands in bubbles Some grim predictions for the American, Chinese and British economies by Martin Hutchinson, in his latest piece at Prudent Bear. The Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the People’s Bank of China have this week all been faced with the same unpleasant reality: by their irresponsible monetary policies they have enabled gigantic asset bubbles that are redistributing wealth towards the criminal classes and in the long run will impoverish everybody else. Their reaction has been similar; to a large extent they have washed their hands of the problem. The Bank of England’s response was most rational; it put up interest rates, though only by ¼%, far less than is required to right the foundering ship of Britain’s economy. The People’s Bank of China at least deplored the bubble, though it failed to recognize to what extent its irresponsible monetary policies and suppression of the yuan’s exchange rate had fueled it – but then after all, these people are nominally Communists; one cannot expect them to get it right every time when they are shown so many bad examples from abroad. The Fed on the other hand kept interest rates flat, as it has since last June, while easing its anti-inflationary language slightly – thus essentially acting as enabler to the Wall Street speculators, who had by Friday convinced themselves yet again that interest rates were about to drop. All three countries have similar problems. In Britain, housing prices around London have soared far beyond the range of average or even affluent Britons. This isn’t just a question of monetary policy, which has been over-expansive but not excessively so. More important has been the increasing dichotomy between foreigners, who are not taxed on their “worldwide income” and Britons who are. This has caused an enormous influx of wealthy rootless cosmopolitans to settle in London, where the great majority of their income is tax free, either because it involves one or other illicit activity abroad or because, in the financial services business, good lawyers can structure their clients’ activities and remuneration optimally. Since taxes on the average Briton have at the same time risen inexorably, as has government spending, the result has become a two-tier society, in which untaxed foreigners occupy the real estate that Britons who did not inherit it have no hope of owning. There isn’t a good solution to this problem. Imposing British tax on foreigners, while unquestionably equitable and enabling some of the groaning burden on British taxpayers to be lifted, would almost certainly cause the financial business of the City of London to decamp elsewhere. The most probable destination would be Dublin, a master manipulator of its tax system, which is also facing a real estate meltdown and probable economic recession, and whose desire to gain business at the expense of Britain is second only to France’s. Prior to the economically suicidal Financial Services Act of 1986, the financial services business was rooted to London by the British nationality of the major houses’ top management and shareholders. However in a world where the merchant banks have been liquidated, and the business is controlled from Frankfurt, New York or the Cayman Islands, there is no such attachment. Thus the Hobson’s choice now faced by any British government of whatever political color: the financial services businesses that appear to produce so much wealth will only remain in London if their mostly foreign managers are exempted from the taxes that normal Britons must pay. Such is the penalty for ill-considered legislation. The problem is soluble only after a major financial crash, which will bankrupt many of the foreigners, devastate the London housing market and sharply reduce the importance and profitability of the financial services business. But that is not a fate to be wished on any country, however inevitable it may in the long run be. China looks like the country with no problems; its last real recession was probably the hyperinflationary recession of 1948-49, as Mao Ze-dong consolidated power. The Chinese stock market is up 50% this year, after a rise of 130% last year, and is now selling on a P/E ratio of 45, while 1 million new brokerage accounts are being opened each week. Given that the Chinese banking system pays 2% on deposits at a time when true inflation is around 6%, and that it is still illegal for Chinese individuals to invest abroad, this exuberance is not surprising. Certainly Zhou Xiao-chun, Governor of the People’s Bank of China can do no more than wring his hands. Any attempt to raise deposit rates to a more appropriate 6-7%, or lending rates up to a more appropriate 11-12%, would push the Chinese banking system into cataclysmic meltdown, since its bad debts almost certainly exceed $1 trillion. Even in China, that represents 40% of Gross Domestic Product, an amount that could with difficulty be financed but that would be hugely economically damaging until it had been safely funded with foreign debt. There would appear to be very little hope of the Chinese middle class keeping their savings secure from a combination of a stock market crash and a banking system meltdown. Further, the uncovering of losses in Chinese state owned companies, and the new paradigm of resources at least for a few years being tight in China will cause huge unemployment at the state controlled behemoths that have been propped up by the banks, together with a major downturn in the Chinese urban real estate markets that have been so forth in the last few years. About the only consolation for the Chinese people will be that they will be joined in their losses by the half-witted foreigners who invested frenziedly in the Initial Public Offerings of the now-bankrupt Chinese banking sector. Misery, after all, likes company. In the United States, the Fed’s initial decision last August to hold rates at 5¼% was plausible. The stock market had hiccupped in May and it could be argued that the U.S. economy needed time to catch up with rate increases already enacted and begin slowing inflation. However the stock market is up 15% since that initial decision and inflation is trending inexorably upwards, at 4% on the latest quarterly GDP deflator figure. Thus it has become clear that the current rate level has no inflation-suppressing effect. Meanwhile, in the financial markets confidence is not absent but grossly excessive, as fringe operator after fringe operator launches billion dollar buyout attempts. Of the three economies, the United States probably has the grimmest next few years. Britain will do fine for those not involved in financial services or exposed to the London real estate market. China has cost advantages that are not going away, as more and more of its rural young migrate to the cities and enter the market economy. China’s downturn will be even more cushioned if the recent extension of private property rights to the rural poor proves effective, enabling the peasant masses to raise minimal capital and either start small businesses or re-deploy to the cities. In the long run, China will be a highly successful economy unless the government prevents it; the occurrence of a few financial crises and disasters along the way does not change this prospect. For the United States, the reality is a darker one. Too much U.S. manufacturing capability has been redeployed to the Third World. Too much U.S. wealth has been squandered in speculation and overpriced real estate. Too much low quality immigration has taken place, undermining the living standards of the low-skill domestic workforce. An economic downturn will produce a Manichean struggle for the remaining resources, as occurred during the 1930s. In an era when protectionist sentiment is already rising, this is more than likely to produce a wrenching reorientation of U.S. society away from free trade and the free market and towards some kind of impoverished big-government socialism. Thus burdened, U.S. business will find it very difficult indeed to climb out of recession and resume the process of improving living standards. U.S. commentators have since 1990 sneered at Japan, which found itself mired in stagnation for a decade and a half. However the future for the United States is likely to be more painful, as stock and real estate excesses must be worked off simultaneously at a time when the federal budget is under strain due to the retirement of the baby-boomers. This is however appropriate; it is the United States, through the Federal Reserve system that has since 1995 indulged in an orgy of irresponsible money creation that has fueled a decade of worldwide over-consumption. The Fed has been blamed for the onset of the Great Depression; that verdict is a little harsh but its responsibility for the unpleasantnesses ahead is unequivocal. Finally, by referring in the first paragraph to the “criminal classes” I am not implying that these financial bubbles benefit only the Russian mafia; far from it. I am simply anticipating by a few years the verdicts of the US and EU judicial systems. In a world where former Enron Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling gets a 25 year jail sentence, can anyone doubt that when the downturn finally comes a selection of currently highly regarded hedge fund managers, private equity find managers and investment bankers will find themselves facing several decades behind bars? They will be unlucky, just as was Skilling, that their particular organization suffered the spectacular bankruptcy that caused the random wheels of US or EU justice to grind into action. However the reality today, before the crash, is that there is no way of telling which of the moguls will be indicted and which will survive to endow major charitable foundations. Such is the lottery of a market bubble. Martin Hutchinson is the author of “Great Conservatives” (Academica Press, 2005) - details can be found here. Comments:2
Posted by Maguire on Wed, 16 May 2007 07:30 | # “this is more than likely to produce a wrenching reorientation of U.S. society away from free trade and the free market and towards some kind of impoverished big-government socialism.” Or a political break-up of the USA similar to the collapse of the USSR in 1991. The USA now is far more racially and ethnically “diverse”, unlike the greater homogeneity prevailing during the 1930s “Great Depression”. See the recent WSJ thread highlighted by James Bowery, and the racial census graphics posted by GT in that thread. These show the major emerging fault lines. There is a growing overhead of “issues” coming together that insistently point towards ‘Divorce’ as the only solution. “an enormous influx of wealthy rootless cosmopolitans to settle” New York City, Washington, Miami, parts of Los Angeles and San Francisco are other favored international flyway watering holes for these ‘rootless cosmopolitans’, who are only upper scum floating on the New World Order’s international cash flows. And also Jerusalem if the rootless cosmopolitan concerned has the right ancestry. The question is not whether an international congregation of parasites can sustain a viable civilization. The question is how the natives survive the Fall and Crash. 3
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Wed, 16 May 2007 13:27 | # Some words spent covering over the fundamental problem. Throw the non-white foeriegners out. Either we do this or we are dead. Every issue discussed here or at other pro-white web sites revolves around the race replacement of European peoples in Europa and America. What the fuck else is there to talk about? I think everyone hear understands this obvious point. But it does need to pointed out more often 4
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Wed, 16 May 2007 13:41 | # How can having too much money (which appears to be the predicament in China bemoaned by the author of this piece), ever be considereda problem? 5
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Wed, 16 May 2007 13:57 | # Allowing Bill Gates having too much money is a very serious problem for the majority White American. population His billions has allowed him to become a demigod in America and on this planet. That is to say, Bill Gaes has the power of life and death over millions of White Americans. Did you ever see Bill Clinton palying golf with a White factory worker? He did play golf quite a few times with Bill Gates. Fuck Capitalism. Bill Gates. He can still live quite confotably with twenty million. His billions serve no other purpose than to control the lives and fate of millions of ordinary White Americans. 6
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 16 May 2007 14:59 | # I heard the other day that Bloomberg was considering entering the presidential race and spending a billion dollars of his own money on television advertisements. McCain, Guiliani, and Romney are all multimillionaires. 7
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 16 May 2007 15:09 | # So, in the near term, do you see significant inflation in the US? 8
Posted by Mark on Wed, 16 May 2007 15:18 | # The descendants of those Scandinavian immigrants are the ones creating and defending the massive welfare state that attracts destitute immigrants. These whites will gladly imprison or kill you if you refuse to support the welfare state. I would remove native-born blacks from the country before any others. 9
Posted by NEC Watch on Wed, 16 May 2007 15:34 | # “I know immigrants who look down on whites because of whites love of taxation and poor work ethic (at least compared to the successful immigrants I know).” Uh huh. Are these same “hard working immigrants” willing to acknowledge ethnic nepotistic networks, favoritism shown to them both privately (white elders who engage in psychosexual/economic warfare against younger white males by encouraging blatantly unfair “immigrant” competition) and publicly (business grants for the “socially disadvantaged”)? Will these “hard working immigrants” eschew collectivism when this collectivism is of an ethnic nature of benefit to them, or is “individualism” only the prescription to whites? Is it possible that whites’ “work ethic” has been eroded seeing how their jobs are outsourced (by corporations originally built by whites’ “work ethic”) and “hard working immigrants” insourced merely because they are cheaper and viewed as more pliable by business owners? Is it possible that seeing their nation taken from them, and being dispossesed of everything they hold dear by these “hard working immigrants”, may also erode their “work ethic?” “Your enemies are collectivists, not all immigrants.” Does the collectivist/individualist continuum represent ultimate interests, or are all these “hard working immigrants”, representing endless numbers of lost “child equivalents” for whites, the real problem? 10
Posted by NEC Watch on Wed, 16 May 2007 16:01 | # “A certain kind of collectivism is the problem as it is antithetical to evolutionary progress (for you evolutionists) and against biblical principles (for us Bible believers and Gary North fans). “ What is this “certain kind” of collectivism to which you refer? Hopefully not the kind that KMacD speculates that Whites may need to turn to, as described in the last chapter of “Culture of Critique.” By the way, an “evolutionist” wouldn’t use the word “progress” to describe the outcome of natural selection processes. “Adaptiveness” yes, “progress”, no. Collectivism is certainly not incompatible with adaptiveness and is in fact not incompatible with certain levels of competition - and is in fact, in some case and to some extents, required for successful group competition. In what way are “biblical principles” opposed to collectivism? Certainly the Old Testament cannot be against ethnic collectivism; indeed, the entire story there is an example of a collectivist ethnocentric people vs. others. The New Testament may not encourage ethnic collectivism, but is it inconsistent with Christian communalism? In any case, this “evolutionist” is uninterested in “the Bible”...... 11
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 16 May 2007 16:07 | # July 16: Hyperinflation within a year? wherein I proposed it is quite reasonable to expect to see the first signs of hyperinflation within a year due to the in-rushing of dollars no longer considered the world’s reserve currency. My follow up posts provide further support for the general trend. I suspect when July rolls around the real question is whether we’re merely seeing another ‘70s style stagflation or whether, as I originally predicted, the changes of the last 30 years will render another Volker-style interest spike a non-viable solution to the apparently “70s style stagflation”. The closest I’ve seen Hutchinson come to grappling with the depth of those changes is this current article when he points out:
I suspect he’d now agree that hyperinflation is more obviously a potential for the US but that the first “signs” of it will take longer to appear than I had predicted. I suspect come July the issue will be down to what the “signs” to look for are more than anything else. In that regard, the closest Hutchinson came to directly discussing the criteria for a hyperinflationary “sign” is his statement:
Yes, Martin. And I would still submit, as I did last July, that raising interest rates in an Volker-style containment of stagflation isn’t an option in an economy where white “middle class” people are placing their rent and food on their flexible-interest rate credit cards because minority groups control the social services and immigrants have lowered their wages and job stability. If they try that they will have a revolution—violent revolution—and well they know it. 12
Posted by torgrim on Wed, 16 May 2007 17:23 | # “The decendants of those Scandinavian immigrants are the ones creating and defending the massive welfare state that attracts destitute immigrants.” Surely as in Scandinavia proper, the collectivist hive mentality is well rooted in Minnesota, Wisconsin with Minneapolis as hive central. The welfare state promoters never mention the *other* Scandinavians, the decendants of those that actually created communities in the northern prairie before the advent of the internal combustion engine. We are still here. A good example of the rootlessness and alienation is a “fictional” work by Edward Abbey, in his work the “Monkey Wrench Gang”. Here the anti hero, so to speak, is a Vietnam Veteran, “Hayduke”, when asked, “where he was from”...he said, ” from here, there and nowhere”....An example, of the plight of the dispossed. 13
Posted by Mark on Wed, 16 May 2007 17:23 | # I hope for a revolution, but I just don’t see Joe Six Pack getting off the sofa even when Hillary wins in 2008 and the reverse discrimination starts in earnest. I predict a deflationary depression, but one must realize there are too many supporters of big government who won’t hesitate to hurt anyone opposed to them. An economic collapse is our only hope, ironically. Otherwise, the police state increases. 14
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Wed, 16 May 2007 17:53 | # Things will change when a critical number Whites realize they have no future in diverse America. When this happens there will be no reason to even give even a minimal amount of loyalty to the Republican-Democratic bipartisan consensus. To be more concrete: when a critical number of White Americans can not advance beyond ten dollar an hour jobs. These are the kind of jobs that make it impossible to find a spouse and start a family. Combine this with a growing popualtion of arrogant hindus living the American dream…. The situation will become very volatile. Whites will be very intolerant of asians.There will be massive resentment towards asians. White America is surviving on fumes. The hatred is just below the surface. 9/11 uncorked uncorked it briefly. That is a fact. 15
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 16 May 2007 18:43 | # Americans no longer values thrift, economy or frugality as virtue. Don’t get the cart before the horse. It was the destruction of the affordability of family formation that created the circumstances within which thrift, economy or frugality became less valued as a virtue. If you have no future, why invest in the future? Make no mistake, the vicious mendacity of our enemies would like to portray the demographic collapse during the loss of boomer fertility as the fault of that generation—because then race replacement is virtuous. 17
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 16 May 2007 19:27 | # So, Daniel—you like to point to the moral depravity of whoever. How did this moral depravity come about in your opinion? And don’t give me “Turning away from God” or some other mystical begging of the question… 18
Posted by Ernest on Wed, 16 May 2007 20:07 | # “To be more concrete: when a critical number of White Americans can not advance beyond ten dollar an hour jobs. These are the kind of jobs that make it impossible to find a spouse and start a family.” That or when a $75,000 a year job is a losing proposition. When “secure” retirements are no longer secure and $500,000 houses are not the norm that will get people to asking questions and looking for “alternative” answers. Latest count of major US mortgage lenders that have croaked since late 2006: 66 lenders have now gone kaput 19
Posted by second class citizen on Wed, 16 May 2007 20:17 | # It is interesting that this article states the fact that these bubbles are dependent on widespread immigration. Property development is a huge business, and the one way you can insure constant growth in property is to increase scarcity. Children are far too slow a return on investment - they only buy houses 20 years down the track. To get your 10% return next year you have to increase the population by 10% with adult immigrants. I wonder if part of the reason for the immigration (aside from our Talmudist friends) is that the baby boom of 1945+ created a property boom in 1970+ and a class of property developers that required return on equity and the dollars to lobby for it. And since the baby boom was lulled into not procreating itself, that growth had to come from immigrants. Of course, the underlying enabling of this growth as JB alluded to in another thread is our oil fed lifestyle and agriculture practices. And that is what the US dollar rests on - oil. As long as no one is willing to challenge the US military over it, or can make oil redundant through alternate energy (e.g. Nuclear + battery powered cars, tractors et al). As long as the only way to buy that oil is through a dollar bill stamped with an all-seeing eye, the US dollar will have value even if the dollar denominated debt far exceeds the amount of dollars in circulation. The largest blue-water navy in the world, by far, secures that. As Bowery says, I think the only option for the Fed is gentle stagflation. Which probably means New Deal style government borrowing and programs, to create the dollars if no one else will borrow. More wars, likely, since that’s probably the easiest way to convince the public that mass borrowing is necessary. 20
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 16 May 2007 20:33 | # most of our white brethren were acting in a manner not in accord with “evolutionary fitness” for their particular environment - that of the impending decline of American and Dollar hegemony. How can you call the recent environment “particular” rather than “pathological”? Did GOD hand down this “environment” on a platter or something? Do you really think this “environment” is the “environment” that would have been engineered if the people that brought the land to carrying capacity had had much of a say? If so, then you are the enemy, sir. Call that a “tantrum” if you like and those of us whose fathers built the carrying capacity of this nation will shed no tears for you when that carrying capacity is shut off at the root. 21
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 16 May 2007 20:34 | # Your enemies are collectivists, not all immigrants. Funny—no one has ever been able to explain what a “collectivist” is in any objective sense. As far as I can tell, it’s just the term for “heretic” preferred by members of the Jewish “libertarian” cult. Like “racism”, “collectivism” has no place in serious discourse. 23
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 16 May 2007 20:39 | # 92% of Americans are religious (Froese, 2002). How are atheists responsible for the materialism of American Christians? 24
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 16 May 2007 20:53 | # Fade, atomists would agree with you, but my point is that “collectivism” is posited as an ideology, i.e., a set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system—and it is an ideology that, as far as I can tell, has no doctrines or adherents. It’s the atomists’ bogeyman. 25
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 16 May 2007 21:32 | # I was responding to daniel j. “Collectivism” is the major boogeyman of libertarians and objectivists like Ayn Rand. I’m not aware of many people who define themselves as “collectivists,” ideologically speaking. I would grant that “collectivism” does exist as an unarticulated ideal presupposed by many ideologies (i.e., the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, man is a social being). Personally, I would place restrictions on individual liberty to promote the general welfare in all sorts of cases. Compulsory vaccination against infectious diseases would be one example. 26
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 16 May 2007 21:34 | #
Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism The heretical apostasies, of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church, grew right out of the Jewish holocaust, led by the Righteous Gentile Roncalli, John Paul II and now Ratzenberger. From Nostra Ætate[1]:
But, of course, the rejection of the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. etc. does follow from the scriptures, at least according to pre-VII Catholics. Matthew 10:33- “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.”
27
Posted by Matra on Wed, 16 May 2007 21:49 | # 92% of Americans are religious More like 92% of Americans say they are religious. There have been many polls throughout the last 40 years asking North Americans if they attend church on a weekly basis. Usually around 40% in the US give an affirmative answer - 20% in Canada. However more recent studies have found that the real number in both countries is approximately half that as a lot of people who claim to attend do not do so. If 92% were religious I find it hard to believe the US would produce so much of the sewage it calls entertainment even with Jews at the helm of the industry. 28
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 16 May 2007 22:25 | # I sympathise with daniel j’s “i dont really care” sentiment because if the White race is unable to survive I dont really care what happens to the planet. 29
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Wed, 16 May 2007 22:29 | # I agree AL Ross. I have no interest in saving mountain lions ,black bears,elk and moose for the offspring of the predatory hindu legal immigrant. 30
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 16 May 2007 22:33 | # KM, your ” I never notice these things, but am coming to” comment should really elicit a similar response to that of the inebriate Swedish missionary in the film, Zulu, who when (mistakenly) assuming that he would be allowed to lead the injured away from Rorke’s Drift, bellowed, “God loves a sinner cometh to His understanding”. 31
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 16 May 2007 23:00 | #
What is your objection to economic collectivism? Why shouldn’t our trade policies be skewed to benefit American citizens as opposed to foreigners?
Nothing does more to precipitate tyranny than extreme individualism.
I would hardly call the eradication of polio, measles, and smallpox worthless.
Liberalism is based on individualism, not collectivism. 32
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 16 May 2007 23:24 | #
Allow me to expand on my previous post: 6% of Americans do not believe in God (Norris and Inglehart, 2004). A 2004 BBC survey found that 9% of Americans do not believe in God. Rice (2003) found that 3.8% of Americans do not believe in God or “a spirit or life force.” Hout and Fischer (2002) found that 3% to 4.5% of Americans are atheists or agnostics. Froese (2001) found that 8% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Gallup and Lindsay (1999) found that 5% of Americans do not believe in God or a “Higher Power.” The United States is almost unique amongst Western nations in its religiosity. In fact, America is one of the most religious countries in the world, period. The only other Western country where God-belief is so widespread is Ireland. As for Canada, Canadians are more like Australians and Kiwis in their religious attitudes. About 20-25% of Canadians claim not to believe in God. I can cite specific numbers if you would like. The data comes from The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Here is some more information about religion in American life from Samuel P. Huntington’s Who Are We?:
If religion is so important in the U.S., why is materialism so widespread? Perhaps it has less to do with the 3% of Americans who claim to be atheists than with the glorification of the pursuit of material wealth by American Protestantism. 33
Posted by Matra on Wed, 16 May 2007 23:37 | # That means that if we had free trade but tightly controlled immigration, we would have a soiety in which Joe Sixpack still had a job, and could live decently It’s interesting that you don’t see a natural link between free trade and open borders. I don’t recall proponents of FT being so pro-foreign invasion in the late 80s and early 90s when I first started to take an interest in economics. Most FT conservatives I read back then did not appear to see the free flow of goods and human beings to be part of the same process. If FT just naturally leads to a more cosmopolitan outlook that devalues ethnicity and real nations it didn’t seem so obvious in the past before the globalisation process accelerated and the internet became available. Surely most economists in the past considered the movement of human beings to be very different from goods and capital flows? I wonder if the overrepresentation of libertarians on the internet is the main reason why most of us now just assume there’s an intimate link between FT and open borders. 34
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 16 May 2007 23:53 | #
That’s interesting. The high technology sector of the U.S. economy is subsidized by government contracts and NAS R&D. I don’t recall private entrepreneurs landing spacecraft on Titan or splitting the atom. The Soviet Union put the first satellite in orbit and launched the first man into space.
The problem at Jamestown was a chronic abundance of land and shortage of labor. Why labor for someone when you can wander off to the frontier and squat on the land of your choice? The colonists solved this dilemma by resorting to indentured servitude and importing African slaves. Jamestown became profitable once its settlers started using African labor to grow tobacco. DiLorenzo’s claim that free labor is superior to slave labor is ridiculous. Free labor New England was an impoverished backwater compared to the wealthier Crown colonies in the Caribbean.
Individualism and free market capitalism corrodes white ethnic solidarity. Just look at the United States, Great Britain, Canada, or Australia.
The annihilation of polio had nothing to do with the polio vaccine!
All versions of liberalism are based on individualism: classical liberalism, neoclassical liberalism, and reform liberalism. All take for granted that society is nothing more than an association of contracting sovereign individuals who exchange their primordial liberties for social rights. The critical point of difference between neoclassical and reform liberals is not collectivism, but whether government coercion or concentrated economic power is the greater menace to individual freedom. 35
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 00:16 | #
Who are the loudest cheerleaders for third world immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens? Answer: The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Mexican activist groups like MALDEF, the CATO Institute, and the Catholic Church. Give us your sick, your poor, your high school drop outs, your criminals, the scum of the earth, love thy neighbor . . . such sentiments reek of the degenerate philosophy of Jesus.
Many believe that shunning impoverished foreigners on their doorstep is incompatible with Christian compassion. Remember, the Jews were “strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Very few. Christianity is negatively correlated with education and intelligence.
It was the fanatical Protestant work ethic that built up our irrational, overproductive capitalist economy, and it is our irrational, overproductive capitalist economy that relies upon the advertising industry to brainwash Americans into becoming vapid consumers of all the junk it is constantly churning out.
The 3% of Americans who are atheists are not responsible for the materialism of the 80%+ of Americans who believe Christianity is extremely or fairly important in their lives. 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 17 May 2007 00:31 | # Congratulations on your first half-century, KM. 37
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 17 May 2007 01:43 | # Give us your sick, your poor, your high school drop outs, your criminals, the scum of the earth, love thy neighbor . . . such sentiments reek of the degenerate philosophy of Jesus. Except is was written by a Jew. 38
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 17 May 2007 01:50 | # Emma Lazarus’s tawdry verses should be excised from the Statue of Liberty as soon as can be conveniently managed. 39
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 17 May 2007 01:51 | # Perot predicted the job loss NAFTA would bring to the US, however, he stopped short with his analysis. As Mr. Bowery suggests US Agribusiness was front and center in the American land clearances in the Midwest, but NAFTA aided and abetted that industry in a similar phenomena in Mexico. NAFTA drove independent Mexican families from their lands because they could not compete. The result, a massive spike in illegal immigrants crossing the northern border. 40
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 17 May 2007 02:00 | # It was the fanatical Protestant work ethic that built up our irrational, overproductive capitalist economy… Possibly, but why? Wilson describes Calvinism as adaptive. In MacDonald’s terms it would be an evolutionary survival strategy. Why the break in societas christiana? Calvin’s conflict with Servetus provides a clue. This dog may not hunt but it smells very familiar.
41
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 02:06 | #
You claimed above that economic collectivism stiffles innovation. That simply isn’t true. As I pointed out above, government spending is precisely what drives the American high technology sector. As for the space program being a burden on the economy, where would the telecommunications industry be today without the commercial satellites we are constantly launching into orbit? The European aerospace industry also depends upon government subsidies.
Try reading an actual historian of Colonial America.
That’s not true. Indentured servitude and slavery solved Jamestown’s labor problem.
Most contemporary historians of the transatlantic slave trade would argue that slavery was necessary to colonize the New World.
National borders are a form of protectionism (which is why free market capitalism clashes with them).
That’s not collectivism. Collectivists believe that the group takes precedence over the individual. Liberals believe just the opposite.
Jesus spent his life preaching to the dregs of society. The Catholic Church and mainline Protestants are simply following in his footsteps.
How are they failing to understand Christianity? Christianity is a universalist religion that lionizes the scum of the earth. The church fathers glorified ignorance and poverty.
The welfare state was produced by mostly gentile reformers interested in ameliorating the most destructive effects of laissez-faire capitalism. The Jews are hardly responsible for American materialism. Yankees have always been notorious for their vulgar pursuit of material wealth. See the great European satires of the California Gold Rush. 42
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 02:08 | #
Who echoed the sentiments of Jesus. The Israelis certainly don’t believe in such nonsense. 43
Posted by Bo Sears on Thu, 17 May 2007 02:21 | # The Emma Lazarus “poem” is a left-wing racialist joke. The brass plate with the poem was never officially allowed. It was attached to the inside of the base of the Statue of Liberty by private persons. It has become a hymn sung by the no-borders crowd, however, and needs deconstructing and mocking. Here is how we did it, and I know this will not be well understood by most readers here. We just attack people who quote the poem for their anti-immigrant bigotry and mean-spirited labeling using “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse” as examples of severe hate speech. This is an example of an attack from the left by our letter writers and emailers, and it explicitly embarrasses those who quote the poem, and has resulted in a remarkable diminution in its use in Northern California. In fact we list “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse” in our list of slurs at: http://www.ResistingDefamation.org/sub/slurs9.htm We’ve rarely talked on this web site about attacking stuff from the left, but we do it often to embarrass people who wallow in sentimental stuff, having forgetten that times change and meanings change. At one time, perhaps “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse” were tear-jerkers, but nowadays they are in clear violation of left-wing racialist PC. There’s a lot of stuff like this. Our goal is to drive this plaque off the wall of the Statue of Liberty which was about friendship between the US and France, not some sloppy sentimental attachment to immigration. 44
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 02:21 | #
For theological reasons, originally. The early Protestants idolized labor and abhored idleness. To labor in the earth was to glorify god. The generation of wealth was looked upon favorably as a reward for virtue. This sort of irrational production for the sake of production generates enormous wealth over time. As capitalist economies mature, they need more and more markets to dump all the junk they produce. Eventually, the old Protestant virtues like saving and thrift get in the way of this, so an advertising industry develops to increase consumption by instilling new values in the population. There is nothing about contemporary American materialism which would have been out of place in nineteenth century America. 45
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 17 May 2007 02:40 | # It makes no sense. Why would a Jew echo Jesus? The Torah spews hatred of the Christ. Christianity was adaptive. The altruism of Christ or the Mendicant Friars in the Middle Ages furthered Christian/European genetic interests. Apparently the driving force for Luther was the indulgences and awarding titles in the Church in return for monetary contribution. England and France had expelled their Jews, however, Catholic Spain, now the center of the Catholic Church was heavily infiltrated with Conversos. And many of them held high positions in the Church. The tension in Spain, led to the Inquisition. Did it also drive Northern Europeans from the Church? 46
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 03:22 | #
My guess would be that Jews live within a Christian environment and frame their appeals in language that Christians can understand. For example, the ADL claims that it opposes defamation of all peoples, but cynically uses universalism to cloak Jewish ethnic interests. Appealing to Christian compassion for the stranger to justify Jewish immigration makes sense from a Jewish perspective. Jews are also very skilled at exploiting the language of liberalism to further their own interests.
I would argue that Christianity is a parasitic memeplex that infested and replicated in Europe to advance its own interests. Christianity is a universalist religion. Christ’s message was targeted at all peoples, not Europeans specifically. Whatever positive role Christian anti-semitism might have played in the Middle Ages, that is no longer the case today. The Catholic Church and mainline Protestant churches alike both strongly condemn racism and anti-semitism. Catholic bishops in the U.S. are amongst the strongest supporters of third world immigration.
Doubtful. The Jews of Spain and Portugal fled to the Netherlands (see Spinoza in the seventeenth century). The Jews were let back into Britain after Cromwell. Germany, Poland, and Russia harbored large Jewish communities well into the twentieth century. Jews have never been excluded from the United States, Canada, or Australia. Protestantism is more individualistic and philo-semitic than Catholicism in spite of Luther’s hostility to the Jews. Jews appear to thrive better in such environments than, say, Catholic Poland or Orthodox Russia. 47
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 17 May 2007 03:58 | # It’s interesting that you don’t see a natural link between free trade and open borders. I don’t recall proponents of FT being so pro-foreign invasion in the late 80s and early 90s when I first started to take an interest in economics. Most FT conservatives I read back then did not appear to see the free flow of goods and human beings to be part of the same process. It’s the difference between ingesting food and ingesting parasites. 48
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 17 May 2007 04:03 | # Wilson describes Calvinism as adaptive. In Genf, not in Britain. Christianity was adaptive. The altruism of Christ or the Mendicant Friars in the Middle Ages furthered Christian/European genetic interests. And then the Christian community began to atomize. See R.H. Tawney’s Religion and theRise of Capitalism. 49
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 17 May 2007 04:06 | # Lazurus was pursuing her group’s ethnic interests. Lazarus’ latent Judaism was awakened after reading the George Eliot novel, Daniel Deronda, and this was further strengthened by the Russian pogroms in the early 1880s. This led Lazarus to write articles on the subject and to begin translating the works of Jewish poets into English. When Eastern European Ashkenazi Jews, expelled in great numbers from the Russian Pale of Settlement began to appear in destitute multitudes in New York in the winter of 1882, Lazarus interested herself actively in providing technical education to make them self-supporting. She is known as an important forerunner of the Zionist movement. In fact, she argued for the creation of a Jewish homeland thirteen years before Herzl began to use the term Zionism.[3] “The Catholic Church and mainline Protestant churches alike both strongly condemn racism and anti-semitism. “ Yes, but only since WWII. The Vatican II pronouncement vis-a-vis the Jews is above and a more recent Baptist statement reads:
The Jews of Spain and Portugal fled to the Netherlands (see Spinoza in the seventeenth century). True, but only after the Inqusition and the Protestant Reformation. 50
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 17 May 2007 04:11 | #
The link refs KMac however, I can’t verify it. http://www.geocities.com/race_articles/macdonald_puritans.html 51
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 17 May 2007 04:33 | # Anti-Federalist James Winthrop, urged his fellow New Englanders not to ratify the Constitution, instead exhorting them to “keep their blood pure” as it was only “by keeping separate from the foreign mixtures” that they had “acquired their present greatness . . . [and] preserved their relig-ion and morals” (in Fischer 1989, 845). Puritans thought of them-selves as “a Chosen People”, presumably a product of their immersion in the Bible. Found the link. It is KMac. 52
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 04:42 | #
I’m not aware of the Catholic Church ever endorsing racialism. The Church is and always has been a multiracial organization dedicated to advancing its own interests. Protestant missionaries have been evangelizing the heathen in East Asia and Africa for well over a century now. Furthermore, the roots of anti-racism in the United States can be traced back to the abolitionist movement. Radical Christians like John G. Fee and William Lloyd Garrison were already advocating colorblindness in the nineteenth century. The disease spread from abolitionism to left progressivism and from there into the New Deal coalition.
The Protestant countries of Northern Europe haven’t exhibited much resistance to Jewish infection. All of this is interesting from a historical standpoint, but it is really irrelevant today. The Catholic Church and all mainline Protestant sects condemn racism and anti-semitism. Most Jews are also irreligious now. That wasn’t the case in the Middle Ages. Christianity is hardly an impermeable barrier to Jewish penetration. It is nothing a few meaningless words and a sprinkle of water can’t compromise. 53
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 17 May 2007 09:05 | # “wouldnt shut up about Communism” Yes, that’s typical. However, there is no real interest among Jews for another full-blown Revolution, certainly no love for the proletariat, only an abstract passion for the dialectical process which Jews apply skilfully to everything. 54
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 15:12 | #
Jewish political behavior in the United States is based on paranoia and hatred more than anything else. A few Jews here and there have realized that third world immigration is not in their interests. See Lawrence Auster. 55
Posted by NEC Watch on Thu, 17 May 2007 15:34 | # That’s a good essay, Daedalus. Did anyone catch “The Realist” saying on the Raymond thread that he feels “glee” at the idea of Irving and Zundel being jailed for their beliefs? Hey, they went against “the common wisdom” and you know you can’t do that. And, Daedalus of course makes the obvious point: if “anti-semitism” from, as Auster puts it, the “far-whites”, is the real reason for Jewish hostility and skepticism toward race realism, then why haven’t all the Jews flocked to the banner of “The Inverted World?” As far as I can see, even guys like Hart are not interested, and certainly I don’t think Foxman will be giving his stamp of approval any time soon. I just can’t quite understand why “The Realist” gets so worked up over this issue. As far as anyone knows, he has no Jewish ancestry himself, and yet, is really blasting away at Taylor over this, in a manner which smacks, in a real sense, of ingratitude. 56
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 15:57 | #
Russia and China were impoverished, rural, agricultural societies until well into the twentieth century. Government intervention in the private economy transformed them into modern states within a matter of a few decades. Russia now has one of the highest literacy rates in the world. Russian scientists and mathematicians made many important contributions during the twentieth century. China’s scientific output has been rising dramatically, but the problem there is primarily cultural, as it is in Japan; East Asians are much more deferential towards elders and superiors.
I’m quite familar with Calvinism. Predestination has not inhibited Protestants from evangelizing the heathen all across the world. The vast majority of blacks here in the United States are Protestants. There are strains of Protestantism that are racially exclusive, but this is generally not the case. Southern Baptists and Mormons have renounced racism. The Promise Keepers have multiracial congregations and stage sick displays of white guilt. Martin Luther King and Billy Graham were close allies. The former modeled his rallies and marches after the crusades of the latter. A strong argument can be made that anti-racism in America first arose amongst the Quakers.
You see, that’s the problem with Christianity. The true Christian believes that this world is merely a way station on the road to eternal bliss. As a Christian, I will assume you are also a mind/body dualist. You probably believe that you possess an immaterial soul that is distinct from your body. It is but a short step from this premise to the belief that all men are equal because they were made in the image of God and possess immaterial souls. All men are worthless sinners. As you say, we are all scum in God’s eyes. It is precisely this sort of universalism that corrodes racial consciousness and breaks down racial barriers.
I don’t feel any ethical obligations to my entire species. The fact that I am a human being is no more significant to me than the fact that I am a mammal. This is not to say that I advocate total war against nonwhites. I simply reject the discourse of human rights and the creationism it is based on.
If I may ask, as a Christian, how can you racially circumscribe your ethics?
Historians of the slave trade are hardly apologizing for it. They are simply pointing out that the economic circumstances of the New World (abundant land and chronic labor shortages) forced Europeans to rely upon forced labor to successfully plant colonies. DiLorenzo has argued in his various books and articles that free labor is superior to slave labor. That’s simply not true. The French and British slave colonies in the Caribbean produced far more wealth than free labor New England.
As a rightwing conservative, you have been indoctrinated into believing that government is your enemy and collectivism is evil. Wealthy conservatives who finance conservative propaganda hate government because they don’t want the masses to use government to redistribute their wealth more equitably. Otherwise, government is fine. These same people who decry government demand that we waste billions of dollars on military spending, spend billions of dollars every year on lobbyists to corrupt the political process, use government to force unjust trade policies on third world nations, use political leverage to promote regressive taxation, and depend upon government to bail out their unsound investments abroad in places like Mexico and Brazil.
There is something vulgar about chasing after material wealth beyond what is necessary to satsify one’s basic needs.
Sure it is. Capitalism is grossly wasteful and inefficient. It produces enormous amounts of junk beyond what is actually needed. What sense does it make for an American to import a tomato from Chile? Thanks to capitalism the oil reserves of our planet have been almost halfway exhausted in less than a hundred years.
The politician from North Carolina? American boosterism and materialism was satired by Sinclair Lewis in Babbitt during the 1920s. As I pointed out above, Yankees have always been greedy, materialistic, and individualistic. This has more to do with Protestantism than anything else. 57
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 16:00 | #
I think Jewish paranoia, resentment, and hatred of gentiles is a much more powerful influence in the Jewish community than rationality. Evangelical Christians are the greatest allies of American Jewry, but most American Jews hold them in contempt for historical reasons. 58
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 16:08 | # The Realist could easily prove us all wrong. He could shoot off a letter to the ADL, AJC, or any other mainstream Jewish organization and ask for their endorsement of philo-semitic, Holocaust-was-a-horrible-tragedy, race realism. His hero Lawerence Auster cut his ties with Jared Taylor. Auster is so mainstream now that FrontPageMag won’t even publish his articles. 59
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 17:33 | #
What about him?
No, Russia and China were impoverished before communism. The material standard of living of Russians rose enormously under the USSR. The scientific and technological output of Russia and China increased under communism from what it had been before. The Soviet Union was a superpower rivaled only by the United States.
You claimed that Protestantism wasn’t universalist because of Predestination. Predestination hasn’t stopped Protestants from evangelizing heathens of all races.
Protestant theologians believe only whites can be saved?
That’s my point. Christianity is a univeralist multiracial religion; Protestantism included. Do you believe Heaven is segregated?
Billy Graham and MLK share the typical Protestant view that brotherly love is not racially exclusive.
Historically speaking, this belief has been used to justify a universalist ethic which is in tension with racialism. As an atheist, I don’t believe in “spiritual equality” or immaterial souls.
Perhaps. The New Testament still has inspired a universalist ethic that alienates Europeans from their own natural instincts. Do you believe in treating every nonwhite as you would treat your own ethnic kin?
1.) You described yourself above as a conservative. “I’m simply a religious conservative who believes in elimination of most government action.” 2.) Unrestrained capitalism destroyed much of New England’s fishing stocks and is currently exhausting America’s domestic oil supply. American domestic oil production has been in decline since the 1970s. There is nothing tyrannical about government regulation. As a conservative, do you not believe that avarice is a vice and prudence is a virtue?
1.) I’m a progressive/communitarian. 60
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 17 May 2007 21:52 | # In the matter of unrestrained capitalism, that great Jewish invention, the private equity fund acquisition, successor to the 80’s LBO, has targetted Japan, the last bastion of commonsense, ‘my nation first’ neo-mercantilism, and the Japanese have cleverly changed their takeover rules in order to repel the Jew : http://biz.yahoo.com/ft/070517/fto51720070840436564.html?.v=1 61
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 17 May 2007 22:01 | # Japan’s new M & A rules : http://biz yahoo.com/topic/m-a/archive.html?id=25615585 The Japanese government has effectively told shareholders in Tokyo-listed firms, “Your shares may be worth less than if the company were a takeover target but that’s the patriotic price of keeping out the Jews”. 62
Posted by VanSpeyk on Thu, 17 May 2007 23:05 | # Oh Fade, I do absolutely love reading you Anyways, I was wondering if you are familiar with the following essay concerning the essense of conservatism, written by the late* John Attarian for The Occidental Quarerly (it’s very good): http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no1/ja-requiem.html You propably are, in which case it is for the benefit of the gallery. Can you agree with the definition that Mr. Atterian gives to ‘Conservatism’ in his essay? He also purposefully includes enviromentalism as an essential part of Conservatism. For myself I can say that I support such a philosophical stance; create and maintain a society that functions to perpetuate society in its cultural and biological form. Do you think that the conservatism thus described existed ever in the US (1950s?) or any other country? What a far cry from the current conservatism it is, indeed. * How sad it is, that three of our thinkers, who are spread thin as it is already, have passed away prematurely. Besides Attarian I’m thinking of Samuel Francis and Glade Whitney. 63
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 17 May 2007 23:30 | # “Even as the housing industry stumbles through its correction, major financial institutions should be spared. “Importantly, we see no serious broader spillover to banks or thrift institutions from the problems in the subprime market; troubled lenders, for the most part, have not been institutions with federally insured deposits,” Bernanke said.” One is left wondering who is the real winners and losers are here. 64
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 18 May 2007 00:00 | # VanSpeyk, I addressed the Attarian article, at least in part, here. Reading it again, I still agree with it, excepting my placement of National Socialism within the zeitgeist. At the time I regarded it as tied in by its mirror-to-Judaism character, in the same way that I see powerfully anti-semitic American WNs as lacking the motive philosophical force to operate from without the liberal spectrum. I’ve changed my mind about NS. Roger Scruton is probably the foremost philosopher of Conservativism alive today. You might not consider that entirely encouraging. The man is not ethnocentric, which I take to be an instrinsic element in a more or less conservational mindset. 65
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 18 May 2007 00:41 | # That’s my point. Christianity is a univeralist multiracial religion; Protestantism included. Do you believe Heaven is segregated? Then how do account for the rise of the new Klan?
66
Posted by Mark on Fri, 18 May 2007 02:03 | # All religion is poison. All religious people are mentally defective. 67
Posted by Daedalus on Fri, 18 May 2007 16:33 | #
What about it? The second Ku Klux Klan was an anti-Catholic organization based in the Midwest. 68
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Fri, 18 May 2007 17:31 | # The Survival of White America requires the death of the Republic party. It doesn’t get much more obvious than this. The"great” minds over at vdare.com spend an enormous amount of time trying to convince the Republican insiders about why open borders is a disaster for the Republican party. The goal of the Republican party insiders is to help the corporations maximize profit as quickly as possible even of it means the extermination of White America It is pointless trying to make the Republican party the defacto White Nationalist party. Vdare.com should be encouraging White Americans not to vote Republican. Vdare.com also seems eager to form an alliance with the miami cubans-a crucial Republican party voting block….even though miami is spanish speaking and foriegn. If worse is better, than maybe an amesty and and an increase in H-1B visa legal immgratin will speed things up. White Americans vote with their feet against diversity. Passing amnesty and increasing H-1 B dirty hindu legal immigration will malke it impossible for White Amreicans to flee. And if we are honest, we all kow what an amnesty and an increase in H-1 B legal immigration will provoke. Why would this be a bad thing? 69
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Fri, 18 May 2007 17:38 | # Northen Militant Protestantism-Know Nothing Party- in the years leading up to the Civil War was fanatically zenophobic and fanatically antislavery 70
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 18 May 2007 18:26 | # Frank, You can also factor into the equation Americanism itself. Great cultural forces such as liberalism and Christianity and even Republicanism in the party sense are not only social movements observable from without, but are formative of what it means to be an American at the personal level. None of us can exempt ourselves from the critique of modernity, for it is in us and of us. Asking for people who are “white” to free themselves from the modern-day suicide cult is, in fact, an evangelistic and highly personal request. They are not “white” other than by accident, since semiotically “white” is not positively expressed within the modern liberal/Christian zeitgeist. They must become white ... kind of repair to what they truly are. This is what I think the MR commenter Lurker meant when he said that coming to think from a nationalist POV is more akin to a religious conversion than a mere political change of mind. Btw, what does “dirty” mean? I trust it refers to the visa and not the Hindu! 71
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Fri, 18 May 2007 19:08 | # Guessedworker Just how deeply do Americans believe in the myths(Lies) fed rammed into through their skulls from a very early age is a very interesting question..and may be the most important question. European Americans don’t seem to be all that enthusaistic about putting their lives on the line to teach the Iraqis,Afganis and Iranians about feminism and the evils of racail/ethnic homogeneity. It is truly a bizarre situation where I live. Solid White middle class neighborhood. Down the road your wife or daughter walking alone at night could be kidnapped and gang rapped by the mexicans. I think one can say that the brain washing has been successfull to a certain extent…but not completely successfull.The brainwashing has been wide…but I’m not convinced that it is very deep. I think it is very important to make this distinction. So potentially there is the very real possibility of great change-revolt-very soon. Lets get something out of the way. Don’t pay attention to what the defenders of intervention and empire say in public. They are not the least bit interested in spreading democracy and equality-the economic variety-around the globe. Ordinary Americans don’t beleive this nonesense either. It is all lip service. It is the maximazation of profit -as quick as possible-that forms the basis of Republican an Democratic foriegn policy and immigration policy. An ideological infrastructure -womens rights for afghani women, America is an idea nation and therefor, whats the big deal if White Americans are racially cleansed by chinks in silicon valley and teaching the serbs a lesson about diverity by bombing the Serbian Christian civilian population -was created to justify these policies. Goddam, I have trouble reading the print in this little box. 72
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Fri, 18 May 2007 19:31 | # I would never call Tomislav Sunic a dirty legal immigrant. 73
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 18 May 2007 20:11 | # What about it? The second Ku Klux Klan was an anti-Catholic organization based in the Midwest. Isn’t that the point. You argue that Protestantism/Christianity etc is and was universal, multi-racial and all-embracing. Yet example after example shows that it promoted white/group supremacy, and exclusion, not only racially but philosophically as well. By all appearances, it was a philosophic means to promote EGI. The Know-Nothings were anti-Catholic and some anti-slavery, some, pro-slavery, however, did not embrace blacks and promoted black repatriation. Up until WWII there was not a Christian group in North America, even in Canada, that did not believe in preserving overwhelming Europeaness. The demarckartion line was the Jewish holocaust and Aldolph’s pronouncements, in Mein Kampf and various speeches, that he was a Christian and doing the Lord’s work. It sent Christian churches scurrying for cover, abandoning their racialism. 74
Posted by Daedalus on Fri, 18 May 2007 22:18 | #
That’s true.
You are losing me here. How was the second Klan promoting EGI? Their quarrel with Southern and Eastern European immigrants was religious in nature.
No one really “embraced” blacks in the mid-nineteenth century except for the abolitionist fringe of the Republican Party. As for repatriating blacks to Africa, this was a popular cause amongst Border South unionists in states like Missouri and Kentucky; Deep South states associated repatriation with anti-slavery. What did that have to do with religion, though? Masters and slaves alike were Protestants. White non-slaveholders in the Border and Upper South wanted to get rid of blacks for racial and economic reasons.
Aside from the Mormons, I am not aware of a single Christian denomination in the United States that did not evangelize nonwhites prior to the Second World War. Black Americans are overwhelmingly Protestants today.
You are also wrong about Christianity in America prior to the Second World War. Most states in the Midwest and New England had repealed their anti-miscegenation laws and banned segregation in education and public education decades before WW2. There were plenty of multiracial schools, interracial marriages, and multiracial congregations in the North prior to WW2. 76
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 18 May 2007 23:28 | # You are losing me here. How was the second Klan promoting EGI? Their quarrel with Southern and Eastern European immigrants was religious in nature. The two correlate strongly. Northern Europeans or more specifically Anglo-Saxons are/were predominantly Protestant. Southern and Eastern Europeans predominantly Catholic. If you look at Salter’s chart of Euro-ethnicity, you can see genetic distance between Poles and Anglos or Italians, especially from the south and Anglos. The English and Poles are more genetically distant than the English and Germans or even closer the English and Dutch. Even though American Protestants may not have known/understood the genetic differences, their religion, with its anti-papal stance, provided a philosophy that embraced an exclusion of an outgroup thus preserving EGI. The point regarding Europeaness was directed at immigration. Christian groups did not advocate for race-replacement of the Euro-American population thru mass immigration until after WWII. The evangelising of indigenous black groups makes sense, IMO, from an adaptive POV because, although I don’t have the numbers, a black Christian population would be less of a threat to whites, i.e. criminality, rapes, murders etc. than a pagan black population, which is largely what you have today. It doesn’t mean that they promoted intermarriage etc., until after WWII. Anti-miscegenation laws, in my view, were elitist tools to provide a yeomen buffer group and limit the risk of insurrection and riots. With blacks being free and not nearly as numerous in the North as in the South, AML played against elite interests. It’s the same principle as today. It’s divide and conquer, a triangulation strategy. 77
Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 19 May 2007 00:26 | #
Yes. But so what? That hardly implies that Christianity is not a universalist religion. A Protestant can convert to Catholicism, and vice versa. These labels are not racially or ethnically exclusive. There are hundreds of millions of nonwhite Catholics in Latin America. Similarly, there are millions of nonwhite Protestants throughout the world; including here in the United States. Both are multiracial categories. A Frenchman is more closely related to an Englishman than he is to a black Catholic from the Congo. A white Southerner is more closely related to a Catholic German than a black Protestant Southerner.
You are conflating American Protestantism with the Second Ku Klux Klan here. While many American Protestants opposed mass immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe on religious groups, others did not, or opposed European immigration for different reasons. Most American Protestants chose not to join the second Klan. Furthermore, the Klan’s opposition to Catholic immigration was motivated by the notion that Catholic immigrants would undermine American liberty and vote en masse in favor of Vatican supported public policies. The fact that Protestant America had such a huge immigration problem in the first place belies the notion that Protestantism was an effective vehicle for preserving white American EGI.
The Midwest and New England already had post-1965 state civil rights laws by the late nineteenth century; over half a century before the Second World War. Presumably, the racial views of Northern Christian congregations reflected the anti-racism of Northern state statutes.
Christianity is not a racially exclusive religion or even an ethnically based one like Judaism. Instead of expelling blacks from the United States, Northern Christians welcomed nonwhites instead into the churches, homes, schools, and beds. They went abroad to Sub-Saharan Africa, Japan, China, and Korea to convert the heathen there. They abolished slavery and gave blacks full U.S. citizenship. They passed the 14th Amendment and the civil rights acts of Reconstruction to criminalize racial discrimination against blacks. I suppose that is consistent with protecting white American EGI in your opinion.
Once again, miscegenation was perfectly legal in most Northern states long before WW2. Miscegenation was already quite common in degenerate Northern speakeasies during Prohibition. Interracial couples were getting married in Northern churches years before WW2.
Before 1967, black/white intermarriage in the South was virtually nonexistent. Such legislation had overwhelming support amongst white Southerners too. Most whites in Alabama voted as recently as 2000 to retain their state anti-miscegenation law. Millions of blacks immigrated from the South to the North during the early twentieth century too. By the 1960s, most blacks were living in urban areas outside the South. 78
Posted by Matra on Sat, 19 May 2007 00:40 | #
It was also ethnic and economic in nature. For an organisation of old stock Americans it made sense to resist changes brought about by people with different interests and worldviews. If millions of Slavic Protestants had arrived to provide cheap labour surely the Klan would have opposed them too? Was religous doctrine itself really their main concern or just another badge of ethnic identity? Looking at similar resistance shown by Anglo-Saxon Protestants in Canada to Eastern European immigration Catholicism was just another foreign characteristic along with language and nationality. If the ‘otherness’ of the newcomers’ Catholicism helped reinforce the ethnic solidarity of the majority Anglo-Saxons then religion played a positive role*. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Canadian Anglo-Saxon resistance to multiculturalism began just as religiosity declined. I don’t know if any of this matters in 2007. But looking at the historical record there’s no evidence to suggest that it Christianity was maladaptive. Nor was it inevitable that Christianity all along would go from El Cid and Jan Sobieski to Cardinal Mahony and Tony Blair. *The same could be said of Ireland where the Catholicism of the “native” Irish played a vital role in not only preserving their Irishness but in taking control of nationalism from the Anglo-Irish. 79
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 19 May 2007 04:16 | # Yes. But so what? Etc. All true, however the point was that white Protestants in the US or Canada or white Catholics in Eastern or Southern Europe did not encourage mass migration of non-European Protestants or Catholics into white homelands. That changed after WWII. The fact that Protestant America had such a huge immigration problem in the first place belies the notion that Protestantism was an effective vehicle for preserving white American EGI. Sure, I’ve argued this position before. The past begets the future. The elites are constantly encouraging cheap labour. The Know-Nothings were adamantly opposed to Catholic immigration, but were undermined during the war and with the growing liberalism. Protestant/Klan vanguards pushed for ending immigration and the 1924 restriction was enacted. The point made previously is that the resistance must be more than just racialism. It needs a philosophical foundation. Protestantism provided that foundation. The whole issue of undermining freedom and serving two masters, embraces the EGI issue without having to explicitly understand it. The Midwest and New England already had post-1965 state civil rights laws by the late nineteenth century; over half a century before the Second World War. It serves certain elite interests. The mills in New England wanted the cheap Irish, Italian and French-Canadian Catholic and even black labour. Relaxing restrictions aided and abetted that cause. Christians welcomed nonwhites instead into the churches, homes, schools, and beds. It would be nice to see the evidence for that assertion. Grandmother’s story was that the whites in her 1926 Bronx neighbourhood left their church when the blacks moved in. I suppose that is consistent with protecting white American EGI in your opinion. No it’s not, but then when have elites ever been concerned about white EGI whether in the US, UK or Europe. Miscegenation was already quite common in degenerate Northern speakeasies during Prohibition. Miscegenation was quite common in Jamestown as well or in the Caribbean or South Africa. However, that is on the fringes of the Christian society of the time and as you say it was degenerates. Interracial couples were getting married in Northern churches years before WW2. Yet again, the governing elites advocated it. In the 1930s, in a town called Oakville, outside Toronto, the Klan intervened in an interracial marriage to be and was prosecuted vigorously for their action. And yes the couple was eventually married in the home of a Protestant minister in a neighbouring town, however, it was not common place. The Ontario Klan was Protestant and very racially aware. Most whites in Alabama voted as recently as 2000 to retain their state anti-miscegenation law. Again, governing elites are not interested in preserving their people if it undermines their position. Why? They do not view their white lesser any differently than blacks, yellows or browns. 80
Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 19 May 2007 17:33 | #
Is that so? If there was no political support for non-Anglo Protestant immigration, how did the millions of Irish, German, Polish, and Italian Catholics get here then? To my knowledge, Protestantism has never been a requirement to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. European Catholics have always been eligible to immigrate to the U.S.
Know-Nothingism was a convenient way for ex-Whigs from the South to ally themselves with ex-Whigs from the North without appearing soft on slavery. Kansas, Dred Scott, and John Brown’s raid on Virginia shifted the focus of national attention back to slavery.
The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed only because the business community relaxed its opposition to immigration reform.
Segregation in public schools had been illegal in most Northern states since the late nineteenth century. Several Northern states even had laws against the “defamation” of blacks on account of their race in film and print. This was during the early twentieth century, long before WW2. Multiracial institutions of higher learning like Oberlin College in Ohio had existed since before the Civil War in the North. Frederick Douglas was married to a white woman who was a relative of John Adams.
This elite was overwhelmingly Protestant, too; at least until the mid-twentieth century. Jews were flooding into Ivy League colleges during the early twentieth century. They had already taken over Columbia by the 1920s.
Presumably, the Protestant elites of New England went along with this.
Is that because of Protestantism, or in spite of Protestantism? Were all white Protestants racially aware during the early twentieth century; in the Anglosphere and Northern Europe?
Blacks started arriving in Jamestown in 1619, but did not start coming in considerable numbers until the 1650s. In 1649, blacks were only 2% of the population of Virginia. Virginia passed its first anti-miscegenation law in 1662; Bermuda in 1663; Maryland in 1665. Virginia and other Southern states retained their anti-miscegenation laws until they were all struck down in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Miscegenation was actually widespread in the English Caribbean colonies during the seventeenth century. See David Brion Davis’ Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World. It got so bad in Barbados and Jamaica that it ceased to be taboo. Carribbean style miscegenation was also widespread in early colonial South Carolina which was founded by white settlers from Barbados. New Orleans has always had a Latin America style racial caste system unlike the rest of the Lower South. The North has long been experimenting with racial egalitarianism. Benjamin Franklin, for example, was already arguing against Jefferson’s racial theories during the late eighteenth century. Several of the various anarchist utopian communes in the North were multiracial. Vermont and New Hampshire never passed anti-miscegenation or segregation laws. Massachusetts was the first state to repeal its anti-miscegenation law in 1843. Rhode Island (1881), Maine (1883), New Mexico (1886), Ohio and Washington (1887) followed during the nineteenth century. The Midwest was very racist up until the Civil War. Afterwards, Midwesterners became more like New Englanders in their racial attitudes. The South remained a world of its own until well into the 1970s.
The churches are opposed to racism and anti-semitism. They support interracial marriage. 81
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 20 May 2007 05:44 | # Clearly there was a bounty of interracial marriage, on the fringe of the European world, including aboriginals. [John Rolfe & Pochantas] Why? And if this bounty of interbreeding was commonplace, what changed? Why the anti-miscegenation laws? 82
Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 21 May 2007 00:13 | # The critical factor seems to be the density of the nonwhite population and access to white women. The Spanish and Portuguese, for example, took Indian wives and mistresses in their New World colonies. It is less well known that the English did the same in Barbados and Jamaica. In its earliest years, South Carolina was densely black (over 70%, if I recall), and relaxed racial attitudes towards miscegenation prevailed in Charleston. As South Carolina whitened and a stable European settlement emerged there, this began to change. Virginia and Maryland were already stable white colonies before they began to import black slaves. They reacted defensively and passed anti-miscegenation laws to preserve the color line. Massachusetts was the first American state to repeal its anti-miscegenation law in 1843. The crusade against the law was one of the first victories of the abolitionist movement which charged anti-miscegenation laws were incompatible with individual liberty. The precedent set in Massachusetts would soon be followed by other Northern states after the Civil War. Prior to the Civil War, the Midwest was a very racist region with many Jim Crow style laws. Free blacks were not even allowed to settle in Illinois. The Civil War against the “Slave Power,” as it was known in those days, highlighted the ideological commitment of Yankees to liberalism. After the war, the North began to immediately dismantle its anti-miscegenation and segregation laws. A brief attempt was made to impose this Northern racial order upon the South during Reconstruction. It happened again after the Second World War against Nazi Germany. 83
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 21 May 2007 02:50 | # How do you view the Pocahantas letter, and the Bacon rebellion in relationship to Virginia’s miscegenation laws. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1047 http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1651-1700/bacon_rebel/bacon.htm 84
Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 22 May 2007 23:42 | # Virginia had already passed an anti-miscegenation law before Bacon’s Rebellion. As for Pocahantas, I don’t believe Euro/Amerind intermarriage was forbidden. The Virginia gentry was boasting of its descent from Pocahantas well into the twentieth century. 85
Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 22 May 2007 23:43 | # We don’t have a neo-mercantilist trade policy. Look at our trade deficit. 86
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 23 May 2007 00:54 | #
1691, after the Bacon rebellion and interesting in it’s contradiction of the approval given to John Rolfe vis-a-vis Pocahantas. Rolfe’s consternation is quite clear;
87
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 23 May 2007 02:05 | # Virginia passed its first anti-miscegenation law in 1662: “If any Christian shall commit fornication with a Negro man or woman, hee or shee soe offending will pay double the usual fine.” Maryland followed in 1665: “Foreasmuch as divers freeborne English women forgettfull of their free condition and to the disgrace of our Nation doe intermarry with Negro slaves by which alsoe divers suites may arise touching the Issue of such woemen and a great damage doth befall the masters of such Negroes for prevention whereof for deterring such freeborne women from such shameful matches.” 88
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 23 May 2007 02:18 | # Frank - Im not sure Peter Brimelow is a cheerleader for Indian immigrants. Its through vdare that I became aware of the H1b visa scam. PB seems happy for regular postings on that subject to appear and none of them are praising it. 89
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 23 May 2007 04:53 | # Interesting how Christian universalsim keeps popping up in defence of EGI, isn’t it. 90
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 23 May 2007 05:06 | # How can having too much money (which appears to be the predicament in China bemoaned by the author of this piece), ever be considered a problem? It’s not really money. 91
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 23 May 2007 05:19 | # Not really. The Virginia colonists went through a shift in self identification during the seventeenth century. Originally, they described themselves most frequently as “Christians,” but as the years passed and the number of blacks increased, “Englishmen” and “whites” in that order because the terms of choice. To my knowledge, the Anglican Church has never claimed that nonwhites are incapable of attaining salvation or that miscegenation is forbidden on doctrinal grounds. The racial consciousness of English settlers in seventeenth century colonial Virginia was inspired by the frontier environment, specifically, their presence on an alien continent amongst hordes of Indians and Negroes. Anglicans back in England did not share the racialism of their American counterparts. 92
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 23 May 2007 06:31 | # Except that Rolfe’s letter was written in, what, 1614 before the first Africans arrived and long before the century of travaille on the American frontier. Clearly Rolfe was imbued with a sense of trepidation stemming directly from “the heavie displeasure which almightie God conceived against the sonnes of Levie and Israel for marrying strange wives…” 93
Posted by jlh on Wed, 23 May 2007 18:28 | # Desmond, Thanks for your comments. If I were as ready and informed as you are I would be having the same dialogue with the good Daedalus. Much of what you argue is compatible with the positions of the kinists at SpiritWaterBlood, formerly known as Little Geneva. There was a time when racialism was considered a function of sanctification, as you point out so well. 94
Posted by jlh on Wed, 23 May 2007 18:36 | # Daedalus writes: “The Jim Crow South was by far the most racist regime on earth during its time and only grew more authoritarian over time. ... The Jim Crow South was a one party state united in the defense of white supremacy.” And all while being the most Christian region of the United States. 95
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 23 May 2007 20:52 | # I responded at The Civic Platform. We are dragging GW’s thread hopelessly off-topic. http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/05/23/southern-racialism-and-christianity/ Post a comment:
Next entry: It won’t be 12 million. It won’t ever be enough
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Always have.
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 16 May 2007 01:52 | #
Excellent piece. Martin addresses the US problem of Third World immigration aka importing poverty. Today’s situation is very different from that which obtained during the huge waves of poor European migrants that took place last century or at the end of the 19th.
The quality of immigrant today is demonstrably inferior. Can anyone imagine the Somalis of Maine or the Hmong of Wisconsin emulating the Scandinavian immigrants who made so much of inhospitable Minnesota? Today’s immigrants are definitely not future middle class types.
Also the insanely generous welfare system combined with the criminal insanity of a Green Card Lottery instituted for the simple and deadly reason that there are too many Whites in the US militates against quality.