Demise of the megabores?

As well as being gloomy days for political realists and traditionalists, the 1990s were depressing years for popular music, with CD changers filled with the unimaginative drone of groups like Travis and Coldplay.

Thankfully it appears that generation Y are beginning to rebel against the tastes of their predecessors, with interesting, dynamic music now starting to become popular again.

Danish pop/rock outfit Mew are now turning out some tight, melodic pop songs with a standard of musicianship that would impress a lot of early 70s progressive rock bands.

UK band Pure Reason Revolution pretty much are a 70s progressive rock band, but modernised for the new millennium, and with the added bonus of actually sounding accessible and catchy. They sound like a blend of Yes and Muse, with a dash of the Beachboys in the vocal harmonies. And what could be more refreshingly pretentious that having a band name which sounds like some sort of libertarian think tank!

Others worthy of mention include New York group The Secret Machines, and (provided you don't mind lyrics in Swedish) Dungen.

Up yours Lester Bangs!

Islamic Immigration in Europe

Reading through Christchurch’s Press last Saturday it was pleasing to come across a relatively right-wing review of Bruce Bawer’s book, While Europe Slept: How radical Islam is destroying the West from within.

The reviewer, an Anglican vicar from Christchurch called Ron Hay, points out that Bawer says he left America partly in reaction to the Christian right. However, setting in Europe with his gay partner, he discovered that Islamic fundamentalism made its US counterpart look benign:

"Falwell was an unsavoury creep, but he didn’t issue fatwas. James Dobson’s parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn’t telling people to murder their daughters. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imans wanted to drop a wall on me."

Bawer acknowledges both the rapid growth of aggressive Islam in Europe and Europe’s present policy could well end in disaster. Like many US critics though, he criticizes the Europeans for failing to integrate Muslim immigrants, without recognising that Europe is not the United States, or that the US has no experience of dealing with large numbers of Muslim immigrants.

In contrast to Europe, life is much cheaper in the United States, where recent immigrants can afford to buy cars to get around in, and the economy revolves around flexible labour laws and economies of scale production. Since the cost of living is cheap, people have more disposal income and there is a greater demand for domestic services. Subsequently the US is a great place for someone with limited skills to find work (or a least it was until it became swamped by central American immigrants).

By contrast, life in Europe is crowded, bureaucratic and expensive. Fewer people can afford cars and even if you have a car, the roads are crowded and difficult to navigate. Since life is more expensive, there is also much less need for hired hands like nannies and gardeners. Manufacturing firms have to be smart and innovative to compete with larger US and Japanese competitors, so they need skilled workers who can work with minimum supervision.

Furthermore, since every country has its own language and customs it is difficult to move around and seek out opportunities in other parts of the EU. Europeans countries also tend to have generous and intricate welfare systems, which are largely paid for in advance, and many people feel they should not be extended to recent arrivals.

All this means Europe does not have the ability to accommodate large numbers of immigrants, particularly if they are unskilled and do not understand local laws and customs.

Perhaps the biggest concern though is reproduction differences. In some European countries Muslim immigrants are having three times are many children as indigenous Europeans. As the problems in Palestine show, major differences in reproduction rates between ethnic groups will eventually lead to serious conflict, and the only solution is to keep the different groups apart.

The Europeans do have a right to demand that immigrants adhere to local values, but while you can make it compulsory to learn the local language in schools, its not really possible to force people to integrate if they don’t want to. Just because non-English speaking European immigrants responded to aggressive assimilation policies in the United States during the first half of the 20th Century, does not mean non-European Muslim immigrants will respond in the same way.

Since many Muslim immigrants appear unwilling or unable to integrate, the only options are to curtail further Muslim immigration, introduce voluntary repatriation schemes, and increase incentives for indigenous Europeans to have more children.

A major reason why European birth rates have fallen so low, is the high cost of housing in western Europe, and the dire shortage of housing in Eastern Europe (a legacy of Soviet-era mismanagement). Economic libertarians may loathe to admit it, but subsidised housing was a major factor in the demographic growth that occurred in Europe and Australasia after the end of WWII. (It’s an interesting irony that many baby-boomer libertarians might not have existed if it wasn’t for state subsidised housing!).

If the EU started an ambitious programme to provide more subsidised housing in Eastern Europe, it would help to ease the overcrowding in parts of Western Europe, while providing housing and work opportunities for young Eastern Europeans who are presently flooding west and competing for the limited number of low-skilled jobs with low-income Europeans and recent Muslim immigrants.

Cultural marxism

With economic Marxists it is relatively clear what they want to achieve - economic equality through the downfall of capitalism.

This may be a misguided and dangerous goal, but at least it is a goal. In contrast for cultural Marxists there is no goal. Behind a few vague, positive sounding slogans such as "diversity" and "inclusion," the only goal is to criticize and undermine western civilization.

I didn’t quite realize this fundamental point until I read a pithy article, The Origins of Political Correctness by Bill Lind.

The essense of the cultural Marxist approach is well summarized in the following passage:

"The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning - the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments - all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s."

Economic Marxism has had a disasterous impact on an epic scale, but in some ways cultural Marxism is even worse.

Most European communist regimes in the 20th Century, focused on suppressing capitalism and bourgeois traits which were associated with capitalism. Other elements of western culture were only dismantled if they were deemed to be a serious obstacle to this objective. Subsequently, many aspects of traditional European culture, from nationalism and the nuclear family, to empirical science and classical music, were not overtly tampered with. In cultural Marxism all aspects of western civilization are called into question.

As a result, cultural Marxism takes a myriad of forms, which in many cases don’t even have a logically coherent basis. However, they all share one common trait, they are all focused around undermining the very culture which supports them.

Since, cultural Marxists have such a destruction and radical objective, they rarely call themselves Marxists and consider it best to disassociate themselves from anti-western Marxist regimes like Cuba and North Korea. Subsequently, they have been able to avoid the high level criticism, and in some cases persecution, which has been directed at economic Marxists.

For example, when universities in English-speaking countries consider funding cut-backs in the arts it’s usually in departments like foreign languages, history and English literature, while cultural Marxist enclaves like American studies, women’s studies, and sociology survive unscathed.

University administrators, schooled in the principles of market populism, claim this is because such courses are popular, and universities are under pressure to attract the student dollar. However, economic Marxism was very popular in the 1950s, yet back then there were no publicly funded university departments specifically devoted to promoting Marxist theory.

Similarly, since economic Marxists were more honest in their political affiliations, they made easier targets for right-wing liberals and conservatives, who could criticize them for being unpatriotic or divisive.

However, the strength of cultural Marxism today lies in the fact that its would be critics have little knowledge of the history of their own culture and so lack the confidence to attack challenge cultural Marxist propaganda.

Lets hope the latest trend towards ""Quality over quantity" in education turns our to have some substance and goes some way towards addressing this ignorance.

Ideology and education

As someone who believes that too many people go to university these days, I was mildly pleased to hear that the University of Auckland is planning to restrict entry to all undergraduate courses for 2009 ("University Senate back plan on numbers," New Zealand Herald Dec 4, 2007).

The university says it is making the changes to cope with a shortfall of money driven by cut backs in central government funding. Hence the university is planning to limit entry for art, education, science, theology and first year law. Not sure about the science limits, but the other cut backs sound excellent.

Over the last twenty years, the value of a university degree has steadily declined, as more and more marginal students, who have neither the academic aptitude or the intellectual curiosity for university-level courses, have drifted through the system to satisfy the government’s crude targets for more "human capital" throughput.

Unfortunately, as I read on, I realised that my initial impression, that for once common sense might trump ideology, was too good to be true. Predictably, the University deputy vice-Chancellor, Professor Raewyn Dalziel, says the institution plans to establish a taskforce to increase enrolment of under-represented students:

"The special admission schemes which set aside places for Maori, Pacific, and other under-represented communities operating in facilities which already restrict entry will be expanded."

If, by "under represented communities," the University means students from low-income families, then this looks to be another kick in the face for hard-working students and parents from lower-middle class families who tend to suffer the most from affirmative action policies.

While low-income families receive generous government allowances, and upper middle class kids can usually rely on parental support, students from middle-income families are caught in the middle - too well-off to be eligible for allowances, yet not rich enough to be able to rely on significant help from their parents. Now their opportunities to cover the cost of their courses, through scholarships or other subsidies, are likely to be further limited.

As I’ve said before, only indigenous minorities have a reasonable case for preferential treatment, and even then, they too should have to accept cutbacks in quotas when others groups are having to make sacrifices.

Central government and social services

As New Zealand and Australia become more multicultural, it is becoming increasingly difficult for central government to devise and deliver social services for different ethnic groups.

One method may be for central government to establish minimum standards of service and allow private charities and state or local government more involvement in managing and delivering services.

In The Original Australians Josephine Flood points out some of the problems that have occurred in many aboriginal communities with the closing down of established mission stations:

"Outback communities may have achieved land ownership, but their has been a huge increase in substance abuse, domestic violence and crime and a sharp decline in health, education and jobs. Missions still functioning today are confined to the Torres Strait Islands and remote parts of the Northern Territory and Western Australia, especially the Kimberley, where they provide a superb service in very difficult conditions. Now only 40 missions remain in remote regions."

In the small central Australian town of Pakatja, Flood says the transfer of the Ernabella Mission into Aboriginal management, in 1974, has had a very negative on the local Aboriginal community:

"Under its new name, Pukatja, Ernabella still exists and the craft centre continues, but now Pukatja suffers the problems of so many outback communities. Standards of nutrition, hygiene, health and education have declined horrendously, petrol and drunkenness are rife and dedicated missionaries have been replaced by short-term employees, who tend to burn out in a couple of years."

During the 1970s, central government spending on aboriginal advancement increased considerably, and by 2001, the federal budget for indigenous programs reached $2.3 billion.

However, while local missions provided services in exchange for work and certain standards of behaviour, few conditions are placed on eligibility for government welfare, and there is little policing of Aboriginal communities. Subsequently, there had has been little improvement in social outcomes for most outback Aborigines. These problems were exacerbated by the removal of state government controls on the sale of alcohol in the 60s and 70s.

In New Zealand, domestic violence in low-income Maori communities has become a major social issue, following a number of high profile child abuse cases.The response of central government has been to undertake national "family violence" awareness campaigns and heavy-handed legislation such as the "anti-smacking bill."

The obvious draw back with such an approach is that it generates resentment among those sections of the population in which domestic violence is not an acute problem.

Furthermore, many central government welfare services tend to promote a left-liberal agenda, which gets in the way of effective policy making. For example, Family and Community Services, a division of the Ministry of Social Development, argues that domestic violence is a significant problem among all ethnic and socio-economic groups, glossing over the fact that the problem is much worse among low income-Maori than other sections of the community. Subsequently, a problem that could be tackled cost effectively at the local level becomes a national problem, which requires costly social engineering policies.

While the lack of a federalised political structure makes it more difficult to tailor policies for particular communities, there has been no effort by central government to allow voluntary organisations a greater role in managing domestic violence, or to establish a suitable contestable fund for NGOs.

During the last 150 years, voluntary organisations have played an important part in providing social services to indigenous communities in both Australia and New Zealand, especially in cooperation with state and local government. As the cost and effectiveness of national social services comes increasingly into question, it is high time central government thought about ways to devolve welfare services to locally based NGOs who are more in tune with what is happening in the communities in which they operate.

Revisionist rednecks

Among left-liberal Australians and New Zealanders, castigating white Australians for their treatment of Aborigines is a popular pastime.

However, the popular conception that the peace-loving Aborigines were massacred by rich white run holders who strode around on horseback knocking off fleeing Abo’s at will, may well be a delusion of revisionist historians.

In The Original Australians, archaeologist Josephine Flood challenges a number of misconceptions regarding conflict between Europeans and Aborigines in 19th Century Australia.

According to Flood, introduced diseases were by far the biggest killer of Aborigines in the 19th Century. Even in Central Australia, where there was intense pressure for water holes, and conflict between whites and Aborigines was very intense, Aboriginal deaths from diseases such as measles and smallpox still exceeded those from settler’s guns.

Flood’s own research into a region of South East Victoria in the mid 19th Century indicated no loss of Aboriginal life from guns, but a staggering 90 percent mortality through new diseases.

Contrary to popular belief, Flood points out that some of these new diseases may actually have arrived in Australia from Indonesia before Europeans arrived in Botany Bay:

"Historian Judy Campbell has made a compelling case that all Australia’s smallpox epidemics originated in Indonesia, where the disease was endemic and outbreaks occurred in the 1780s, 1820s, 1860s and 1870s. Fenner agrees that "origin from the Macassans is most likely," as does Campbell Macknight, an expert on the Macassans."

Flood’s investigations also reveal that it was extremely unlikely that early British colonists would have been able to deliberately pass on smallpox through infected material such as scabs kept in bottles, as some 1980s newspapers articles have argued.

The so-called extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines is generally regraded as the most infamous example of European aggression against indigenous Australians.

However, there was no premeditated campaign to exterminate the island's indigenous population. Most of the planned raids by local militia resulted in relatively few Aborigines being killed or captured, since the Aborigines were able to use their local knowledge of the rugged terrain to make their escape.

Those Tasmanian Aborigines who were deliberately shot by Europeans, were usually killed during grim, drawn out clashes with isolated homesteaders, who also suffered high casualties during Aboriginal reprisals.In terms of the death rate from armed conflict, whites in Tasmania suffered the highest death rate of any European population in 19th Century Australia, with two white settlers killed for every three Aborigines.

The highest number of Aboriginal deaths through armed conflict actually occurred in Queensland during the middle to late 19th CenturySince Queensland was settled later than other states, its settlers had access to modern, breech-loading guns, which gave them a decisive edge in firepower.

However, even in Queensland, many Aboriginal deaths occurred not at the hands of white settlers, but at the hands of the often-ruthless Native Mounted Police, who were notorious for taking few prisoners.

As Flood states:"Conflict in Australia was always small scale. There were no citizen’s militias and colonists only prevailed when supported by native police - armed and mounted Aboriginal trackers."

While there were certainly unjust reprisals in outback history, in which many Aborigines died at the hands of Europeans, revisionist historians have not been above exaggerating such reprisals or even inventing massacres that did not exist.

For example, historian Neville Green, wrote an entirely unsubstantiated account of a massacre at Forrest Hill in Western Australia in 1926, which has recently been exposed by western Australian journalist Rod Moran in his 1999 book Massacre Myth.

Before Left-liberal New Zealanders and urban Australians accuse provincial Australians of being intolerant rednecks for their past and present treatment of Aborigines, perhaps they should start addresses their own redneck ignorance of factual history.

Culturism

With Internet debate heating up between ethno-nationalists and traditionalists over how to protect western culture from threats such as Islamic terrorism, illegal immigration and the excesses of post-modern liberalism, US academic and blogger John Kennneth Press has produced a timely work, Culturism: A word, a value, a future, which advocates a culturist approach to protecting western culture.

"Multiculturists say diversity concerns food and fashion, but deep down think all cultures are interchangeable. Culturism takes cultures and their impact seriously, " says Mr Press

While there have been a number of Internet articles on the subject of culturism, such as the series of exchanges between Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor on the merits of "citizenism versus white nationalism," this is one of the first books I am aware of that specifically articulates a culturist stance.

Culturism is a pretty substantial and ambitious publication, which runs to nearly 300 pages and includes over 300 endnotes. Through the work, Press demonstrates how culturism can be found in fields as diverse as global history, anthropology, theology, philosophy, the natural sciences and evolutionary psychology, and provides some interesting insights into the cultural development of the United States.

He argues that the West has a relatively liberal and individualist culture, revolving around principles such as the separation of church and state, individualism, and free speech, which make it very different to those cultures, which have evolved in the Middle and Far East.

In contrast to individualistic western culture, Press sees Oriental culture as being defined by race and community, and Muslim culture as being defined by religion dogma and the union of church and state.

Taking his working definition of culturism as the "science and art of protection majority cultures," Press argues that cultures are locked in a competitive struggle with one another, and that people have a right and a duty to defend their culture.

"If we lose economic power to China are vocational opportunities will be undermined. If Islamic terrorists attack us we will lose even more basic freedoms."

While arguing that the West has a right to protect western values within its own borders, the culturist principle that others cultures have a right to protect their own cultures, within their own lands, counters the neo-conservative idea that the West has a right to promote western values by force. Subsequently, Press’s culturism ties in well with the principles of prudence and self-reliance, advocated by foreign policy realists, paleo-libertarians and traditional conservatives.

While asserting that the Unites States needs an overriding majority culture to function effectively, Press argues that the multi-racial make up of its population, make it dangerous and impractical to define the countries culture along racial lines. Contrary to left liberal thinking, Press argues that the US is actually one of the world’s least racist countries, and that culturism provides a means of promoting social stability and national solidarity, whilst avoiding ethnic conflict.

Culturism is a controversial and challenging book, which is likely to draw both praise and criticism from scientific conservatives and ethno-nationalists, to economic globalists and multiculturalists, whilst making an important contribution to the increasingly urgent task of defining and protecting western culture.

Externalities and anti-capitalism

Economists are currently telling us that New Zealand is living through the longest commodity boom for over 40 years, and that this is being reflected in rapidly rising income for dairy farmers.

At the same time though, domestic food prices are rising at 3-4 percent per year, with a particularly sharp increase in prices for dairy products. For example, butter prices have recently increased by 23 percent, with further increases likely in the near future.

Economists argue these price increases are due to an increase in global commodity prices, and New Zealand consumers should pay the going international rate. This may make economic sense, but does it make political sense?

Already dairy farming has something of a public relations problem due to the fact that it leads to higher nitrate levels in groundwater and waterways and consumes greater amounts of water than sheep farming or grain growing. In Eastern New Zealand, the water requirements of dairy farming are made worse by the fact that windbreaks would protect the ground from drying westerly winds are being removed to allow for extra wide sprinklers.

If dairy farmers were struggling, then the public might be a bit more sympathetic.However, the country is subsidising dairy farming, but dairy farming is not giving anything back in return. If I can no longer fish in my local river because the water has been fouled or extracted by a dairy agro-business, why shouldn’t I be compensated in some way?

This is not just a fairness issue. Arguably the biggest problem with un-patriotic, laissez-faire policies is that for every action there is a reaction. If New Zealand businesses are allowed to pass on their externalities to the general public, without giving back anything in return, then more people will switch support to support left wing parties that see businesses as unpatriotic and selfish players which should be heavily taxed and regulated.

Subsequently, if the business sector comes forward with a worthy proposal, that is in the national interest, such as tax write-offs for research and development, fewer voters are likely to be supportive. Rather than tying dairy farmers down in red tape, as Labour and the Greens appear to advocate, why not ensure that New Zealand consumers get access to cheap dairy products.

This would cost the dairy industry little in economic terms, and would help ensure that the country’s increasingly urban population continues to have good relations with the farming sector.

The Liberal Peril

Christchurch's Press seems to take a perverse delight in belittling European New Zealanders in its immigration articles (or should that be advertorials?).

In a recent feature article on East Asian Immigration "Aiming for a multicultural NZ" Saturday November 17) the idea that East Asians should assimilate into the local culture is questioned on the basis that, well, European New Zealand culture is inferior:

"And what should integration mean? To put it bluntly, do we still expect Asian immigrants to turn themselves into "good sorts" if they want to be accepted - to dump several thousand years of culture and refinement and adopt a life revolving around malls, barbecues, loud cars, touch rugby and a few beers."

If this isn't cultural loathing I don't know what is - lets take the most banal aspects of European New Zealand culture and compare them with the best aspects of East Asian culture. You could easily turn this statement on its head and it would be equally valid.

"And what should integration mean? To put it bluntly, do we still expect European New Zealanders to turn themselves into cultural quislings if they want to be accepted - to dump several thousand years of Classical/Judeo-Christian culture and refinement and adopt a life revolving around overcrowded cities, monotonous menus, karaoke, Marshall arts movies and a snobbish dislike of manual labour."

The article then takes a right-liberal tack and attacks the country for failing to integrate economically with non-Western markets:

"While other small nations like Iceland, Finland and Singapore have increased their average economic "connectedness," as measured by exports and foreign investing, from 42% to 89% of gross domestic product over the past 15 years, we are the only developing country to exporting less, managing to drop back to 3 points to just 39%."

In an article about immigration these examples are totally irrelevant, since when have Iceland and Finland been bastions of multicultural capitalism?

Finland has one of the lowest rates of immigration in the developed world. Its export success is more likely to do with its monocultural corporatism than cultural diversity.

While New Zealand should perhaps learn more about Asian markets, and offer more Chinese language courses, some Asian countries could also be doing a lot more to open up their markets.

Before Ms Clarke rushes into a free trade deal with the Chinese, shouldn't she wait until China cuts back its farming subsidies and stops messing about with the Yuan?

The article also has some revealing comment from Auckland University Professor Manying Ip, who perhaps inadvertently, make a good case for avoiding a free trade deal with China:

"Ip says the rapid rise in mainland Chinese immigrants, which is only likely to increase if New Zealand manages to seal a free-trade deal next year, is creating new integration hurdles. Immigrants from ex-colonial nations like India, Hong Kong and Singapore had some preparation for living here. The mainland Chinese have not just greater language and cultural differences, but a worldview still shaped by years of communism.

"Ip says they can feel fiercely patriotic and defensive of their homeland. They also have the confidence of coming from the new world superpower. Where earlier Asian immigrants might have felt more pressure to fit in, the mainland Chinese could prove more assertive of their right to their own way."

Having posed some serious questions on immigration, the article then predictably returns to banality with some inane comment from a left-liberal British immigrant:

"As for the British immigrant, what made her decide to come to Christchurch?The Englishness of the place surely? Well, actually it was discovering you could now get a good Thai takeaway here. A big change from the hicksville of just a few decades ago she says."

Funny how these Islington types always end up looking for non-western cuisine in western countries. If you like Thai, what's wrong with Bangkok?

Less preaching, more education

Like 19th Century Methodists, today's liberal academics love to preach.

Switch on the discovery channel or pick up a history book, and you're likely to hit a barrage of left-liberals messages about saving the environment or the evils of European imperialism.

However, it wasn't always this way, as Fred Reed points out in a recent column "A Craving for Tyranny," traditional western education used to follow a quaint, old-fashioned idea called objectivity:

"I went to a small, very Republican, Southern college these many years ago. In those days communism was thought poorly of. Yet in my survey course on philosophy, we learned what Marx thought, not what to think about Marx. The readings represented his ideas fairly. For further knowledge, go to the library. We were expected to come to our own conclusions, and did. A different world."

When I was at secondary school I used to get annoyed by religious sermons and prayers at assembly time. However, in many ways I think today's situation is much worse. Now the preaching goes on 24-7.

Liberals and nationalism

At the Gates of Vienna site Fjordman had come up with another fine post entitled The Roots of non-Discrimation, Liberalism or Maxism? which has generated a lot of good comments.

For example, a commenter by the name of Simon de Montford made the important point that while the Nazis are often cited as the ultimate example of the evils of nationalism, they were not really true nationalists.

"Fjordman mentioned, as others have, the hysteria against nationalism in Europe after WWII, but the irony is that the Nazis were supra-nationalists who thought in terms race, not nationality: they dragooned all sorts of 'Nordics' into the Waffen-SS and created their crackpot myth of a northern European Master Race that had virutally nothing to do with the borders of Germany or a German nation. The Nazis were anti-Communist lunatic totalitiarians--not nationalists and not really socialists.

"They wanted to destroy the whole concept of nationhood and replace it with an empire dominated by 'Nordics'. Somehow their anti-nationalist efforts ended up as the driving force for the anti-nationalism of the last 60 years."

Take out the Nazis, and the likes of Franco and Mussolini look relatively tame.

In contrast, communism dictators like Stalin and Pol Pot have gotten off far too lightly in liberal assessments of 20th Century history post WWI.

Communism is liberalism

One thing which most liberals conveniently gloss over is the fact that communism is a type of liberalism.

Communism combines left-liberal faith in human equality with right-liberal faith in technological progress and rational management. Traditionalist blogger Mark Richardson suggest that communism is best defined as a type of radical liberalism.

The fact that communism is a type of enlightenment liberalism helps explain why western intellectuals have been far less critical of communism than right-wing fascism, and why right liberals like Christopher Hitchens do not seem to be particularly embarrassed about their Marxist past.

The Nazis may have been more merciless that the Soviets or the Maoists, but overall, communism created far more human misery over the course of the 20th Century. Moreover, its legacy is still causing major social, economic and environmental problems in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Say what what you like about the cruelty of extreme nationalism, but it has never created an environmental problem on a par with what Marxism has done to the Aral Sea.

In discussing the growth of skinhead attacks on foreigners in Russia, left-liberal journalist Mark Ames, of Exile fame, puts much of the blame on communism and neo-liberal economics, while carefully avoiding any criticism of liberalism per se:

"Over the past few decades, Communism and Western-style liberalism have been thoroughly discredited, first by the collapse of the Soviet Union and then with the collapse of the Russian economy by the end of the 1990s. Christianity has never recovered from the Bolshevik Revolution. All of this, put into the context of social, economic, cultural and geopolitical decline, has helped foster growing ultranationalism, including neo-Nazism--which seems strange in a country that lost 27 million people to the Nazis."

Because Ames cannot see that western liberalism in general has aggravated many of the problems faced by Russia, he blames the relatively conservative government of Vladamir Putin for encouraging ethnic violence:

"Since Putin came to power in 2000, Russia has experienced an unexpectedly rapid yet uneven revival, and his government's overt patriotism, as well as its ambivalent attitude toward Western liberalism, reflect and enable the growing appeal of ultranationalism."

I would suspect that to understand the racial attacks in Russia, it is necessary to take into account one or two factors that liberal pundits tend to overlook.

A major factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union was the economic burden Russia faced in having to support economically backward colonies. This drag on the economy became critical in the 1980s, when global prices for oil and minerals nose-dived. Russia was then faced with the unenviable problem of having to support backward countries like Turkmenistan, while its own economy was in economic free-fall.

It is probably hard to underestimate just how disruptive communism was in Russia. When communism collapsed it was found that many cities, of hundreds of thousands of people, were located in economically illogical places and some experts believe that the burden of relocating people to areas where they actually want to live, as opposed to where Soviet planner dictated they should live, is the country's biggest economic problem.

Given that most Russians are still poor, and gain almost no benefit from the arrival of immigrants from former satellites, that used to be subsidised by the Russian government for little in return, it's not really surprising that some of them are hostile to immigrants from former non-Slavic satellites.

The Putin government may be trying to impose conservatism and stability from above, in a rough and ready manner, but it seems preferable to re-visiting liberal approaches which have led to far more pervasive problems.

Immigration and labour shortages

Immigration solves labour shortages, this is common knowledge right?

Well not if this recent survey by NZ Consumer Magazine is anything to go by.

Consumer magazine has surveyed trade rates in 18 centres and found they were significantly higher in Auckland than in South Island centres like Christchurch and Dunedin. For example, in Auckland, auto-mechanics charge $60-111 per hour, in Christchurch $45-81 per hour, and in Dunedin just $40-68 per hour.

Plumbers in Auckland charge $56—79 per hour while in Dunedin only $41-62 per hour. The survey also notes that Auckland has a significant problem with unregistered cowboy tradesmen.

According to the logic of pro-immigration economists, diverse multi-cultural Auckland should have plenty of eager tradesmen willing to work for modest rates, while tradesmen should cost an arm and leg in white bread South Island cities with lower immigration levels.

Critics will argue that living cost are higher in Auckland, so tradesmen have to charge higher rates to make a living. This is true to some extent, but living cost are also partly caused by immigration.

Saying immigration solves labour shortages is a highly simplistic, dare I say ideological argument which only applies to a few industries, especially unskilled and non-essential ones, and does not appear to be much help in solving the labour shortage in the skilled manual trades.

"Education, education, education."

For some reason English-speaking countries seem to excel at generating hubris in regard to the education sector. Central government’s in New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain are constantly engaged in pointless reforms to fulfil the needs of the “knowledge economy,” as if skilled work was something completely new, which didn’t exist prior to about 1985.

In many respects, English-speaking countries would be better served by down-playing the commercial importance of education, and providing students with more honest advice about the benefits and limitations of education in today’s world.

When I was at secondary school in the late 1980s, students were advised manual work would become a thing of the past, and that students with high education levels would invariably obtain higher paying jobs. This was in line with right liberal government policy that discouraged teenagers of average and above average intelligence from taking up practical apprenticeships (those yuppies really had it in for the manual trades).

The result has been a major labour shortage in manual trades, and a surplus of tertiary graduates with degrees in subjects like corporate communications.

By falling for the hubris of corporate managers who talked up the so-called “knowledge economy,” the governments’ of Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have created major structural problems within their economies which are proving difficult to reverse. University graduates have also had a very difficult time finding work because of the competition between the sexes.

In the social sciences, humanities and biology, females now outnumber males by a sizeable margin. Subsequently, suitable jobs for arts graduates are now hotly contested and many lose out. In the 1960s, many working class males with arts degrees and higher school qualifications moved up into white-collar work. Today, many male arts graduates from working and lower middle class backgrounds are moving back down into manual work.

All of this should have been highly predictable to policy advisers but students going through the education system were given little warning.

Despite all the reforms initiated by central government, there hasn't exactly been a dramatic increase in education standards. More students are graduating with poor writing skills and weaknesses in basic mathematics. Rudimentary knowledge of history, geography and hands-on science is also declining, as seen in the Channel Four documentary That’ll Teach Em'.

Similarly, spending on manual skills training has also fell significantly. At the risk of offending a few jocks, this hasn’t been helped by sometimes excessive spending on sports facilities (the school I went to had an excellent metal workshop, sitting idol, because the school management couldn’t sort out getting a new teacher at the same time that a large amount of money and effort was being pumped into a new sports hall).

Let’s face it, only a few students end up as professional sportsmen, and a lot of students who aren’t academically inclined also need to have some practical skills. Similarly, despite the high spending on sports, most students get relatively little basic physical exercise like running and swimming.

If the governments’ real aim was to increase education standards, then they could have given more attention to the unfashionable field of IQ testing, which can potentially help identify learning disorders, and guide teachers in identifying their student’s strengths and weaknesses. Instead, they have followed a muddled combination of political correctness and half-baked commercialisation.

Teaching teenagers is often made impossible by discipline restrictions in which teachers are not even allowed to raise their voice in a forceful manner. Schools let students get away with poor grammar at secondary school, only for them to fail their first year of tertiary study. Market populism reigns in the universities where subjects like American studies receive significant funding, despite being neither intellectually or commercially useful.

Where there are opportunities to try meaningful reforms in education, bad ideas seem to drive out good. Although schools talk about tailoring education to the needs of the student, they rarely seem to do this in practice. As far as I know, subject-based streaming is almost never used in public education in English-speaking countries, despite the fact that it would allow for far more focused teaching. If you are competent at English, but poor at maths, why should you have to sit through your English-literature class with a bunch of semi-illiterates?

Similarly, theories from psychology are often used in a simplistic and poorly informed manner. An example of this is the idea of dividing students into visual, auditory and hands-on learners. For practical reasons, academic subjects at higher levels simply cannot be taught in a range of styles and the scientific basis for such teaching ideas is weak.

Perhaps one of the worst aspects of today’s education system is commercially driven dishonesty.
As tertiary institutions in New Zealand have become semi-commercial enterprises in competition with each other, the needs of the institution have taken precedence over those of the student. Faculties market their courses in a flattering light and give misleading information about how many graduates find jobs through their programmes. Similarly, many practical courses are padded out with unnecessary theory that is not necessary for entry-level work, yet tutors (often baby boomers, who forget that students now have to pay for much of their education) are often reluctant to admit this.

Competition between institutions also means that a lot of taxpayers money is wasted on advertising and marketing aimed at attracting more students. However, for most subjects there are more than enough students passing through the education system. The biggest problem is finding jobs for them once they graduate, something for which governments and universities seem to feel little responsibility.

Another liberal misconception is the belief that education can solve a nation’s economic and social problems, summed up in Tony Blair’s banal catch phrase, “education, education, education”. Education can’t kick start an industrial revolution, reduce inequality, or pull a country out of a prolonged recession. If education could do these things, Argentina would be as rich as Australia, and Russia would be economically equal to the West. Similarly, education can’t cure unemployment, reduce crime, or protect the environment.

By over-stating the role of education, today’s elites make it harder for educators to focus on teaching itself. Teachers are often harassed by neurotic parents and over-bearing civil servants that clamour for incessant reforms. This discourages many of the best teachers from staying on while encouraging education departments to over-assess students and cram too many subjects into the curriculum.

Education should be focused on getting the basics right at the secondary level, promoting high academic standards in universities, and practicality in technical colleges. The drive towards commercialisation and premature specialisation has left many students ill-equipped for the needs of the workforce and perhaps more importantly, without the skills or direction to begin to correct the mistakes made by today’s elites.

An oldy but a goody

If you are one of those people who, like me, wonders about the future of western liberalism, then I suggest you check out this excellent article by Eric Kaufmann ( published in Prospect magazine in late 2006).

Here’s one of the key paragraphs:

“Perhaps we are entering a new stage in history in which the demographic flaws in liberalism will become more apparent, paving the way for the return of a communitarian social model. This may still leave democracy, liberalism and mixed capitalism intact. But it will challenge modernism, that great secular movement of cultural individualism which swept high art and culture after 1880 and percolated down the social scale to liberalise attitudes in the 1960s. Cultural modernism has accompanied technological modernisation in the west, while the non-western world has usually modernised its technology rather than its values. Daniel Bell prophesied that modernism's antinomian cultural outlook would prompt a "great instauration" of religion as people sought spiritual solace from the alienation of modern life. Bell has so far been proved wrong, but history may yet vindicate him as we bear witness not to spiritual revival, but to a religious reconquista based, ironically, on the nakedly this-worldly force of demography. “

Hide's hypocrisy

Considering that the Act Party is supposed to be the libertarian party of the "rugged individual," I am mystified as to why its leader Rodney Hide has stooped to PC nanny statery in calling for the resignation of Trevor Mallard, following Mallard's minor fracas with National politician Tau Henare.

Mallard has apologised for his actions, the apology has been accepted, and no physical damage has been done.

To my mind, to call for someone’s resignation over such a trivial incident is petty party point scoring of the lowest kind, and yet another example of how the liberal right can't be trusted in the fight against political correctness.

I try not to get personal on posts, but I have to admit this guy is really beginning to annoy me.

Quote for the week

“For true blissed-out and vacant servitude, though, you need an otherwise sophisticated society where no serious history is taught.”
- Christopher Hitchens.

NZ Conservative - Rugby World Cup silliness

As a bit of light relief, here's an idea for a BCC TV show:

Robin Hood: Prince of Chauvinists

Revisionist historical drama featuring various members of the England rugby team in some of the key roles.

Episode One: Robin tries to win back the favour of angry villagers after saving a group of gipsies from Sir Guy’s henchmen, meanwhile, his aunt Agnes falls foul of the Sheriff for trying to form a union among a group of Nottingham faggot carriers.

Robin Hood: Johnny Wilkinson
Robin’s Aunt: Germaine Greer
Will Scarlet: Ray Winstone
The Sheriff of Nottingham: Lawrence Dallaglio
Maid Marion: Justine Waddell (reliable period drama standby called in following unresolvable pay dispute with Kate Beckinsale)
Sir Guy of Gisbourne: Josh Lewsey
King John: Mike Catt
Vaguely middle eastern looking Saracen: Jason Robinson
Director: Lucy Upper
Producer: Quentin Redbrick
Music by Enya and Massive Attack

Warning: contains anachronistic language (such as excessive use of the phrase “innit” by Winstone) and historically improbable themes of a multi-cultural nature.

Diffusing New Zealand’s looming race bomb.

In a feature article in last month’s Press (“steady as she goes,” September 15, D3, not online) Helen Clarke is quoted as saying National have “policies which dare not speak their name.”

Clarke does not elaborate on what sort of policies she is referring to, but her cryptic comment suggests these “policies” include National’s approach to race issues.

In 2004 National leader Don Brash tried to start a serious debate on current race relations between Maori and European New Zealanders when he argued in his Orewa speech that it was unsustainable for European and Asian New Zealanders to continue to subsidise a growing Maori population.

However, following National’s loss in the 2005 election, and the replacement of Brash with the Cameronesque PR man John Key, race was quickly swept back under the carpet.

Although Brash deserves some recognition for mentioning a difficult and important issue, the right liberal policies he prescribes are probably a maladaptive solution to the problem.

The main issue with race in New Zealand is arguably not poor race relations or race-based policies, as Brash claims, but a pervasive inability to acknowledge demographic imbalances.As the current ethic strife countries such as Lebanon, Israel, South Africa and France illustrate, different rates of demographic growth between races and cultures often lead to serious conflict.

Over the last hundred years, the Maori population has been growing at a faster rate than the European population, yet has been consuming a disproportionate percentage of taxes.

Despite, efforts to address historical grievances over land confiscations and the marginalisation of Maori culture, Maori still lag behind in terms of income, health outcomes, unemployment rates and education levels, as well having higher imprisonment rates. Added to this is the fact that the country’s growing Polynesian population also consumes a disproportionate share of health and welfare spending.

The response of both Labour and National over the past 17 years has been to increase immigration of educated workers from Europe, India and East Asia to expand the overburdened tax base.

Unfortunately, increased immigration has been a double-sword. Higher housing costs have meant fewer Maori and Polynesians have been able to afford to homes, thus increasing their dependency of welfare, and more European New Zealanders have left overseas, in part, because wage rates have failed to keep up with the increased cost of housing and education.

While Australia, Canada, and the United States also have problems with economically under-performing indigenous populations, their indigenous peoples form a much smaller percentage of their populations, so they are less of an economic burden.

With an aging white population increasingly dependent on the state for health and pension spending, there is likely to be increasing pressure on the government to reduce spending on low-income families at a time when Maori politicians are making increasing demands on the government to increase such spending and reduce immigration.

This situation puts the limited immigration supporting New Zealand First Party in a difficult position. Although rising commodity prices are making immigration restrictionism more economically justifiable, the country’s multi-cultural divisions appear to be acting as a significant break on productivity.

Money that previously went into long-term infrastructure development and research and development programmes is now going into such things as increased spending on law and order to manage an increasingly diverse population which is unable to manage itself.

At the global level, the majority of countries with high productivity rates, such as Korea and Japan, tend to be either culturally homogenous or, like the United States, are large enough to compete on economies on scale - New Zealand can’t compete under either criteria.

In the long run, the only solution out of this bind may be political union with Australia. In a combined Australian/New Zealand state, the Maori population would be less of a demographic threat to a European population of over 20 million, while New Zealand would not need to worry so much about skilled workers moving across the Tasman. Similarly, there would be less of an economic argument in favour of increasing immigration in order to expand the tax base.

Sadly though, it’s unlikely there is going to be any serious debate about this issue until the baby boomer generation starts retiring in about 5 years - by which time the government will be in a more fiscally desperate situation.

Common sense on climate change

It's refreshing to see Rodger Kerr of the business round table beginning to acknowledge there may be a down side to moving western manufacturing firms to China.

"There is a fundamental lack of logic in seeking to scale back internationally efficient industries such as agriculture, aluminium and steel when the production shortfall may be taken up by industries in other countries that generate greater emissions."

While it is probably unrealistic to try and protect labour intensive industries from Asian competition, energy intensive industries which depend on technology rather than cheap wages, should not be easily surrended.

Overseas readers may also be interested to know that while NZ's Labour government often criticises Australia and the US for not signing up to the Kyoto Protocol, it encourages New Zealand firms to export significant quantities of coal half way across the world to Japan - go figure.

Peak oil and progress

A thought provoking post from UK blogger Sabretache on Britain's looming energy crisis ("Living in la-la land").

It's a pity there aren't more British and Commonwealth bloggers who are willing to think "outside the box" and question prevailing right-liberal ideology.

Islamophobia

In a new post on the Anti-war blog, Pat Buchanan points out the misguided focus of the right-liberal Islamophobes who claim Arab terrorism is a mortal threat to western states.

“For all the blather of a restored caliphate, the “Islamofascists,” as the neo-cons call them, cannot create or run a modern state, or pose a mortal threat to America. The GNP of the entire Arab world is not equal to Spain’s.”

The real threat posed by Islam is not terrorism but demography. In the absence of strong economies, Middle Eastern states only really have one weapon with which to seriously threaten the West and that’s an expanding population.

One reason why there’s been little progress in improving relations between Israel and Palestine is because of Palestine’s burgeoning population. In Israel’s eyes, Palestine is waging a pretty successful demographic war, and unless growth in the Palestinian population slows pretty sharply, Israel isn't likely to come out with an olive branch anytime soon.

France is now getting a taste of what may be in store for the rest of Europe as it’s economy labours under the weight of a rapidly growing Muslim underclass.

In the wider scheme of things, terrorism is only a major threat to the West if the West falls prey to its own ideological delusions.

Al Qaeda’s ongoing strategy seems to revolve around goading America and Britain into getting involved in protracted wars in the Middle East with the aim of slowly bleeding their indebted economies and turning western public opinion against interventionist strategies.

The West should take a lesson from Israel’s predicament and limit Muslim immigration to a small number of skilled immigrants who will follow the middle class pattern of, for want of a better term, "small family values."

When China Wakes Up

How much longer will China be happy making cheap goods for the West?

Vdare columnist Paul Craig Roberts points out that once a particular industry is moved to China, research and development in that industry is also likely to move there. This could have dire consequences for western economies.

At the moment China is quite happy pandering to the needs of western consumers. The Yuan is pegged to the dollar at an artificially low rate, while the US dollar is propped up by East Asian investors. This is increasing the competitiveness of Chinese manufacturers and boosting the purchasing power of American consumers.

Since the mid 1990s, low and middle-income westerners have become dependent on cheap Chinese imports to offset stagnating wages and rising costs for services. A pricey ticket to a football game is still affordable when a new toaster or kettle only costs $20.

However, two things are starting to change:

1. China is now producing more sophisticated, better quality goods

2. Chinese domestic demand is rapidly expanding.

In the early stages of industrialisation, capital starved industrialists make sure that their workers produce significantly more than they consume, but as productivity picks up, a surplus of goods accumulates and employers increase wages so that workers can consume the surplus.

Chinese firms are now buying up unprofitable western manufacturers, such as the UK car manufacturer Rover, and shifting the capital equipment back to China. Soon component manufacturers will also have to move due to transport and communication issues and it will become impractical to maintain research and development facilities back in the home country.

Furthermore, the Chinese will be able to study how the blue prints of the capital equipment and set up their own industries for building capital equipment. At this point China won’t really need to subsidise western consumers since they will have control over the whole production process.

The Chinese will then be able to float the Yuan and charge western consumers higher prices for their products. The West won’t be able to respond by moving production to cheaper countries, such as Bangladesh and Pakistan, because the West won’t own the patents for the products or the capital equipment needed to produce them.

Two other factors may also serve to increase the price of Chinese goods:

1. The cost of raw materials, such as oil, copper and wheat, are likely to increase considerably in the next 10-20 years

2. The aging of the Chinese population will put upward pressure on wages and the Yuan.

Prices for oil and gas, as well as farm products such as wheat and beef, are likely to increase and China will need a stronger currency to pay for these essential imports. At that point it won’t make sense for China to compete solely in low wage manufacturing.

The Indian sub-continent, with a much younger population than China, will then take over a lot of the world’s low wage production. Although, most western economists seem to hate the term “strategic industries” the West is going to have to identify essential industries that it won’t surrender to China.

The fact that Chinese companies are already producing aircraft components for a strategic firm like Boeing, suggests that this is not yet happening.

Right-wing liberals

Mark Richardson, at the Conservative Central website, points out that today’s “neo-conservatives” are arguably more liberal than conservative and that it’s probably more accurate to label them right-wing liberals.

The liberal right promotes a number of ideas many would consider to be at odds with traditional conservatism including: large-scale immigration, public and individual debt, commercialised government over small government, and the continued expansion of the service sector.

In New Zealand, a large number of neo-conservatives and libertarians, such as the former National party leader Don Brash, are ex-socialists. So it’s no surprise that many of them still have an expansionist, Marxist attitude to immigration. Don Brash apparently supports high immigration provided immigrants adhere to “enlightenment values,” as he stated in a campaign speech before the 2005 election.

Hence, ‘neo-conservatives’ and libertarians support high immigration provided immigrants intend to assimilate into the local society. Traditional conservatives though, have a cautious attitude to immigration because they are doubtful that large numbers of immigrants can be successfully assimilated.

In contrast, right-wing liberals make a number of questionable assumptions about immigration from non-western cultures, including: that immigrants want to assimilate, that they can assimilate, that they can assimilate quickly and can assimilate in large numbers.

For right-wing liberals assimilation is about education and will power and that once exposed to western enlightenment values most non-western immigrants will want to conform to them. However, most of the world doesn’t conform to western values and there is increasing evidence from Europe and the U.S that large numbers of non-western immigrants don’t want to conform to western values.

In France the birthplace of enlightenment liberalism, governing elites have assumed that once Muslim immigrants were exposed to French education, and the French language, they would absorb mainstream western values. As the number of non-western immigrants has risen though, fewer immigrants are integrating into French society. Subsequently, France is now starting to pursue a pragmatic, skilled-based immigration policy over an idealistic, liberal immigration policy.

The liberal right promotes small government in its rhetoric but in practice tends to support relatively large-scale, managerial government. In terms of total spending as a proportion of Gross National Income, the state in New Zealand has not declined during the post-1984 era of neo-liberal reform. Spending on education per pupil for example, has continued to increase without any clear improvement in academic standards- a common pattern in many western countries. Similarly, spending on such things as management salaries, advertising, and corporate image building in the public sector has continued to soar.

In 1992 the ‘neo-conservative’ National government repealed the 1983 Apprenticeship Training Act. This caused a rift between the state and the trades sector, in training manual workers, that has resulted in a significant shortage of tradesmen. The National Party believed that state run training courses could produce better tradesmen than public-private partnerships lead by the private sector. It practice, liberal elites on the right trust the practical common sense of manual workers even less than their left liberal counterparts.

Libertarians and neo-conservatives strongly support public and private indebtedness. In the U.S, Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan has presided over the biggest budget blow-out in U.S history while the Republican Party has done little to tackle the looming crisis in Medicare funding.

Here in N.Z, the National Party continues to pour cold water over proposals for compulsory saving, and in the 1990s allowed student debt to get out of hand by allowing students to borrow lump sums for living costs while studying.Unlike many traditional conservatives and populists, the modern right in N.Z isn’t very interested in production. The National Party, for example, hasn’t shown much interest in providing tax concessions for businesses wanting to increase r and d spending.

Libertarians and‘neo-conservatives are however, very interested in boosting consumption and expanding the service economy. In the era of neo-liberal reform there has been an explosion of shopping malls, longer retail hours, increased advertising aimed at children, and reduced restrictions on alcohol consumption and prostitution. Although the National Party was once considered to be a socially conservative party is has failed to take a strong contrary stand on any of these liberal reforms.

In English-speaking economies like New Zealand and the United States it is difficult to find policy areas where modern “neo conservative” parties and their supporters have actually cut back bureaucracy, increased saving, decreased private debt, or restricted the expansion of negative aspects of the service economy. Similarly, neo-conservative governments have generally been supportive of large-scale immigration as a so called "solution" to economic problems.

The populist backlash, in favour of limited immigration, that is occurring in countries like France, Denmark, and now the United States, shows that liberal governments will only give up expansionist liberal policies when forced to by a desperate and alienated electorate.

Some thoughts on John Gray's "Al Qaeda and what it means to be modern"

In Al Qaeda and What it Means to Be Modern John Gray makes some excellent points about the naivety of the liberal right in believing that the world can be re-made in a western image.

However, while he acknowledges the cultural distinctiveness of the West he denies westerners the opportunity to protect themselves by limiting immigration.

Gray succinctly states that globalisation is not making the world more uniform:

"As societies throughout the world become more modern, they do not thereby become more similar. Often they move further apart. In these circumstances, we need to think afresh about how regimes and ways of life that will always be different can come to coexist in peace."

This is sort of thinking that traditional U.S conservatives have been promoting for the last one hundred years but is a message that Liberals, from Woodrow Wilson to Tony Blair, have been consistently ignoring. Most of the World is not like the West and doesn’t want to be like the West.

In military affairs Gray takes the traditional conservative view that enemies can never be eliminated, only contained:

"There cannot be tolerance so long as terrorism is unchecked. Dealing with it is a precondition of any kind of civilised existence and requires courage, skill and - at times – ruthlessness. Yet in the new kind of conventional war that is now being fought there is no prospect of victory."

The neo-conservative idea that threats like terrorism and drugs can defeated in all out, short-term offensives is another utopian idea with a very short shelf life. Another vital point that Gray makes is the importance of overpopulation in global problems:

"The human prospect is shaped by rising human numbers, mounting competition for natural resources and the spread of weapons of mass destruction …Interacting with historic ethnic and religious enmities, they argur conflicts as destructive as any in the twentieth century."

Unfortunately, on the topic of immigration Gray backs down from his post liberal position and criticises ‘far right’ political parties that seek to promote limited immigration. Surely, if western culture is unique, and is threatened by global overpopulation and terrorism, then the West is perfectly entitled to try and limit immigration from non-western countries.

The eminent scientist Gareth Hardin has made a very strong argument that countries need to be made responsible for their own overpopulation problems and that lack of border controls will set up a ‘tragedy of the commons’ situation where countries pass their overpopulation problems onto their neighbours.

If Gray expects to be taken seriously by conservatives then he needs to address Hardin’s hard-headed argument. Furthermore, contrary to what Gray suggests, political parties don’t have to play on ‘racist fears’ of voters to win support for limited immigration policies.

Opinion poles indicate that most people already support limited immigration. The reason we don’t have limited immigration policies in place already is because political parties are deliberately putting big business interests ahead of majority interests.

Gray himself acknowledges that western businesses are a key factor in driving immigration:

"Remember Voltaire’s quip: ‘The comfort of the rich depends on abundant supply of the poor."

In type-casting limited immigration advocates as ignorant populists, Gray alienates the kind of people that are most likely to take his other, more hard-headed, arguments seriously. Its high time self-styled iconoclasts like John Gray stopped squirming around politically sensitive issues like immigration and reveal what they actually think.

New lows for the liberal right

Increasingly exasperated by popular disillusionment over the Iraq conflict and the failure of Bush's immigration amnesty bill in the US, the pro-war, pro-immigration liberal right has decided to blame (wait for it ...) western democracy!

According to Times columnist Gerard Baker, in a recent opinion column, "How paranoid little Napoleons took over the United States," democracy is now passe:

"Democracy, Winston Churchill famously observed, is the worst form of government ever devised -except for all the others, well he was right about the first part."

Having rejected democracy as a workable system of government for America, Baker then has the audacity to use democracy as a rationale for failed neoconservative regime change in Iraq:

"A central tenet of neoconservativism has always been that promoting democracy around the world is not only morally right, but also in the long-term interest of peace and stability."


With the Democrats and old-right Republicans dismissed as irresponsible, anti-democratic populists for wanting to pull out of the unwinnable war in Iraq, Baker decides to attack mainstream America for opposing immigration amnesty:

"President Bush had tried, honourably and rightly, to get a Reform Bill through Congress that would have regularised the status of 12 million illegal immigrants, mostly Latinos, as well as enforcing bordersecurity more effectively."

"The Bill was defeated by a roar of nativist and, at times disguised racist hysteria from the American heartland. Little Napoleons on TV and talk radio strutted and howled, denoucing the President and his supporters for surrendering to a cultural takeover by Mexicans."

A piece of paraphrased advice for Baker - you can insult some of the people, some of the time, but you can't insult all of the people all of the time.

Human directionals

The favourite human interest story on New Zealand television news last Friday night was the new US fad of "sign spinning" - apparently a new twist on the rather depressing human directionals trend noted by Steve Sailer.

Apparently a couple of American college graduates have made a tidy sum of money from teaching the sign-holders to put a "positive spin" on their signs, as the media usually likes to do with stories about wage rates and immigration issues.

Personally, I would have thought sign spinning would be an even harder way to make a few dollars than sign holding. How long can you spin a sign for? (at least in the 30s depression they had easy to hold sandwich boards), and how soon before the novelty wears off among the public?

Yet more service industry insanity coming to a western country near you!

Immigration and emissions

Environmental pollution essentially comes down to two basic variables - population growth and industrialisation. This is something anyone with a little common sense and imagination should be able to grasp.

So it comes as a continual surprise to me how concerned the New Zeland Green party is with defending the rights of prospective third world immigrants.

Third world countries have much lower CO2 emissions levels than developed nations, so from an environmental perspective, third world immigration is bad news for the planet.

New Zealand greens love to advertise the country's anti-nuclear credentials, but seem oblivious to the fact that our renewable power sources will be not be able to cater for a larger population at a first world standard of living.

US Blogger Brent Lane has crunched a few numbers and made a plausible estimation of the impact of illegal immigrants on US emissions levels.

Yet more evidence that pro-immigration Marxism is about as compatible with real environmentalism as bear-baiting is with buddhism.

The good, the bad, and the recycled

Unfortunately, I won't be doing a lot of posting in the next few months due to work distractions (the curse of the blogging class!). However, I 'll try to keep coming up with the odd post and suppliment things with some old posts from last year.

On the good news front, maverick US economist George Borjas has started a new blog.

Meanwhile, here's a rant from 2006:

The overrated importance of taxes

On the liberal-right, as well as among some elements of the liberal-left, there seems to be an ideological obsession with tax rates and their importance in economic success.

However, in the real world there is no clear correlation between tax rates and the economic success of particular states.

Looking at the New Zealand blog scene, it is apparent there is a strong contingent of libertarians and neo-conservatives that harp on about the endless benefits of low taxes and economic deregulation. There is also a smaller group of centre-left liberals that argue that high taxes will turn New Zealand into a Scandinavian style success story.

When you look at the tax policies of particular countries though, you don’t find a lot of consistent evidence to support either case.

Economic libertarians cite the economic success of the U.S as compelling evidence that low taxes lead to economic prosperity. However, there are plenty of other countries with strong economies that have much higher tax rates, including Norway, Switzerland, Finland and Denmark. High tax Sweden struggled in the 1990s but is now doing relatively well with 4.1 percent growth last year.

As Steve Sailer points out, according to neo-liberal theory Sweden’s economy should now be in tatters and its work ethic shattered by socialism. Similarly, the third world is littered with low tax economies, such as Nigeria, that are still struggling with high levels of poverty and corruption.

Tax rates in most economically successful East Asian counties are relatively low, but these countries also tend to have high levels of trade protectionism that economic libertarians also strongly object to.

The centre-left cites the success of Scandinavian economies as evidence that high taxes can produce stable growth with high levels of equality. However, countries that have tried to copy Scandinavian tax policies have had little success- a good example being Britain in the 1970s. Britain was forced to revise its economies policies and reduce its tax rates after being ignominiously refused assistance by the IMF in the late 1970s.

In the period from 1945-1975 New Zealand did well under a post-war high tax regime, but was force to lower tax rates in the 1980s as national debt and inflation reached unsustainable levels.

Clearly its possible to run a successful economy under both high and low tax regimes, but there is little evidence to suggest that switching from one to the other will lead to a long-term improvement in a country’s economic performance. Furthermore, many developing countries have been perennial economic losers under both high and low tax systems.

Obviously, factors other than taxes, such as culture, ethnicity, resources, geography and history are more important in long -term economic success.

Nor can tax ideologues argue that tax rates would be decisive if only there was universal free trade. China is developing nicely with relatively high levels of protectionism (through farm subsidies and currency manipulation), while protectionist Japan and Korea are now emerging from extended recessions with their industrial sectors still in good shape.

Centre-left proponents of ‘fair trade’ also fail to acknowledge that developing countries won’t benefit from ‘fair trade’ if they lack the infrastructure needed for exporting and are unable to maintain basic law and order.

Tax fanatics should move on from their ideological cul de sac and start looking at other, more decisive factors in economic development.

A 'liberal moment'

The other day I made the foolish mistake of leaving my car overnight in a relatively rough neighbourhood. Sure enough, the next day I returned to find one of the windows smashed in.

Against my better judgment, I ignored vaild stereotypes abouts the area's inhabitants, and made an overly optimistic assessment of the chances of my car getting broken into.

In other words, I behaved the way left -liberals say people should do and suffered accordingly.

According to left-liberals, stereotypes are destructive and inaccurate generalisations that make people's lives worse.

In reality though, stereotypes are useful generalisations that help people minimise trouble in their lives and make rational decisions. People develop stereotypes through real world experiences of the type I have just commented on.

Left-liberals seem to believe (without solid evidence) that stereotypes cause people to behave in an unjust, cruel and inconsiderate way to people of other classes, cultures and ethnicities.

If people are unduly cruel and inconsiderate to others it is because of deeper reasons, such as genes, and or, a lousy upbringing, and not because of stereotypes they have supposedly picked up in the media.

I challange liberals to try and get by without stereotypes and see how their lives turn out.

Tagging

I thought I’d better belatedly respond to being tagged by Michael Cadwallader. Apparently the tradition of tagging is that:

"People who get tagged need to write a blog entry of their own 6 weird things as well as stating this rule clearly! Three people need to be tagged and their names listed. Finally a comment needs to be left on each tagged person's blog..."

Six odd points of trivia about me:

1.Unlike Mr Cadwallader, I have low caffeine tolerance and would probably be jumping off the walls if I had 7 cups of coffee. I usually get by on beer and chocolate bars (not together of course).

2. I like finding obscure music on the Internet such as the Continental progressive rock bands Paatos, Anekdoten and Townscream.

3. However, I strongly dislike Icelandic singer Bjork, due her popularity with fashionable liberals, and the fact she is completely atonal.

4. I spend too much time trying to do childish 12th Man style impersonations of iconic cricket umpires (I do a reasonable Tony Greig). Apologies to any North American readers that hate cricket.

5. I occasionally day dream about being a politically incorrect 1970s business executive with a well stocked drinks cabinet. (nothing like a scotch on the rocks while discussing oil prices at the office).

6. On a technophobia scale where 1 is low and 10 is extremely high, I’m about an 8.75.

I would like to tag the highly articulate, but self-effacing Dennis Dale, numerate maverick Half Sigma and newcomer Taboo Truth.

Free speech

A good post from UK blogger Pub philosopher on why propety rights should not take precedence over freedom of speech.

Liberal parenting

During an Anzac memorial service I attended this morning a child sitting behind me yelled and moaned throughout the proceedings yet the parents of this little darling never once told them to shut up or leave the hall.

Why come to a serious, solemn event if you know your kids have no hope of behaving?

While such behaviour is still embarrassing and shameful to most people, for many left-liberal parents a child’s right to ‘self- expression’ seems to comes before any social obligation to behave in a considerate manner.

And Sue Bradford wonders why 80 percent of the population is opposed to her anti-smacking legislation.

Managerialism in universities

Watching the 2003 film Luther the other day, reminded me of a Quadrant article by Malcolm Saunders on the topic of managerialism in Australia’s universities.

The revenue gathering fixation of today’s universities seems to have some similarities with the 16th Century Catholic Church’s preoccupation with selling indulgences.

According to Saunders, Australian university administrators are more concerned with securing research money and racking in tuition fees than with providing value for money.

The unfashionable researcher who works on the smell of an oily rag can be compared to the rebel priest who focused on serving his parish rather than his Church’s coffers.

Saunders goes on to say, this managerial culture of cynicism, cronyism and blind institutional allegiance is driving many Australian academics into early retirement. If this is true, it sounds pretty worrying (and wasteful) given that western nations are facing a looming shortage of high IQ workers.

Although Saunders appears to be writing from a liberal perspective, his dislike of the current cultural climate of academia should resonant with many conservatives. I particularly like the following comment, which could apply to many workplaces:

"While the physical conditions under which academics work has probably never been better, the cultural climate in which they pursue their disciplines has never been worse."

In response to Saunders article, US legal blogger Terrence Berres summed things up nicely with this pithy comment:

"The seemingly incompatible bed-partners – liberal economics and postmodernism – have joined forces to ensure that Australian universities serve economic rather than academic cum intellectual ends."

Quote of the week

A great quote from Udolpho on liberal reaction to the Don Imus affair:

"It is considered a sign of high status to refuse to see the world clearly - for only someone of high status can persist in impractical behaviour and beliefs."

Indian immigration

Vdare contributor Brenda Walker raises some interesting points about the darker aspects of Sub- continental culture (see here).

New Zealand is currently going through a period of increased Indian immigration. Since Labour introduced tougher English language requirements for immigrants, East Asian immigration has slowed and the number of Indian arrivals is on the increase.

I don’t know a lot about Indian culture (which is notoriously complex) but I am concerned about India’s population levels.

In comparison with China, India’s birth rates are still very high and I think New Zealand and other western nations need to be cautious about increasing the level of sub-continental immigration at the present time.

Thoughts on 300

War Nerd’s take on the new cartoon action epic 300, is that it’s essentially a neo-conservative propaganda piece that champions American values and takes a cheap shot at Iran.

While there is probably a lot of truth in this analysis, I do think the film’s critics have overlooked the significance of the Pelopennesse War in western culture.

Herodotus’s account of the Greek’s exploits in the war may well be one sided, but it seems to be an historical fact that in terms of numbers the Greeks thoroughly out fought the Persians.

The West has always been a labour poor civilisation, which has had to find ways to defend itself with inferior numbers. While Asiatic civilisations build up large populations through intensive grain farming, western nations, with less favourable climatic conditions, had to rely on low-intensity pastoral farming and seasonal grain crops. Such farming methods were not conducive to high population densities.

The resulting manpower shortage provided western civilisation with a strong incentive to develop labour saving technology and introduce a more individualistic social system. Democracy and citizenship were not so much about “self-actualisation” (as modern liberals assume) as about maximising each individual’s potential to help their city or nation state.

With fewer men, the ancient Greeks commanders had to use their manpower more resourcefully, and economically, than their Persian opponents and in doing so provided the inspiration for later audacious commanders like Alexander, Clive and Houston.

Africa's population bomb

It’s refreshing to see a popular commentator like Gwynne Dyer (link here) addressing the politically incorrect topic of population growth.

Although growth rates are slowing in many parts of the world, Africa still has worrying high birth rates. As Dyer points out:

"Nine out of the 10 countries in the world with the highest birth rates are African (the other is Afghanistan) and it seemed uncomfortably like pointing the finger at the victim. But runaway population growth is a big factor in making so many Africans victims, and it doesn’t help to stay silent about it."

Dyer goes on to state:

“Sierra Leone, Liberia, Uganda, Somalia, Congo, Angola and Burundi have all been devastated by chronic, many sided civil wars, and all seven appear in the top 10 birth rate list.”

According to Dyer, Uganda is the worst culprit, population wise:

“Uganda’s birth-rate is seven children per woman, little change from 30 years ago. Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, believes that his country is under-populated, and told parliament last July: “I am not one of those worried about he population explosion. It is a great resource.”

Unfortunately, with today’s liberal immigration policies Africa’s problems may well become the West’s problems. That’s why I don’t really agree with conservatives who dismiss overpopulation as a thing of the past. It’s not just that western countries are having too few children, its that many poor countries are still having way too many.

The only way to put pressure on Africa to become more “demography responsible” it to make aid and debt relief dependent on declining birth rates.

Conservative environmentalist Garett Hardin has been suggesting for some time now that countries must be responsible for their own demographic problems if the world is to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" situation. Unfortunately, conservative realism is not very fashional in international aid circles and Hardin is likely to remain a voice in the wilderness for some time to come.

Embarrassed to be middle class

In contemporary rock music circles it has become increasingly unfashionable to be seen as white, educated and middle class.

During the 1970s and 1980s there were plenty of successful that bands combined high standards of musicianship with intelligent lyrics and a white, mostly middle class image, examples include: Steely Dan, Yes, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Kate Bush, XTC, Depeche Mode, the Pet Shop Boys, Talking Heads, the Stranglers and the Police.

It first become fashionable to criticise “arty” middle class bands in the late 1970s when Maxist music critics like Lester Bangs got stuck into the “serious and pretentious” progressive rock groups of the early ‘70s.

Today there is a dearth of rock bands with high standards of musicianship, good lyrics and interesting arrangements. Among the only examples that come to mind are a few competent warblers like Aimee Mann and Fiona Apple, heavy art rock groups like Porcupine Tree and Dream Theater, and post modern prog rockers like Muse and Radiohead.

The Mars Volta stand as a surprisingly successful band with art rock leanings, but having Hispanic members, they are probably less likely to be labelled as “pretentious” by left- liberal music critics.

To be successful, contemporary bands have to narrowly market themselves as hedonistic, anti-intellectual, instrumentally mediocre and fashionably self-effacing.

Instrumental virtuosity and the use of keyboards are frowned upon, as is deviating from an ideologically approved range of influences such as the Rolling Stones, the Ramones and the Small Faces.

The country which has suffered the most from this anti-middle class ideology has been class conscious Britain, which has gone from being a leader in popular music in the early’70s, to a mass producer of diazepam substitutes like Travis and Coldplay.

If you are looking for interesting popular music you are probably better off checking out obscure stuff from Continental countries like Sweden and Hungary, where the egalitarian fashion police aren’t so pervasive (as least in music circles anyway).

More Green hypocrisy

Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking legislation is a classic example of late liberal interventionism, and is just the sort of state interference which traditional conservatives are opposed to.

There has been no public campaign calling for a ban on smacking or any serious social crisis that would justify such a top down initiative.

The problem the anti-smacking bill is designed to solve, is apparently only occurring among one section of one ethnic group- in this case low-income Maori.

However, the liberal left deems that all ethnic groups must now be told how to discipline their children instead of leaving Maori to deal with their own issues.

The introduction of unpopular liberal reforms from above is a relatively new phenomenon.

Prior to the late 1960s, progressive reforms were either introduced for serious pragmatic reasons, such as to deal with an economic crisis like the Great Depression, or because of sustained popular activism from below.

The introduction of religious toleration was in large part a response to the carnage caused by the 30 Years War, while universal suffrage in Britain was won through the persistent campaigns of the Chartists in the early 19th Century.

What makes Bradford’s meddling in the private lives of the country’s citizens particularly galling is that she is a member of a party that claims to be dedicated to conservation. Unfortunately, this doesn’t include conservation of mainstream social norms.

Its high time the Greens made up their mind whether they wish to focus on conserving the environment or indulging in anti-conservative social engineering. Given that not all environmentalists are left-liberals, it is highly disingenuous of the Green party to be claiming to do the former while also trying to do the later.

The Maori party on white immigration

Last week Maori party MP Turiana Turia called for a limit on white immigration to New Zealand, saying it was undermining the Maori party’s chances of gaining another seat in parliament (“Maori party calls for migrant cutback, ” Dominion Post, Monday February 26, 2007).

Despite the racist nature of Turia’s comments, the national media seems to have downplayed them. Mainstream conservative bloggers have been quick to point out that if Don Brash had made similar remarks regarding say, Polynesian immigration, the mainstream media would have been all over him like a pack of wolves, given the grilling he received over his Orewa speech in 2004.

The only reason I managed to catch the story was because an overseas blogger asked me why I wasn’t commenting on it (hat tip Crush141).

In analysing comments like this, it good to start with Lenin’s old question “who, whom?” will benefit from the proposed change. Turia makes the assumption that the majority of Maori will be better off if they become a larger proportion of the population. She also concludes that Maori will benefit from Asian and Polynesian immigration as opposed to European immigration.

However, where is the evidence for any of these claims?

Indigenous Canadians have one of the best deals on the planet precisely because they are a small minority, which the majority can compensate without impoverishing themselves in the process.

As Maori become a larger proportion of the population, they are likely to receive less government assistance per person, and an aging white population will quickly grow tired of seeing a larger proportion of their taxes being used to compensate Maori.

Right-liberal commentator Alan Duff has pointed out that the gap between East Asian and Maori cultural viewpoints is even greater than that between European and Maori New Zealanders. For example, East Asians have small, tightly knit families and a penchant for academic study, while Maori have large, loosely structured families and do relatively poorly academically. Maori vote centre left Labour while East Asians vote centre right National. Perhaps most tellingly, East Asians are far more likely to marry Whites than Polynesians – none of this bodes well for Turia’s “ochre alliance”.

Polynesians are culturally more similar to Maori, but does that mean Maori will benefit from increased Soth Pacific immigration? Currently, New Zealand has an aging population, low unemployment and an increasing demand for both skilled and unskilled labour. This situation is good news for the majority of Maori.

However, increased Pacific island immigration would increase competition for jobs and housing and drive down wages in the unskilled and semi-skilled occupations where most Maori are employed.

Given the negative impact uncontrolled immigration from Mexico and Central America is having on work prospects for US Blacks, I can’t see how Maori would benefit from increased immigration from countries like Tonga and the Solomon Islands.

The Maori party has been labelled elitist by centre right urban Maori John Tamihere and I can see why – a “browning” of New Zealand’s population will help Maori elites in the public sector leverage more resources from central government - while doing little for the majority of Maori who would benefit more from a tight labour market and relatively harmonious race relations.

Given that New Zealand is already losing too many skilled workers overseas, a surge in unskilled non-white immigration could trigger a South African style exodus that would plunge the country into second world status.