Take away his funding and institutional support, and this odious creature becomes just another midwit murmuring into the void. That’s why it’s vital to name the sources (in this case, The Hoover Institute, etc).
Including the names of the people and organizations behind these mouthpieces ought to be standard practice.
This is an interesting piece, Mr Horus; thank you.
Ferguson is an interesting case. Fwiw I think he has done some good work - I'd recommend The Pity of War and The Cash Nexus to anyone. His flip to asserting (re-reasserting?) double-liberal priors does seem to coincide with his involvement with Ms Ali (you are right to point out that she is more of a defender of traditional values than he is).
My own view is that he is deeply confused about hierarchy and in-group out-group preference, and that it has completely confused his world view.
Let me know if you do write about it. I will read the Pity of War when I can. His book on the Rothschilds was well worthwhile provided that we're aware of the access he was given by them, which he does address in the preface.
His choice of a wife, in his own characterization, is an indulgence of personality. Her presence brings him attention. This is so wrong, she is the telltale for his self conceit.
I think the most interesting thing is most attraction studies prove his point about attraction wrong otherwise afro Americans would score highest as they are mixed but always lowest of the major groups in the US especially the women. White men always score highest and it's a toss up depending on the study between North East Asians and Whites (the definitions they used) for women.
Containment and control appears to be very much the MO of the people we are encouraged to listen to and/or read. For some of them the reason is obvious, they are of a group which makes demands but will brook no opposition to their plans whatsoever, for others it could affect their personal life so countries, people and cultures have to fall.
Thank you for the reply, appreciated. I see another comment below also mentioning backers which is encouraging, always helps to know who and what are the organ grinders.
I’ve read this excellent article a few times now! Ferguson is a hateful little man, it saddens me so much that idiots like him are always given a platform. Thanks for your brilliant analysis Horus.
It’s fitting that in Ferguson’s Churchill love he has somehow omitted the man’s support for a White England in the 50s and that he died believing he had failed his life’s goal of 'the maintenance of the enduring greatness of Britain and her Empire'.
Aye. Much as I've criticised Churchill, it still takes a great deal of convolution for men like Ferguson to employ him for their anti-British ends. I cannot see how he would have approved of all this.
Replacement is inevitable? Only because people like you meticulously engineered it for more than half a century. From his comments about racial aesthetics, I presume this man would rather eat a bowl of shit than a bowl of ice cream. Who does he think he's fooling?
Ferguson is a fraud. Made some bullshit TV show about western economic and cultural dominance using jeans as an example of this dominance, ignoring the fact that most jeans are made in cheap Asian countries, not western ones and China now makes everything (from cars to iphones, AI and infrastructure ) at a quality and scale western countries with their woke addled brain dead populations can only dream about. Actually they don’t even have the capacity to dream of such things.
He is also so shallow that he equates jeans with culture.
Didn’t realise he had hooked up with the professional celebrity victim of her culture who has now realised her dream of becoming a genuine 48 carat woke western icon. Marriage made in an EU think tank, probably their idea of heaven
I remember his poor documentaries on money and empires too. Didn't learn anything watching those. I thought his book on the Rothschilds was worthwhile, though.
I was surprised that Kisin was willing to make the argument that mass migration will turn native Brits into a version of Native Americans. It didn't even seem he presented it as a crazy conspiracy theory, but a reasonable fear.
However, it was funny that Ferguson strongly rebuffed him, telling him not to speak that way, and Kisin complied like a scolded dog.
It shows how useless Ferguson is to the "right": his refusal to even pretend to co-opt right-wing beliefs is going to make him an increasingly isolated and irrelevant figure, his institutional funding notwithstanding.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to Niall Fergusson and report on it. He, like numerous others, spreads disinformation.
The right or the conservatives or the traditionalists used to be Christians and wanted to adapt the Christian society to the scientific and technical changes. In the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Darwinism, social Darwinism, and racial theories were the product of and promoted by progressives, liberals. Such ideas were fought against both by the Catholic and Anglican churches. This conflict lasted into the 1970's.
As a side note Hitler's movement was socialist and imposed state control over the industry and the banks with production quotas and price ranges. The Nazis were an explicit enemy of Christianity and traditionalism. They sought to break out from the chains of the past in order to build a new society. Hardly anything right wing here. The fact Hitler came to power through a temporary alliance with the conservative parties is irrelevant : he expelled them from power and his policies were resolutely modernist.
Imputing racial thinking to the right in Europe goes against the reality of the past. Fergusson deliberately lies. Then there are two strains of racial thinking in Europe. The older one was born out of social Darwinism and the running of colonies where the British and the other European colonists could observe first hand the primitive societies. This one dies away in the 1970's. The new one is a direct American import and has no adequacy to European countries. The import started with the British then European academic left copying (or parroting) American analyses of blacks and other exotic peoples. Under the influence of the internet, right-wingers in Europe have started to adopt the same ideas but as counter-point; you are one such person, I take.
Why is the American idea of race irrelevant to Europe ?
(1) Because the history of slavery is irrelevant in Europe no matter how much the academics try to push it.
(2) Because the exotics here originate from many countries hence skin colour is irrelevant as a cultural and even as a marker of genetic proximity. The progressives push hard for the idea of race in order to unify the exotics into groups that can be used against the natives. Kenyans, Somalis, and Congolese are very different and Black is a category forced on them by the ruling progressives. Brahmins and lower caste Indians hate each other. Even Pakistanis divide neatly into Punjabis (the present themselves as Pakistani) and Sindhis (that define themselves so after a small conversation).
(3) The American racial idea is disfunction caused by their puritanical and extremist mindset. On one side the proponents of forced integration and racial-mixing everywhere; on the other the proponents of the freedom of association, i.e. of segregation. A good versus bad and taint vs purity dialectic.
When Fergusson speaks of assimilation, he is disingenuous. He knows very well that the current policy hinders assimilation instead of favouring it.
Assimilation is the right path. After expelling a large part of the newcomers in order to pressure those who remain and put them in front the choice : stay and assimilate or leave. Assimilation means becoming an adoptive son of England or Britain or Albion i.e. thinking of your ancestors being from here and following in their steps. A proposition stronger than a superficial adoption of culture.
Assimilation is available as a path only if a significant majority originates from the natives. Assimilation is available as a path only if the natives offer it.
I'm vaguely aware of these two ideas of race and the older one, as you say deriving from colonial experiences, having become archaic. Please tell me what you mean about the newer one coming in from the USA. American analyses coming from social anthropology/Boas?
The American idea of race is based on the opposition of Whites and Blacks. The Latinos, Asians (Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc) do not even fit in the American idea of race. The Native Americans could somewhat fit but so many are practically white or latino that they keep away from the discussion.
In the USA Blacks were slaves and Whites were free men. For the American understanding of race, nuances in the status of Blacks and Whites are pointless. Hence race is not merely a biological fact, it is a duality that runs parallel to the usual dualities good-evil, pure-tainted, rich-poor, dominant-oppressed, righteous-criminal. Until the 1950s, Blacks = evil, impure, poor, oppressed, criminal whereas White = good, pure, rich, dominant, righteous. Under activist pressure through the media, state, judiciary, and corporations, the acceptable public perception has inverted some of the polarities, it has not abolished them. For instance forced integration stems from the inversion of the pure-tainted duality, the affirmative action from the inversion dominant-oppressed duality. The American sociological analysis, whether Boasian, Marxist, or behaviourist is a means of inverting the polarity on some of the axes; it has no value on its own.
The American mind seems utterly dominated by the good-evil axis which has infected all other dualities and impressed a moral character on them. Hence race or the racial duality has a moral character. The projection of such ideas abroad has made the topic of race a moral imperative. While this may have some historical legitimacy and practical relevance in the USA, it is completely irrelevant in Europe.
I see. I don't value that crude thinking either. 'Blacks' and 'whites' are terms that are far too indiscriminate. I do have use for 'whites' at times, though, as it's a shorthand for people of European ancestry, which sometimes I want to refer to categorically.
I think Kevin MacDonald's treatment of the changing ideas about race in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition are very illuminating. For some time in the 19th century many 'progressive' Christians thought that 'blacks' would become 'white' over several generations, though whether they meant in appearance they didn't specify.
Take away his funding and institutional support, and this odious creature becomes just another midwit murmuring into the void. That’s why it’s vital to name the sources (in this case, The Hoover Institute, etc).
Including the names of the people and organizations behind these mouthpieces ought to be standard practice.
I'm interested to know how he became the approved biographer of the Rothschilds early in his book-writing career, too.
This is an interesting piece, Mr Horus; thank you.
Ferguson is an interesting case. Fwiw I think he has done some good work - I'd recommend The Pity of War and The Cash Nexus to anyone. His flip to asserting (re-reasserting?) double-liberal priors does seem to coincide with his involvement with Ms Ali (you are right to point out that she is more of a defender of traditional values than he is).
My own view is that he is deeply confused about hierarchy and in-group out-group preference, and that it has completely confused his world view.
It is something about which I need to write
Let me know if you do write about it. I will read the Pity of War when I can. His book on the Rothschilds was well worthwhile provided that we're aware of the access he was given by them, which he does address in the preface.
An excellent piece! I had thought Ferguson is rotten, but hadn't known just how rotten. To the very core, it now appears.
His choice of a wife, in his own characterization, is an indulgence of personality. Her presence brings him attention. This is so wrong, she is the telltale for his self conceit.
I think the most interesting thing is most attraction studies prove his point about attraction wrong otherwise afro Americans would score highest as they are mixed but always lowest of the major groups in the US especially the women. White men always score highest and it's a toss up depending on the study between North East Asians and Whites (the definitions they used) for women.
Another well written piece, thank you.
Containment and control appears to be very much the MO of the people we are encouraged to listen to and/or read. For some of them the reason is obvious, they are of a group which makes demands but will brook no opposition to their plans whatsoever, for others it could affect their personal life so countries, people and cultures have to fall.
Who pays Ferguson, if I may ask?
Unsure the exact groups but he wrote the court history of the Rothschilds. I assume this would be linked.
Thank you for the reply, appreciated. I see another comment below also mentioning backers which is encouraging, always helps to know who and what are the organ grinders.
I’ve read this excellent article a few times now! Ferguson is a hateful little man, it saddens me so much that idiots like him are always given a platform. Thanks for your brilliant analysis Horus.
Cheers Alice.
Great read!
It’s fitting that in Ferguson’s Churchill love he has somehow omitted the man’s support for a White England in the 50s and that he died believing he had failed his life’s goal of 'the maintenance of the enduring greatness of Britain and her Empire'.
Aye. Much as I've criticised Churchill, it still takes a great deal of convolution for men like Ferguson to employ him for their anti-British ends. I cannot see how he would have approved of all this.
Replacement is inevitable? Only because people like you meticulously engineered it for more than half a century. From his comments about racial aesthetics, I presume this man would rather eat a bowl of shit than a bowl of ice cream. Who does he think he's fooling?
Diversity + Proximity = WAR - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2023/06/racism-and-diversity-damyth-vs-reality.html?m=0 - and DaBastahds who promote this evil live amongst us!
That anyone takes that Kisin character seriously is a mystery to me.
Churchill, as you must know, was in the pay of the Zionists.
You might find this interesting - https://eternalhorus.substack.com/i/143873125/the-focus
Ferguson is a fraud. Made some bullshit TV show about western economic and cultural dominance using jeans as an example of this dominance, ignoring the fact that most jeans are made in cheap Asian countries, not western ones and China now makes everything (from cars to iphones, AI and infrastructure ) at a quality and scale western countries with their woke addled brain dead populations can only dream about. Actually they don’t even have the capacity to dream of such things.
He is also so shallow that he equates jeans with culture.
Didn’t realise he had hooked up with the professional celebrity victim of her culture who has now realised her dream of becoming a genuine 48 carat woke western icon. Marriage made in an EU think tank, probably their idea of heaven
I remember his poor documentaries on money and empires too. Didn't learn anything watching those. I thought his book on the Rothschilds was worthwhile, though.
Quite astounding. This buffoon seems to think that things are true simply because he asserts them.
'Tis a mentality I don't easily understand. Maybe this happens to people who avoid critics and become surrounded with sycophants.
Ferguson has been interviewed a few times by Kisin and by the Trig duo too. Which interview is being quoted here?
This one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cna-wzwB4fo
Thanks
I was surprised that Kisin was willing to make the argument that mass migration will turn native Brits into a version of Native Americans. It didn't even seem he presented it as a crazy conspiracy theory, but a reasonable fear.
However, it was funny that Ferguson strongly rebuffed him, telling him not to speak that way, and Kisin complied like a scolded dog.
It shows how useless Ferguson is to the "right": his refusal to even pretend to co-opt right-wing beliefs is going to make him an increasingly isolated and irrelevant figure, his institutional funding notwithstanding.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to Niall Fergusson and report on it. He, like numerous others, spreads disinformation.
The right or the conservatives or the traditionalists used to be Christians and wanted to adapt the Christian society to the scientific and technical changes. In the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Darwinism, social Darwinism, and racial theories were the product of and promoted by progressives, liberals. Such ideas were fought against both by the Catholic and Anglican churches. This conflict lasted into the 1970's.
As a side note Hitler's movement was socialist and imposed state control over the industry and the banks with production quotas and price ranges. The Nazis were an explicit enemy of Christianity and traditionalism. They sought to break out from the chains of the past in order to build a new society. Hardly anything right wing here. The fact Hitler came to power through a temporary alliance with the conservative parties is irrelevant : he expelled them from power and his policies were resolutely modernist.
Imputing racial thinking to the right in Europe goes against the reality of the past. Fergusson deliberately lies. Then there are two strains of racial thinking in Europe. The older one was born out of social Darwinism and the running of colonies where the British and the other European colonists could observe first hand the primitive societies. This one dies away in the 1970's. The new one is a direct American import and has no adequacy to European countries. The import started with the British then European academic left copying (or parroting) American analyses of blacks and other exotic peoples. Under the influence of the internet, right-wingers in Europe have started to adopt the same ideas but as counter-point; you are one such person, I take.
Why is the American idea of race irrelevant to Europe ?
(1) Because the history of slavery is irrelevant in Europe no matter how much the academics try to push it.
(2) Because the exotics here originate from many countries hence skin colour is irrelevant as a cultural and even as a marker of genetic proximity. The progressives push hard for the idea of race in order to unify the exotics into groups that can be used against the natives. Kenyans, Somalis, and Congolese are very different and Black is a category forced on them by the ruling progressives. Brahmins and lower caste Indians hate each other. Even Pakistanis divide neatly into Punjabis (the present themselves as Pakistani) and Sindhis (that define themselves so after a small conversation).
(3) The American racial idea is disfunction caused by their puritanical and extremist mindset. On one side the proponents of forced integration and racial-mixing everywhere; on the other the proponents of the freedom of association, i.e. of segregation. A good versus bad and taint vs purity dialectic.
When Fergusson speaks of assimilation, he is disingenuous. He knows very well that the current policy hinders assimilation instead of favouring it.
Assimilation is the right path. After expelling a large part of the newcomers in order to pressure those who remain and put them in front the choice : stay and assimilate or leave. Assimilation means becoming an adoptive son of England or Britain or Albion i.e. thinking of your ancestors being from here and following in their steps. A proposition stronger than a superficial adoption of culture.
Assimilation is available as a path only if a significant majority originates from the natives. Assimilation is available as a path only if the natives offer it.
I hope you do not mind my little sermon.
I'm vaguely aware of these two ideas of race and the older one, as you say deriving from colonial experiences, having become archaic. Please tell me what you mean about the newer one coming in from the USA. American analyses coming from social anthropology/Boas?
The American idea of race is based on the opposition of Whites and Blacks. The Latinos, Asians (Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc) do not even fit in the American idea of race. The Native Americans could somewhat fit but so many are practically white or latino that they keep away from the discussion.
In the USA Blacks were slaves and Whites were free men. For the American understanding of race, nuances in the status of Blacks and Whites are pointless. Hence race is not merely a biological fact, it is a duality that runs parallel to the usual dualities good-evil, pure-tainted, rich-poor, dominant-oppressed, righteous-criminal. Until the 1950s, Blacks = evil, impure, poor, oppressed, criminal whereas White = good, pure, rich, dominant, righteous. Under activist pressure through the media, state, judiciary, and corporations, the acceptable public perception has inverted some of the polarities, it has not abolished them. For instance forced integration stems from the inversion of the pure-tainted duality, the affirmative action from the inversion dominant-oppressed duality. The American sociological analysis, whether Boasian, Marxist, or behaviourist is a means of inverting the polarity on some of the axes; it has no value on its own.
The American mind seems utterly dominated by the good-evil axis which has infected all other dualities and impressed a moral character on them. Hence race or the racial duality has a moral character. The projection of such ideas abroad has made the topic of race a moral imperative. While this may have some historical legitimacy and practical relevance in the USA, it is completely irrelevant in Europe.
I see. I don't value that crude thinking either. 'Blacks' and 'whites' are terms that are far too indiscriminate. I do have use for 'whites' at times, though, as it's a shorthand for people of European ancestry, which sometimes I want to refer to categorically.
I think Kevin MacDonald's treatment of the changing ideas about race in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition are very illuminating. For some time in the 19th century many 'progressive' Christians thought that 'blacks' would become 'white' over several generations, though whether they meant in appearance they didn't specify.