From: mars1933@hotmail.com   
      
      Fischer has the typical liberal blind spots of contemporary   
   academic historians. Thus he ignores race when dealing with issues   
   like crime. For example, in comparing murder and assault rates, he   
   ignores the very disproportionate role of Black crime in America. He   
   notes that rates of homicide are about the same when comparing New   
   England with New Zealand, but notes that Louisiana has a murder   
   rate 5 times higher than both without discussing the relative im-   
   portance of Black crime between Louisiana (32.4% Black) and New   
   England (where Connecticut has the largest Black population, 11.1%;   
   Massachusetts: 7.6%; Rhode Island: 7.2%; Vermont: 1.1% Black; Maine:   
   1.3% Black; New Hampshire: 1.3%).15 Louisiana has had the highest   
   murder rate in the U.S. in every year from 1989 to 2010,16 and in 2005   
   78.7% of the victims were Black.17 Given that Blacks commit around   
   51% of all murders in the U.S.,18 and correcting for the relatively   
   large percentage of Blacks in Louisiana compared to the U.S. as a   
   whole (32.4% vs. 13.1%) and the rarity of White on Black homicide, one   
   must conclude that vast majority of murders in Louisiana are committed   
   by Blacks.   
      
      Further, when discussing the history of immigration to the U.S.,   
   Fischer never mentions the very large role of Jewish organizations   
   pursuing their ethnic interests in creating a majority non-White   
   America.19 For both countries, Fischer makes only vague   
   pronouncements, attributing fluctuations in immigration levels to the   
   effects of "world wars, economic trends, political events, and social   
   conditions. An even more powerful factor was the role of government.   
   In both countries policy decisions explained many twists and turns in   
   the flow if immigration. These broad trends flowed primarily from   
   choices by policy makers, and by migrants themselves. It has always   
   been so, from the earliest great migrations to our own time" (p. 207).   
      
      The emphasis on the role of government is a hint that policy mak-   
   ing on immigration has been a top-down process shaped by elite poli-   
   cy makers. This is correct, but there is no discussion of ethnic   
   conflict over immigration policy acting to shape those choices, no   
   discussion of the critical role of Jewish influence in shaping U.S.   
   policy, and no discussion of the attitudes of White majorities toward   
   non-White immigration during the decades when massive non-White   
   immigration has become a reality in both countries.20 (Similarly,   
   Brenton Sanderson has provided details on the decisive role of Jewish   
   activists and Jewish activist organizations in shaping immigration   
   policy in Australia in the complete absence of a popular mandate for   
   rejecting the traditional White Australia policy.)21   
      
      In both New Zealand and the U.S., the 1920s marked the high point   
   of concern that immigrants be White. In the U.S., there was the Immi-   
   gration Restriction Act of 1924 which biased immigration to North-   
   west Europe on the basis of ethnic fairness (the quota for different   
   groups depended on their proportion of the U.S. population in 1890).   
   In New Zealand, the goal of the Restriction Act of 1920 was "a white   
   New Zealand" (p. 219) in the words of the Prime Minister at the time,   
   William Massey. Not long after the sea change in U.S. immigration   
   policy inaugurated by the 1965 immigration act, in 1974 New Zealand   
   changed its law to avoid criteria of race or nationality. Immigration   
   surged beginning in the 1990s, with most immigrants coming from   
   Asia. Prior to 1975, the vast majority of immigrants were from the   
   U.K. or Ireland, and were only accepted on the basis of "character"   
   and "bearing" (p. 221).   
      
      When discussing the racialist past of both America and the   
   relatively mild forms of racial conflict in New Zealand, Fischer is   
   blunt and unsparing in his indictments of Whites. And in discussing   
   the post 1980 waves of immigration, he sees nothing but utopian   
   harmony in American ethnic pluralism. Americans of different ethnic   
   groups are "rapidly intermarrying," they borrow freely from each   
   other's cultures, and "nearly all share a common allegiance to the   
   founding ideas of the republic-and most of all to liberty and freedom.   
      
       He does not comment on the racialization of American politics, as   
   indicated by over 90% of Republican votes coming from Whites and   
   around 40% of Whites voting Democrat, compared to around 80% of   
   non-Whites voting Democrat. Non-White immigrants, 80% of whom   
   voted for Obama in 2008, have become part of the non-White coalition   
   that is central to the electoral success of the Democratic Party, with   
   ominous implications for the future. Nor does he mention the much   
   commented on anger of a great many Whites exhibited in the inchoate   
   Tea Party movement-a movement that in my view is an implicitly   
   White movement motivated by about concern about a future minori-   
   ty-White America.   
      
      An interesting tidbit that I was quite unaware of: Fischer suggests   
   that anti-Semitism was behind the 1929 Wall Street stock market   
   crash. He notes that the Bank of the United States, which was owned   
   by Jews and served Jewish immigrants, suffered heavy losses. "Anti-   
   Semitic 'white shoe' bankers contemptuously called it the 'Pants   
   Pressers Bank' and showed no interest in supporting it. The Fed did   
   nothing helpful, and strong financial institutions watched complacent-   
   ly as weaker ones went under. It was a fatal mistake. The fall of the   
   'Pants Pressers Bank' brought down others, and the dominos began to   
   drop across the country: 659 bank failures in 1929 to 1352 in 1930 and   
   2294 in 1931" (p. 377).   
      
       Finally, Fischer complains about Southerners stifling free speech   
   during the 1850s in attempting to defend the cause of slavery, but he   
   ignores Lincoln's assaults on free speech in the North during the   
   Civil War. Lincoln closed down hundreds of newspapers in the North and   
   jailed the editors as well as many politicians who opposed the war.23   
      
      Nor are First Amendment freedoms an inevitable aspect of the Ameri-   
   can society. In the contemporary U.S., only a slim majority of the Su-   
   preme Court is committed to rejecting "hate crime" laws that would   
   curtail what can be said in public discussions of race, ethnicity, and   
   sexual orientation. Justice Elena Kagan is on record supporting a   
   shift in majority opinion in the direction of supporting laws that   
   would ban "hate speech."24   
      
       Further, there are strong voices in the legal community clamoring   
   for restrictions on race-related speech. A prominent example is Jeremy   
   Waldron, a law professor who holds a professorship at New York   
   University and an adjunct faculty appointment at Victoria University   
   in New Zealand. Waldron, who was born in New Zealand, argues   
   that free speech fundamentally collides with fairness in contemporary   
   societies, and therefore advocates getting rid of First Amendment pro-   
   tections in the U.S.25 Waldron focuses solely on the hurt feelings of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)