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)