Mahatma Gandhi: Saint, racist, or both?

Some time ago I posted about Albert Schweitzer, who spent his life ministering to natives in Africa, and ended up regarding them as a collection of ungrateful primitives. This attracted a lot of comment, not least because such a saintly man could hold such (in today's terms) repulsive views. Mahatma Gandhi is another 20th century saint, who spent most of his early working life in South Africa.

He also of course peacable lead India to independence from Britain, and was assassinated for his trouble. He has since become an international icon of peace, pacifism, tolerance, brotherly love, and by extension, multi-culturalism. Statues are erected to him, his example is taught to Western school children, and Hollywood has even made a film about him starring Ben Kingsley. In all of these instances, Gandhi is portrayed as the ultimate peacemaker, the role model of multi-culturalism.

Westerners take great masochistic joy in endlessly quoting his response to the question “what do you think of Western Civilization”, to which he replied along the lines of “if I ever see it I’ll let you know”.

Ho, ho!

.

But there's another side

Such masochists are far less likely to propagate other quotations of his though. And this isn't surprising when they show that this saint was a rabid racist. Now it must be remembered, before we’re too hard on the man, that this was well before the time that racism became the cause du jour, which was sex in thise Victorian times (when even pianos had to have their legs chastely covered lest they frighten the horses).

So it is with great joy I bring you a selection of St. Gandhi’s ruminations on matters racial. These are taken either from his Collected Works, or from the archives of the Indian Opinion which he founded and edited during his time in South Africa.

.

Enjoy!

"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."

.

"Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work......?"

.

"Now let us turn our attention to another and entirely unrepresented community-the Indian. He is in striking contrast with the native. While the native has been of little benefit to the State, it owes its prosperity largely to the Indians. While native loafers abound on every side, that species of humanity is almost unknown among Indians here."

.

"We believe as much in the purity of race. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race. " [Note: This view is entirely consistent with Hindu philosophy, which places Brahmins at the top of the food chain, Sudhras next, and so on down to the Untouchables. Interestingly enough, in India this classification broadly approximates to skin pigmentation, with Brahmins often being indistinguishable from Europeans]

"The Natives in our hands proved to be most unreliable and obstinate, and they seemed to bestow no care on their suffering countryman." [They still don't, Mahatma]

I could provide a lot more, but that's more than enough to make my point. My point is this. Before race and multiculturalism became rigidly-enforced orthodoxy, people spoke openly and freely about race, and the characteristics of differing racial groups. This could often be hurtful and demeaning, and it’s no harm that PC brought in some form of sensitivity.

But PC has completely gone over the top, to the extent that all sensible discussion on race has been foreclosed. This has lead, and leads to, muddled thinking and lousy political and social decisions - decisions that are having, and will continue to have, disastrous impact on millions of lives.

Gandhi called it as he saw it at the time – and as it was at the time. Clearly, had he been alive in 1993 he’d have recoiled at the prospect of giving blacks control of his South Africa. And he’d have been right, as we can now see.

The threat to American Jews

On the face of it, the USA should be the best country in the world for Jews. Better even than Israel, which faces an existential (if over-hyped) threat. Jews in the US face no apparent threat. Wealthy, successful and hugely influential, inter alia, they also hold a commanding presence in the media. Jews are successful, and hold these influential positions, because on average they’re very clever and hard-working. But this power and influence carries with it a potential future threat.

In several posts I've made the point that the US is heading for a major and rapid decline in wealth and power. This is happening already, the collapse of the dollar being an obvious manifestation. Both internally and externally the country is drowning in debt, which some day will be called in. That day could be soon.

If the Chinese and/or the Arab Sovereign Funds decide to cut their losses and move out of the dollar, it will quickly lose its status as the leading reserve currency. This in turn means that the US Government will find it more difficult to continue borrowing, and will have to pay substantially more when it does.

This will hit the average American hard. And speaking of average, it must be borne in mind that the Bush Regime has, through tax ‘reform’, presided over an unprecedented transfer of wealth from poor and middle-income Americans to the super-rich. Now add in the wars of choice waged by Bush and his cronies, which are draining trillions of dollars out of the US economy. Finally, toss in the crisis in the financial sector arising from the subprime scandal, and you have a perfect economic and social storm heading over the horizon

So what's all this got to do with the Jews? Well, when a people suffers sudden humiliation (inevitable defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan), coupled with a rapid decline in living standards, scapegoats will be sought. At first glance America’s Jews might seem an unlikely choice. But think what a demagogue could do with the following:

* Jews control the banks, which have landed us in this mess

* Jews (in the form of the neocons) have walked us into disastrous foreign wars, all to further Israeli, not American, objectives

* Jewish industrialists (no problem finding plenty) have sold off our jobs to hostile countries such as China and Pakistan, all to make more money

* Jews control the media, which have fooled us into supporting these objectives

The Jews are the cause of our problems!

As Josef Goebbels clearly realised, the fact that this is either totally or mostly untrue doesn’t matter. What matters is whether you can make a plausible case to an angry and embittered populace. An effective demagogue could do it. The medium? The Internet, of course. And there’s nothing so nasty as people who feel they’ve been duped out of their rights by an identifiable minority. (Remember, Germany was very far from being the most anti-semitic country in Europe prior to the Third Reich).

Jews have been made the scapegoats for the faults of others for centuries throughout the world. The restrictions on freedom introduced by the Bush Regime in the name of the ‘War on Terror’ would nicely dovetail with these developments. As somebody once said, ‘if Fascism ever comes to America, it will be in the form of a crucifix superimposed on the stars and stripes’

Why Muslims fail in the West

David Horowitz (ex-Communist, fully recovered, just like your Savant) has explained why the Muslim communities remain mired in self segregation and poverty while every other immigrant community manages to pull itself up by it's bootstraps and succeed.

He discusses a host of difficulties teachers encounter in dealing with specific subjects in the classroom. Most Muslim kids refuse to participate in sports or swimming, the girls out of modesty, the boys because they do not want to swim in "girls' water" or "non-Muslim water."

When it comes to literature, French philosophers such as Voltaire and Rousseau are very often boycotted because of their supposed Islamophobia. Molière, the father of French satiric comedy, is among the writers most often boycotted. As for history, Muslim students object to its Judeo-Christian bias and blatant falsehood. They loudly protest the Crusades, and commonly deny the Holocaust.

Under the circumstances, many teachers censor their own material (where have we heard that before?) often skipping entire topics, like the history of Israel or of Christianity. He cites one teacher who keeps a Koran on his desk for reference whenever a thorny issue arises and Muslim students who refuse to use the plus sign in mathematics because it looks like a cross. Field trips, especially to churches, cathedrals, and monasteries, are boycotted.

Which corresponds very well to the British experience that Muslims do very badly in education.

It is not due to racism (Hindu's and Sikhs after all do very well, better than natives) of the teachers, so the problem must be the culture of the students. A culture that puts being a good Muslim above getting a good education, a good education being the best way out of poverty and into becoming a successful member of society.

Horowitz shows how Muslims perceive a large gap between the French and themselves. Even though most of the Muslim kids are actually French citizens, they see themselves as Muslims first, and more and more of them hail Osama bin Laden as their hero. In their eyes, he represents a victorious Islam triumphing over the West.

So then being a good Muslim requires that they not integrate and become a successful member of native society but must remain true to being loyal to the 'Nation of Islam' rather than the nation that they live in.

Now can anyone give me one good reason why exactly the same thing won't happen in Ireland? In fact it's more likely, because here we have institutionalised the monstrosity of 'faith schools', where superstitious mumbo-jumbo is passed off as fact, unleavened by the attendance of victims from another faith.

PC mandarin spells it out

It's often been said that in the US, only the Republican Party (the War Party) can make peace with external enemies. If the Democrats in the US or Israel's Labour Party were to make significant concessions they were likely to be pulverised as defeatist and weak. However, if the Republicans or Likud did the same, they self-evidently could not be accused of this. else where could the war-mongers turn?

The same concept might hold true in Europe's existential war against the Turd World invasion. Maybe it takes the PC equivalent of the Republicans to spell it out. Nobody has better credentials for this than Trevor Phillips. He's black, liberal, Labour Party stalwart, and he's Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (ugh!).

Trevor spells out out as clearly as the Thought Police would allow in today's 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech. And he did it in the same hotel!

Uncontrolled immigration has led to a "cold war" between ethnic communities, according to the head of Britain's race watchdog. Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, believes policy failures risk provoking racism among millions of educated professionals.

He has set out his concerns in an address that said the influx has had worrying effects. "Powell predicted 'hot' conflict and violence. However, we have seen the emergence of a kind of cold war in some parts of the country, where very separate communities exist side by side... with poor communication across racial or religious lines."

"In essence, Powell so discredited any talk of planning or control that it gave rise to a migration policy in which Government knew too little about what was going on. [Note: What Powell said was not incorrect. It was the hysterical reaction to it that has lead to the problems Phillips refers to]

"Ironically, Powellism and the weakening of control it engendered may have led Britain to admitting more immigrants rather than fewer." Mr Phillips warned ministers they are boosting anti-immigration parties such as the BNP by failing to respond to reasonable concerns from large sections of the "settled" population.

He said: "For every professional woman who is able to go out to work because she has a Polish nanny, there is a young mother who watches her child struggle in a classroom where a harassed teacher faces too many children with too many languages between them. Wanting a better deal for her child doesn't make her anti-immigrant. But if we can't find a better answer to her despair then she soon will be."

"We will become an economic backwater. Our children and grandchildren will end up knocking on the doors of the dominant economies, which will be China, India and Brazil." Indeed - just like the US is doing now, and which was forecast by a Japanese Prime Minister a long time ago.

Shadow home secretary David Davis said: "Mr Phillips raises a brave and timely warning and points out the consequences of a disastrous loss of immigration controls."

A South African emigre speaks

Interesting comment from Paul, a South African refugee in Chigago on my earlier post (Zimbabwe 2007 = South Africa 2017?) .

I just watch a documentary on Tibet. About half way through – and utterly convinced the Chinese are way out of line – I thought to myself: what does the world think of Apartheid? I searched a few sites; found the words "BLACK PEOPLE CAN NOT GOVERN THEMSELVES" amid a massive polarization of opinions on Apartheid and the prospects for post-Apartheid South Africa; and felt compelled to write this.

I've heard those words before by the way, many times.I’m not for a second contending Apartheid was right. But, assuming most of us agree it was wrong – was it more wrong than what is happening in Zim now? [On this point see this post, which asks what would you have done had you been living as a white under apartheid] I would wager that those on the ground – whether they are tied to tree being forced to drink diesel by 16 year-old “war-vets”, or one of the ones getting publicly beaten in Operation Makavhoterapapi for voting MDC, or just stuck in a petrol queue in the relative comfort of their own car – would scream a resounding “no!”

You see, I left Joburg – post-grad degree under belt – for Chicago a little over two years ago. Not that it should matter, but in the context of this discussion it would be an insult to all of you to pretend it doesn’t: I’m white – I was born that way. I like Chicago. I could even grow to love it in time. However, having left friends, family, the Atlantic and Indian oceans, Sunday braais, my swimming pool, thunderstorms, Table Mountain, and my dog – I miss South Africa very much.

Or do I? There are, of course, things I don’t miss: having to stand in line at the police station; or, even worse – getting face to face with the unfathomly unqualified person at the front of that line; the bad roads; depressing newspaper headlines; the senseless use of tax-payers money renaming airports; watching the president publicly condone Mugabe’s actions; and yes, most of all, leaving the second place issue leagues behind, the crime.

I was in school while Apartheid was getting phased out and was able to gradually observe the change for the better – and worse – in the country. I watched as some evils merely got exchanged for others. Living in the U.S. these last 2 years has brought me to the conclusion that people who have never lived in Africa will not – should not – try understand it. It is a beautiful and savage place.

If you haven’t witnessed first-hand what it is like there, please don’t be too quick to judge the pretty strong opinions that come through on a blog like this. In my humble opinion, Savant is spot-on with his analysis; South Africa will self-destruct, just like Zim, just like many other African countries have done in the past – when left to their own devices.

True, it will take far longer than any other country on the continent, but it is inevitable. Is there anyone out there who has lived in South Africa who will bring a realistic argument against Savant’s piece above to the table? If you’re an idealist or have a romanticized opinion of the “struggle” then please don’t even bother as you couldn’t possibly have lived there.

This seems a fair analysis to me, and convinces me more than even that SA will face a tragedy that will make Zimbabwe seem a cake walk. Again, I post so frequently on SA not least because it provides an invaluable lesson for Ireland, and the West in general: And that is - large numbers of blacks will bring even the most advanced society to its knees over time.

Can't feed 'em? Don't breed 'em

It’s strange to look back and see how, on some things, you’ve traversed the full spectrum on a particular subject. The looming world food crisis is the kind of thing I have in mind.

There is undoubtedly a crisis, riots and turmoil. And it’s going to get worse. To get a real inside view, let’s listen to Greg Barrow of the World Food Programme (WFP) “Food scarcity means an increase in the number of people going hungry''

Wow! Who’d have thought that? Great insight, Greg.

As usual, the reasons adduced in the MSM are the wrong ones, or at least their relative importance is wrong – badly wrong.

The causes of the crisis are many, and vary in different parts of the world. However, the killer cause is, or should be, perfectly clear. Here are the main reasons for the crisis, in ascending order of importance:

* Climate change

* Using food crops for biofuels

* Oil prices (huge increases in fertilizer and transport costs)

* Richer diets in China and India (rising incomes lead to more meat in diet, meat a very inefficient way to produce food)

* Culture (corruption, incompetence)

* Irresponsible breeding

Let’s just focus on the last one, the elephant in the room. The world’s population is growing by leaps and bounds, and almost all that growth is coming from the poorest regions – the ones now experiencing the worst effects of the food crisis. Needless to say, the PC Thought Police won't let us say that. Everyone has the ‘right’ (that word again) to have as many children as he or she wants.

Ok, but if they do they shouldn’t expect the rest of us to feed them. It really is as simple as that. We’re going to be inundated for the foreseeable future with heart-rending images of black women (men as usual nowhere to be seen) with squads of children, begging for assistance. And whitey, who of course will get the blame for this, will also provide all the aid, and will still get the blame after that.

And it won't solve the problem. It'll perpetuate and exacerbate the problem. Just like aid to poor countries undermines the incentive for people to address their own problems, providing enough food to survive will only represent a band-aid, with the crisis scheduled for endless repetition.

There is no solution other than to stop the rapid growth in population. How do you do that? Simple. Let nature take its course. History shows very plainly that, left alone, populations adapt to their sustainable level. That's happened with primitive societies like the bushmen of the Kalahari, Australian Aborigines and Eskimos. They adapted their family sizes to the level of what they could feed. The same happens in the animal kingdom

Pouring emergency food aid into these areas will only perpetuate the misery. It sounds unimaginably cruel to say it, and it marks a slow but consistent 180 degree change in my views, but: ... if you can't feed ‘em, don't breed ‘em. The food/population crisis will only get worse - rapidly - until the validity of that aphorism sinks home.

Can We Still Be Called a Nation?"

A fine post by Padraig on the Hibernia Girl blog

Surely any nation or state ceases to be such, when it can no longer control the implantation of foreigners on to its soil.Theodore Roosevelt once observed:

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.

But time has moved on since TR and we now live in a period where "spin" and "illusion" seem more readily acceptable than harsh reality, and where the nefarious notion of "Multiculture" is regularly propagated as the modern ”unchallengeable" dogma of our time. Something which of course has already manifestly been proven at best to be delusional, judging from an abundance of evidence.

Should anyone have any doubts regarding its fallacy, simply take a look around the world. Wherever people are killing each other most diligently, they are killing each other because of diversity. The Tutsis and Hutus slaughtered each other because of ethnic differences. The Tamils and Sinhalese slaughter each other in Sri Lanka because of religious and ethnic differences. Arabs and blacks slaughter each other in Darfur because of racial and religious reasons. Arabs and Israelis slaughter each other because of ethnic and religious differences.

Surely it must be obvious that "diversity" of the kind now prescribed as some kind of a bounty for this tiny island nation (has been and remains to this day) one of the most divisive and potent forces in the history of this planet!And what are its aims?, so that we may arrive at a culture of no-particular-culture, so that we can agree to disagree, so that that we’ll all get along together by compelling each other to do things for money alone, because we basically agree on little. Surely such a place in fact then becomes a "un-society".

Connor Lenihan was recently quoted as saying that we can learn from the problems other multicultural societies in the West are having. This is a pipe dream or more likely more "sugaring of the pill”. The governments of the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, and France for example have already bent over backwards in their attempts at integration since the 1960s, yet to little avail.

What makes anyone seriously believe that Ireland alone will do any better when we remain incapable to this day of even of providing the basics to a modern society such as safe drinking water in several parts of this country or delivering anything other than an utter shambles of a health care service?

Multiculturalism implies the implantation of diverse ethnic and political groups with little in common. Yet the notion of muticulture is advanced by "sanctimonious liberals", in justification for their own wilful destruction of indigenous cultures, and exchanging of traditional societal cohesion for the dictates of political correctness, producing a new more heavily censored, hybrid, and obedient collection of "residents" or "ethnic communities".

Given the Govt's-sponsored streams of propaganda through RTE, NCCRI, the Min of Integration and others they are starting to sound more like the three official government slogans drawn from George Orwell's 1984:

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.

Ultimately the aims of multiculturalism are to wipe away national borders, replacing previous national affiliations with a modern Tower of Babel. It is manifestly clear that neither may the Irish themselves harbour any lingering doubts whether they may prevail as a distinct ethnic minority themselves, even within their own national boundaries. For they too are rapidly in the process of being sacrificed on the high altar of political correctness, to the God of multiculturalism.

We are no longer in control our borders or can decide who may or may not move to live in this country. Our immigration policy has already been surrendered, mainly to the EU, but for those originating from outside the EU our immigration policies are being dictated to us by human traffickers and their clients.Multiculturalism has already grown into a gigantic industry dealing in dishonesty and propaganda. The real price to be paid in the end is human dignity: dignity of the self, dignity of a culture.

The real Harry Potter

8 year-old seeks divorce!

This from the Yemen Times:

SANA’A, April 9 - An eight-year-old girl decided last week to go the Sana’a West Court to prosecute her father, who forced her to marry a 30-year-old man.Nojoud Muhammed Nasser arrived at court by herself on Wednesday, April 2, looking for a judge to handle her case against her father, Muhammed Nasser, who forced her two months ago to marry Faez Ali Thamer, a man 22 years her senior.

The child also asked for a divorce, accusing her husband of sexual and domestic abuse. According to Yemeni law, Nojoud cannot prosecute, as she is underage. However, court judge Muhammed Al-Qathi heard her complaint and subsequently ordered the arrests of both her father and husband.

“My father beat me and told me that I must marry this man, and if I did not, I would be raped and no law and no sheikh in this country would help me. I refused but I couldn’t stop the marriage,” Nojoud Nasser told the Yemen Times. “I asked and begged my mother, father, and aunt to help me to get divorced. They answered, ‘We can do nothing. If you want you can go to court by yourself.’ So this is what I have done,” she said.

Nasser said that she was exposed to sexual abuse and domestic violence by her husband. “He used to do bad things to me, and I had no idea as to what a marriage is. I would run from one room to another in order to escape, but in the end he would catch me and beat me and then continued to do what he wanted. I cried so much but no one listened to me. One day I ran away from him and came to the court and talked to them.”

Well, she's a brave and intelligent little girl, but what a society. And we're importing millions from that societry into Europe every year.

Google and free speech

South Africa Sucks isn't a blog for the faint-hearted. It’s goal is to encourage South African whites to leave that country as soon as possible, and to chronicle the catastrophic decline of that once great (if flawed) country. Moderate it is not. That they have castigated your humble Savant as a limp-wristed liberal pussy gives you some indication of its tone.

However, nobody could accuse it of being dull. A great, furious, roiling romp that will have even the most prissy peecee trying to suppress a laugh, it also brings a valued alternative insight into what’s really happening in SA. Written by highly articulate professionals, to me it exemplifies the value of the blog over the MSM. To the extent possible I have fact-checked its posting and I can tell you this: it provides an immeasurably more accurate picture of the country that anything you’ll get on the MSM.

In it’s short life-time it’s got hundreds of thousands of hits, from all over the world. And therein lay its problem. It was becoming an embarrassment to too many powerful people, not least the ruling junta in SA. Without warning, Google (who host Blogger) pulled the site. Just like that. Closed it down. So much for Google’s much-vaunted ‘do no evil’. As they showed when bowing to the Chinese, a more appropriate motto might be ‘do no evil – unless there’s money to be made’.

A lesson for all of us, namely, that the blogosphere is not as free as we might think.

Anyway, the good news. SAS is back in all its gory glory on this new URL. Try it out – you can always cover your eyes at the gory bits!

Ireland's Shias and Sunnis turn on each other

We know we're progressing up the diversity scale when violence between immigrants and locals expands to incorporate trouble within the immigrant ethnic groups themselves. That shows that a critical mass of diversity has been reached.

And we must always celebrate diversity.

Given that Shia and Sunni Muslims the world over have been at each others' throats, often with murderous intensity, for god knows how long, I've been keeping an eye out for the same happening in the Emerald Isle.

And sure enough, confirmation came this week. This confirmation took the form of the following headline in the Irish Times: "Imams deny rift between Shias and Sunnis in Ireland".

As the man said, never accept something as the truth until it's been officially denied. We can now look forward to this enhanced manifestation of cultural diversity enlivening our lives over the coming years.

What's liberal? what's conservative?

Encarta provides two definitions of "liberal"

1: "broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others"

2: "progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual"

Yes, that’s about right. I raise this point because many commentators on my PC/CP post have blamed ‘liberals’ for the problems the West now faces from the political correctness/multi-culturalism axis. My post made the point that the antecedents and practices of this axis are most closely found in the Communist Party or similar authoritarian polity.

PC/multi-culti is the polar opposite of liberalism as defined above, especially in relation to tolerance of others’ different views and standards, and in protecting the ‘personal freedom of the individual’. PC/multi-culti is characterized by its lack of tolerance for views and behaviour of which it disapproves. It is extremely tolerant of genital mutilation, polygamy and crime – except of course when perpetrated by white males. The freedom to dissent from its orthodoxies is constrained to a degree found only under dictatorships. In my view, it’s the antithesis of any meaningful definition of liberalism.

The same kind of misclassification applies to conservatives. For example GW Bush is deemed by many to be ultra-conservative, but to me he’s a million miles from that. His primary objective, it seem to me, is to further enrich the plutocrats, his power base, at the expense of ordinary Americans. He’s a right-wing radical who undermines fundamental conservative precepts such as:

Small government: The role and power of the government, and its intrusion into citizens’ lives have grown under the Bush regime probably more than any other in history.

Fiscal responsibility: Far from balancing the budget, Bush has presided over record deficits and blown the country’s reserves. Future generations will pay the price.

Self-sufficiency: The US is arguably less self-sufficient than it has ever been throughout its history. Bush undermined this key conservative tenet by destroying local industry through outsourcing and corporate tax breaks, all to keep his paymasters happy – and of course by his fiscal irresponsibility

Empire building: The Founding Fathers wisely counseled against ‘foreign entanglements’ to avoid the disastrous experience of Europe. Yet Bush has systematically worked against this almost since the inception of his Presidency.

My point really is that the binary distinctions between liberal/conservative and left/right have become increasingly meaningless in recent decades. We need some new classifications to help us understand what's happening to us.

PC/CP update

Further support for the previous post on PC totalitarianism has just arrived from South Africa. David Bullard, a regular contributor to the Sunday Times in Soutrh Africa and a keen enthusiast for the Rainbow Nation before reality smacked him over the head has been fired for a ‘racist’ (there we go again) column.

Editor Mondli Makhanya. (a Black Empowerment nobody parachuted in to the top post at the paper) said the column was "not in accordance with the character and values of the Sunday Times. It's not about censorship [good God, of course not! Perish the thought!], but about the fact that the column was not in accordance with the values to which our country and its constitution adhere"

Here’s what the column said:

Bullard's column, titled "Uncolonised Africa wouldn't know what it was missing" describes what South Africa would have looked like had the "evil white man" not come "to disturb the rustic idyll of the early black settlers".
He wrote: "There are no roads because no roads are needed because there are no cars. It's 2008 and no one has taken the slightest interest in South Africa, apart from a handful of botanists and zoologists who reckon that the country's flora and fauna rank as one of the largest unspoilt areas in a polluted world.

Bullard describes how, never having been exposed to "the sinful ways of the West", the various tribes of South Africa live healthy and peaceful lives, "only occasionally indulging in a bit of ethnic cleansing".

"They live in single-storey huts arranged to catch most of the day's sunshine and their animals are kept nearby.

"The dreaded internet doesn't exist in South Africa and cellphone companies have laughed off any hope of interesting the inhabitants in talking expensively into a piece of black plastic.

"There are no unsightly shopping malls selling expensive goods made by Asian slave workers and consequently there are no newspapers or magazines carrying articles comparing the relative merits of ladies' handbags.

Bullard writes: "Life is, on the whole, pretty good, but there is something vital missing. Fire has been discovered and the development of the wheel is coming on nicely, but the tribal elders are still aware of some essential happiness ingredient they still need to discover.

"Then something happens that will change this undisturbed South Africa forever. "Huge metal ships land on the coast and big metal flying birds are sent to explore the sparsely populated hinterland.

"They are full of men from a place called China and they are looking for coal, metal, oil, platinum, farmland, fresh water and cheap labour and lots of it. Suddenly, the indigenous population realise what they have been missing all along: someone to blame. "At last their prayers have been answered," the column ends.


And for this he was fired.


Anyone still doubt that PC is CP (Communist Party) in a fetching shade of black?

PC and CP - two sides of the same coin

As a former Communist I can see the clear similarities between the Communist Party (CP)and the virus of political correctness (PC). May seem that they are at opposite polarities, but in fact they’re not. Both are totalitarian truth systems, intolerant of all dissent.

A few thoughts:
.
Hegelian duality

At its most basic level Marxism utilised the Hegelian duality of dividing the world into good and evil, oppressor and oppressed. This concept in fact is a derivative of the much older Manichaean philosophy. The key characteristic was an absence of grey or any form of shading. i.e. – it’s divorced from the reality of human nature. PC exhibits the same flaw, non-writes good, whites bad, females good, males bad and so on.
.
Don't debate - abuse

Another similarity with Marxism is its unwillingness to truly debate issues. Theirs is The Truth, and if you’re against The Truth you’re ipso facto bad and must be condemned and branded. The very act of questioning received truth is deemed treachery. Similarly with PC there is no debate, just condemnation. Thus questioning the merits of multi-culturalism, or positing a possible racial basis for IQ will draw down the full wrath of the PC party. Even the language is the same. ‘Spewing’, ‘hate’, ‘vile’, ‘abhorrent’ – you know them all.

.
The repentance ritual

It’s the same every time. Erring Communists could re-enter the fold, but only after public humiliation, acknowledgement of their errors, and a suitable punishment. To have even a chance of readmission to the Party, or, in the PC world to hold onto your job, you’ll need to confess to being an agent of imperialism, part of an evil race (white, of course), class (educated, wealthy) or gender (can you guess which?). But often banishment is/was total. For Communism think Bukanin or Trotsky, for the PC equivalent think James Watson, Don Imus or Ron Atkinson - ‘The Disappeared’.


The death of truth:

Communists learned early that controlling the language ultimately gives you control of everything. Orwell clearly recognised this, designating it New Speak. Here it’s important to realise that PC is essentially a linguistic phenomenon. Starting among tenured staff at American universities, it gradually seeped into the rest of society, undermining it at every turn. As Orwell noted, truth has been turned upside down.

Thus racial equality means racial inequality, whereby quotas, affirmative action and diversity profiling lead to whites losing out solely on the basis of their race. Freedom of speech means that a whole range of words and terms in popular use up to a few decades ago are now impermissible, while the gagging of PC opponents is justified on the basis of incitement to hatred.


The conflict with human nature

After a relatively short time as a Marxist, and especially after I'd visited a few of the worker’s paradises, it became clear to me that Communism would never work, if for no other reason than that it flew in the face of human nature. ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ must be one of the most noble objectives ever pronounced. But it never worked, and never will, because it butted up against human nature.


Just as Communism posited class as the only identifier, PC assumes that race, ethnicity, nationalism and religion can be expunged by way of indoctrination and legislation. The disastrous impact of multi-culturalism in Europe, and the break-up of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia once the Communist dictatorship was removed demonstrate the fallaciousness of this assumption, even in advanced Western societies. Needless to say these drivers are far more pronounced in less developed regions.

Nature will out, unless held down by a dictatorship, be it PC or CP.

Paranoia

Both systems have created an environment where everyone is a potential enemy. Quite obviously PC is nowhere near as draconian as Communism. Well, not yet anyway. Let's take a look at Sweden, which has gone further down the PC drain than anywhere else.

In Sweden people lose their jobs the whole time, and often end up in jail, for ‘hate crimes’. For ‘hate crime’ read ‘anti-proletarian agitation’ or some such under Communism. The key similarity lies in the offence being embodied in what you say or think. I've been in universities in Sweden where people will look over their shoulders to see if they can be overheard heard. One professor told me that his job was literally on the line if he were to be reported for a few non-PC observations he made to me in private. Shades of children informing on their parents under Communism.

These are just some random thoughts on the similarities. Communism caused untold misery and destruction before it was overcome. Although clearly less physical in its methods, PC is still every bit as destructive of what we are. Maybe more so.

Fight it!

.
.

China controls US military capacity

In Napoleon’s famous dictum, ‘an army marches on its stomach’. Maybe, but it keeps marching on its bank balance. Britain would have had to surrender in 1939 had not the US provided the finance for it to continue in the war. A country can fight only to the duration of its economic capabilities.

Poor countries like Russia and Vietnam may have been able to outlast far richer enemies in Germany and the US, but only because their objectives were limited. Namely, making the cost of sustaining the invasion of their lands too high for the invaders. But a foreign war, beloved of the neocons in the US, requires vast financial resources.

The US not only does not have these resources, it's choking in debt. The capacity of the US to wage war is now entirely dependent on the Chinese, and to a lesser extent the Sovereign Funds of the oil-rich Arab states. It’s really shockingly simple.

The Chinese have the ultimate weapon in the trillions of US dollar-denominated reserves they hold. If they were to flood the markets with these, the value of the dollar would collapse. The capacity of the US to then buy oil would be drastically curtailed, and with it the running of its industries, airlines and much of its infrastructure. Add to this the fact that, due to globalization and the avarice of US corporations, there has been a catastrophic reduction in US manufacturing capabilities, especially of the high-tech variety. Most of this is imported at present, but a collapsed dollar would make this prohibitively expensive.

Sure, were China to do this it would cause them considerable damage as well, not least in that their main market would be blitzed, and their reserves would show a corresponding diminution in value. But this brings me to a wise aphorism attributed to Vietnam’s General Giap: ‘victory comes, not to whoever can inflict the most pain, but to whoever can endure the most’.

No US politician presiding over such a rapid and catastrophic collapse in living standards would survive long, irrespective of how much the media would beat the war drums ( as they did with the Iraq adventure). Correspondingly, the Chinese are well used to suffering, have a command economy/society, and haven't that much to lose compared to Americans.

This is not so say that China, still less the Arabs, would take such a measure lightly. However, it would far less painful than a military conflict, especially between nuclear powers. Nonetheless, the fact remains that China has the capacity to strangle American military might. Or just like the US does today, it can quietly exert and ramp up pressure by reducing its uptake of US debt, and/or selling an increasing amount of their dollar-denominated assets.

This is the legace of the Bush regime - the castration of American power. Yet it hardly merits a mention in the MSM..

A rare moment of levity

I seldom laugh. Worn down by my lonely efforts to defend Western Civilization, and worries for the future of my Savantettes in a Turd World Europe, a smile seldom crosses my handsome features. Yesterday was different. Not only did I smile, I laughed. Laughed so suddenly and loudly that Lady Savant (she is of a delicate disposition) started nervously, Baudelaire’s La Fanfarlo (in the orginal French) falling from her fair hands.

The cause of my mirth was a typographical error – a magnificent error – in the Sindo. Now this rag has been waging a campaign for Nigerian asylum tourist Pamela Izevbekhai and her family (see this) to be guests of the nation indefinitely.

Antonia Leslie in her hagiography of this brazen hussy trilled ‘she had a few Sligo kitchens open to her, not only to come and eat with the family, but to cook a meal as well’

But there was a word missing. An important word – ‘with’. Thus the sentence became ‘she had a few Sligo kitchens open to her, not only to come and eat the family, but to cook a meal as well’

How we laughed! So heartily that our forthcoming doom was forgotten for a brief moment. Sadly, the error, if it was an error, was identified in later editions. Still, it was great. Thank you Sindo.

We're not broke after all

Doom and gllom everywhere as our economy heads south. Here’s a selection of headlines from just two of today’s’ newspapers (Times and Examiner)

Irish Times

‘Unemployment soars to 200,000’

‘Our exports of goods (other than Viagra!) have virtually stagnated and our external payments deficit has risen year by year.’

‘Not a red cent available for Navan Hospital’

Irish Examiner

‘Cowan puts spending crackdown on top of agenda’

‘A&E unit remains shut over funding shortfall’

‘Patients will die over HSE cost cutting, warns doctor’

‘Consultants condemn plans to end weekend surgery (due to cost constraints)’

‘Tax shortfalls fuel national deficit’

So a tale of doom and gloom everywhere. The government has no money for anything, not even health or education.

But wait! What’s this I see? Good news after all!

An IT headline blares “Generous Ireland gives record sums in overseas aid”. So we do have money after all. In fact a lot of it. Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern proudly points out that ‘we are now firmly on course to donate waste almost one billion Euros on aid this year, making us one of the biggest fucking idiots largest donors in the world’.

Money down the drain. Correction – worse than money down the drain. Because as long is we keep pouring money down the African black hole (whoops) Africans will never solve their problems. Thoughtful and fair-minded Africans have acknowledged this.

And this figure doesn't include the €300 million we spend waste on the Asylum and Immigration Industries.

Why doesn't the country rise up and hang our leaders from a lampost?