[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

New World Order
See other New World Order Articles

Title: Was Great-Grandpa Totally Wrong About “Nordics”?
Source: VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/posts/was-grea ... pa-totally-wrong-about-nordics
Published: Sep 9, 2015
Author: John Derbyshire
Post Date: 2015-09-09 14:17:42 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 844
Comments: 11

In last week’s Radio Derb (of which the full transcript will be archived tonight) I commented on the rather embarrassing—from the globalist-equalist Narrative point of view—preferences of Third Worlders.

If today you live in Sierra Leone or Pakistan or Laos and you want your kids to enjoy a good life, the sensible thing is to get the hell out of there. Find some way to get into Europe, or North America, Australia, or New Zealand—white countries.

If you hope for your kids to live well, you want them living under white supremacy — in a country built by and governed by whites, preferably by northwest Europeans, most preferably by the British.

And that’s what people are doing. Everyone’s dream worldwide is to live in a country built by and governed by northwest-European whites. You can curl your lip all you like when you say “white supremacy,” but the truth is, white supremacy’s awfully popular with the wretched of the earth.

Commenter “Jeppo” at Those Who Can See puts a financial-services spin on this theme.

Ironically, we risk everything that makes our societies attractive to the invaders by facilitating their invasion. One of those things is a solid credit rating. Of the 196 sovereign nations in the world, only 16 have an AAA credit rating from at least one of the Big 3 ratings agencies (Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch). The ones with an asterisk have a Triple-A rating from all three agencies.

Australia*
Austria
Canada*
Denmark*
Finland
Germany*
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg*
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway*
Singapore*
Sweden*
Switzerland*
United Kingdom
United States

Fifteen of the eighteen Teutonic nations (83.3 percent) have an AAA rating. The only Teutonic nations not to are Belgium, Iceland and Ireland. Singapore is the only country out of 178 (0.6 percent) in the rest of the world to have a Triple-A rating. But it’s actually even more lopsided than that. Out of 600 million people living in the Teutonic nations, 585 million—97.5 percent—live in a Triple-A country, while only 5.5 million people out of 6.7 billion in the rest of the world live in such a country, or less than 0.1 percent.

Syria, along with a few dozen other basket-case nations throughout the Third World, is considered such a credit risk that none of the Big 3 even assign it a rating. And what is a nation other than the sum of its people? So I don’t see how the importation of millions of Syrians and other Third Worlders into the Teutonic nations will be conducive to maintaining our rock-solid credit ratings, though Singapore will probably be OK.

Jeppo’s “Teutonic” needs some qualifying. “Anglo-Celto-Teutonic” would be better, and even that doesn’t really encompass the Finns, whose ancestry has a significant East Asian component.

Still those comparative numbers are impressive. As a proxy qualitative measure for rational, consensual government promoting national prosperity and stability in nations populated by persons with a high average sense of civic responsibility, agency credit rating is not bad.

A century ago our great-grandfathers freely deployed the term “Nordic” in much the same sense as Jeppo’s “Teutonic.” The term soon fell out of favor as being offensive not only to non-Europeans but also to Slavs, Italians, Greeks, Hispanics-Lusitanics, etc. Then Germany’s National Socialists dropped a major blot on the “Nordic” copybook and the term was completely excluded from polite discourse.

Fair enough; but looking at the world now, a hundred years later, were our great-grandfathers altogether wrong?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: nativist nationalist (#0)

"Nordic" means Scandinavian, Icelandic and Finn - and nobody else.

"Teutonic" is a synonym for "Continental Germanic", and means Scandinavian, Icelander, German, Be-Ne-Luxan, Austrian and Swiss. English (but not Scottish or Welsh) are Germanic, but not Teutonic.

Looking at that list again, you can subdivide it differently:

NORDIC Denmark* Finland Norway* Sweden*

TEUTONIC Austria Germany* Liechtenstein Luxembourg* Netherlands Switzerland*

ANGLO-SAXON (British Imperial, regardless of race) Australia* Canada* New Zealand Singapore* United Kingdom United States

For the list to have any meaning, city states have to be taken out of it. There are plenty of cities with AAA ratings all over the world. That a handful of cities in Europe happened to be between powers and thus be granted neutral- zone sovereignty doesn't make them comparable to major countries with significant populations and large territories requiring extensive infrastructure. It is much more complicated to manage a state than a mere city.

CITY STATES ON THE LIST Liechtenstein Luxembourg* Singapore*

So that leaves:

NORDIC Denmark* Finland Norway* Sweden*

TEUTONIC Austria Germany* Netherlands Switzerland*

ANGLO-SAXON (British Imperial, regardless of race) Australia* Canada* New Zealand United Kingdom United States

Now let's delve one step deeper into the Teutonic nations. We've already noted that a large part of the list comes from one rather rapacious empire. British wealth was not primarily derived from hard work in Britain. It was derived from imperial conquest. Very large numbers of nations that were in the British Empire are not on that list, and were left impoverished and chaotic by the fact of British rule. If one compares Thailand, which is a relatively prosperous country that was never conquered for any empire, with the general mess left behind by the French in Indochina to the East, and by the British in Burma and Bangladesh to the West, one sees that NOT being exploited by a European empire left the Thai better off than their formerly dominated neighbors.

Imperial powers have the advantage of having accumulated wealth by exploiting other people, as opposed to developing it internally through their own efforts.

So, what are the IMPERIAL powers on the list? Which of these countries leapt out of its borders in modern times and ruled over other peoples to the benefit of the home nations and disadvantange of the dominated people?

IMPERIAL POWERS

TEUTONIC Austria Germany* Netherlands

ANGLO-SAXON (British Imperial, regardless of race) Australia* (conquest of natives) Canada* (conquest of Indians) New Zealand (conquest of natives) United Kingdom (world empire by conquest) United States (conquest of natives and world empire by conquest)

So, looking back over that list, we find only five nations worthy of the name, that gained their wealth their own efforts, and not through conquest of others. (Viking predations of the 10th Century were so long ago and of such relatively small size that they are simply not relevant to the economic status of any nation of that era - the imperialism that counts for modern industrial states is the imperialism of the 19th and 20th Centuries, when all imperial states in question were capitalist and had substantial foreign empires).

Those nations are: NORDIC Denmark* Finland Norway* Sweden*

TEUTONIC Switzerland*

And we should note well: five of six of those nations have AAA ratings and have been independent nations for at least half a millennium, and only one, Finland, was never a nation at all but was a colony of either Sweden until the early 1800s, and of Russia until World War I.

Finland is not a Teutonic nation. The Finns of the southern part of the country are of the same Eurasian steppe ancestral stock as the Hungarians. The Northern Finns (and Swedes and Norwegians) are Sami Lapps, and not Indo- European in origin.

Swedes and Norwegians of the southern parts of those countries, and Danes, are Nordic Germanics, but they did not hold any profitable empires during the 19th and 20th Century. Denmark had a few faraway islands, and still has Greenland. These areas were (and still are) a drain on the treasury. Norway was itself a province of Denmark until the 19th Century, so essentially the Norwegians and Danes are the same stock. Sweden is Sweden. It certainly WAS an aggressive imperial power in the Reformation Era, but a series of defeats and disasters in Russia clipped it down to size.

So, what've you got? You've got a Norway, which was poor fishermen but which is rich now for the same reason Kuwait is rich: oil.

You've got a Denmark, Sweden and Finland that are legitimately wealthy because of the internal development of industry by these Nordic peoples, and Norway which might have followed the same path but which is in fact wealthy because of oil.

And then there is Switzerland, which has made its money by being bankers to the surrounding empires.

The Swiss are not racially homogenous. The Western third of the country, including the capital is French. The middle half of the country is German. The Southeastern fifth is Italian. The Swiss are not Nordic at all. And they're only half Teutonic. The Italian part is an extension of Northern Italy, which along with France is Celtic.

To be rich nations because of being a militaristic empire that raped other nations is not a basis for argument. The Aztecs were rich for the same reason, until the Spanish got rich plundering the Aztecs' wealth. British, German, Austrian and Dutch wealth are the result of wealth accumulated through the violent oppression of others. Drug lords are rich for the same basic reason.

The really admirable nations are the ones who developed great wealth and stability without raping other people to get it, without imperialism.

There are only five nations on that list that fit that bill.

What is unique about them? Well, one of them, Switzerland, is not a representative republic. It is a 500-year old direct democracy, whose every major decision is decided by vote of the people in referendum. Switzerland has a better credit rating than the United States, and puts the lie to the pomposity of America's Founding Fathers and their airheaded ilk afterwards who claim that democracies always die. In fact, the most financially successful nation in the world, and one of the oldest continuous governments in the world, is a direct democracy. Switzerland is the most stable country in Europe, and one of the richest in the world. It's nearly twice as old as America. Contrary to the American Founders, and Burke, and all the rest, Direct Democracy clearly works, and clearly can preside over ethnic diversity (Germans, French and Italians, living together for hundreds of years), and a nation without an imperial history can, through farming, workshop and finance, be one of the richest in the world (with, by the way, an extensive social welfare structure, but little need for it due to high levels of employment).

The Nordic model is one of local development, full employment, heavy public investment in education and welfare, high taxes to pay for it, reinvestment within the country, and transparency. In Sweden, everybody's personal tax returns are public: no hiding of assets.

The Nordic nations (except for the former Russian colony Finland) all have higher credit ratings than the United States. And they have higher life expectancies, lower crime, better standards of living.

Essentially, every single measure of life is better in the "socialist" Nordic countries than in the United States, and economic and political stability is greater in Switzerland than in the United States.

The original point of the article was to "prove" that "Nordics" - a misnomer - really, that people of "Germanic" or "Teutonic" race were innately superior to others, as "proven" by economic prowess.

But what the data really shows is that people of Germanic race are, for the most part, historically assholes whose prosperity was gained by murdering and conquering others and taking their stuff.

The exceptions are the Nordics and the Swiss. They got rich and stable without an empire, through internal development.

What do they have going for them? Very heavy social welfare protections, and direct "true" democracy (in the most successful case of all).

The author of the article wanted to "prove" something about race. What he actually proved was something about political and economic systems: heavy investments in social welfare and direct democracy work best.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-09   16:32:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: nativist nationalist, Vicomte13, Pericles, TooConservative (#0)

Things change. Centuries ago the wealth was in Italy, Greece and Egypt while bleached pigment and emotion deprived northern barbarians were going berserk whacking one another in their huts and dugouts because of monotonous diet of rotten herrings and turnips.

And they were abnormal because of inbreeding until they went south, west and east to get outside healthier genes.

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-09   17:16:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: A Pole (#2)

Herring and turnips are good eatin'.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-09   21:40:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

But what the data really shows is that people of Germanic race are, for the most part, historically assholes whose prosperity was gained by murdering and conquering others and taking their stuff.

what? Are you accusing them of being islamic?

rlk  posted on  2015-09-09   22:02:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: rlk (#4)

No. I'm stating the fact of their history.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-09   22:34:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: nativist nationalist, A Pole, Vicomte13 (#0)

Fifteen of the eighteen Teutonic nations (83.3 percent) have an AAA rating.

Listen, you northerners are not the master race. You lived in mud huts until a few centuries ago. This fact grates so these nordic racialists have to make Greeks and Egyptians Nordics also.

Pericles  posted on  2015-09-10   22:17:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#1) (Edited)

A century ago our great-grandfathers freely deployed the term “Nordic” in much the same sense as Jeppo’s “Teutonic.” The term soon fell out of favor as being offensive not only to non-Europeans but also to Slavs, Italians, Greeks, Hispanics-Lusitanics, etc. Then Germany’s National Socialists dropped a major blot on the “Nordic” copybook and the term was completely excluded from polite discourse.

Fair enough; but looking at the world now, a hundred years later, were our great- grandfathers altogether wrong? ------- The conclusion of the article...

Fair enough? - No, they were not wrong about the northern European experiments in capitalism. It works, and the rest of the world is starting to realize it...

The author of the article wanted to "prove" something about race. What he actually proved was something about political and economic systems: heavy investments in social welfare and direct democracy work best.

No, The author of the article wanted to "prove" something about economic systems, - driven by a tradition of individual freedom. And he has actually proved that northern European political and economic systems work, because of an underlying belief that individuals have inalienable rights, despite heavy investments in social welfare and direct democracy.

tpaine  posted on  2015-09-10   23:25:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: tpaine (#7)

they were not wrong about the northern European experiments in capitalism. It works, and the rest of the world is starting to

You mean Scandinawian social democracy?

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-11   5:35:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: tpaine (#7)

No, they were not wrong about the northern European experiments in capitalism. It works, and the rest of the world is starting to realize it...

That's right: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Holland...their economic system works.

Of course, American conservatives would call their economic system "Socialism", because it has heavy social welfare.

But America is not an asterisked AAA-rated country, so apparently Nordic "socialism" is economically superior to American capitalism.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-11   9:49:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: tpaine (#7)

because of an underlying belief that individuals have inalienable rights, despite heavy investments in social welfare and direct democracy.

"despite"?

Au contraire, mon frère. BECAUSE

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-11   9:50:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13, yall (#10)

—— The author of this article wanted to "prove" something about economic systems, - driven by a tradition of individual freedom. And he has actually proved that northern European political and economic systems work, because of an underlying belief that individuals have inalienable rights, despite heavy investments in social welfare and direct democracy.

The above was posted to Vicomte13, —— anyone know if he’s still around?

tpaine  posted on  2019-07-01   15:02:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com