Congo, Mozambique, Angola… across the continent it’s the same basic story. Read Craig’s book, read history. Any signs of real independence was systemically crushed and continues to be crushed. In Africa, the rapaciousness of industrial empire was laid bare for all to see. No niceties, no ‘cricket’, just blood and rape.

Minerals are only a resource if you can use them as such.

Craig,

As you know, I was posted at the British Embassy in South Africa as apartheid ended. I attended a rally of Terreblanche’s AWB movement once.

The worrying thing about Terreblanche’s murder is that it seems to echo an insidious ‘Kill the Boer’ Africanist nationalist ethnic cleansing of the sort Mugabe has led in Zimbabwe, an achievement of sorts for African Pay-Back Time but at a cost which will leave most Zimbabweans unnecessarily impoverished for decades more to come.

If that is the sort of fate which faces South Africa too down the road as the generation of township younghsters schooled in ANC/Communist 1980s ultra-violence work their way up the country’s demographic pyramid, prospects for the southern part of the continent are bleak indeed.

My take on the issue is here:

http://www.charlescrawford.biz/blog/when-i-saw-eugene-terreblanche

‘That benefit that does come to Africans largely falls to tiny corrupt white-educated post-colonial elites’

I don’t quite agree with this. I believe these elites actually work for the hard state. Of course, the elites benefit but the greatest reward goes to the secret government which controls the elite many of whom I beieve actually work for the intelligence services.

He wasn’t quite a Nazi or neo-Nazi even if his politics were repugnant and racist and he adopted an Nazi-like iconography. That word, and Fascist, are bandied about too freely.

Craig,

Whilst I agree with the basics of your description of the woes of Africa… and the role of white colonialism in establishing an economic system which was/is structurally… unjust, we are, where we are, historically speaking. I don’t believe we can turn back time, and undo the changes that have occured due to white intervention in Africa. Peoples, not just white, have been moved and new societies have been created.

I think one can argue that a black ruling elite have adopted many of the attitudes and methods of the old white elite in relation to the great, impoverished, masses, who still remain poor, though nominally, “free.”

Personally, I’ve never really been all that interested in the colour, religion, or nationality of the ruling elite that was engaged in oppression and exploitation. For me the central and important idea was the nature of the system that faciliated rule by a minority over the mass of humanity.

Also, black groups within SA (and I would presume in Kenya as well) were displacing each other long before any white “colonialist” arrived… It was the way of life back then, get over it.

Jake,

I agree that “Nazi” is bandied too easily. But a white supremacist who adopts definitely Nazi iconography and banners at rallies of supporters ticks enough boxes for me.

writerman

“I think one can argue that a black ruling elite have adopted many of the attitudes and methods of the old white elite”

err – I think I said exactly that. I said:

“That benefit that does come to Africans largely falls to tiny corrupt white-educated post-colonial elites.”

Why are we arguing?

Charles,

And an excellent job you did too, much though I hate to admit it!!!!

go to huffinton post and check out the wikileaks release of US forces in an Apache helicopter murdering people….

shame on us and them

please someone…what the fuck is going on, on this fucking planet

From you earlier post, it is apparent that the morality of a liberal is no better than that of a lynch mob and that the political grasp of a diplomat may be no better than that of a rabbit.

To those living in a well regulated society, the attitude of settlers toward indigenous people whether the settlers are the Dutch and English in South Africa, Scots in Ireland or Jews in Palestine may well seem hateful. If crazy or needlessly brutal, a settler is bound to be viewed with particular horror. Yet, in human affairs, power has always trumped morality, decency and everything else, and the outcome of human struggle has determined not only the course of history but who exists on the face of the planet to make history.

Man is a territorial animal and since emerging from the trees, men have fought for territory. How else account for the fact that the earth is covered with walled settlements, fortified towers, castles and nuclear missile batteries? Without a family history of murder, rape and pillage, how does a liberal think he or she came to occupy some spot on the surface of this planet?

The British had their moment or imperial glory but their success was limited, doubling or tripling their population worldwide, but now facing encroachment and displacement in their own territory. The failure of the British to secure world domination can be attributed primarily to an anti-life liberal ideology. Thus, having grasped the North American continent, Australia and much of the most hospitable regions of Southern Africa, the British suffered reproductive failure. From families sizes limited only by the means to keep children alive until maturity, the British and their descendants around the world became obsessed with family planning, abortion, girls’ education and just about anything else that would guarantee reproductive failure.

And still the liberals sneer and jeer at those who believe it better to survive than to die, better to protect one’s territory than to cede it to others.

Craig. More importantly by far – please give your thoughts on this ->

http://collateralmurder.com/

The US apache attack on 2 reuters journalists and other civillians. Trigger happy US military once again.

Alfred

you use man’s failures in the past as a justification of his failures in the present.

Yes Animals behave in this way, but I believe humanity can choose to be above our animalistic instincts we can also choose to be beneath them.

Some people are amongst the best of humanity, and there are others who are amongst the worst.

Are these settlers you mentioned the best of us or the worst of us?

Remembering that this was a man who was killed for refusing to pay a man for his work?

It is not the richest who are the best of us, but those who spend their riches in the right way.

It is not the strongest of us who are the best, but those that use their strength in the right way.

And the right way is to help others, not to help ourselves.

Charles Crawford

English aristocrats also did a good job of negotiating with Hitler not to invade the UK. Well done, Sir. When you pass GO, please don’t forget to pick up £200.00.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/05/wikileaks-video-of-u.html?

Alfred,

you’ve made a silly mistake. Those “British” genes are all over the world, propagating happily via people of all different colours, caring not one jot whether anyone calls them “British” or otherwise. Reproductive failure?

Thanks, Control. Everyone needs to watch the wikileaks video which Control posted. This is the sickening reality of US-UK imperialism. This is where our tax pounds go. Each bullet is paid-for by you and me. Each bullet is forged by our fingers. This happens daily across the occupied lands, that is, the lands which the West occupies by dint of its superior psychopathic power.

Think of that girl in Vietnam, the one who burned and burned and ran along the road, naked and burning. Our pounds, our dollars. It’s been happening for decades across the occupied lands.

And there are still people in this country, on this blog, who think it was a great idea to invade and destroy Iraq. There are still people who advocate the machine-gunning of human beings as though they were bacteria on a Petri Dish.

This is what those people are advocating. Watch the video from start to finish.

Off topic – it’s official. May 6th.

I have a note on my letter box.

aa

Please place all election literature/leaflets straight into the purple recycling box.

Canvassers are NOT welcome.

aa

For the first time in my life I will NOT be voting.

But the other Mary will be.

Thanks Alfred.

Arsalan, “those white racists in South Africa” did not arrive there with a f16 and a nuclear bomb, cleaned out the country and took it over and populated it. They shed their own blood and tears for it and a lot of it too. All they wanted was a piece of land where they would escape the protestant massacre happening in Europe and be able to worship their God as they wished.

That is why they trekked thousands of miles on foot and wagon, to find such a place, believing that they will find it eventually.

Along the way the encountered people who wanted to kill them and steal their possessions, and they dealt with them in self defense.

There were obviously complications that crept in as time went on, and of which the British were very much part of. The British motive was purely world domination, and they did not share the predicament of the Afrikaner in any way, so if someone is to point fingers at people “kicking” others off their lands, I think Craig and other Brits ought to be the last to throw that stone.

My point is though that no-one “kicked” anyone off of their land. All through most of history, people fought for land, and the winner took it, end of story. The argument that the land actually belongs to so and so because XXXmillion years ago their ancestors lived there is a rather dead and quite frankly a stupid one.

If everyone feels that way, then find out where all nations come from, open the borders, and let everyone go back home.

Oh but wait, isn’t the so called “cradle of mankind” about 30km from my house? Then I am right at home, and my supposed ancestors walked this very land…why should I go anywhere then, this is MY land, and yours and yours and yours and yours and yours and yours and yours and yours……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Can I conquer Sussex, please?

Arsalan,

You say, “you use man’s failures in the past as a justification of his failures in the present.”

No, I say that man’s past brutalities explain why you and I, not some other, perhaps kinder gentler people, are here on earth today.

You say “Yes Animals behave in this way, but I believe humanity can choose to be above our animalistic instincts we can also choose to be beneath them.”

There are two points here. First, I don’t understand why you differentiate between man and animals. Mankind is an animal species subject to the same laws governing survival as all other species. Second, it is true that we can choose, but if we chose a course of conduct that leads to selective failure, we give our place on this earth to people more realistic.

You ask, “Are these settlers you mentioned the best of us or the worst of us?”

To which I respond with a question: which would have been better, that your ancestors chose the path of survival in accordance with the morality of the settler or that they turned the other cheek when confronted by violence and thus and left no heirs?

You say, “It is not the richest who are the best of us, but those who spend their riches in the right way. It is not the strongest of us who are the best, but those that use their strength in the right way… to help others.”

These statements will receive very general assent. Yet, who among us actually express such beliefs in our actions, particularly in actions that we might be inclined to take in dealing with those outside our own family, community or country?

What I said was intended less as a statement than as a question. What morality, if any, which is consistent with our own survival, could supercede the two-faced morality so clearly expressed in the first five books of the Bible: i.e., to treat others as you would have others treat you, provided they are of your tribe, but view other nations of the earth as yours to deal with as most profits you.

“My point is though that no-one “kicked” anyone off of their land. All through most of history, people fought for land, and the winner took it, end of story.” Ben.

Can’t have it both ways, people. Either it’s right – natural, perhaps – for the whites to have fought for the land and kicked the blacks off it, in which case it’s right for the reverse to be happening now. Or both acts were and are wrong.

” Also, black groups … were displacing each other long before any white ‘colonialist ‘ arrived.”

Also, white groups in Europe, brown groups in Asia, Chinese in China, Russians in Russia, were displacing each other all the time. In fact, one of the benefits of the world’s roving emperors was the spread of Islam.

It is to the very great shame of white colonialists that arriving in Muslim Africa and finding highly civilised people in white robes, that they reported back to Europe that they had found only savages in Africa. The slaves whom they transported after they had slaughtered all other occupants of their lands, i.e. as many again, were submitted to brutal apartheid and forced to abandon their civilisation and religion.

The humiliation of South African apartheid followed. But I agree with Arsalan, that the worst humiliations of these three separate periods of apartheid were/are always reserved for the Muslims, i.e. the present day Palestinians and the African American slaves. It is truly shocking that a former British Prime Minister should instruct the world to bring the Palestinians of Gaza to submission to renounce Hamas, by refusing to give the aid pledged by the international community a year ago. Resistance is part of Islam, and Tony Blair’s cruelty is on a par with the Slave Trade. Maybe after 500 years he’ll say sorry again.

Clark,

According to Bryan Sykes, author of “Vikings, Saxons and Celts,” there are around 160 million British people in the world. If you count those who are of mixed origin, in proportion to their genetic composition, i.e., counting someone who is half British and half something else, as half a British person, what is your estimate of the number of British persons in the World?

Suhayl: Agreed. However, they did not win back “their” country (a protest in Sharpeville is hardly a freedom struggle worthy of the attention it receives), they received it back. A sign that the times are changing…or are they? Apparently they are not, it’s war as always.

Alfred I am not a pacifist. So I don’t have a problem with people defending themselves.

But when it comes to the settlers, I believe the people fighting them are the ones defending themselves.

The reason why we judge the likes of settlers is we want to decide who is in the right or wrong in conflicts to decide who we support.

You are correct that some others choose other criterion. Such as Zionists.

They couldn’t careless who is in the right in their conflict, and they say so openly, “Israel right or wrong”.

Instead all that matters to them when it comes to picking sides is tribalism, nationalism, sectarianism and racism.

Others try and pick the winning side to obtain material benefit.

You can see this in the Capo, Jews who joined the Nazi in exterminating other Jews because they saw self benefit in it.

Or Arabs who join the Israeli Army to kill their own people. Or Iraqis and Afghans who join the puppet governments America installed in those countries.

If I have to fight, it would be for the side I thought was in the right, not the side who I share the closest kinship with or the side with which I can obtain material benefit for myself and my family.

And most of the people in this site feel the same. So we are all against the British and Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq. Against the Zionists in all of Palestine and against the pillage in Africa.

But I do disagree with Craig somewhat.

I don’t believe in original sin. the ones that stole the land were the sinners. Not their sons.

Only the sinners should be punished for their crimes, because crimes are not inherited.

the wealth gap needs to be reduced.

And the reduction has a price.

But punishing the innocent is too high a price.

So another way needs to be found.

anyway, Eugene wasn’t punished for the sins of his father. He was punished because he refused to pay someone for work he hired them to do.

Note to self: Pay people you hire!

Alfred,

I have no idea. Lots. Who cares? it’s only a label, and not a particularly meaningful one.

“Can I conquer Sussex, please? ”

I live in hopes of meeting a Glaswegian called Euan Husami.

I know I am off topic here Craig….but let’s hear you on this one – general election fever in the air:-

http://tcijournal.com/index.php?idsub=2482&id=8

‘For the first time in my life I will NOT be voting.’

Mary I’ll be doing the same. Voting means taking part/supporting a political system which is a sham. The more people who don’t vote, the better.

The Establishment/hard state want as to vote to maintain the semblance of democracy.

” go to huffinton post and check out the wikileaks release of US forces in an Apache helicopter murdering people….

shame on us and them

please someone…what the fuck is going on, on this fucking planet” – question …

Answer: same sad shit that has been going on for eons – different day!

Anno,

Were not Muslims prominent in the African slave trade?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Obama’s Muslim ancestors were most likely slave owners or traders.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_slavery.html

Arsalan,

You say, “But when it comes to the settlers, I believe the people fighting them are the ones defending themselves.”

Absolutely. Everyone has the right to self defense. That is why King Alfred was the only English monarch designated “the Great”: he put a stop to the Viking invasion and occupation which could, had it continued, have resulted in the extinction of the British race.

You say, “The reason why we judge the likes of settlers is we want to decide who is in the right or wrong in conflicts to decide who we support.”

What I was suggesting is that the question may sometimes be unanswerable on the basis of either Judeo-Christian theology, or the calculation of rational self-interest, because in either case, the answer depends on which side your on.

Some may think that the new world order is the solution to the moral dilemma: abolish the nations of the world, open up the resources of Africa, Central Asia and the rest of the world to multi-national exploitation, let people move where they will, let us all be of one nation.

But for those who wish to retain their identity, their racial distinctness, their culture, their natural resources, there will be, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, only a carpet of bombs. For those who wish to retain their government autonomy, there will be only a remote and impersonal bureaucracy such as in Brussels.

Is that what most folks want? If not, what if any, is the alternative other than the continual strife of nations for survival and advantage in accordance with a two-face moral code?

Clark,

If you think the number of Brits is irrelevant, why raise the question?

“For the first time in my life I will not be voting”

So fucking what?

“I seem to recall reading somewhere that Obama’s Muslim ancestors …”

I definitely read somewhere, just a couple of days ago, that his grandparents very probably went through the ‘Mau Mau’ camps.

Good for the AWB, though.

Alfred,

I didn’t. My question “Reproductive failure?” was rhetorical. Those genes are reproducing themselves quite successfully; they don’t care that they’re not labeled “British”.

You seem to care a lot about “race”. Relax. Nature will always ensure diversity. Each new generation will have its sense of identity.

Why wouldn’t Obama’s anscestors have been for the Mau Mau? Britain was attempting to do in Kenya what the whites were doing in South Africa, which was to treat the majority African population as a subordinate race, and using the most grotesque and murderous methods in the process:

http://www.markcurtis.info/articles.html

That is why Clark is incorrect in assuming that numbers do not matter. Had the British outnumbered the native people in the African colonies where they settled, the indigenous people could have been assimilated and a decent society providing prosperity for all established.

As it was the alien elite, to avoid expulsion by the indigenous people, set up what proved to be fundamentally unviable, odious, racist political structures. The same mistake was made in the Southern U.S. where a white settler elite created a slave society, in which the whites were greatly outnumbered by slaves. Had it not been for the civil war, which ended slavery and resulted in the mass migration of former slaves to the northern states, the Confederacy would undoubtedly be a black republic today.

This blog is fucking 20th Century central.

Get with the millennium, folks.

“For the first time in my life I will NOT be voting.”

Hooray!

Thanks for sharing!

Angrysoba,

Are you about ready to move to the States?

“Are you about ready to move to the States?”

Nope. I like it fine here in Japan, thanks.

Richard,

My logic may not be invincible, but it seems to me that it is virtually impossible for a privileged settler minority to integrate a poor indigenous majority (i.e., granting them full political equality) without losing their privileged status eventually — an outcome the settlers would presumably consider intolerable.

In South Africa, there are still many whites and according to Craig they still control most of the wealth. However, their days seem numbered. Some have been murdered, many others have seen the writing on the wall and left.

It is not so difficult, however, to see a settler majority granting equality to an indigenous or slave minority. This seems to be happening in Canada, although some first nations people apparently want separate development. And it has happened in the US, as is evident from the election of Obama as President.

It seems to me there is a difference between displacement by one tribe for the benefit of another and displacement for colonialisation, where the land is used for sending the benefit away. The genocide in Sudan is colonial because Muslim nomads occupy land which others wish to exploit.

There is also a difference between inter-tribal displacement and what the Israelis have done to Gaza and the US have done to Iraq. Both places have considerable potential, but they have been made unworkable and filled with deadly depleted uranium from bombs. This form of displacement is sheer Old Testament despoilment. However, the purpose of Old Testament genocide was to remove and obliterate idol-worship and animism. A cause which is legitimised in the Qur’an. The purpose of Israeli and US genocide is to foster idol-worship and animism. Okay the idols are different. Today’s idols are the power of WMD which USUK and Israel possess in huge quantities, and which they believe to be invincible. Their animism is not the worship of spirits, but the worship of themselves as superior beings to the other humans around them.

Muslim slave traders. I was thinking about this last night. How do you tell if someone is an Arab in Africa? They are light-skinned and speak Arabic. I have seen black Jews, but by and large whey are light skinned. So can anyone prove to me that the Arabs who black Africans detest so much today and who they previously accused of masterminding the slave trade, were in fact Arabs and not Jews? If they are Arab, are they Muslim?

Slavery is not forbidden in Islam, because in a Holy War against polytheists, but not people of the Book, captives could be taken and enslaved. Many Arabs in the Middle East seem to think that it is legitimate for them to enslave anyone they like, even if they are Muslim. but they did not lift a finger to fight anyone, and instead they used their oil wealth to pamper the enemies of Islam and themselves and to transgress all the limits of their religion. Those who assist the enemies of Islam to cause conflict against the Muslims are not called Muslims, but hypocrites. The hypocrites made a confederacy with the Jews against Islam and I suspect it is this type of “Arabs” who are/were engaged in exploitation in Africa.

“Suhayl: Agreed. However, they did not win back “their” country (a protest in Sharpeville is hardly a freedom struggle worthy of the attention it receives), they received it back. A sign that the times are changing…or are they? Apparently they are not, it’s war as always.”

Yes, Ben, perhaps, but through decades of struggle – of which Sharpeville,

Soweto, Robben Island, etc. were merely the most visible manifestations internationally and through the threat of complete and absolute chaos and destruction if De Klerk had not begun to deal with the ANC when he did. No-one ever willingly gives away power – that is a lesson history has taught us again and again. As I said earlier, the ANC did a deal with international capitalism (which included the White S. African rulers); the current problems are a function of that ongoing economic compromise and many decades of the mass brutalisation that was apartheid and the enormously damaging (British) economic and political colonialism which preceded and facilitated both of the aforementioned dynamics.

Euan Husami – a piper, I see – interesting, Richard, as always!

The larries are so f-in C17th! Fundo capitalists, the lot of them! Get with it, Larry! Blackbeard’s been dead for 350 years, man!

Thanks Ruth for concurring on that. Alan Campbell and Angrysoba can sneer as much as they like. I was expresing my total disillusionment with what is laughingly called a ‘democracy’.

And aren’t the trolls on this site getting cross? Perhaps they know that the system they support is on the slide.

Some of the whiteys from ZA are beyond belief too. Doomed and living in the past.

One Scots king (can’t remember which) awarded lands to a subject for services rendered. He asked how he should take possession (they already belonged to someone else). ‘Walk alang the dyke and lowp it whaur it’s low’ said the king. (Walk along the wall and jump over where it’s low). Most land was acquired that way.

“I live in hopes of meeting a Glaswegian called Euan Husami.”

Glaswegians of my acquaintance: Harry Keery, Hugh Deeney (truly).

Look, people, the basic fact that needs to be understood is that transnational corporate capitalism is colour-blind.

The local military-economic elites in Africa and much of western and southern Asia are corrupt brown and black international capitalist elites who maintain the dominant hegemony. A switch of ruling cadre – from white to black in S. Africa; from French to West African; from British to Idi Amin/ Milton Obote in Uganda; from British to the Army and feudal landowners in Pakistan (and on…) serves only to perpetuate the gross injustics of the world economy and the often engineered, or at least exacerbated, tribalisms that keep people divided and deluded.

As I’ve said before, and as others on this platform have made clear, the problems in S. Africa/ Pakistan/ Iraq/ Colombia stem from an agglomeration of historical and contemporary economic dynamics which, while develving into local variants, essentially derive from one root cause: the economic colonialism that underpins and defines cartel capitalism.

Suhayl: exactly, thanks.

“a piper, I see” – you know, I’ve had that name on my mind for years, but it never occured to me to try a quick google & see whether anyone had done it. So, thanks for that, it provoked me to. A tune. Pipe Major, even, as is only right and proper. I *need* to play this.

I shall have to Institute Enquiries, see if I can dig up some dots from somewhere, I’m not feeling up to buying many CDs just now …

Also “Harry Keery, Hugh Deeney”, splendid.

I tend to take that view that it is best not to talk ill of the newly dead as it is in bad taste and will only be used by any of their supporters to further their cause. Far better to focus your fire on the noxious and odious views of the living such as Alfred, and even better if you go out and dilute your British genes with a little bit of interracial breeding as both Craig and I have done.

On a more serious level I do agree with Charles Crawford about the importance of seeking reconciliation between opposing communities. History shows that allowing revenge to drive policy has not been entirely sucessful – look at the consequence of WW1 reparations if you want a good example. Turning back the clock to the status quo ante is hardly ever a realistic option – and perhaps rather than focusing on the likes of Terre Blanche a little more attention should be paid to those such as Mandela (and many White South Africans) who have recognised the need for reconciliation. I don’t remember as much attention being paid to the death of the late great Helen Suzman as there was to Terreblanche.

Cue loads of garbage from the usual quarters.

“Alan Campbell and Angrysoba can sneer as much as they like. I was expresing my total disillusionment with what is laughingly called a ‘democracy’.”

Very kind of you Mary, I think I will. But wasn’t it you who posted a link to some website saying, “Give your vote to someone in another country”?

Not much of a gift if you think voting is a sham in the first place and completely worthless. It’s like giving someone a Woolworths voucher.

Those who sneer at democracy tend to be those who know that their own views will never be accepted by a majority. They are also too ignorant to recognise the sacrifices made by many in order to obtain the right to vote – which they will gladly throwaway.

Even though Craig never got many votes – he was able to get his point across.

Ah, Smart Mary! So you are the ‘other’ Mary, I presume. Does this pseudonym infer that the previous Mary is ‘not smart’? Or are all Marys smart by definition? What about ‘Proud Mary’?

“Ah see a bad moon risin’…”

“But for those who wish to retain their identity, their racial distinctness, their culture, their natural resources, there will be, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, only a carpet of bombs. For those who wish to retain their government autonomy, there will be only a remote and impersonal bureaucracy such as in Brussels.”

What on Earth is “racial distinctness”? And do you mean suggesting there is anything desirable in “preserving” it?

“Or are all Marys smart by definition?”

Shirley, you can’t be serious. If that were the case then “smart Mary” would be redundant!

And if all Marys are redundant, that’s a pretty good reason to vote.

Alfred – “My logic may not be invincible, but it seems to me that it is virtually impossible for a privileged settler minority to integrate a poor indigenous majority (i.e., granting them full political equality) without losing their privileged status”

That’s the bit that baffles me; the assumption that a minority of immigrants automatically has “full political equality” in its gift, to give or withold for the people who live there, according to how they feel.

Or, given the way they actually behaved, the idea that lots more of them would have behaved any way differently, except more so.

But symmetrical, possibly, with the people who run around telling us in the UK to be terrified of the Muslim Steamroller forcing us into burqas. Where that projection comes from, maybe ? “After all, that’s what ‘we’ did”. So, should that threat be averted by importing so many “Muslims” that they’d feel all nice and secure and unthreatened ? (I had to re-type that, having mis-spelled it as ‘unheated’. Hmm).

Was thinking about this last night.

“Almost all white South Africans were implicated in it and enjoyed its benefits. Never forget that.”

Even if we forget about the people who fought apartheid (they weren’t all celebrity names), what about the people born at the end of apartheid? What about the children born since? What about the people who moved back?

Arsalan, stephen and writerman are right, I think. This history visits the sins of the fathers on the next generation. It divides, where South Africa sounds like it needs unity. And what are individuals supposed to do about it? Hand over their wealth? To whom?

Craig writes movingly about the poorest people slaving in appalling conditions in the mining industries. Then collectivise the mines, or shut them down. But the government cannot do either unless they renationalise, and they cannot renationalise because they’re sewn into the IMF and being forced to do the opposite. So what’s being suggested here? Replacing slaves of one colour with slaves of a different colour? Or just improving the old slaves’ conditions a bit?

The ‘they’re immigrants and they stole all our wealth’ line is historically true of South Africa, but true or not it’s still the same argument used by the powerful against vulnerable minorities everywhere. Meanwhile the multinational corporations are taking over.

My godmother worked alongside Tutu, before he was a bishop. I think he would have been shocked & moved by an old man being hacked to death. Not just because of the nature of the death, but because of the inevitable effect on the perpetrators (one of whom was only a boy).

Fascinating as it has been to learn more about the humanity on this board,

I don’t get this thread at all, really.

“Muslim slave traders. I was thinking about this last night. How do you tell if someone is an Arab in Africa? They are light-skinned and speak Arabic. I have seen black Jews, but by and large whey are light skinned. So can anyone prove to me that the Arabs who black Africans detest so much today and who they previously accused of masterminding the slave trade, were in fact Arabs and not Jews?”

Once again you people don’t seem to mind a bit of Jew hatred. It works even better for you morons if it’s completely fabricated.

Larry

All too sadly we don’t gave to go back to Muslim slave traders to demonstrate that Muslems are capable of appalling treatment of Black Africans (although they have no monopoly) in this regard – we only have to look at Darfur.

When will these people accept that no one has a monopoly of either good or evil?

Stephen,

“Far better to focus your fire on the noxious and odious views of the living such as Alfred. and even better if you go out and dilute your British genes with a little bit of interracial breeding as both Craig and I have done.”

You say nothing about my “noxious and odious views” so I take it that you think “diluting your British genes” constitutes a sufficient argument. Perhaps, for those of us who deal in mere facts and logic, you will be kind enough to put that argument into words?

Angrysoba (or could that be, ‘Angrydoba’?!), good one!

Btw, if we’re exploring female pseudonymns, please know that I reply only to ‘Melanie’.

Richard,

“That’s the bit that baffles me; the assumption that a minority of immigrants automatically has “full political equality” in its gift, to give or withold for the people who live there, according to how they feel.”

My point was that when a settler minority rules they have everything in their power by virtue of their monopoly of legally imposed force. However, if they voluntarily relinquish their monopoly over the power of the state, it will likely be used against them by a resentful and long-exploited majority. In South Africa, a handover was forced on the whites, with the result that many have since fled, although some will surely survive there and integrate successfully, and I wish them success.

My larger point was that Britain’s twentieth century attempts to colonize Kenya and other African colonies were doomed to failure by the pathetically small numbers of colonists. In Kenya, for example, a mere several tens of thousands of “gentlemen farmers” from Britain expected to lord it over millions of indigenous Africans and exploit their dirt-cheap labour.

It was a project of lunatic impracticability. The resort to concentration camps, torture by castration and mass murder to defeat the resistance was not only evil but, worse, it was a monstrous error in judgment.

It was in this context that I spoke of reproductive failure. If Britain had maintained a high birth rate during the early decades of the twentieth century and poured millions of people into African colonies, people willing to work for a living not merely to live off the backs of the natives, they would most likely still be there and prospering, and any hope that with a little encouragement the natives could hack them all to pieces would be an absurd liberal pipe dream.

“In South Africa, a handover was forced on the whites, ”

I mean, obviously, forced on them by forces outside the the country, not by the oppressed majority…

Alfred

Since you don’t appreciate that it is the nature and duty of humanity to rise above and progress beyond the level of animal instincts and behaviours – and that most of mankind’s magnificent achievements can be be attributed to doing so – I somehow doubt that you would appreciate a logical discussion.

But Britain did not lose its Empire because we diluted our gene pool – it did so because those in the colonies wanted their freedom and right to self determination – and it was the right thing for us to give it up.

Laz Taz

I asked a question about Arab slave traders. We know that Jewish dealers operated the auctions and transportation of the African slaves in the US and Caribbean. They also owned slaves and farms. George Bush’s ancestry were Jewish. I don’t have evidence about the African side of the slave trade, but it is fair to conclude that if they were running the Caribbean end, and the transportation, they may have been running the show in Africa as well.

Unfortunately for them, they did not have the technology at that time to usefully extract body parts, so they only exported the whole machines, in good condition, which they sold like we now sell industrial plant at auction.

The only fabrication about this was the industrial fabrication of food by slave power. The triangle of shame. Slaves to West, produce to East, sail south and repeat again.

Alfred, Britain – and not just the Irish, mind – did maintain a high birth-rate during the early years of the twentieth century. Most of those who did emigrate went to the ‘New World’, rather than to Africa or India. If they went to the lands that later would be called, the ‘New Commonwealth’ and even if they were actually born in Africa or India, they usually retired to a small cottage in the South Downs.

Most people in Scotland, for example, have multiple relatives in Canada, Australia, the USA and/ or New Zealand and those people have had children and grandchildren there.

On the other hand, while indigenous populations in ‘The New World’ were wiped-out and/or displaced and marginalised, the countries of Asia and Africa, as you correctly suggest, were conquered simply in order to provide raw materials and raw human beings to build-up and maintain imperialism. And in altered fashion but not substance, so the relationship continues.

Alfred – I can’t see why it isn’t yours that is the absurd pipe dream.

Hypothesise that you’ve been right so far, that a vastly larger population of white settlers with huge families is still dominant in Kenya. Presumably this has resulted in the locals having lost even more land than they had then, and are therefore hungrier and even more stressed and pissed off than they were then ? And this goes on, more and more, until … what ? for ever ? How is this huge population of settlers dealing with that anger, now, or whenever it boils up ? because, don’t you think that it will, sooner or later ? Or are they all supposed to just quietly die out from sheer discouragement ? (In a faintly more realistic version of this, what about the cold war, wouldn’t somebody have been in there supplying AK47s for the sheer mischief of it ? Are they part of the “muslim terror”, now ?)

Or do you really imagine some sort of sweetness-and-light ? The more the settlers take over the land, the nicer they are to the people who had it before, and the more those people love them for it ? Why ?

I think it becomes a “project of lunatic impracticability” somewhere along the line, anyway, and in a more ideal world would not have been tried.

But then, the idea of having “whites” outbreed everyone else is demented, whatever you hope to achieve with it. Ain’t going to happen. What proportion of the world’s population is ‘white’ ? Have you got any numbers ? Any projections for the population of this world you look for ?

I can’t seem to post this on the other S. Africa thread, so I’m posting it here. Apologies if it appears twice! It refers to a discourse there.

Thanks, Mark. Much appreciated.

Very interesting – and, I guess, maddening – about the CIA-flight, cigar lounge, etc. Yeah, these type of people of the Washington Consensus and IMF, etc. have no shame because they just don’t give a damn. They all possess, to quote my pal, novelist and thinker, Allan Cameron, a ‘Berlusconi Bonus’, a pass – and I use that word very deliberately in the S. African context though it applies everywhere – a pass to amorality.

Stephen,

You say, “Since you don’t appreciate that it is the nature and duty of humanity to rise above and progress beyond the level of animal instincts and behaviours”

Who says what our duty is? That is the question on which it will be difficult to obtain universal assent.

You say, I don’t appreciate that “most of mankind’s magnificent achievements can be be attributed to [rising above our animal instincts]”

Well i agree its doubtful if Pythagoras would have figured out his theorem while “diluting his genes.” So, absolutely, I appreciate the role of human intellect in creating the wonderful elaborations of our civilization.

You say “I somehow doubt that you would appreciate a logical discussion.”

Well try me.

You say, “But Britain did not lose its Empire because we diluted our gene pool”

I didn’t say that. I said that Britain’s empire was much grander in appearance than reality because they adopted the wrong population policy and failed to populate many of the more or less empty lands they conquered.

You say “[the Empire failed] because those in the colonies wanted their freedom and right to self determination – and it was the right thing for us to give it up.”

I agree about what the people of the colonies wanted. That is obviously true. But the point is that it was not what the people of the colonies got where the Brits, and other settlers, occupied the space.

Look, I am not talking about morality. I am talking about the mechanics of empire. When I say Britain adopted the wrong population policy, I mean wrong in the context of creating an African empire.

The African empire generated no real benefit for the British but caused much harm. Part of the fallout is the post-imperial guilt of many in Britain of Liberal persuasion who feel somehow that Britons have no right to a homeland or to any self-respect, even the right to be acknowledged as a distinct ethnicity.

Richard,

What I postulate is that if Britain had populated some of the African colonies they would be developing more or less in line with Canada. And with enough settlers, it would have been possible to treat the indigenous people with humanity without fear of expulsion of the immigrant community.

The British empire is now long dead. I am not arguing for its resurrection. What I said at the outset was to indicate that social policy, e.g., immigration and population policies, have real political consequences.

I also tried to invite comment on how in a world of nations armed with nukes we resolve the issue of the double moral standard: rules that apply to our tribe and rules that apply to the rest of the world. Is the New World Ordure the only option?

As for population, I accept correction by Saadi re British demographics.

Saadi makes very well the point that exploitation of the weak continues not through colonization but through corporate exploitation mediated by corrupt local elites. There are important differences in the consequences, however, between imperial settlement and corporate exploitation. The first served the interests of the mass of people of the dominating powers. The second serves only the elites.

Alfred

One of the logical problems to your theory of Empire is that it is just not physically possible for a relatively small country and population to populate large areas of the globe, often with much larger population, so that they can dominate those countries. This problem would be even more difficult if you wanted to guard against diluting the gene pool.

As for the desirability of such a policy there are also very strong arguments against – perhaps some of us believe that one of the strengths, and delights, of the human race is it many diiferences. Your policy even if could be implemented would probably result in a monculture of bigots – and underlying it all there is probably some rather illogical (and scientifically unsupported) views about racial superiority.

In my experience people who profess not to talk about morality usually do so since they don’t believe their own morality should be subject to challenge. You are also confusing the concepts of nationalism and patriotism – read some Orwell, esp the Lion and the Unicorn if you want to understand how British “liberals” can be quite comfortable with the distinction.

” Yeah, these type of people of the Washington Consensus and IMF, etc. have no shame because they just don’t give a damn.”

There are many criticisms of instritutions such as the IMF and World Bank – and your accusations may have some validity in relation to the structures and their political masters – but is just not the case for the majority of the people who work for such organisations. I have met a lot of such people in my work and most certainly do give a damn and are often very frustrated by the ineffectiveness of their organisations. Do you seriously know a large number of such people or are you just making an assumption based on the end results?

Stephen,

You say “it is just not physically possible for a relatively small country and population to populate large areas of the globe, often with much larger population, so that they can dominate those countries.”

What I did say was correct; namely, that Britain’s twentieth century population policy was inconsistent with its projects for the colonization of Africa.

Thus, for example, in the 50 years from 1821 and 1871 British population doubled, whereas in the 50 years from 1901 and 1951 it increased by only one third. True, during the latter period, in particular, there was out-migration which reduced growth at home. However, the fact remains that whereas families of ten or so were normal in the nineteenth century, they were extremely rare in the twentieth century.

You say “This problem would be even more difficult if you wanted to guard against diluting the gene pool”

But I said nothing about guarding against diluting the gene pool.

You seem to have it fixed in your mind that I am a racist and therefore you can smear me by alleging that I believe all the racist nonsense.

You say “In my experience people who profess not to talk about morality usually do so since they don’t believe their own morality should be subject to challenge.”

So you feel free to call me a racist? Your argument lacks substance or logic.

“And with enough settlers, it would have been possible to treat the indigenous people with humanity”

I really cannot see it.

Taken to a reductio-ad-absurdum, if a whole load more immigrants had arrived, they wouldn’t have had the same ‘need’ to squeeze other people off the land they were feeding themselves from ? They wouldn’t have imposed taxes on people who then had to go out & work for rubbish wages to pay ?

This is just going round and round in circles.

As a matter of “practical mechanics”, I’d have thought it would make a lot more sense to not go picking fights with the majority by acting obnoxious.

But you remind me how little I know about the history of settlement in Ccanada.

Richard,

It seems simple enough to me!

Do you think there would be such a high frequency of black on white murder in South Africa or such massive white flight if the majority there were white?

And do you not agree that apartheid and all other odious repressive measures of the white regime were introduced because the white minority believed it would lose control of the country if it granted the African population greater freedom?

In that case, my point is made: the ruling elite can only afford to treat an occupied population decently if it has a substantial superiority in numbers.

It is true that there are exceptions. The Normans were never numerous in Britain yet they established a permanent hold on the country. But that was before democracy came to be understood as the only legitimate form of government. It was then possible for one ruling elite to replace another without making much difference to the population — as in the case of the British takeover of India, which may have improved the lot of many Indians.

A South African man has gone on trial accused of raping a lesbian to “turn her into a woman”

“It seems simple enough to me!”

I just don’t get the basic premises. It gives me the same impression as, say, a Star Trek nerd telling me all about an episode I never wanted to watch. An elaborate set of rules for a fantasy. A set of assumptions for a made-up world.

The South African Asian Muslims benefited from apartheid, because it toned down their normal, aggressive brand of racist colonialism, as seen in Burma, a little.

Not sure if they have maintained that level of moderation in Birmingham though. It’s like a rugby scrum, two populations, each full of their own sense of pride, each confident in their own destiny of victory, pushing together against eachother.

The Asian community is spreading block by block into the white housing areas. It’s perfectly obvious who’s winning and who’s got their backs to the wall. But what will they have gained at the end of the day? A very bad reputation and suburbia. Raise the Pakistani flag, and drag the Muslim flag through the soil.

When I came into Islam I joined a group that proselytises Islam. But when I found that they spend all their time outside the mosque, enfuriating people about Islam, I left them. Birmingham has the highest level of anti-racist policy in the world, and it is an unequalled model of equal opportunities, but the council’s priority is the removal of bigotry, not the promotion of religious enlightenment.

We are hoping that the next generation of Muslims will settle down, but the signs are that they are turning into their parents enemies, with vicious dogs, and gang mentality. Where I live, the English people who were brought up here of my age tell me that they went to church three times on Sunday when they were young. How come such a receptive religious audience has been so completely turned off by the greed and selfishness of the Asians? Call a spade a spade, sometimes I’m very glad that the police know how to kettle demonstrators, as we saw in Dudley with the latest anti/pro mosque march last weekend. EDL against UAF, Birmingham Mail April 5 2010.

Alan Campbell and Angrysoba can sneer as much as they like. I was expresing my total disillusionment with what is laughingly called a ‘democracy’.”

Very kind of you Mary, I think I will. But wasn’t it you who posted a link to some website saying, “Give your vote to someone in another country”?

Not much of a gift if you think voting is a sham in the first place and completely worthless. It’s like giving someone a Woolworths voucher.

Posted by: angrysoba at April 6, 2010 1:10 PM

______________________________________

NO that wasn’t me.

NO that wasn’t me.

Got it?

You are the one using the R word not me – but perhaps rather than commenting on everybody else’s morality perhaps we could know a little about your own. We know so little apart from your dislike of liberals, that you see nothing wrong with empire’s using minorities to rule over majorities and that you don’t like Nazi’s being butchered (true liberals don’t believe in butchering anyone whatever their sins/crimes)

Last post was from me addressed to Alfred

Richard,

You may find the idea of colonizing a almost empty land by outnumbering the native people a Star Trek fantasy, but that is what the British did in North America. In Africa, for whatever reason, they failed to follow conquest with population.

It might be argued that there were not enough Brits to go round but I don’t think this is the case. In Kenya, for example, in 1900, there were less than four million native people. It would not have been impossible to direct something like four million European immigrants plus, perhaps another four million from India and then ensure that the birthrate of the immigrants matched that of the native population. The end result could have been interesting: a mixed race population of over 100 million with a democratic constitution and a first-world economy. With such colonies, Africa today would itself be fulcrum of world power, not simply a resource area for exploitation by foreign-based corporations.

The real problem, however, was that the British failed to formulate a viable model of colonial government. At the beginning of the twentieth century Britain was nominally democratic. In reality it was a plutocracy in which the deferential common people chose to elect either very rich and mostly aristocratic Tories, or very rich and mostly aristocratic Liberals. It was this model of government that the Imperial government sought to transplant in slightly modified form to Africa: the chief modifications being that white gentleman farmers would form the ruling elite and, to ensure their perpetual deference, the indigenous people would have no vote.

With this model of government, there was no need to think about the relative numbers of settlers and native people. Hence, its failure.

What is interesting, today, is to see the continued stupidity of the British ruling elite, as represented by Stalinist-trained cunts like Jack Straw and all the other lib-left, vegetarian do-gooding, feminists, and anti-racist, pro-abortion, and sex education fanatics who largely control the organs of state propaganda, i.e., the schools and universities.

Kipling said the problem with India was that the Indians were the children of children. The problem with Britain today is that the British are the infantilized progeny of the infantilized, insofar as the British, as opposed to the less brainwashed and no doubt more intelligent immigrant community, have an progeny at all.

So while they continue to obsess about political correctness and the sins of their ancestors, the British will gradually disappear in their own homeland as the three main political parties offer the same meaningless rationale for continued mass immigration “based on a points system like they have in Canada and Australia” as the Liberal party spokesperson was saying the other day on the tel, as if Britain were some wide open continental space, not a small island with, in England, no more than about two thousand square meters per person, of which perhaps 25% is arable land. So if England ever has to be entirely self-sufficient, they’ll be cultivating that patch, about 25 paces square, quite intensively.

And before anyone bothers to call me a racist, Nazi, etc, please note that I have absolutely nothing whatever against immigrants. In fact, I am one myself and I strongly suspect that immigrants tend to raise both the IQ and energy level of the host society. Further, I believe absolutely in the rights of citizenship which must be respected whether one is a native or an immigrant. What I question is whether the British really wish, within a generation, to replace most of themselves with people from elsewhere.

“There are many criticisms of institutions such as the IMF and World Bank – and your accusations may have some validity in relation to the structures and their political masters – but is just not the case for the majority of the people who work for such organisations. I have met a lot of such people in my work and most certainly do give a damn and are often very frustrated by the ineffectiveness of their organisations. Do you seriously know a large number of such people or are you just making an assumption based on the end results?”

Stephen

Stephen, thank you for the nuance which you contribute to many discussions.

My post was in response to a comment by ‘Mark’ (A difference Mark from ‘Mark Golding’, I think) on the ‘other’ S. African thread; I couldn’t seem to post it there, though I see now it’s there too!

So I was directing my ire at those leaders, the native elites who sip champagne with the big billionaires’ club while their people starve, etc.

I entirely agree with you that there are many people working in lots of global organisations who are motivated by altruism and who try to do the best they possibly can.

My uncle was one of the senior guys in the World Bank in Pakistan during the 1960s and 1970s. He was an honourable man, who, extremely unusually, never took bribes and was incorruptible. He tried to do his level best for his country. And what thanks did he get from his fellow-countrymen? You guessed it. After he retired, he and his family ended-up living in a very modest house in a very modest area and with little disposable income. No-one official even gave him the time of day. Meanwhile, his ex-colleagues (allegedly) lived in palaces and had offshore fortunes and chalets in the Alps…

Anyway, I’m not saying I’m hugely well-connected but I do indeed know people who’ve worked in the Armed Forces, the FCO, DFID, the British Council, etc., etc. and nearly all of them – the ones I’ve met – are honourable and good people. Most of them try to do a very good job, given the macroscopic constraints.

The issue – from my point-of-view at any rate – is not that individuals are evil, malevolent or psychopathic, though clearly those exist, but that the machine into which we all are straight-jacketed and which uses ‘the economic South’ as fuel for ‘the economic North’ (I know there have been huge shifts recently in relation to China and India) and which everywhere cartelises human endeavour, has run its course, is irremediable, is destroying the earth and the human species and requires a global overhaul.

It’s like the engineers on board the Titanic did what they could, they did their best, right, but the vessel itself, the hubris and class system with which it was associated and the numbers of lifeboats were inherently and fatally flawed.

So, yeah, you hit the nail right on the head, Stephen: “structures and political masters”. Absolutely.

What Alfred of course does not appreciate is that a nation’s strenghts and characteristics are not dependent upon its host population breeding sufficiently quickly to maintain its own bloodlines. A nation is a lot more than its genetic make-up. In fact history shows that those which are isolated but maintain their ethnic purity usually end up as basket cases.

One of the better features of both the UK and Us has been our ability to absorb and assimilate people and ideas from outside – and long may it continue – e.g. has Alfred any idea of how much the English language has been influenced by external influences – if languages have bloodlines it is probably the greatest mongrel around. Long may it continue.

As for failing to formulate a viable model of colonial government – could it perhaps be that there isn’t a long term viable model of colonial government – since most reasonable people prefer to be citizens rather than subjects of a colonial power??

While not wanting to resort to name calling – it is very interesting how your theories in respect of both the homeland and for colonial development do have a certain degree of similarity to those a certain A Hitler wished to apply to Germany – although you haven’t gone quite as far with the degree of force required to support those policies.

As for “Stalinist-trained cunts etc.etc.” can I suppose that this is your attempt at logical argument??

Suhayl

Gald to see that I was sticking up for your uncle.

To be honest the type of people who go for jobs at International organisations such as the World Bank often do so out of good intentions – if they were purely interested in money they would just go to the private sector.

What saddens me at the moment is that there is very little thought going on as to how international organisations from the UN downwards may be reformed – when actually the appetite and opportuntities for doing so are probably at the greatest for many years given the realisation that financial deregulation doesn’t work, a US administration that is open to ideas, the general mess that is much of the Middle East, the failure of the international community to deal with dictators and genocide in many other parts of the World.

We could of course say none of this possible due to US imperialism, Zionism etc. – but I’m afraid we are in the world we live in and have to start from here.

Give us your thoughts on it then, man. How would you reform them?

“The problem with Britain today is that the British are the infantilized progeny of the infantilized, insofar as the British, as opposed to the less brainwashed and no doubt more intelligent immigrant community, have an progeny at all.”

I am British and have no children. I am therefore clearly in no position to have any chance of being able to discuss anything with you, and shall cease trying. Life’s too short.

Where are you from, by the way ?

Stephen – “any idea of how much the English language has been influenced by external influences – if languages have bloodlines it is probably the greatest mongrel around. Long may it continue.”

Do you know the saying “English doesn’t borrow words from other languages so much as it chases them down back-alleys and mugs them for them” ?

It’s a working mongrel, for sure.

(That probably isn’t the original phrasing, I don’t know who/where it comes from).

Stephen,

You say, “What Alfred of course does not appreciate is a nation’s strenghts and characteristics are not dependent upon its host population breeding sufficiently quickly to maintain its own bloodlines.”

You could have left out the “of course”. Let the reader decide whether or not you are making a statement of the blindingly obvious.

As for what I am supposed not to appreciate, what is its relevance?

I am not proposing that the British should be treated as a poor bloodline to be improved by selective cross-breeding. That’s your idea, isn’t it? What I was suggesting is that the whole point of a nation, as viewed by itself, is just to carry on being what it is. The Brits have managed to survive in their small, cold damp island for something like nine thousand years. I’d like to see them just carry as they are. More to the point, that’s what 69% of the British population want, according to opinion surveys.

You say, “… history shows that those which are isolated but maintain their ethnic purity usually end up as basket cases.”

Talking about Japan, are you, the folks who sank the US Navy, now the world’s second largest GDP, probably the most technological advanced economy in the world.

All that people like you who say they love diversity seem to want to do is to destroy it by mixing people up. Haven’t you noticed what beautiful noses Vietnamese girls have. I’d hate to see their genes mixed up with a bunch hairy big-nosed Brits. Although I am sure that happens occasionally, so before anyone takes offense, let me say in such cases: good luck to all concerned.

You say, “One of the better features of both the UK and Us has been our ability to absorb and assimilate people and ideas from outside”

To assimilate J.S. Bach, I don’t have to marry a German do I? Do try to talk sense.

You say “has Alfred any idea of how much the English language has been influenced by external influences – if languages have bloodlines it is probably the greatest mongrel around. Long may it continue.”

If you are going to be so personal in your attacks, do try to say something sensible. Modification of language is not a proxy for genetic change. An English-speaking Chinese is not an Englishman.

You say “While not wanting to resort to name calling… ”

Then why do it?

As for Jack straw, according to his MI5 file from the time he was NUS President, he was believed to be a communist sympathizer. According to a letter to the Editor of the Independent, Jack Straw stated that in 1965 he had received instruction from “Mr Bert Ramelson, Yorkshire industrial organiser of the Communist Party.” In the same letter he asserted vehemently that he was not a “an old Trot” as had been asserted by Robert Fisk, thus establishing that his Communist sympathies were with the mainline Stalinist wing of the party.

You could have looked that up for yourself if you know how to use Google.

Richard,

You say “life’s too short [to discuss with me]” Then you ask “where are you from?”

So I hope you will understand if I say life’s too short to go into personal details.

But what the Hell. I’m British, is that not obvious? And Canadian.

Canada is a wonderful country. But I think you said some weeks ago that you were from Canada, so you know.

All those in Britain who really like the idea of a multi-racial society should come and live here. Well, if they’re young. Cultural adaptation is probably not easy for adults. Canadian society and the Canadian personality is different from the British in many ways.

The bit about infantilization may have been prompted by the story about a boy legally too young at 14 to look after a goldfish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/pets/7538391/Great-grandmother-given-an-electronic-tag-and-curfew-for-selling-a-goldfish-to-a-14-year-old.html

When I was a kid, I remember seeing a painting from World War I of the boy Cornwall, awarded posthumously what was perhaps the most famous VC ever, for refusing, though mortally wounded, to desert his gun aboard HMS Chester during the Battle of Jutland.

Cornwall was just 16. More, it seems was expected of young people then. I think we do young people a disservice by denying them responsibility early in life. Though not in some stupid war for the New World Order and the erasure of the nations of the earth.

I conclude from your comments that you are supportive of indigenous Africans taking back the land still owned by whites that was undoubtedly stolen from the Africans so long ago.

Do you feel the same way about Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the USA, South American countries and Palestine! (to name but a few).

How about giving England back to the Welsh and Scottish?

‘Do you know the saying “English doesn’t borrow words from other languages so much as it chases them down back-alleys and mugs them” ?’ Richard

Excellent phrase. It rings a bell, but I’d forgotten it till you reminded me. David Crystal writes well on this subject.

And I am the Don of muggers. On good days…

Stephen – “I’m British, is that not obvious”

I had been thinking so, till you said that ‘infantilisation’ thing, which made me wonder otherwise. But if you’re including yourself in that description I may have been wrong to read as such a sweeping dismissal.

But I still can’t get hold of any coherent argument. re: Kenya, I remarked that one factor seems to have been competition over land, and ask how much larger numbers of settlers could have not led to more such; and next thing I know you’ve stopped talking about Kenya, it’s un-occupied land in Canada. About which history, I already said up above in this thread that I know

little, so clearly I can’t take this any further forward.

I think that’s the only thing I’ve said abaout Canada here on this blog. I’m certainly not from there (I’ve never even been, though I’d like to, sometime).

I think your comments should have been addressed to Alfred although I’m British too.

Hey, Iamond,

Give back England to the Scots and the Welsh? Ha ha.

Your kidding, right?

If the Scots and the Welsh hate Britain so much let ‘em separate and the English can wall them off as the Romans did with the Scots.

And any Scots living in London will have to get a visa which’ll take ten years to process during which time the applicant will have to go back to Hibernia and eat porridge.

“I conclude from your comments that you are supportive of indigenous Africans taking back the land still owned by whites that was undoubtedly stolen from the Africans so long ago.”

Why do you say “undoubtedly stolen from the Africans long ago”?

South Africa, if that’s where your talking about, is a huge place and in 1704, when the ancestor of the dismembered Terreblanche arrived, there was practically no one there. There was hardly anyone there even a 100 years ago. So most of the land was vacant. Further, most of South Africa is extremely dry, too dry to grow trees — it is mostly dry grassland that originally supported a few Bushmen and, in favorable locations, more populous groups. So, no, not all the land occupied by white farmers was “undoubtedly stolen from the Africans long ago.”

As for Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the USA, [and the] South American countries, obviously the clock cannot be put back without genocide on an unprecedented scale. Is that what you want? Kill every white American. Then kill every black American. Such talk is nuts.

Palestine is different because the ethnic cleansing is ongoing and it is enabled by the US and the Lib-Lab-Con “Friends of Israel.” So, yes, I’d stop that one.

Richard, Stephen, whatever:

Great confusion here. Sorry Richard, I confused you with someone on this blog a while ago who claimed to be from Calgary and subject to harassment by the RCMP, and MI5.

Re: Kenya, My point, one of them anyway, was that the critical thing was relative numbers, not absolute numbers.

The British colonization failed because Britain attempted to rule the rather small number of Africans present in Kenya at the beginning of the 20th century with an even smaller number of British colonists. In due course the Africans decided to kick the Brits out, which they were able to do, after a nasty struggle in which it appears that Obama’s grandfather probably sided not with the resistance but with the Brits. That seems to be the Obama family strategy “get along by going along” ?” but that’s another matter.

So when I said Britain should have sent more colonists if they wanted to establish a permanent colony in Kenya, I was talking about establishing an appropriate balance in numbers of colonists and natives ?” that is, a balance that allowed continued British control. And if Stephen is attending to this, when I say “should” I am not talking of moral imperative, or my own personal judgment of imperialism, but what had to be done to achieve a certain end.

Stephen – I’m very sorry, you’re quite right. It was indeed Alfred I was quoting and responding to.

… and, Alfred – ‘Roderick Russell’, I think. Same initials.

Confusion all round.

Alfred – I suppose my bottom-line re Kenya is – it didn’t happen. We didn’t make the choice to do that.

I think your counterfactual-history set of moral-free imperial mechanics would have resulted in your ‘certain end’ being a real nuisance for everybody else involved, and would have eventually come to the same conclusion but late, more bottled-up and consequently more explosive; and that this would have been a bad idea.

Lebensraum is a raw resource, the material world is finite. Continued expansion sooner or later forces a choice between killing the competitors or learning to make deals. I favour the latter, and note that it’s easier to do before the situation becomes stressful.

Richard,

Yes, I realized i was thinking of RR not RR.

If you like wide open spaces, you surely enjoy visiting Canada. It’s 32 times the size of Britain with only half the population. Here, you’d see just how much space there is still is left. With 80% of Canada’s population confined to a dozen or so large cities, the place is almost totally empty — not good if you want to keep control of the territory, which is why Canada seeks immigrants.

As for Kenya, I agree that hypothetical history is largely pointless. But although it is impossible to know what would have happened in history if people had acted differently, one can sensibly discuss political strategies and how they could affect the outcome of events.

What prompted the discussion about Kenya was a technical question about how public policy affects the survival and dispersal of human populations. My contention is that numbers matter, and I sought to illustrate the point by reference to British Imperial policy.

There’s no doubt that British Imperial policy in Africa was a failure, and there seems no doubt that this failure was due to a failure to grasp the importance of population. However, if as you suggest, the establishment of colonies where British people and their descendants could live indefinitely was an unattainable objective, then the whole project was pointless and should never have been undertaken.

One might, as a matter of ethical choice or mere distaste, give up the struggle for Lebensraum, etc., but others will not, and in the long run the survivors will most likely be those who maintain the struggle. Either that, or Charles Darwin got it wrong.

In fact, I suggest that Britain’s African imperial project was undertaken out of hubris, without much intelligent thought as to what was being done. People just like painting the map red, hunting big game and taking a P&O liner to visit with friends and relatives living in a warm climate on nice estates with lots of cheap servants. And best of all, they enjoyed taking up the white man’s burden. A chap from Oxford could go out to Africa at the age of 30 and more or less single-handedly rule an area the size of Britain.

But universal abandonment to self-indulgence marks the end of most empires.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection does not support Lebensraum or similar. In fact the lack of success of those practising Lebensraum might point in the other direction. The very few academics you will find supporting Alfred’s viewpoint usually had pretty close links with Nazi Germany.

What a shame Britain’s experiment in colonialism wasn’t done properly and ended in failure.

Richard,

Re: the Canadian landscape

Here’s the the sequence, filmed in Canada, from David Lean’s incredible movie Dr.Zhivago. It’s not quite as I remember it on the big screen when the film was released in 1965. But even on Youtube it’s awesome. The whole film is there in 18 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N30L9hclj04&NR=1

The forest scenes were probably filmed in Northern Ontario. The open prairie and the distant “Urals,” most likely in Alberta

Julie Christie is a little too long-faced for my taste, but she has the most unbelievably beautiful eyes. Alec Guiness is excellent as always and Tom Courtenay is superb as the cold-blooded revolutionary.

The film is a powerful illustration of my original thesis that power trumps morality, decency and all else. That is why the world seems to be going to Hell. Power, i.e., exercised by the psychopaths who rule, extends more and more broadly and thus impacting more and more aspects of life: the Soviet experience, brilliantly portrayed in Zhivago, providing the most graphic illustration the world has seen to date of the rule of psychopathic power.

Stephen,

I am fascinated by the way in which you assert bizarre conclusions without any supporting facts or argument.

You say “Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection does not support Lebensraum or similar.”

What on earth does this mean? Lebensraum is simply living space. You cannot practice that, and it has nothing to do with Charles Darwin.

As for “the lack of success of those practising Lebensraum might point in the other direction”

Perhaps you mean that those who struggle for territory always lose. But no, that cannot be right because those who own the world conquered it. So you really need to try and clarify what you mean.

As for your Parthian shot “The very few academics you will find supporting Alfred’s viewpoint usually had pretty close links with Nazi Germany” seems to support my claim that the British are becoming infantilized. They have been so indoctrinated by the educational system and media that there are now some who are unable to think about politics except in politically correct slogans and permitted hate speech.

Or are you, like Jack Straw, a Stalinist-trained provocateur. No I don’t think so. In which case you need to think your argument through more carefully and avoid resorting in every case to name calling.

Alfred

“One might, as a matter of ethical choice or mere distaste, give up the struggle for Lebensraum, etc., but others will not, and in the long run the survivors will most likely be those who maintain the struggle. Either that, or Charles Darwin got it wrong.”

Alfred it was you who put Lebensraum etc. together with the theory of eveolution not me – so perhaps you should explain what you meant – or on the other hand you could stop being so obtuse. You are intelligent enough to understand the connotations around “Lebensraum” to know it does not just mean living space. Or, do you regularly slip into German phrases – which accidentally share a meaning with Nazi concepts – if so I would advise you follow Orwell’s advice and not use a foreign word when a perfectly good English one is available.

Perhaps it may be possible for people to own their bit of the world without resulting to conquest. Most of the empires of the world have ultimately disintegrated in the end – largely because the local inhabitants have objected to being ruled by the colonial power.

You may also want to look up the meaning of “Parthian shot” while you are at it.

Stephen/Alfred -it was me that introduced the word ‘lebensraum’, and I rather regret it, because I didn’t intend all the connotations Stephen refers to, or think of the potential possibilities for heat-generation. Careless of me.

My intention was “only” to point to a recent well-known example of what’s bound to happen with continual expansionism – it will always lead to the conflict eventually. Has to.

Say it’s fine in Canada, say there was hardly anyone in Kenya in 19whatever, okay, maybe. But sooner or later, there *is* someone. There isn’t an infinite amount of empty space for a prolific population to expand into. There are other bunches of people out there (by Alfred’s definition) and why wouldn’t they be having exactly the same discussions, with us as the other ? Sooner or later, you are going to be moving into places that other people do want, and then what ?

With regards to Darwinism, I think ALfred’s assuming his theories lead to success, rather than demonstrating it. I could equally well suggest a steady state based on “you don’t our land and we won’t try and take yours”. Which has also happened over various parts of the world and led to people not getting killed, and thus furthered the passing on their genes (which doesn’t altogether convince me as the most contructive/instructive/useful/amusing/interesting way of looking at these things, but it seems to be the rules of the game in this discussion).

But tomorrow for the ramifications, I’m geting no further with this tonight. Good night.

Richard,

Thank you for taking the heat for me on the word “Lebensraum”. I think it was entirely appropriate to use it as you did. We were talking of the struggle for existence, which can be nasty and brutish, a fact that should never be forgotten. Because of Hitler, the term Lebensraum is precisely evocative of the nature of the struggle. It was Hitler’s intention to exterminate the Poles, thereby creating Lebensraum for occupation by German farmers. The result was something like five million Polish dead plus some number of millions of dead Polish Jews. That the death toll due to the Germans was not greater is attributable to the fact that the Soviets occupied much of Poland where they carried out their own extermination campaign, beginning with the Katyn massacre of Polish army officers, and the much larger scale extermination of intellectuals.

What it seems to me you are saying in your second and third paragraphs, if I can paraphrase, is that, first, if everyone adopts a Hitlerian approach to the world, which is actually a Darwinian approach, there will be endless conflict, and therefore, second, can we not come to some agreement where people keep what they have without coveting their neighbour’s property.

As to the first point, you are absolutely correct. But endless conflict is what we have always had, so there’s nothing new about that. What is new in the modern age is the extent to which the resources of a nation can be mobilized for war and the destructiveness of the technology employed. This, naturally has prompted many people to hope that your second point can be made a basis of an effective security arrangement.

So the important question is whether your proposal is feasible. The first attempt at such a solution was the League of Nations. It worked fine until there was a crisis, then, when League members were supposed to apply sanctions to Italy to prevent the Italian conquest of Abbyssinia (now Ethiopia), Britain and France made a secret deal to bust the sanctions (by allowing the continued flow of oil, the termination of which would have halted the Italian invasion). They did this with the aim of keeping Italy in the anti-German western alliance. However, Mussolini was so angered by the role of Britain and France in imposing even nominal sanctions that he transferred his allegiance from the Triple Entente to Germany.

The next effort was the United Nations, but as one sees in the case of Israel, the Iraq war, the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo, etc., the UN is largely ineffective, besides being deeply corrupt.

So what options remain? The US plan is global hegemony, as spelled out in Zbigniew Bzrezinski’s crazy book “the Grand Chessboard.” Bzrezinski is said to be a power behind Obama’s throne, and has, as a long term objective, the Great Siberian War, which will see America’s chief opponents, Russia and China mutually destruct.

I am sorry, therefore, to be unable to offer an encouraging outlook. My own science fiction solution is to use an artificially intelligent computer programmed to enforce a World Constitution by means of an adequate arsenal of missiles large and small, the missiles to be supplied and maintained by the leading powers on threat of being nuked if they fail to perform.

Placing our fate in the hands of a machine is probably much safer than relying on the likes of Tony Blair, but somehow it seems scarier.

Stephen,

If you think anyone around here is obtuse, I suggest you take a look in the mirror.

At least, I don’t have to correct you in your claim that I introduced the term Lebensraum, since Richard has honorably acknowledged his responsibility.

Yes, it would be nice if everyone got to keep what was theirs and nobody got to steal stuff. But that is the issue we’re discussing. Can the struggle for survival, which has been going on since life on earth first appeared, ever be ended.

And why should I look up the term “Parthian shot” since I know what it means. Obviously you don’t understand its figurative use. So why don’t you look it up?

Parthian Shot (C21st meaning): an hallucinogenic Iranian cocktail, with extract from the pineal glands of thoroughbred stallions.

“It hits you like an arrow in the gut! It’s wild”

Tracy from Ibiza

Alfred

“if everyone adopts a Hitlerian approach to the world, which is actually a Darwinian approach”

This is your theory – now please support it. This was my original challenge – that you continue to ignore. I think that an awful lot of scientists and historians would disagree that a Hitlerian approach was a Darwinian one. Natural selection is not just based on the “fight” mechanism – adpation and fleeing also have their roles.

The “facts” that anyone takes as given usually give a pretty strong pointer to their values in my experience.

Parthian shot – final riposte etc while in retreat – if you read the post you will see that the comment you refer to wasn’t either.

If you read anything about the “Second book” you will find that Alfred’s views regarding evolution have much in common. Darwin detailed a whole range of mechnisms by which adaption and natural selection is achieved – the nature of which varies according to the circumstances in which animals find themselves, hence the importance of the Galaphagos to his work. All species do not adapt by colonisation – and given that most colonies fail in the long run, I suspect that it is not a very effective method of adaption in Darwinian, let alone moral, terms.

Heh. As “richard” above’s name is briefer than the one I use, so he makes a similar point much more concisely than I did. Neat.

Suhayl,

Thanks for the formula for a real Parthian shot. I’d thought it was just lump sugar rolled in Paprika with Champagne poured over it, which is great for a hangover, but it does lack the aphrodisiac quality of the pineal gland.

Alfred

So, 5% of males are psycopaths – and all sovereign states are run by psycopaths. What is the source for this brave statement – or is it just “cod” psycology to add to your “cod” view of evolution. And you’re a 9/11 conspiracy theorist to boot.

And as for “causus belli” – you could just as easily have said “justification for war” but then that wouldn’t have displayed the right level of “cod” sophistication would it? Something is very fishy here I’m afraid – how about being honest about where your political beliefs lie?

Don’t worry I have no problem in revealing my support for the Labour Party – Keynesian social democrat tendency if anyone has worked that out yet.

BTW if you really believed the garbage that you spouted – I think that the last place you would move to is a resource rich country with a small population and little visible means of defence – unless you are a psycopathic empire builder that is.

Hey, Richard,

(That is the first of two Richard’s, as opposed to Richard Robinson. Or are all three the same person? This is like talking over the Star Trek viewscreen: “the image is breaking up, I’m seeing three of you.”)

What is this about the “Second Book” and my views having much in common?

Are you talking about the Second Book of Enoch? I don’t agree with Enoch. He was totally nuts. First he staffed 34% of the position in the National Health Service with folks from the Caribbean, then he starting ranting about the “Tiber foaming with much blood”, blood of the poor, hard-working folks from the Caribbean, presumably. He didn’t mind Indians though, since they are white, he said.

Another thing I don’t agree with Enoch about is his silly idea that Jesus was not crucified but stoned to death, a claim without a shred of evidence to support it.

As for adaptation by colonization, I never heard of it. Darwin’s idea was that adaptation was though selection among naturally arising variants.

But if you are interested in population and animal survival (not adaptation) you might find David Lack’s book “the Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers” of interest. It used to be the standard text on the subject, whether it still is, I don’t know, but the facts will not have changed.

Suhayl,

As you will realize, I omitted an essential ingredient from the recipe I gave for the Parthian Shot: Angostura bitters, in which the lump sugar must be soaked before being rolled in Paprika.

Evelyn Waugh reported this formula from Athens, somewhat beyond the borders of the Parthian Empire, so it is probably not the real thing.

Richard III: My kingdom for a horse!

Sorry, Suhayl, I beat you to the horse, I’m out of here now.

But, I’m the one that started using my full name when I saw someone else here being a richard.

[ do that thing with the coconuts, exit stage left ]

Ha, another carping, or should I say “codding” moan from Stephen the Stalinist-trained provocateur.

But I’m glad Steve to have you confession to being an agent of Commissar Straw. Now we can be sure that everything you say is total rubbish, and we no longer need wrack our brains, charitably seeking some grain of truth or logic in your “cod” comments.

And what’s with this “cod” business, anyhow? Trying to add a little authority to your comments, or what?

Concerning psychopaths … but “cod” it, why should I bother to inform a provocateur.

As for your complaint that instead of “‘causus belli’ – you could just as easily have said ‘justification for war… ‘”, why can’t you be consistent, at least. Earlier your were boasting how English was world’s greatest mongrel language, always ready to shack up with another language and give birth to something new. Now you’re allergic not only to German but Latin too.

Anyway, in the unlikely event that I waste any further time addressing you, I’ll confine myself to plain English: terms like “fuck”, oops, can’t say that (of Germanic origin; related to Middle Dutch fokken to strike). Well let’s see, one, two, three, no, derived from Ein Zwei, Drei, as enunciated by Adolph the bogy man.

Alfred

Just to help with your sorely needed education.

cod – a joke or hoax – origin Old Danish

Justification- origin Latin/French

for – origin Old Frisian

war – origin Old Northern French/Norman

As you can see English is pretty mongrel enough without having to resort to other languages which everyone may not necessarily understand.

BTW the OED has the origin of “fuck” as unknown (fokken in Dutch and ficken in German or only thought to be cognates) – so another bit of cod knowledge I fear, and I suspect quite a few Middle Dutch would deny being Germanic.

Not sure why the great Commissar Straw has upset you so much – did he upset you or one or your friends (Pinochet?)

It’s very rude to not answer questions when others are so open with you.

“English is a mongrel tongue”…

Indeed.

Woof-woof, bow-wow, grrr…

Woof-woof: from Norman French, it was how William the Conqueror announced the invasion of England.

Bow-wow: from Upper Dutch. Introduced by King William III (of Orange). The Masonic alternative to a double curtsey.

Grrr: Me, on a Monday morning.

Aoooo!: It is a full moon tonight!

Sorry, people, I’m miffed that Richard (Robinson) beat me to the horse and that therefore I will go down in history (as penned by that propagandist for the yokel Tudors) as a baddie.

Oh noes ! [ lurches past backwards ] My braces have got caught on a convenient plot device ! [ boing ] Sorry, Suhayl, you want a lift out ? [ confused-horse noises ]

Peace people,

Have any of these people with the autism cases who ended up been the nazi alcolics find peace doing all this yet?

I am starting wonder now how many titles you can come up with for a lie and cover up for your cases of autism, talk about bad genes and primitive brains, we must lock up people on the streets who are violent and later take there crappy university education and utilize like a process, any restarted person can do that, and with all that evidence your a bunch of cowards who believe your security will come from another mans sweat and tears.

studies also show that autism rebounds when anyone experiences oppression, so not only did these retards with autism cases go to south africa or join hitler who utilized theodore hurzl’s zionist propaganda machine or the roman empire to mention a few, they went there, ruined other places and people but blame them for it with lies using his story instead of history, its what i read on this thread, YOUR RETARDS lol,

if you morons where simply honest, put the bottle down and grew up all this crap would of never happened if you just used your brains but your so primitive you believe your apes, and you are the closest thing to a ape to allow autism to run your life as a grown up., get a life and stop taking others lives morons.

and BTW, jewish, muslim and been british citizen is not a race., its the hypocrites here with more serious cases of autism that use alcohol to pacify it and stand by a bible or religions opinions when in the books itself it points to this very desease,

Jews, thou shalt not kill

Christians, never harm a child,

Muslims are an exceptional argument becuase you can not be a Muslim and do things like have slaves at the same time, arabs wear white becuase its hot, muslism started to dress like that only becuase of saudi arabia, a perfect example of a ape here is the guy who said muslims transgressed all their religions boundaries by allowing slavery.

The united states does not any longer use slavery in public, just in prisons now, yes you too can be put in jail for stealing a 100 dollar tv set if your black and work for nicky shoes 40 years while a person with a case of autism raised in a fearful mentally unstable society like the UK with alcohal as a pacifier gets off the hook while been a skin head.

Thank you, Richard.