Hot on the heels of the Taito Phillip Field case, comes another example of rank corruption by a Pacific Islander in the New Zealand government.
Traditionally New Zealand has had one of the lowest rates of corruption in the developed world. However, the high rate of corrupt behaviour emerging among our non-white elites indicates our Scandanavian-like corruption rates are unlikely to last much longer.
Leave a Comment » | 
Multiculturalism, Race, South Pacific, nz politics, the rule of law | 
Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman
I generally refer to my political philosophy as conservative libertarian, in order to distinguish it from left libertarianism or modern American “Progressive liberalism.” Hayek’s preferred term, “classical liberalism,” causes too much confusion in contemporary political discourse, although when I say that I am a conservative libertarian what I mean is that I want to conserve the classical liberalism of America’s Founders, with such core principles as individual and economic freedom, limited government, and the rule of law. Whatever confusion has come about regarding political nomenclature, at least in America, is largely a result of the Progressive movement and the fact that it has turned the term “liberal” on its head to mean one who favors a concentration of power in the hands of the state and as one who advocates state intervention in most facets of life, whether Constitutional or not. The Republican Party and the conservative movement, to a large degree, have gone along with this distortion of the understanding of the political term “liberalism,” to such a degree that the term has now become a derogatory epithet that not even the left will own up to, the preferred term now being Progressive. And to add to the confusion: while in nineteenth century speech, “liberal” was in opposition to “conservative,” in that earlier era a conservative was someone who favored a monarchy and aristocracy, and was usually opposed to free institutions and free markets, whereas a contemporary conservative is in favor of such things.
4 Comments | Conservatism, Egalitarianism, Left liberalism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Political correctness, US politics, liberty | Tagged: Conservatism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Political correctness | Permalink
Posted by markamagi
Among right wing thinkers in both Europe and North America there is often debate about which continent is more politically correct, with American commentators like Mark Steyn arguing Europe is by far the worst off, and the European New Right arguing that American is the primary source of modern liberalism.
However, rather than getting into a parochial blame game about who’s the more corrupting influence, I think it’s more interesting to look at how the influence of left liberalism differs between the two continents and what this reveals about their political traditions.
3 Comments | Education, Europe, Left liberalism, Liberalism, US politics, United States | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman
The political consensus on immigration in Australia seems to be reaching the stage it reached in New Zealand in 2002, when there was a noticeable swing away from expansive immigration reflected in a surge in support for New Zealand First. This resulted in a moderate reduction in total immigration numbers, a shift away from high levels of East Asian immigration, and a greater reliance on skilled immigration from Britain, South Africa and India.
In Australia’s case though, the main reason for the increased opposition to expansive immigration policies isn’t assimilation issues but opposition from the environmental lobby, whose well articulated case for limiting immigration has been getting increasing exposure in the media.
This increasing environmental opposition to high immigration levels is also resonating with the general populace, with a recent opinion poll showing 66 percent of people in favour of reducing immigration. Centre-right blogger Andrew Bolt points out that Labour leader Kevin Rudd has already backed away from his previous support for increased immigration in response to increasing public opposition. This certainly makes political sense, as a significant part of Labour’s electoral image is based around on it being a more environmentally friendly party than the previous Liberal government.
Surprisingly though, the opposition Liberal party has decided to make a stand in favour of continuing high immigration, and has opted for an Ellis Island-type policy of high immigration and aggressive assimilation. While this may well be highly appealing to the big business lobby, it’s likely to be strongly opposed by both middle class environmentalists and the vast majority of working and lower middle class Australians and could well lose the Liberals the next election.
Leave a Comment » | Australia, Environmental issues, Immigration | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman
New Zealand centre right blogger David Farrar raises the question of why Haiti is significantly poorer than it’s immediate neighbour, the Dominican Republic, whose GDP per person is about six times higher (according to the CIA World Factbook Haiti has a GDP per person per capita of US$1,300 and the Dominican Republic $8,200).
One of the likely reasons that was only raised once in the comments thread (and conspiciously ignored) is that Haiti killed or expelled its white population at the time of independence and has not encouraged any of their desendents to return. Conversely, about 16 percent of the population of the Dominican Republic is white and over the last hundred years or so it has made a lot more effort to maintain reasonably good relations with influential majority white countries like the United States and Spain.
1 Comment | Economic issues, Haiti, Race, Trade | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman
A U.S. political commentator says America has a culture of overeacting to national threats, a trait which helps ensure its sustainability as a first world nation.
According to Rick Hampson threats to the United States, such as the launch of Sputnik, defeat in Vietnam, and Japanese economic competition in the 1980s, were seen as critical threats to U.S. prosperity at the time, but national overreaction encouraged Americans to re-double their efforts and propel the country to bigger and better things in the future.
Certainly there’s a case for overreaction being a good thing, in the 1970s for example, Britain seriously underreacted to Japanese industrial competition and payed a heavy price in the following decade. However, overeaction may not be enough to save America from the current economic recession as it’s a true multi-horseman apocalypse in which it’s difficult to overact to more than one horseman at a time.
America may well be temporarily able to pull itself out of the current debt-based economic recession, but whether it then can go on to effectively deal with it’s other economic challenges is questionable. As well as the fallout from excessive lending, America faces at least three other big challenges over the next two decades: peak oil, the retirement of the babyboomers, and a declining skills base caused by excessive, poorly-regulated immigraton.
At the time of Sputnik America wasn’t facing a massive spike in oil prices, in 1975 America wasn’t overrun with illegal immigrants from South of the border, and in the 1980s the U.S. state wasn’t facing a massive surge in pension and medicare costs.
Peak oil is unlikely to mean the end of industrial civilisation, but it’s difficult to see how it won’t have a serious impact on our current lifestyles. A peak in global oil supplies will undoubtably mean much more expensive fuel and it’s unlikely that any viable replacements are likely to emerge for at least another couple of decades. Furthermore the infrastructure needed for alternative fuels like hydrogen fuel cells is likely to be extremely expensive to establish, and will be competing for funding with growing health, welfare and affirmative action demands.
American baby boomers will be starting to retire en masse next year and will be continuing to do so well into the next decade. This will also be a serious drain on U.S. government coffers, and it’s difficult to see how the President can get the country out of fiscal trouble while maintaining current spending commitments in health, welfare and defence. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will go some way towards balancing the books, but cutting defence spending just won’t be enough on its own.
The other big problem facing the U.S has already made its presence felt in California, where the arrival of large numbers of poorly skilled, relatively low-IQ central American immigrants has become a huge burden on the state’s finances and driven out large numbers of skilled whites. Not only are poorly skilled immigrants a fiscal and managerial burden on the government, but they also make it difficult for the U.S. to compete economically with other industrialised countries that have more culturally cohesive and better educated workforces.
While this recession doesn’t compare with the 1930s depression in terms of acuteness, it could well surpass it in terms of long-term impact.
Leave a Comment » | Baby boomers, Peak Oil, United States | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman
A Californian commentator argues the U.S. should follow countries like New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland in pursuing a more cautious and pragmatic approach to immigration.
While I don’t necessarily think New Zealand (or Norway for that matter) is as hard-nosed about immigration as this commentator suggests, I do think we’ve at least managed to avoid letting in large numbers of skilled immigrants from second and third world countries over the last decade or so, and are much better off for it.
In California’s case poorly controlled legal and illegal immigration from central America has been a social and economic disaster, with the state now in one of the worst economic and environmental predicaments of any region in the developed world.
3 Comments | Financial collapse, Immigration, United States | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman
Like many committed anti-communists during the Cold War, James Burnham (November 22, 1905 – July 28, 1987) was a former Trotskyite. His published works include The Managerial Revolution (1941), The Machiavellians (1943), and The Suicide of the West (1964). His break from Marxism came prior to the publication of the first of the above works, when he resigned from the Workers Party in 1940 (Wikipedia James Burnham). In that work, The Managerial Revolution, Burnham theorized that both capitalism and socialism were being replaced by new economic and social arrangements. He argued that whether ownership was private and corporate or public and statist, a managerial class of managers and bureaucrats had superseded the capitalist entrepreneurial class in controlling the means of production. In the 1950s, Burnham’s theorizing took a turn to the right as he joined William F. Buckley in founding the National Review. His ideas were further elaborated by Sam Francis, former writer for Chronicles magazine and the Washington Times.
3 Comments | Fascism, Hayek, Left liberalism, Marxism, Political correctness, statism | Tagged: Cold War, Communism, George Orwell, Hayek, James Burnham, Political correctness, Socialism, Totalitarianism | Permalink
Posted by markamagi
One of the more misleading claims of some right-wing thinkers, particularly libertarians, is that left liberals are totalitarians with a love for authority.
Certainly it’s true that the liberal left usually supports interventionist government, but this is not due to a natural love of authority, but an emotional dislike of traditional forms of authority like the church and family.
Contemporary left-liberal thinking arguably began in the late 18th Century with enlightenment thinkers like Rousseau and Godwin who believed that man is good but is everywhere enslaved by unnecessary authority and traditional morality. The subsequent history of left-liberal thinking is the history of emancipatory rhetoric – emancipation from traditional gender roles, freedom from long hours of hard work, freedom from social and parental authority, freedom from the church, freedom from military service, freedom from bourgeois morality.
Although Karl Marx’s Das Kapital advocates the implementation of communist totalitarianism, his work is full of emancipatory language, and the ultimate aim of his ideology is an anarchist utopia free from traditional or bourgeois authority. The radical ideas of thinkers like Marx are therefore an example of radical liberalism (individual freedom achieved through extreme means) rather than authoritarian collectivism for its own sake. American left wing intelletual Noam Chomsky provides a good example of an anti-authoritarian left liberal. Chomsky attacks any and every manifestation of American power on the international scene and advocates a vague form of anarchism, which he, like Marx before him, conveniently fails to outline in detail.
While the liberal right also believes strongly in individual freedom, and predates left liberalism in this regard, it places a greater number of checks and balances on what the individual can and can’t do. For example, the individual is expected to respect the legal system, accept the authority of the police and the military, and respect the rights of private property owners. It also tends to take a neutral line on other forms of social organisation like organised religion, accepting whatever social relations people have worked out through free association. Without such checks and balances, freedom negates itself since one individual is free to take away the freedom of another. Today classical liberalism is most strongly supported in the Unitest States, where religion and federalism help to act as conservative counter-weights to classical liberalism’s more radical off-shoots like left libertarianism.
Thus left-wing liberalism and right-wing liberalism both share a desire for greater individual autonomy, but differ over methods, with the right liberals believing the means shouldn’t justify the ends, and the more politically savvy left liberals believing that autonomy can only be achieved by overthrowing the traditional order through collective action, and by sharing economic resources so that each man or woman is free to pursue their ‘higher’ desires as a rational being. As Marx temptingly put it, in a socialist utopia the individual should be free to “do one thing to-day and another to-morrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner”.
To the extend that the modern liberal state has become increasingly authoritian, it is because either the majority hold traditional views which clash with left-liberal thinking, and so need to be checked by more and more “progressive” legislation, or because the practical application of left-liberal policies leads to social instability or violence. The breakdown of the traditional nuclear family for example, has led to an unintended increase in domestic violence, which has necessitated greater state involvement in family affairs.
Some on the traditional right claim that the left is fully aware that the implementation of its policies will increase violence and instability, and uses the disruption caused by liberal reforms as a means of pushing through further left-liberal legislation. However, since most left-liberals genuinely appear to believe in egalitarian ideology, it seems unlikely they are using this as a deliberate tactic – after all, such cynical tactics would bring into question the left-liberal belief that people are inherently good.
Furthermore, not everyone on the left even supports strong central government. A significant number of left-wing anarchists have an irrational hatred of all forms of authority, and, as in the early years of the 20th century, are again becoming a serious threat to law and order in a number of inner city areas in Europe.
The incorrect labelling of left liberals as authoritarians, also misrepresents the political significance of fascists and populists. Many on the libertarian left try to argue the case that Fascism is part of the same school of thinking as radical left liberalism, but this glosses over the historical fact that few liberal progressives have ever identified with fascist political movements, and that most nationalists thinkers have a general dislike of enlightenment thought.
Although Mussolini was a former communist, both the Italian and Spanish Fascists in the 1920s and 1930s violently crushed all progressive left-wing economic movements (socialist and anarchist) and were generally supportive of the Catholic church and bourgeois society. Similarly, most left-wing progressives and trade unionists in English-speaking countries supported the communists in the Spanish Civil War, while centre-right politicians like Winston Churchill frequently sympathised with the Fascists in Italy.
It was only the particularly extreme and idiosyncratic Nazi’s that described their brand of Fascism as a type of socialism. If communism can be described as radical left liberalism, then Nazism can be described as a particularly extreme form of radical conservatism that aimed to revive semi-mythical pagan values from before the age of Christianity.
In contrast to Marxism, populism actually is what it says on the tin – a political ideology that, for better or worse, promotes the interests of the working and lower middle classes. While left liberals identify with the weak, and right wingers with the strong, populists strive to defend to interests of the battler in the middle. Populists may clash with conservatives and right wing liberals over economic matters, but this is more about specific issues of economic justice or social stability than a general desire for radical change or expanded government.
1 Comment | Authoritarianism, Conservatism, Fascism, Left liberalism, Liberalism, Political princieples, Radical Liberalism, freedom, political principles, statism | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman
Low birth rates are cited by many conservatives as a reason for western decline, but on a country-by country-basis there is little correlation between low birth rates and non-western immigration. By far the biggest factor drawing immigrants to the West seems to be the state of the economy. This makes a lot of sense, since it isn’t land and resources that non-western immigrants are looking for, but jobs provided by westerners themselves. If low fertility rates were the decisive factor, then there would be a lot more immigrants trying to get to Eastern Europe and East Asia, where fertility rates are just as low as in Western European countries like Spain and Italy.
During the last decade Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland have had relatively high birth rates by western standards, yet have also experienced high levels of third world immigration. The main difference between the Anglosphere countries and those of Eastern Europe and East Asia, is that the former have experienced a decade of relatively high rates of economic growth and low unemployment. The significance of economic growth in immigration rates in the United States for example, has been highlighted by the fall-off in immigration from Mexico and India since the start of the current recession.
Economic wealth has also been a big driver of immigration patterns between developed countries. Australia has significantly higher minimum wage rates than New Zealand, and so many blue-collar workers from this side of the pond have moved across the Tasman. Highly qualified - workers by contrast, have been more likely to move to Britain and United States.
In the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, high immigration rates has also been driven by the strength of the Pound and the Euro, which influences how much money immigrants can send home as remittances. Now that the pound is on a downward slide, fewer immigrants from Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa are looking for low-skilled jobs in London.
Among Continental countries, France has relatively high birth rates and low immigration, but also has serious economic problems with high levels of unemployment and poor economic growth. It’s non-white population is growing rapidly, but this is mainly due to high birth rates rather than recent immigration. About the only European country with low growth and low birth rates to still experience signficant immigration pressure is Italy, where opposition to non-western immigration is also relatively high.
Low fertility rates may well create problems in the future, but current immigration rates are mainly due to western businesses and governments being unable to resist the lure of cheap labour and short-term immigration-driven economic growth. This temptation is particularly strong in lightly populated western countries like Australia and New Zealand where there is still a lot of money to be made from selling land to newcomers.
Interestingly, birth rates in East Asia are now even lower than in Europe. According to the latest figures from the CIA World Fact Book, Singapore has a fertility rate of 1.09 per woman and Macau just 0.91. If English-speaking countries had these kind of fertility rates, there would be enormous pressure to open up the borders and let in more immigrants, but oriental countries don’t seem particularly concerned. One possible reason is that they can always top up their aging populations with fellow East Asians from China, whereas most western countries can only bring in immigrants from non-western countries.
1 Comment | Demography, East Asia, Europe, Immigration, United States, Western civilisation | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman
