Coming to Africa's aid has been no help
ossof
property rights - yeh, right.]
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
THE TIMES THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23 2000
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,40516,00.html
Coming to Africa's aid has been no help
BY MICHAEL DYNES
The world’s poorest continent has virtually nothing to show for the billions
it has been given.
THREE hundred billion dollars of Western taxpayers’ money has been sunk into
sub-Saharan Africa in so-called development assistance over the past 50
years and there is virtually nothing to show for it.
Despite this tidal wave of aid, millions of Africans are poorer today than
they were in the 1970s. Africa is now home to more poor countries than any
other continent, with 34 of the world’s 40 most impoverished nations. If the
downward spiral continues, within a generation Africa will be poorer than it
was in David Livingstone’s time.
Two conclusions present themselves, one blindingly obvious, the other
bordering on heresy. [No, not a racialist one - it's no private property
that's the problem this time.] Clearly, economic development has failed
comprehensively in Africa. Everybody agrees on that. But whatever factor or
combination of factors is needed to enable an economy to flourish on African
soil, it is reasonably safe to assume that aid is not among them.
If aid were simply a neutral force, Western taxpayers could console
themselves by conceding that while it was a gigantic waste of money, at
least they tried. Alas, there is no such peace of mind for the well
intentioned. Aid has not only failed to stimulate growth; it has probably
sabotaged any prospects the continent may have had for development.
Ill-conceived, misdirected, inappropriate and misappropriated aid projects
have littered the continent with white elephant development schemes. The
failure of all this effort has been so overwhelming that post-colonial
optimism about Africa as a region that was “just a little backward but would
soon catch up,” has given way to the unspoken view that the entire continent
is drifting into perdition — if it isn’t already irredeemable.
Five decades of development assistance has left Africa with a crushing $350
billion debt, which takes two fifths of government revenues to service. Take
away the immunisation programmes, and Africa or the West would be
hard-pressed to explain where all the money went. In the Democratic Republic
of Congo, to name but one, they are still paying off a $14 billion debt run
up by the late President Mobutu, with no schools, hospitals or roads to
justify it.
Over the past half century, most of the bright stars of Africa — Ghana,
Kenya, Zambia, Nigeria, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and the Ivory Coast — have been
snuffed out. After 50 years of failure, Western countries are suffering from
what is politely known as “donor fatigue”. Stripped of its politically
correct vocabulary, the West thinks Africa is “a basket case”, a
“continental ghetto”, a “lost cause”, and there is nothing anyone can do
about it.
But like a modern-day Canute, Thabo Mbeki, the South African President, has
stepped on to the African stage armed with his vision of an “African
renaissance”, a sort of ideological broom with which he intends to sweep
back this tide of “Afro-pessimism”.
Mbeki’s vision of an African renaissance suggests that Africa (or at least
part of it) has finally recognised its plight, and is prepared to break with
the past track record of economic decline, mismanagement, corruption and
authoritarianism, in favour of a commitment to multi-party democracy, good
governance and economic growth.
Despite their disappointment over how Mbeki has handled the self-inflicted
“crisis” in Zimbabwe, and their bewilderment over his stance on HIV-Aids,
Western diplomats nonetheless take him very seriously. Mbeki, for all his
flaws, is the only show in town.
Amid the clink of gin and tonics on Africa’s diplomatic cocktail circuit,
Mbeki is regarded as the continent’s last hope. “There has never been a more
powerful advocate for Africa,” is the refrain heard in Western embassies
across the continent. “If he can’t turn this place around, no one can,” one
British diplomat said.
For months now Mbeki, with the support of the Nigerian President, Olusegun
Obasanjo, and the Algerian President, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, has been drawing
up a “Marshall Plan” for Africa. Designed to put Africa in charge of
identifying its own development needs, the Mbeki-led initiative seeks to
increase Western aid budgets, relax the criteria for debt relief, encourage
investment flows and improve access to the markets of the developed world.
A mixture of moral blackmail and appeals to Western economic self-interest,
the deal Mbeki plans to present to the leaders of the developed world in the
next few weeks runs something like this. The West cannot stand idly by while
Africa sinks into the abyss. So if the rich nations bump up aid while
increasing debt write-offs, Africa will respond by creating the conditions
needed to attract foreign investment. And if the markets of the developed
world are opened to African products, the motor for the virtuous economic
circle needed to lift the continent out of its debilitating malaise will be
set in motion.
For good measure, Mbeki has fired off a few shots at the Western media for
its “distorted” portrayal of Africa as a continent of calamity. Mbeki blames
the media for creating a negative image of Africa which has scared off
foreign investors. That there have been 70 coups, more than 100 unsuccessful
coups, and more border wars than anyone can keep track of in the past 30
years, is hardly of the Western media’s making. But that is not important.
What really matters is Mbeki’s prescription for the continent’s redemption.
Will it work? According to John Holloway, a crusty old “Rhodie” whose book
All Poor Together details his lifelong search for the reason aid has had no
impact on Africa, the Mbeki initiative is doomed to failure. Holloway, who
worked as a mining consultant all over Africa throughout the post-war
period, watched while Asia grew and Africa shrank. He was a young man in the
1950s when Ghana was on level pegging with South Korea.
Today, South Koreans are eight times richer than their counterparts in
Ghana. And Holloway thinks he knows why. Western development assistance has
been preoccupied with “trying to change the way the system malfunctions from
the outside”. In this respect, the Mbeki initiative is no different from all
the aid schemes, soft loans and balance of payments support that have
already been tried and failed miserably. In Holloway’s view, Western aid
should be lumped together with all the other deadly diseases that lurk in
the African jungle.
He believes there is a way out of the cycle of economic decline. But it will
have to come from within. It will require Africans to abandon “the near
exclusive loyalty to the extended family that has been fatal to the
development of properly functioning nation states,” while at the same time
embracing the introduction of private property rights which has been the
motor of wealth creation the world over.
The apparatus of state bequeathed to Africa by the departing colonial powers
has never functioned as it should have. Government, parliament, the civil
service, the judiciary and all the institutions of state have been
personalised, with the spoils being shared out among the extended family.
The West sees this as corruption.
But as Holloway points out: “Without putting themselves personally at risk,
African leaders cannot default on their tribal and political obligations to
the horde of unproductive functionaries to whom they are culturally
committed.” The extended family, which has served Africans so well in their
harsh environment for thousands of years “has now become the instrument of
their own impoverishment”.
Most African leaders recoil at the idea of introducing private property
rights. They fear that freehold tenure would destroy Africa’s ancient
“communal cultural system”, which lies at the root of their own power base.
They are right. It would.
But it would also liberate Africans from the grinding poverty to which they
have been condemned in their millions.
-- Miscegenation always destroys the races which engage in it. --
Meteorite Debris
ossof<os...@SANSPAMossof.demon.co.uk> did eloquently compose:
> [Apparently, the way out of Africa's plight is the introduction of private
> property rights - yeh, right.]
>
> [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
>
> THE TIMES THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23 2000
>
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,40516,00.html
The article cites one problem as being western imposed solutions and
then itself proposes a western based solution.
Another article about Africa at http://dieoff.com/page67.htm
--
alt.atheism #1417 rot-13 on email reply
Head of the EAC Decryption Squad -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~meteorite/eac.htm
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent men
without religion, and religious men without intelligence."
[Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)]
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~meteorite/key1.htm
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 196D 0C35 95C9 BFD2 0677 C238 8FDE 0133 86E9 7B89
YOELK
>
> [Apparently, the way out of Africa's plight is the introduction of private
> property rights - yeh, right.]
>
> [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
>
> THE TIMES THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23 2000
>
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,40516,00.html
>
> Coming to Africa's aid has been no help
>
> BY MICHAEL DYNES
>
<snipped>
I wonder where people are more rich, living in the village,
growing /hunting their own food, or in the african cities
living in tin houses with no senitation, looking at the shops
nearby full of goods they can't afford and don't need ?
Where are people more healthy, living next to a hospital in which
they be won't be addmited, having a pharamecy nearby but no money to
buy nedicine? Or in the village where they can get a treatment from
a witch-doctor, sometimes effective but always available ?
What is the target of the african economic development, saving millions
of people from near starvation, or having more raw materials out from
africa,
increasing the investment opertunities for investors from the developed
counries,
and developing new consumer markets ?
How much a milk giving cow is worth in the calculation of the national
GDP
by the world bank ? Is it more or less then a brand new pentiom computer
?
A new car ?
How much is a milk giving cow worth for a family in an african village
far away from a city or a road ? A brand new pentium computer ? a new
car ?
-----
YOELK
Yang Hu
<os...@SANSPAMossof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The apparatus of state bequeathed to Africa by the departing colonial powers
>has never functioned as it should have.
Because the "apparatus" was never designed to work on its own.
colonial maps were drawn arbitratily, without regards to culture
tradition. It didn't work for Yugoslavia, the Austrian Empires, and
they certainly do not work for the multitudes of hastily drawn-up
countries in Africa.
>Government, parliament, the civil
>service, the judiciary and all the institutions of state have been personalised, with the spoils being shared out among the extended family.
The same corruption occurs in Taiwan and Brazil, but this in itself
does not explain the political chaos of the Sub-Saharan countries.
>-- Miscegenation always destroys the races which engage in it. --
No, racism always destroys the person who practices it.
"Miscegenation" is merely a rallying cry of the paranoid.
Bob Dog
>
>On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:33:46 -0000
>ossof<os...@SANSPAMossof.demon.co.uk> did eloquently compose:
>
>> [Apparently, the way out of Africa's plight is the introduction of private
>> property rights - yeh, right.]
>>
>> [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
>>
>> THE TIMES THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23 2000
>>
>> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,40516,00.html
>
>The article cites one problem as being western imposed solutions and
>then itself proposes a western based solution.
The biggest cause of the problem is 18th and 19th
century European imperialism. European invaders
forced formerly nomadic people to stay in one place
(you can't dominate people when they aren't there).
This changed the environmental impact of nomadic
people: instead of moving around and allowing land
to fallow in their absence, they used up all the
resources of the land and wore it out. It was then
move or starve. More and more land has been wasted
this way; the Sahara desert has doubled in size
since European imperialism entered Africa.
We of European descent caused of the problem and
are trying to use the cause as the solution.
Bob Dog
bg12345.apexmail@com
----------
"I put my faith in god and my trust in you
Now there's nothing more fucked up I could do"
- NIN, "Wish" (1992)
SGoldstNJ
The article is exactly right, and does not even touch the massive demographic
ills-- horrible overpopulation, disease, famine-- which the Dark Continent has
wrought on itself-- not to mention its political ills. The farther the US
stays from that cesspool, the better.
ossof
>>
>>> [Apparently, the way out of Africa's plight is the introduction of
private
>>> property rights - yeh, right.]
>>>
>>> [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
>>>
>>> THE TIMES THURSDAY NOVEMBER 23 2000
>>>
>>> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,40516,00.html
>>In article <MPG.148ee1286...@news.dingoblue.net.au>,
zrgr...@qvatboyhr.arg.nh.ROT13 says...
>>The article cites one problem as being western imposed solutions and
>>then itself proposes a western based solution.
>Bob Dog wrote in message ...
>The biggest cause of the problem is 18th and 19th
>century European imperialism. European invaders
>forced formerly nomadic people to stay in one place
>(you can't dominate people when they aren't there).
>This changed the environmental impact of nomadic
>people: instead of moving around and allowing land
>to fallow in their absence, they used up all the
>resources of the land and wore it out. It was then
>move or starve. More and more land has been wasted
>this way; the Sahara desert has doubled in size
>since European imperialism entered Africa.
>
>We of European descent caused of the problem and
>are trying to use the cause as the solution.
>
>
>Bob Dog
>bg12345.apexmail@com
>----------
>"I put my faith in god and my trust in you
> Now there's nothing more fucked up I could do"
> - NIN, "Wish" (1992)
THE TIMES FRIDAY DECEMBER 01 2000
Most effective ways to aid Africa
FROM MR DAVID CAMPBELL
Sir, Michael Dynes, in his article “Coming to Africa’s aid has been no help”
(Business, November 23), is too sweeping in his condemnation of aid.
Further, the solutions he quotes involving the abandonment of loyalty to the
extended family and the introduction of private property rights are
unrealistic and oversimplify the problems facing the continent.
It is, of course, true that achieving socio-economic development in Africa
is fraught with difficulty. World Bank evaluations of its programmes have
found it hard to establish a clear link between aid and the reduction of
poverty, a key reason being that aid is only one of many factors influencing
poverty.
Non-governmental organisations, working on a much smaller scale than the
bank and at village level, claim to be more effective, but recent studies
also cast doubt on their achievements.
As someone who has worked for many years with marginal farmers in Africa I
remain optimistic.
Africa needs more support, not less, but support that is given more
intelligently and with greater respect for the recipients.
Yours faithfully,
DAVID CAMPBELL
(Founder), FARM-Africa,
9-10 Southampton Place, WC1A 2EA.
November 26.
ossof
>>The apparatus of state bequeathed to Africa by the departing colonial
powers
>>has never functioned as it should have.
>Yang Hu wrote in message <3a248c55...@news.service.uci.edu>...
>Because the "apparatus" was never designed to work on its own.
>colonial maps were drawn arbitratily, without regards to culture
>tradition. It didn't work for Yugoslavia, the Austrian Empires, and
>they certainly do not work for the multitudes of hastily drawn-up
>countries in Africa.
>>os...@SANSPAMossof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Government, parliament, the civil
>>service, the judiciary and all the institutions of state have been
personalised, with the spoils being shared out among the extended family.
>Yang Hu wrote in message <3a248c55...@news.service.uci.edu>...
>The same corruption occurs in Taiwan and Brazil, but this in itself
>does not explain the political chaos of the Sub-Saharan countries.
>>os...@SANSPAMossof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>-- Miscegenation always destroys the races which engage in it. --
>Yang Hu wrote in message <3a248c55...@news.service.uci.edu>...
>No, racism always destroys the person who practices it.
>"Miscegenation" is merely a rallying cry of the paranoid.
THE TIMES FRIDAY DECEMBER 01 2000
From Mr Dele Oguntimoju
Sir, Most commentators on Africa’s “failure” seem to overlook the fact that
the countries designed and left behind by the colonial powers were not
designed with development in mind.
How successful would these same colonial powers have been over the same
period had an alien power vandalised their historic boundaries and lumped
them all into a political union without regard to their linguistic and
cultural differences? Imagine also if their best leaders had been
neutralised and replaced with corrupt and inept leaders.
That aid alone has not worked in these circumstances should scarcely
surprise anyone: aid could no more cure the structural problems than welfare
payments could cure unemployment.
The country designs imposed by the colonial powers have produced a permanent
state of political instability made manifest by coups and civil wars. As
Michael Dynes notes, the apparatus of state that the same powers bequeathed
on Africans has not worked: the evidence is African judges sweltering under
European wigs in European-style courtrooms with no air-conditioning. Against
this background it beggars belief that Michael Dynes is now calling on
Africans to abandon their ancient communal system of land ownership in
favour of Western-type private land ownership.
Africa will move forward only when it is allowed to rediscover and update
its way of life. What Africa most needs from the West is the political
goodwill that it has never enjoyed, coupled with such technical and
financial support as is necessary for it to manage the crises that were
built into the country structures bequeathed by the departing Europeans.
Yours faithfully,
DELE OGUNTIMOJU,
391 City Road, EC1V 1NE.
November 27.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Bob Dog" <now...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:wwdV5.7435>
> The biggest cause of the problem is 18th and 19th
> century European imperialism. European invaders
> forced formerly nomadic people to stay in one place
> (you can't dominate people when they aren't there).
No, the Africans were primitive naked head-hunters before Whites ever
went there.
> This changed the environmental impact of nomadic
> people: instead of moving around and allowing land
> to fallow in their absence, they used up all the
> resources of the land and wore it out. It was then
> move or starve. More and more land has been wasted
> this way; the Sahara desert has doubled in size
> since European imperialism entered Africa.
>
> We of European descent caused of the problem and
> are trying to use the cause as the solution.
>
The reason America is rich is because it was made by White people. The
former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black countries are
the third world. Leftist blame all the problems in the world on the Whites.
The
real reason Black countries are the third world is that Blacks are on
average much less intelligent than Whites as all IQ tests have proven.
In the past White people built colonies in Africa and brought
civilization there. The Blacks were much better off with schools and
hospitals and a lot of food. They were exporting food. But the liberals
didn't like White people being in charge so they put a stop to the colonies.
And they brought
the starvation and misery back to Africa.
The liberal plan of just giving food to the Blacks also causes more
suffering. It always causes them to greatly increase their population and
then there are a lot more people starving and needing even more food.
Since the Liberals didn't like the colonies because Whites were running
them,
I propose that American Blacks be sent there. Many American Blacks are not
very dark and have a lot of White blood in them and they are more
intelligent than the African Blacks. They could teach the Africans how to
farm and educate them in many other ways. With the proper leadership the
starvation in Africa could be stopped.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>"Bob Dog" <now...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:wwdV5.7435>
>> The biggest cause of the problem is 18th and 19th
>> century European imperialism. European invaders
>> forced formerly nomadic people to stay in one place
>> (you can't dominate people when they aren't there).
>No, the Africans were primitive naked head-hunters before Whites ever
>went there.
Head-hunting is mostly a South American Indian pasttime, not an
African one.
>The reason America is rich is because it was made by White people.
The reason it's rich is that it has natural resources valued by the
white man. We didn't put the diamonds and minerals, Africa's greatest
sources of wealth, in the ground.
>The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black countries are
>the third world.
There are many "white countries" in the third world.
>real reason Black countries are the third world is that Blacks are on
>average much less intelligent than Whites as all IQ tests have proven.
WHITE IQ tests. Let's see how well you do on an African IQ test. OF
COURSE black Africans living in the bush have no idea of what color a
fire engine is.
>In the past White people built colonies in Africa and brought
>civilization there.
The Zulu were civilized long before the white man came. And the
Egyptians (Africans, all) were civilized when the European still lived
in caves and used stone tools. It was them - Africans - who brought
civilization to the Europeans, not the other way around.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
John A. Stovall
snipped
>
>The Zulu were civilized long before the white man came. And the
>Egyptians (Africans, all) were civilized when the European still lived
>in caves and used stone tools. It was them - Africans - who brought
>civilization to the Europeans, not the other way around.
LOL!!! Don't you know any thing about African history? What sort of
civilization did the Zulu have? And the Egyptian's were not sub
saharan Africans and the European during that period did not live in
caves.
Where did you learn this, in public school?
As for the Zulu they didn't even exist before Shaka Zulu, the Zulu
were just a clan of the Mtetwa. He lived from 1785-1828. The "white
man" had been in Southern African longer than that.
For the lukers out there, see:
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/Africa/ShakaZulu.html
As for the failure of African nations today, I suggest you read,
"Africa in Chaos" by George B. Ayittey, Ghanian.
Available at:
http://laissezfairebooks.com/product.cfm?op=view&pid=IL7695
****************************************************
Non! Rien de rien...
Non, je ne regretted rien!
Ni le bien qu'on m'a fait,
Ni le mal. Tout ça m'est bien égal!
Non! Rien de rien...
Non, je ne regretted rien!
C'est payé, bayayé, oublié,
Je me fous du passé!
"Non! Rien de rien"
Edith Piaf
In memory of the 1e REP
Byker
news:gk383t8drn8klbc0k...@4ax.com...
> LOL!!! Don't you know any thing about African history? What sort of
> civilization did the Zulu have? And the Egyptian's were not sub
> saharan Africans and the European during that period did not live in
> caves.
>
> Where did you learn this, in public school?
>
> As for the Zulu they didn't even exist before Shaka Zulu, the Zulu
> were just a clan of the Mtetwa. He lived from 1785-1828. The "white
> man" had been in Southern African longer than that.
>
> For the lurkers out there, see:
>
> http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/Africa/ShakaZulu.html
>
> As for the failure of African nations today, I suggest you read,
> "Africa in Chaos" by George B. Ayittey, Ghanian.
Also, check out his "Africa Betrayed," along with "Out of America," by Keith
Richburg, a Washington Post reporter who covered the Hutu/Tutsi conflict
(after seeing what Africa was REALLY like, he stated that the best thing
every to happen to his unnamed ancestor was to be captured and sold to
slavers and sent to the New World).
>
> Available at:
>
> http://laissezfairebooks.com/product.cfm?op=view&pid=IL7695
Once in a while some naive kid in a PC-puking public (or private) school
will discover afrocentrism and proceed to make a complete ass out of himself
on Usenet. It's too bad you folks missed "McGill" (later, "McCoy").
Magilla would surf these pseudo-historical afrocentric websites and then
cut-and-paste these bullshit "revised" history stories on AFN and SCAA. I
mean there would be long lists of shit that Whites invented, yet some shine
on the Web would be claiming that a negro did it first (the traffic light,
the parking meter, the shopping cart, the internal combustion engine,etc.).
Then there was all the "historical" hooey about "the advanced astronomical
skills of the Dogon," and "Sub-Saharan Megalithic Structures of the
Nubians," etc. No amount of debunking would shake this twirp's belief that
anything and everything was "invented by black people" only to stolen by
Whites. When he'd run out of hogwash to post, he'd repost crap from weeks
before (after his umpteenth reposting of "The Negro King of Persia in 3,900
B.C." I finally killfiled his ass). Just about every night there would be
several afrocentric fairy tales posted, each from 5-20 KB (most of which I
just marked as "read" and skipped), and then he just disappeared last June.
I figure he was some high school kid posting from the school library. He
may well have been White, because his silence since the beginning of the
fall semester seems to indicate that he graduated, found himself in the REAL
WORLD, and after a few TNB experiences, discovered what blacks are REALLY
like.....
Randy Sweeney
Al Klein wrote in message ...
>>real reason Black countries are the third world is that Blacks are on
>>average much less intelligent than Whites as all IQ tests have proven.
>
>WHITE IQ tests. Let's see how well you do on an African IQ test. OF
>COURSE black Africans living in the bush have no idea of what color a
>fire engine is.
Actually, I believe I have read that Africans on average score better on
American IQ tests than African-Americans do.
But then, they don't come from a culture were being successful is somehow a
betrayal of the race.
>>In the past White people built colonies in Africa and brought
>>civilization there.
>
>The Zulu were civilized long before the white man came. And the
>Egyptians (Africans, all) were civilized when the European still lived
>in caves and used stone tools. It was them - Africans - who brought
>civilization to the Europeans, not the other way around.
Not to piss in the Afro-centric punchbowl, but Egyptians were multi-racial.
Lower Egyptians were mostly black and upper Egyptians were mostly white...
but you are correct, all we Africans.
AFTech
<gk383t8drn8klbc0k...@4ax.com>:
>LOL!!! Don't you know any thing about African history? What sort of
>civilization did the Zulu have? And the Egyptian's were not sub
>saharan Africans and the European during that period did not live in
>caves.
>
Just what is that region between the Tigris and Euphrates region called
again?
--
It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a
majority of the court, while not deciding the issues presented,
believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success.
==The United States Supreme Court bitch slaps SCOFLA again.
*********************************************************
**AFTech...@crosswinds.net (cut the cheese to e-mail)
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Johann Sebastian Bot
THE CRANK: One hallmark of The Crank is the ability to pronounce reality in
every area.
Learned people may spend years investigating and discussing some causal
phenomenon. The Crank can present the "truth" in one sentence.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:49:09 -0600, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net>
<PANY5.7$bA3.1...@news1.i1.net> wrote:
...
Al Klein
<john.a....@mindspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:50:23 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>The Zulu were civilized long before the white man came. And the
>>Egyptians (Africans, all) were civilized when the European still lived
>>in caves and used stone tools. It was them - Africans - who brought
>>civilization to the Europeans, not the other way around.
>LOL!!! Don't you know any thing about African history? What sort of
>civilization did the Zulu have?
What sort? I didn't know civilization was broken into 'sorts'.
You'll have to be just a tad more specific.
Or are you just denigrating their civilization?
>And the Egyptian's were not sub
>saharan Africans and the European during that period did not live in
>caves.
5,000 years ago, some Europeans still did. And Egypt is in Africa -
no one mentioned sub-Saharan Africa before - the claim was that
Europeans brought civilization to the continent of Africa.
>Where did you learn this, in public school?
As opposed to?
>As for the Zulu they didn't even exist before Shaka Zulu, the Zulu
>were just a clan of the Mtetwa.
They were a clan but didn't exist. Cute trick. They were like God?
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Randy Sweeney <rswe...@Home.com> wrote
>> Not to piss in the Afro-centric punchbowl, but Egyptians were multi-racial.
>> Lower Egyptians were mostly black and upper Egyptians were mostly white...
>> but you are correct, all we Africans.
>but most of us civilized folks are less african than others
Not really - if you're white, you're about 400,000 years away from
black, same as all other 'races'. Actually, it was native Australians
who evolved away from 'pure African' first.
Johann Sebastian Bot
THE CRANKS'S CRANK
Cranks are found in every area of human thought. No doubt there are Crank's
who, in addition to their crankdom, believe the world is round. Their
existence does not prove the world is flat.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:r8583tcnqn5n7fnt8...@4ax.com...
>
> >No, the Africans were primitive naked head-hunters before Whites ever
> >went there.
>
> Head-hunting is mostly a South American Indian pasttime, not an
> African one.
>
> >The reason America is rich is because it was made by White people.
>
> The reason it's rich is that it has natural resources valued by the
> white man. We didn't put the diamonds and minerals, Africa's greatest
> sources of wealth, in the ground.
The United States and Canada are very advanced and prosperous compared
the countries to the South. In the U.S and Canada the Whites kept their race
pure. In the countries to the south they mixed with the natives.
>
> There are many "white countries" in the third world.
Then why didn't you name one? Portugal? They mixed too much with the
Blacks.
>
> >real reason Black countries are the third world is that Blacks are on
> >average much less intelligent than Whites as all IQ tests have proven.
>
> WHITE IQ tests. Let's see how well you do on an African IQ test.
Fine
OF
> COURSE black Africans living in the bush have no idea of what color a
> fire engine is.
IQ tests are not designed that way. The liberal excuses for the test
results are demolished in the book "My Awakeing" by David Duke.
>
> >In the past White people built colonies in Africa and brought
> >civilization there.
>
> The Zulu were civilized long before the white man came.
With only mud huts?
And the
> Egyptians (Africans, all) were civilized when the European still lived
> in caves and used stone tools. It was them - Africans - who brought
> civilization to the Europeans, not the other way around.
"Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops, the
builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs of her
tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a bright yellow
stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin is white."
Coon, Carleton Stevens. The Races of Europe. New York City, Macmillan. 1939,
p.98
The tomb of the wife of Zoser, the builder of the first pyramid in Egypt,
has a painting of her showing her with reddish-blond hair.
Heyerdahl, Thor, The Ra Expeditions, Garden City, Doubleday, 1971, p.249
The mummy of Rameses II has yellow hair.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books, Alexandria, VA 1992 p.8
"A funerary mask with the attributes of the goddess Isis shows a vivid
blue-green color of eyes.
A General Introduction to the Egyptian Collections in the the British
Museam. London, Harrison and Sons, 1930, p.49
The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair.
Carter, Michael, Tutankhamun, The Golden Monarch, N.Y. 1972 p.68
Red-haired mummies were found in the crocodile-caverns of Aboufaida.
Tomkins, Henry George, Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petries Collection of
Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt, Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XVIIII, 1889,
p.216
The mummy of Rameses II has fine silky yellow hair.
Smith, G. Elliot and Dawson, Warren R. Egyptian Mummies, London, George
Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924 p.99
A blond mummy was found at Kawamil along with many chestnut-colored ones.
De Lapouge, G. Vacher, L'Aryen, Sa Vie Sociale. Paris, Pichat, 1899, p.26
Amenhotep III's tomb painting shows him as having light red hair.
National Geographic Society, Ancient Egypt, Discovering its Splendors,1978
p.103
An Egyptian scribe named Sakkarah around 2500 B.C. has blue eyes.
Strouhal, Eugen, Life of the Ancient Egyptians, Norman, Oklahoma, University
of Oklahoma Press, 1992, p.53
A common good luck charm was the eye of Horus, the so-called Wedjat
Eye. The eye is always blue, and the word "wedjat" means "blue" in Egyptian.
Queen Thi is painted as having a rosy complexion, blue eyes and blond
hair.
Hamy, E.T., "Races Humaines de la Vallee du Nil" Bulletin de la Societe
d'Anthropologie de Paris, 1886, p.739
Paintings from the Third Dynasty show native Egyptians with red hair and
blue eyes.
Pijoan, Jose, Historia del Arte Vol III, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1932, plate
XI
The god Nuit was painted as white and blond.
Champollion, H., Le Nil et la Societe Egyptienne, Marseille, Musee Boreby,
1973 p.94
A painting from Iteti's tomb at Saqqara shows a very Nordic-looking man
with blond hair.
Westendorf, Wolfhart, Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of Ancient Egypt.
New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1968 p.65
Time-Life books recently put out a volume called Rameses II The Great.
It has a good picture of the blond mummy of Rameses II. Another picture can
be found in the book X-Raying the Pharaohs, especially the picture on the
jacket cover. It shows his yellow hair.
A book called Chronicle of the Pharaohs was recently published showing
paintings,scuptures and mummies of 189 pharaohs and leading personalities of
Ancient Egypt. Of these, 102 appear European, 13 look black and the rest are
hard to classify. All nine mummies look European.
The very first pharaoh, Narmer, also known as Menes, looks very
European, The same can be said for Khufu's cousin Hemon, who designed the
Great Pyramid of Giza. A computer-generated reconstruction of the face of
the Sphinx shows a European-looking face.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books Alexandria, VA 1992 p.67
It was once painted sunburned red.
Silverberg, Robert, Before the Sphinx; Early Egypt N.Y., N.Y., T. Nelson
1971 p.168
The Egyptians often painted upper class men as red and upper class
women as white; this because the men became sunburned or tanned while
outside under the burning Egyptian sun.
The information above is part of the information compiled by Phillip
Bonner and was printed in The Barnes Review, 130 Third Street, SE,
Washington, D.C. 20003
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:r8583tcnqn5n7fnt8...@4ax.com...
>> >No, the Africans were primitive naked head-hunters before Whites ever
>> >went there.
>> Head-hunting is mostly a South American Indian pasttime, not an
>> African one.
>> >The reason America is rich is because it was made by White people.
>The United States and Canada are very advanced and prosperous compared
>the countries to the South.
South America is populated mostly by whites of Spanish descent. North
America is populated mostly by whites of English descent. Not much
'racial' difference there.
> In the U.S and Canada the Whites kept their race
>pure. In the countries to the south they mixed with the natives.
About half as much as whites and blacks mixed in the U. S, so South
America should, by your logic, be richer and more advanced than North
America. Somehow, I don't think reality is like that..
>> There are many "white countries" in the third world.
>Then why didn't you name one? Portugal? They mixed too much with the
>Blacks.
Serbia. White and Christian.
Estonia. White and Christian.
Lithuania. White and Christian.
Latvia. White and Christian.
Egypt. White and Muslim.
Turkey. White and Muslim.
Lapps are all Nordic (fair skinned whites) and herd reindeer as a
life.
Don't bother pointing out how all those countries aren't white.
You'll be wrong.
>> >real reason Black countries are the third world is that Blacks are on
>> >average much less intelligent than Whites as all IQ tests have proven.
>> WHITE IQ tests. Let's see how well you do on an African IQ test.
> Fine
Name at least 2 signs of underground water in the desert.
On which side do you 'fine' a flint blade?
How do you store meat in the jungle?
What's your first move, if you want to stay alive, if a rhino spots
you?
How do you react to a silverback if you want to live?
>> OF
>> COURSE black Africans living in the bush have no idea of what color a
>> fire engine is.
>IQ tests are not designed that way.
They're designed EXACTLY that way - for people familiar with Western
Industrial civilization. When's the last time you took a course in
S-B testing?
> The liberal excuses for the test
>results are demolished in the book "My Awakeing" by David Duke.
I should accept the word of an avowed racist about race?
>> >In the past White people built colonies in Africa and brought
>> >civilization there.
>> The Zulu were civilized long before the white man came.
>With only mud huts?
Why would they need anything more than mud huts in that climate? The
Puritans lived in mud huts in New England, where they froze in them.
That makes the Zulus much more advanced than the Puritans - the Zulus
lived in appropriate housing, and the Puritans (whites) didn't.
>>And the
>> Egyptians (Africans, all) were civilized when the European still lived
>> in caves and used stone tools. It was them - Africans - who brought
>> civilization to the Europeans, not the other way around.
>"Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops, the
>builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs of her
>tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a bright yellow
>stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin is white."
And she was AFRICAN! What part of AFRICAN don't you understand?
>The tomb of the wife of Zoser, the builder of the first pyramid in Egypt,
>has a painting of her showing her with reddish-blond hair.
And she was AFRICAN!
>The mummy of Rameses II has yellow hair.
And he was AFRICAN!
>"A funerary mask with the attributes of the goddess Isis shows a vivid
>blue-green color of eyes.
Isis wasn't a real person, shit-for-brains. Ever see a white Jesus in
a black church? Does that make blacks white?
[more examples of AFRICANS snipped]
After you complete first grade, come back and post some more. You
embarrass your Nazi handlers, all of whom have at least learned to
read.
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
I noticed the long list of mummies with red or blond hair. Ask a mortician what
color black hair turns as the corpse "ages". Even embalming can't stop it. All
hair bleaches in death.
What a numbskull this dip is. Are all racists the stupid?
d'geezer
"Wherever is found what is called a paternal government,
there is found state education. It has been discovered
that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to
commence tyranny in the nursery." -- Benjamin Disraeli
Eric Gill
<smnip>
> I noticed the long list of mummies with red or blond hair. Ask a mortician what
> color black hair turns as the corpse "ages". Even embalming can't stop it. All
> hair bleaches in death.
>
> What a numbskull this dip is. Are all racists the stupid?
Mostly. The very few who are not are insane. Both tend to blow their
gaskets when confronted with reality.
--
'We Celtic women obey the demands of Nature in a more moral way than the
women of Rome. We consort openly with the best men, but you, of Rome,
allow yourselves to be debauched in secret by the vilest.'
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>What a numbskull this dip is. Are all racists the stupid?
Intelligent people aren't racists, so I guess you get an unqualified
"yes". :)
Randy Sweeney
Al Klein wrote in message ...
>alt.atheism:
>
>>What a numbskull this dip is. Are all racists the stupid?
>
>Intelligent people aren't racists, so I guess you get an unqualified
>"yes". :)
While I would agree that racism is supported more by the half of the people
who are below median intelligence than the half above, I would suspect that
there are intelligent racists out there.
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
intelligent racists - oxymoron
t...@rak061.oulu.fi
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 04:22:39 GMT, "Randy Sweeney" <rswe...@Home.com> wrote:
>
> >While I would agree that racism is supported more by the half of the people
> >who are below median intelligence than the half above, I would suspect that
> >there are intelligent racists out there.
> >
> >
>
> intelligent racists - oxymoron
I don't think so. Rare, yes, but some exist. Same as with religion:
most intelligent people don't take it seriously but there are some
smart fanatics around. Even smart people can have stupid ideas.
--
Tapio Erola (t...@rieska.oulu.fi) No mail to t...@rak061.oulu.fi please!
"Democracy is a form of religion, it is the worship of
jackals by jackasses." --H.L.Mencken
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A3C2A05...@yahoo.com...
> d'geezer@d'geezer.net wrote:
> <smnip>
>
> > I noticed the long list of mummies with red or blond hair. Ask a
mortician what
> > color black hair turns as the corpse "ages". Even embalming can't stop
it. All
> > hair bleaches in death.
You simply made this up out of the blue.
> >
> > What a numbskull this dip is. Are all racists the stupid?
>
> Mostly. The very few who are not are insane. Both tend to blow their
> gaskets when confronted with reality.
>
by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror
than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is
thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become
so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most
spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of
American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a White
Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students
are not as qualified as White students, it set off a booming, national
controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he
would have attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert
for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it,
America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word.
They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior
to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race.
When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.
Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding
what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the
current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to
the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard-
working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely
wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks,
for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their
poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial
differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black
failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone,
and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else
could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any
explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness
threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences.
Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress
blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them. If Whites do not
consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no
obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions
must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there
simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are
working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality
leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some
fashion, an indictment of White people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe
that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time
a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White
society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or
misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled
with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed
in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition,
thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to
strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman
from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit,
have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the
affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a
company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that
only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained
without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been forced
into it as self-defense because of centuries of White oppression. What
appears to be non-White racism is so understandable and forgivable that it
hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism
depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when
done by Whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse
is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious
to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the word "nigger"
while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its
collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual
murders of random Whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991).
College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-Whites as "racist,"
but ignore scurrilous attacks on Whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent,
it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically
black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name
of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly
integrated in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that
could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of hatred. It
is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction
and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to
ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the
law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in
favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are
thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or
association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly
for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The
National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns
merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set
up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc,
and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the White
students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a
minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that
non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today,
any club not specifically formed to be a White enclave but whose members
simply happen all to be White is branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of
American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few
people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of Whites (and
sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard
University be made more diverse by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians.
No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA)
would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one
suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the
NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from
a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a town, a
school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack
of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when Whites
have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so
often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of Whites. In
fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of Whites. Our
current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent
of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-White. The several million
illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all
non-White. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable
contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only White nations that are
called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to
imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of
this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens
across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that
Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were
losing its majority population to poor Whites who demanded that schools be
taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who
demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for
"affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White Americans are
supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their
country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their
own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession,
for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- Whites
advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating"
another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be
activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can
agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of
whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone
ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative
action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are
clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually
go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that
they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage,
they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own
kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of
the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought
to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial
interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar
of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to
encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and
culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible
terms, White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit
racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly
natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people
and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are
doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United
States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born
whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that
they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters
to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the
once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and
is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be
convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to
work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a
dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its
wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that
there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away
to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites
have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is
racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is
somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their
own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families
more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their
neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards
non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding
of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural.
They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races
and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to
forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do
otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is
likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial
preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own
people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a
minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in
short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined
nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations
are those of whites.
Buffalo Soldja
your saying that Africans were primative, while out of the other side
your
trying to prove that they were white. so I guess I'm so assume that the
point your trying to get across here is that whites are primative.
Boy there are some real rocket scientist in this stromfront movement,
huh?
Re: Coming to Africa's aid has been no help
Group: alt.rush-limbaugh Date: Sat, Dec 16, 2000, 6:58am (EST-1) From:
va...@i1.net (Alex Vange)
Alex Vange
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:emfo3t4s51ftok9he...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 23:25:32 GMT, d'geezer@d'geezer.net posted in
>
> Intelligent people aren't racists, so I guess you get an unqualified
> "yes". :)
Intelligent people use words that have a consistent meaning. They don't
use words that are meant to cloud the issue rather than clarify, such as the
word "racist".
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
<d'geezer@d'geezer.net> wrote in message
news:3a3c8ce4...@news.saw.net...
> >
>
> intelligent racists - oxymoron
The problem with unintelligent people is that don't say anything
clearly. If by "racist" they mean someone who hates Black people then I must
admit that I am not a racist. This is too bad, because it sounded like a
pretty cool thing to be.
Eric Gill
>
> http://stormfront.org
> <d'geezer@d'geezer.net> wrote in message
> news:3a3c8ce4...@news.saw.net...
> > >
> >
> > intelligent racists - oxymoron
>
> The problem with unintelligent people is that don't say anything
> clearly. If by "racist" they mean someone who hates Black people then I must
> admit that I am not a racist. This is too bad, because it sounded like a
> pretty cool thing to be.
>
Okay, everyone, add "liar" to "stupid racist," if you hadn't already.
Al Klein
Since racism is a sign of lack of intelligence, I disagree with the
very term 'intelligent racist'.
Johann-Sebastian Bot
about the fascist mindset, for it reveals little about reality.
Jackson begins by asserting that "no nation in the world that holds
'racism' in greater horror than does the United States." This, mind you,
comes from people who are otherwise informing us that nations like Canada,
Australia, and especially Germany have made it a crime to question "the
Jewish propaganda of the Holocaust." That's at least three other nations
that the Jacksonists think are more extreme. But then we're dealing with
advertising jingles and delusions rather than reality.
Johann-Sebastian Bot
about the fascist mindset, for it reveals little about reality.
One notices that Jackson makes no effort to document his assertions; rather
we are exposed to the type of person whose eyes roll back and they "see" a
reality unseen to the rest of us.
Jackson simply makes actions like mass murder, rape, and child molestation
disappear in order to continue to monomanical obsession with "race."
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 08:26:56 -0600, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net>
<K14%5.21$OT.1...@news1.i1.net> wrote:
"by Thomas Jackson ...
" Compared to other kinds of offenses, it [racism] is thought to be somehow
more reprehensible."
Johann-Sebastian Bot
about the fascist mindset, for it reveals little about reality.
We again see the propensity for people like Jackson to roll back their
eyeballs and then simply pronounce a reality only they can "see."
It will certainly amaze anyone not caught in Jackson's monomania around
race that our news sources no longer cover "shugged off" issues like
"murder, rape, robbery, and arson." It will come as news that we see no
news of such things in a press devoted to only one news topic: racism.
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 08:20:35 -0600, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net>
<NX3%5.20$OT.1...@news1.i1.net> wrote:
...
>
>by Thomas Jackson ...
ossof
>>>The apparatus of state bequeathed to Africa by the departing colonial
>powers
>>>has never functioned as it should have.
>
>>Yang Hu wrote in message <3a248c55...@news.service.uci.edu>...
>>Because the "apparatus" was never designed to work on its own.
>>colonial maps were drawn arbitratily, without regards to culture
>>tradition. It didn't work for Yugoslavia, the Austrian Empires, and
>>they certainly do not work for the multitudes of hastily drawn-up
>>countries in Africa.
[...]
>THE TIMES FRIDAY DECEMBER 01 2000
>
>From Mr Dele Oguntimoju
>
>Sir, Most commentators on Africa’s “failure” seem to overlook the fact that
>the countries designed and left behind by the colonial powers were not
>designed with development in mind.
>
>How successful would these same colonial powers have been over the same
>period had an alien power vandalised their historic boundaries and lumped
>them all into a political union without regard to their linguistic and
>cultural differences? Imagine also if their best leaders had been
>neutralised and replaced with corrupt and inept leaders.
>
>That aid alone has not worked in these circumstances should scarcely
>surprise anyone: aid could no more cure the structural problems than
welfare
>payments could cure unemployment.
>
>The country designs imposed by the colonial powers have produced a
permanent
>state of political instability made manifest by coups and civil wars. As
>Michael Dynes notes, the apparatus of state that the same powers bequeathed
>on Africans has not worked: the evidence is African judges sweltering under
>European wigs in European-style courtrooms with no air-conditioning.
Against
>this background it beggars belief that Michael Dynes is now calling on
>Africans to abandon their ancient communal system of land ownership in
>favour of Western-type private land ownership.
>
>Africa will move forward only when it is allowed to rediscover and update
>its way of life. What Africa most needs from the West is the political
>goodwill that it has never enjoyed, coupled with such technical and
>financial support as is necessary for it to manage the crises that were
>built into the country structures bequeathed by the departing Europeans.
>
>Yours faithfully,
>DELE OGUNTIMOJU,
>391 City Road, EC1V 1NE.
>November 27.
The Kingdom of Swaziland
["The continuity of the monarchy contributes to the country's stability
and peaceful climate while ensuring that the cultural heritage is
safeguarded as Swaziland develops."
Racial Nationalism - the key?
(Immigration=0, BTW)
And please don't quote the average life expectancy and the GDP,
Eugene - there's more to life, history and everything than how long
you live, and how much shiny junk you can afford.]
http://www2.pitt.edu/~tgsst10/sdpeople.html
The Kingdom of Swaziland today is composed of an homogeneous population who
share language, culture and loyalty to their King and country. There are no
tribal conflicts, the country is stable, ordlerly and at peace with her
neighbors. Perhaps Swaziland's greatest asset is her people, who are always
happy, friendly, courteous and willing to assist visitors to their Kingdom.
Old Swazi traditions are carefully guarded and for this reason, colourful
ceremonies frequently take place to mark specific occasions and the
distinctive national dress is regularly worn by men, women, and children in
urban as well as rural areas. The major ceremonies are the colourful
umhlanga , and the incwala. The latter ceremony. much of which involves
sacred and secret ceremonies, entails direct participation by the King. The
continuity of the monarchy contributes to the country's stability and
peaceful climate while ensuring that the cultural heritage is safeguarded as
Swazialnd develops.
[And from our frowning leftist-liberal friends...]
THE TIMES TUESDAY DECEMBER 12 2000
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,7-49754,00.html
The Test - Swaziland
EXAMINER: TIM TEEMAN
Public image
To many, one of those anonymous African countries. To the wiser, Africa’s
last absolute monarchy (about the size of Wales, pop: 1 million) where
subjects, fed up with their ruler, King Mswati III (above), are preparing to
go on “dance strike” for iNewala, the celebration of allegiance to the King.
They are angry because he has evicted 200 people from their homes to make
way for his brother, Prince Maguga. No sir, we won’t boogie. 3/10
Intelligence
Mswati had a British public school education (at Sherborne), which obviously
inspired him to maintain a feudal kingdom. The military suppresses dissent.
Student and labour protest in the 1990s facilitated slight political reform.
5/10
Compassion
Forget it. The country has been under emergency rule since 1973. The police
recently evicted everyone from the villages of Macetjeni and Kamkhweli so
Prince Maguga could install his yes-men. When one resident, Dumsile Twala,
died of illness her relatives weren’t allowed to bury her at home. 0/10
Sex appeal
The iNewala celebration involves “thousands of men in leopard-skin
loincloths and cowtail cloaks”, with the King “sitting naked astride a bull
to prove his virility”. 5/10
Humour
Though the issues are serious, 50 women bared their buttocks to show their
displeasure at Mswati’s actions (mooning is a huge insult in Swazi culture).
6/10
Family values
Strong: clans and chiefs still preside. Every year the king holds a “reed
dance” (umhlanga) at which he chooses a new wife. Mswati III is currently
with his first wife — until February. This may make some readers, male and
female, envious. 7/10
Durability
Swaziland has been ruled by King Mswati’s Dlamini family for 250 years. The
current king came to the throne in 1982, aged 18. His father, Sobhuza II,
oversaw independence from Britain in 1968. Now the bosses of the big
industries — sugar, cotton and tourism — want political change. 6/10
Antecedents
Africa has thrown up countless dictators; Mswati’s struggle with President
Mugabe for the title of Top African Dictator is not exactly a new one. 7/10
Ambition
Depends which side you’re on. “Because we love our king, we want him to be
above politics and to let the people concern themselves with fighting
political battles,” says one subject. A constitutional review commission
presented its findings to the king in November, but no change yet. 6/10
Future prospects
The US may impose stiff tariffs on exports to protest Swaziland’s draconian
labour legislation. Growing domestic discontent and international pressure
could ensure the people have their way. 6/10
Score: 51%
-- Miscegenation always destroys the races which engage in it. --
Alex Vange
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:rm8r3tg6ej9fk6q3m...@4ax.com...
>
> Since racism is a sign of lack of intelligence, I disagree with the
> very term 'intelligent racist'.
by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror
than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is
thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become
so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most
spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
><d'geezer@d'geezer.net> wrote in message
>news:3a3c8ce4...@news.saw.net...
>> intelligent racists - oxymoron
>The problem with unintelligent people is that don't say anything
>clearly.
Or they just post quotes.
Both of which you do all the time.
> If by "racist" they mean someone who hates Black people then I must
>admit that I am not a racist. This is too bad, because it sounded like a
>pretty cool thing to be.
Which proves that you ARE a racist, but you're too unintelligent to
realize that.
We3
"ossof" <os...@SANSPAMossof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:977175178.4401.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> female, envious. 7/10
>
>
> Durability
>
> Swaziland has been ruled by King Mswati's Dlamini family for 250 years.
The
> current king came to the throne in 1982, aged 18. His father, Sobhuza II,
> oversaw independence from Britain in 1968. Now the bosses of the big
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 08:26:56 -0600, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> posted
>in alt.atheism:
>
>><d'geezer@d'geezer.net> wrote in message
>>news:3a3c8ce4...@news.saw.net...
>
>>> intelligent racists - oxymoron
>
>>The problem with unintelligent people is that don't say anything
>>clearly.
>
>Or they just post quotes.
>
>Both of which you do all the time.
Here's my "quote" for the racists who claim blacks are inferior to whites.
Condoleeza Rice.
There are few of any race that could match her intelligence and accomplishments.
>> If by "racist" they mean someone who hates Black people then I must
>>admit that I am not a racist. This is too bad, because it sounded like a
>>pretty cool thing to be.
>
>Which proves that you ARE a racist, but you're too unintelligent to
>realize that.
Do you really think this !@#$!#$ will understand what you are saying?
d'geezer
>--
>Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
>aklein at villagenet dot com
"Wherever is found what is called a paternal government,
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:rm8r3tg6ej9fk6q3m...@4ax.com...
>> Since racism is a sign of lack of intelligence, I disagree with the
>> very term 'intelligent racist'.
>by Thomas Jackson
[major snippage]
Quote mining just proves my point.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:25:40 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>>On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 08:26:56 -0600, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> posted
>>in alt.atheism:
>>> If by "racist" they mean someone who hates Black people then I must
>>>admit that I am not a racist. This is too bad, because it sounded like a
>>>pretty cool thing to be.
>>Which proves that you ARE a racist, but you're too unintelligent to
>>realize that.
>Do you really think this !@#$!#$ will understand what you are saying?
I seldom expect my toys to understand me.
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>
>
>http://stormfront.org
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:rm8r3tg6ej9fk6q3m...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Since racism is a sign of lack of intelligence, I disagree with the
>> very term 'intelligent racist'.
Once again no reply just a long cut and paste of the same tired nonsense disguised
as lucid discourse.
You seem to have nothing left but quotes so I'll give you something new to quote
that calls you and raises you one.......
Condolezza Rice. A black women with considerably more going for her than you will
have in your miserable pitiful little excuse for a life.
Must piss you off to see a black person of this stature.
And don't bother with the "exceptions" argument as it is easily refuted by the
"exceptions" argument applied to whites. But that a race supposedly, by your rant,
inferior to whites, can produce such as her shows what a slimy low scum you are.
I consider you a separate race.. the race of bigots and I denounce you as white.
You are not allowed to be white any longer. You are puce. I've always hated that
color and its name, and so, with the same kind of logic you bring to the "race"
issue, I hereby dub you a lower intelligence and degenerate "Puce".
You may not own property, use the same public facilities as the rest of us Humans.
You are relegated to the back of the bus, no...the spare tire on the back of the
bus. Enjoy the ride you decendent of a vegetable you..
d'geezer
pyotr filipivich
inspired to write:
>On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:42:24 -0600, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>
>You may not own property, use the same public facilities as the rest of us Humans.
>You are relegated to the back of the bus, no...the spare tire on the back of the
>bus. Enjoy the ride you decendent of a vegetable you..
Oh come now, d'geezer, isn't that a little harsh?
after all, we don't expect vegetables to actually be able to stay on the
back of a bus, now do we?
Besides, don't most vegetables travel in the back of trucks?
tschus
pyotr
pyotr filipivich
"If once a man indulges himself in Murder, very soon he comes
to think little of Robbing, and from Robbing he comes next to
Drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to Incivility and
Procrastination." T. De Quincy (1785-1859) "Murder Considered As One of the Fine Arts"
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>It was on Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:16:38 GMT that d'geezer@d'geezer.net was
>inspired to write:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:42:24 -0600, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote:
>>
>>You may not own property, use the same public facilities as the rest of us Humans.
>>You are relegated to the back of the bus, no...the spare tire on the back of the
>>bus. Enjoy the ride you decendent of a vegetable you..
>
> Oh come now, d'geezer, isn't that a little harsh?
>
> after all, we don't expect vegetables to actually be able to stay on the
>back of a bus, now do we?
>
> Besides, don't most vegetables travel in the back of trucks?
>
>
>tschus
>pyotr
You are right as usual Pyotr. I've never known a vegetable to be a bigot. Though
my own response to Broccoli is rather prejudiced. What was I thinking. Making this
kind of comparison between Vange and a vegetable is patently unfair to produce.
I wish to publically apologize to all produce everywhere: all that has been, all
that now is and all that shall ever be.
Mr. Vange is hereby proclaimed not a vegetable. He is a horse turd. No...! Even
horse turds have some use. They make vegetables grow better.
Damn I just can't find anything useless enough to call him. How about I call him
nothing, as to me that is exactly what he is.
d'geezer
>
>pyotr filipivich
>"If once a man indulges himself in Murder, very soon he comes
>to think little of Robbing, and from Robbing he comes next to
>Drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to Incivility and
>Procrastination." T. De Quincy (1785-1859) "Murder Considered As One of the Fine Arts"
"Wherever is found what is called a paternal government,