Crawlingtoy
Veteran Member
Exactly. Too little, too late.
RACE When blacks took over the city of Johannesburg, South Africa
- Thread starter MinnesotaSmith
- Start date
Exactly. Too little, too late.
PghPanther
Has No Life - Lives on TB
"It also occurred to me that whenever the Communists take over a country, they wipe out the educated, intelligent and the free thinkers... which describes pretty much our whole family."
Had a church member who was from Cambodia tell me about his history and escape from the country during communist take over................he told that anyone who wore glasses they executed since they assumed those people had some money and/or were well educated......
Commies only want the bottom barrel of a society in a given country and then they take all the resources and gloat in their riches while they have all the centralized control of the lemmings
Had a church member who was from Cambodia tell me about his history and escape from the country during communist take over................he told that anyone who wore glasses they executed since they assumed those people had some money and/or were well educated......
Commies only want the bottom barrel of a society in a given country and then they take all the resources and gloat in their riches while they have all the centralized control of the lemmings
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
There is a saying about that...
Futurists say that "a planet has only one chance at the stars". This is because the high-grade, at/near-surface deposits of minerals, coal, etc., don't get replaced once used up. Should homo sapiens disappear entirely, and social insects or molluscs continue to improve enough to become self-aware 10 million years from now, they'd not have anywhere near as easy a time evolving a technological civilization as we did.
Only a society that is already advanced can consider drilling for oil in deep ocean basins, getting minerals from abyssal ocean floor Manganese nodules, 4-digit-deep-depth hardrock mineral mines, etc., to say nothing of orbiting solar arrays, mining asteroids, fission or fusion reactors generating electricity, etc.
Futurists say that "a planet has only one chance at the stars". This is because the high-grade, at/near-surface deposits of minerals, coal, etc., don't get replaced once used up. Should homo sapiens disappear entirely, and social insects or molluscs continue to improve enough to become self-aware 10 million years from now, they'd not have anywhere near as easy a time evolving a technological civilization as we did.
Only a society that is already advanced can consider drilling for oil in deep ocean basins, getting minerals from abyssal ocean floor Manganese nodules, 4-digit-deep-depth hardrock mineral mines, etc., to say nothing of orbiting solar arrays, mining asteroids, fission or fusion reactors generating electricity, etc.
Last edited:
bw
Fringe Ranger
It's a very engaging hypothesis.
The ruins of every human city would be a treasure trove of already refined metals. The easy oil would probably be gone, of course, unless the next species could figure out a way to easily and cheaply reverse the process of converting plastic and what-not back into oil. I read once that the history of the human race could be presented as an ever-increasing mastery of energy, starting with fire and so far going up to nuclear power. The thing is to get more energy out of less material, something that ethanol in gasoline doesn't do. So using that yardstick it means gasohol technology at best is a step sideways and more likely a step backwards. Who knows, maybe the next species would have more efficient conversion of energy -- I've seen it said that with 100% conversion of energy you could lift Mt. Everest with a single matchstick.
Foothiller
Veteran Member
Minneapolis is next.
There is a lab in Rochester NY which has been working on using lasers to extract energy from seawater. Theybcan do itm but so far can't get the efficiency high enough for practical or commercial use. The (now retired) director told me that IF they can get it to work, apparently they could run anything on a cubic yard of seawater.
Summerthyme
Only addressing one part of your question,"For the life of me I just don't get that...……….who in their right mind thought that a stone age people from Africa freed from slavery and to remain in the US would be good thing for civilization?"It was the same ones then that plague us now,the bleeding heart liberals,you know the ones that know what is best for us.They have NEVER been in their right mind.
homepark
Resist
Oh, well....tic toc, tic toc!
Fenwick Babbitt
Veteran Member
I'm gonna roll with the term "Ghouls" love it and oh so appropriate.
Countrymouse
Country exile in the city
"Blacks are what they are; expecting them to live up to white standards isn't going to change their essential natures. Wherever they amass in large enough numbers, they create a little version of Africa, with the poverty, disease, and danger of that continent. They can't do otherwise.
Read this empathetic but hardline opinion on the matter from a great and gentle man who knew what he was talking about."
"I have given my life to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There is something that all White men who have lived here like I have must learn and know: that these individuals are a sub-race. They have neither the mental or emotional abilities to equate or share equally with White men in any functions of our civilization. I have given my life to try to bring unto them the advantages which our civilization must offer, but I have become well aware that we must retain this status: White the superior, and they the inferior. For whenever a White man seeks to live among them as their equals, they will destroy and devour him, and they will destroy all his work. And so for any existing relationship or any benefit to this people, let White men, from anywhere in the world, who would come to help Africa, remember that you must maintain this status: you the master and they the inferior, like children whom you would help or teach. Never fraternize with them as equals. Never accept them as your social equals or they will devour you. They will destroy you."
--Dr. Albert Schweitzer, winner of the Nobel Prize for humanitarian work in Africa
Looked this up.
Of course, Snopes and a number of other sites are claiming he never said that---but I finally DID find what book it's supposed to have come from---Schweitzer's "From My African Notebook."
Off to find if there is a copy of that still extant--and to buy it if so---
while we STILL CAN (and before all books are made digital and they can just 'excise' whatever offends the current PC crowd)
bw
Fringe Ranger
Kangs works too.
BenIan
Veteran Member
This thread lit my curiosity so I decided to go on Google maps street view to explore Johannesburg a bit. I started in the downtown area and it appears just as described…high rises with broken windows, run down store fronts crammed into the bottom floors of what appear to be former high end office buildings, thousands of people out in the streets. It reminded me of a street scene you might see in Blade Runner or Elysium…dirty, garbage everywhere, and buildings seriously lacking upkeep.
I then decided to consult the racial dot map because I wanted to check out a predominately Black neighborhood, a predominately Indian neighborhood, and a predominately white neighborhood. The differences were astounding…not surprising mind you, just eye opening to actually see. For the Black neighborhood, I chose Soweto. First off, there is a large section of this neighborhood that is not on street view, I’m guessing no one would drive into it. The parts that are visible look poor but not necessarily third worldish. The houses are close together, all have walls/gates and most look in need of repair. The first thing I noticed was lack of grass, but in the places where there was grass it was overgrown. There was the occasional boarded up building or abandoned property. Other than the walls/gates, it resembled an inner city neighborhood in the South of the U.S.
Next, I “explored” the Lenasia neighborhood which is predominately Indian. There I saw modest houses with walls and gates but what stood out right away was that the yards were well manicured. You can actually see people out watering their plants and tending to their landscaping. The streets are cleaner and clear of trash and there are far fewer people visible on the street. Also, there are walls and gates and the occasional house with bars on the windows but other than that, the security of the homes looks “normal”…like what you might see in a suburban U.S. neighborhood.
I then took a little virtual trip to a predominately white neighborhood. I chose Faerie Glen area of Pretoria. The difference was eye opening. Nice houses with walls but every single house is fortified…the stone or brick walls are topped with spikes with layers of electric fencing all around, security cameras are visible, security lighting…every single window and doorway has sturdy bars and locks, there are heavy duty garage doors, no cars parked on the street, almost no one walking on the street. The contrast between all these neighborhoods is startling. I’ve traveled to a wide variety of places in the U.S. and there is no neighborhood that I’ve seen in this country resembling this.
It was an interesting “journey” FWIW.
I then decided to consult the racial dot map because I wanted to check out a predominately Black neighborhood, a predominately Indian neighborhood, and a predominately white neighborhood. The differences were astounding…not surprising mind you, just eye opening to actually see. For the Black neighborhood, I chose Soweto. First off, there is a large section of this neighborhood that is not on street view, I’m guessing no one would drive into it. The parts that are visible look poor but not necessarily third worldish. The houses are close together, all have walls/gates and most look in need of repair. The first thing I noticed was lack of grass, but in the places where there was grass it was overgrown. There was the occasional boarded up building or abandoned property. Other than the walls/gates, it resembled an inner city neighborhood in the South of the U.S.
Next, I “explored” the Lenasia neighborhood which is predominately Indian. There I saw modest houses with walls and gates but what stood out right away was that the yards were well manicured. You can actually see people out watering their plants and tending to their landscaping. The streets are cleaner and clear of trash and there are far fewer people visible on the street. Also, there are walls and gates and the occasional house with bars on the windows but other than that, the security of the homes looks “normal”…like what you might see in a suburban U.S. neighborhood.
I then took a little virtual trip to a predominately white neighborhood. I chose Faerie Glen area of Pretoria. The difference was eye opening. Nice houses with walls but every single house is fortified…the stone or brick walls are topped with spikes with layers of electric fencing all around, security cameras are visible, security lighting…every single window and doorway has sturdy bars and locks, there are heavy duty garage doors, no cars parked on the street, almost no one walking on the street. The contrast between all these neighborhoods is startling. I’ve traveled to a wide variety of places in the U.S. and there is no neighborhood that I’ve seen in this country resembling this.
It was an interesting “journey” FWIW.
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
You should see what feminist churchians are doing to the Bible in new "translations". Over 1000 changes from what is universally recognized as linguistically-accurate renderings is common.
Countrymouse
Country exile in the city
Oh, I know, Minnesota. I was raised Methodist, and still remember the near-revolt (WISH it had been a COMPLETE revolt) over the "women's" conference sponsored by the United Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches some years ago at which "Sophia" was worshiped, and a "communion" of milk and honey ("to represent female body fluids") was served, and at which were: "provocative statements by conference speakers. Among them were the following:
"We did not last night name the name of Jesus," said the Rev. Barbara K. Lundblad, the pastor of Our Savior's Atonement Lutheran Church in New York City. "Nor have we done anything in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," she continued, stirring laughter and cheers, according to the excerpts.
"I don't think we need a theory of atonement at all," said the Rev. Delores S. Williams, who teaches at Union Theological Seminary in New York. "I don't think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff."
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/14/us/cries-of-heresy-after-feminists-meet.html
kytom
escapee from reality
here is a good listen. its a professor on youtube who explains the african speech and their mind. no word for future in zulu. everything not exact. this explains a lot about their behavior. 52 minutes long/short.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoNhacojmM&t=1528s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoNhacojmM&t=1528s
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Previously posted, but apt as ever...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/924795/posts
Let Africa Sink
by Kim du Toit May 26, 2002
"When it comes to any analysis of the problems facing Africa, Western society, and particularly people from the United States, encounter a logical disconnect that makes clear analysis impossible. That disconnect is the way life is regarded in the West (it's precious, must be protected at all costs etc.), compared to the way life, and death, are regarded in Africa. Let me try to quantify this statement.
In Africa, life is cheap. There are so many ways to die in Africa that death is far more commonplace than in the West. You can die from so many things--snakebite, insect bite, wild animal attack, disease, starvation, food poisoning... the list goes on and on. At one time, crocodiles accounted for more deaths in sub-Saharan Africa than gunfire, for example. Now add the usual human tragedy (murder, assault, warfare and the rest), and you can begin to understand why the life expectancy for an African is low--in fact, horrifyingly low, if you remove White Africans from the statistics (they tend to be more urbanized, and more Western in behavior and outlook). Finally, if you add the horrifying spread of AIDS into the equation, anyone born in sub-Saharan Africa this century will be lucky to reach age forty.
I lived in Africa for over thirty years. Growing up there, I was infused with several African traits--traits which are not common in Western civilization. The almost-casual attitude towards death was one. (Another is a morbid fear of snakes.)
So because of my African background, I am seldom moved at the sight of death, unless it's accidental, or it affects someone close to me. (Death which strikes at strangers, of course, is mostly ignored.) Of my circle of about eighteen or so friends with whom I grew up, and whom I would consider "close", only about ten survive today--and not one of the survivors is over the age of fifty.
Two friends died from stepping on landmines while on Army duty in Namibia. Three died in horrific car accidents (and lest one thinks that this is not confined to Africa, one was caused by a kudu flying through a windshield and impaling the guy through the chest with its hoof--not your everyday traffic accident in, say, Florida). One was bitten by a snake, and died from heart failure. Another also died of heart failure, but he was a hopeless drunkard. Two were shot by muggers. The last went out on his surfboard one day and was never seen again (did I mention that sharks are plentiful off the African coasts and in the major rivers?). My situation is not uncommon in South Africa--and north of the Limpopo River (the border with Zimbabwe), I suspect that others would show worse statistics.
The death toll wasn't just confined to my friends. When I was still living in Johannesburg, the newspaper carried daily stories of people mauled by lions, or attacked by rival tribesmen, or dying from some unspeakable disease (and this was pre-AIDS Africa too) and in general, succumbing to some of Africa's many answers to the population explosion. Add to that the normal death toll from rampant crime, illness, poverty, flood, famine, traffic, and the police, and you'll begin to get the idea.
My favorite African story actually happened after I left the country. An American executive took a job over there, and on his very first day, the newspaper headlines read: "Three Headless Bodies Found".
The next day: "Three Heads Found".
The third day: "Heads Don't Match Bodies".
You can't make this stuff up.
As a result, death is treated more casually by Africans than by Westerners. I, and I suspect most Africans, am completely inured to reports of African suffering, for whatever cause. Drought causes crops to fail, thousands face starvation? Yup, that happened many times while I was growing up. Inter-tribal rivalry and warfare causes wholesale slaughter? Yep, been happening there for millennia, long before Whitey got there. Governments becoming rich and corrupt while their populations starved? Not more than nine or ten of those. In my lifetime, the following tragedies have occurred, causing untold millions of deaths: famine in Biafra, genocide in Rwanda, civil war in Angola, floods in South Africa, famine in Somalia, civil war in Sudan, famine in Ethiopia, floods in Mozambique, wholesale slaughter in Uganda, and tribal warfare in every single country. There are others, but you get the point.
Yes, all this was also true in Europe--maybe a thousand years ago. But not any more. And Europe doesn't teem with crocodiles, ultra-venomous snakes and so on.
The Dutch controlled the floods. All of Europe controls famine--it's non-existent now. Apart from a couple of examples of massive, state-sponsored slaughter (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia), Europe since 1700 doesn't even begin to compare to Africa today. Casual slaughter is another thing altogether--rare in Europe, common in Africa.
More to the point, the West has evolved into a society with a stable system of government, which follows the rule of law, and has respect for the rights and life of the individual--none of which is true in Africa.
Among old Africa hands, we have a saying, usually accompanied by a shrug: "Africa wins again." This is usually said after an incident such as:
a beloved missionary is butchered by his congregation, for no apparent reason
a tribal chief prefers to let his tribe starve to death rather than accepting food from the Red Cross (would mean he wasn't all-powerful, you see)
an entire nation starves to death, while its ruler accumulates wealth in foreign banks
a new government comes into power, promising democracy, free elections etc., provided that the freedom doesn't extend to the other tribe
the other tribe comes to power in a bloody coup, then promptly sets about slaughtering the first tribe
etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
The prognosis is bleak, because none of this mayhem shows any sign of ending. The conclusions are equally bleak, because, quite frankly, there is no answer to Africa's problems, no solution that hasn't been tried before, and failed.
Just go to the CIA World Fact Book, pick any of the African countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi etc.), and compare the statistics to any Western country (eg. Portugal, Italy, Spain, Ireland). The disparities are appalling--and it's going to get worse, not better. It has certainly got worse since 1960, when most African countries achieved independence. We, and by this I mean the West, have tried many ways to help Africa. All such attempts have failed.
1. Charity is no answer. Money simply gets appropriated by the first, or second, or third person to touch it (17 countries saw a decline in real per capita GNP between 1970 and 1999, despite receiving well over $100 billion in World Bank assistance).
2. Food isn't distributed. This happens either because there is no transportation infrastructure (bad), or the local leader deliberately withholds the supplies to starve people into submission (worse).
3. Materiel is broken, stolen or sold off for a fraction of its worth. The result of decades of "foreign aid" has resulted in a continental infrastructure which, if one excludes South Africa, couldn't support Pittsburgh.
Add to this, as I mentioned above, the endless cycle of Nature's little bag of tricks--persistent drought followed by violent flooding, a plethora of animals, reptiles and insects so dangerous that life is already cheap before Man starts playing his little reindeer games with his fellow Man--and what you are left with is: catastrophe.
The inescapable conclusion is simply one of resignation. This goes against the grain of our humanity--we are accustomed to ridding the world of this or that problem (smallpox, polio, whatever), and accepting failure is anathema to us. But, to give a classic African scenario, a polio vaccine won't work if the kids are prevented from getting the vaccine by a venal overlord, or a frightened chieftain, or a lack of roads, or by criminals who steal the vaccine and sell it to someone else. If a cure for AIDS was found tomorrow, and offered to every African nation free of charge, the growth of the disease would scarcely be checked, let alone reversed. Basically, you'd have to try to inoculate as many two-year old children as possible, and write off the two older generations.
So that is the only one response, and it's a brutal one: accept that we are powerless to change Africa, and leave them to sink or swim, by themselves.
It sounds dreadful to say it, but if the entire African continent dissolves into a seething maelstrom of disease, famine and brutality, that's just too damn bad. We have better things to do--sometimes, you just have to say, "Can't do anything about it."
The viciousness, the cruelty, the corruption, the duplicity, the savagery, and the incompetence is endemic to the entire continent, and is so much of an anathema to any right-thinking person that the civilized imagination simply stalls when faced with its ubiquity, and with the enormity of trying to fix it. The Western media shouldn't even bother reporting on it. All that does is arouse our feelings of horror, and the instinctive need to do something, anything--but everything has been tried before, and failed. Everything, of course, except self-reliance.
All we should do is make sure that none of Africa gets transplanted over to the U.S., because the danger to our society is dire if it does. I note that several U.S. churches are attempting to bring groups of African refugees over to the United States, European churches the same for Europe. Mistake. Mark my words, this misplaced charity will turn around and bite us, big time.
Even worse would be to think that the simplicity of Africa holds some kind of answers for Western society: remember "It Takes A Village"? Trust me on this: there is not one thing that Africa can give the West which hasn't been tried before and failed, not one thing that isn't a step backwards, and not one thing which is worse than, or that contradicts, what we have already.
So here's my solution for the African fiasco: a high wall around the whole continent, all the guns and bombs in the world for everyone inside, and at the end, the last one alive should do us all a favor and kill himself.
Inevitably, some Kissingerian realpolitiker is going to argue in favor of intervention, because in the vacuum of Western aid, perhaps the Communist Chinese would step in and increase their influence in the area. There are two reasons why this isn't going to happen.
Firstly, the PRC doesn't have that kind of money to throw around; and secondly, the result of any communist assistance will be precisely the same as if it were Western assistance. For the record, Mozambique and Angola are both communist countries--and both are economic disaster areas. The prognosis for both countries is disastrous--and would be the same for any other African country.
Africa has to heal itself. The West can't help it. Nor should we. The record speaks for itself."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/924795/posts
Let Africa Sink
by Kim du Toit May 26, 2002
"When it comes to any analysis of the problems facing Africa, Western society, and particularly people from the United States, encounter a logical disconnect that makes clear analysis impossible. That disconnect is the way life is regarded in the West (it's precious, must be protected at all costs etc.), compared to the way life, and death, are regarded in Africa. Let me try to quantify this statement.
In Africa, life is cheap. There are so many ways to die in Africa that death is far more commonplace than in the West. You can die from so many things--snakebite, insect bite, wild animal attack, disease, starvation, food poisoning... the list goes on and on. At one time, crocodiles accounted for more deaths in sub-Saharan Africa than gunfire, for example. Now add the usual human tragedy (murder, assault, warfare and the rest), and you can begin to understand why the life expectancy for an African is low--in fact, horrifyingly low, if you remove White Africans from the statistics (they tend to be more urbanized, and more Western in behavior and outlook). Finally, if you add the horrifying spread of AIDS into the equation, anyone born in sub-Saharan Africa this century will be lucky to reach age forty.
I lived in Africa for over thirty years. Growing up there, I was infused with several African traits--traits which are not common in Western civilization. The almost-casual attitude towards death was one. (Another is a morbid fear of snakes.)
So because of my African background, I am seldom moved at the sight of death, unless it's accidental, or it affects someone close to me. (Death which strikes at strangers, of course, is mostly ignored.) Of my circle of about eighteen or so friends with whom I grew up, and whom I would consider "close", only about ten survive today--and not one of the survivors is over the age of fifty.
Two friends died from stepping on landmines while on Army duty in Namibia. Three died in horrific car accidents (and lest one thinks that this is not confined to Africa, one was caused by a kudu flying through a windshield and impaling the guy through the chest with its hoof--not your everyday traffic accident in, say, Florida). One was bitten by a snake, and died from heart failure. Another also died of heart failure, but he was a hopeless drunkard. Two were shot by muggers. The last went out on his surfboard one day and was never seen again (did I mention that sharks are plentiful off the African coasts and in the major rivers?). My situation is not uncommon in South Africa--and north of the Limpopo River (the border with Zimbabwe), I suspect that others would show worse statistics.
The death toll wasn't just confined to my friends. When I was still living in Johannesburg, the newspaper carried daily stories of people mauled by lions, or attacked by rival tribesmen, or dying from some unspeakable disease (and this was pre-AIDS Africa too) and in general, succumbing to some of Africa's many answers to the population explosion. Add to that the normal death toll from rampant crime, illness, poverty, flood, famine, traffic, and the police, and you'll begin to get the idea.
My favorite African story actually happened after I left the country. An American executive took a job over there, and on his very first day, the newspaper headlines read: "Three Headless Bodies Found".
The next day: "Three Heads Found".
The third day: "Heads Don't Match Bodies".
You can't make this stuff up.
As a result, death is treated more casually by Africans than by Westerners. I, and I suspect most Africans, am completely inured to reports of African suffering, for whatever cause. Drought causes crops to fail, thousands face starvation? Yup, that happened many times while I was growing up. Inter-tribal rivalry and warfare causes wholesale slaughter? Yep, been happening there for millennia, long before Whitey got there. Governments becoming rich and corrupt while their populations starved? Not more than nine or ten of those. In my lifetime, the following tragedies have occurred, causing untold millions of deaths: famine in Biafra, genocide in Rwanda, civil war in Angola, floods in South Africa, famine in Somalia, civil war in Sudan, famine in Ethiopia, floods in Mozambique, wholesale slaughter in Uganda, and tribal warfare in every single country. There are others, but you get the point.
Yes, all this was also true in Europe--maybe a thousand years ago. But not any more. And Europe doesn't teem with crocodiles, ultra-venomous snakes and so on.
The Dutch controlled the floods. All of Europe controls famine--it's non-existent now. Apart from a couple of examples of massive, state-sponsored slaughter (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia), Europe since 1700 doesn't even begin to compare to Africa today. Casual slaughter is another thing altogether--rare in Europe, common in Africa.
More to the point, the West has evolved into a society with a stable system of government, which follows the rule of law, and has respect for the rights and life of the individual--none of which is true in Africa.
Among old Africa hands, we have a saying, usually accompanied by a shrug: "Africa wins again." This is usually said after an incident such as:
a beloved missionary is butchered by his congregation, for no apparent reason
a tribal chief prefers to let his tribe starve to death rather than accepting food from the Red Cross (would mean he wasn't all-powerful, you see)
an entire nation starves to death, while its ruler accumulates wealth in foreign banks
a new government comes into power, promising democracy, free elections etc., provided that the freedom doesn't extend to the other tribe
the other tribe comes to power in a bloody coup, then promptly sets about slaughtering the first tribe
etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
The prognosis is bleak, because none of this mayhem shows any sign of ending. The conclusions are equally bleak, because, quite frankly, there is no answer to Africa's problems, no solution that hasn't been tried before, and failed.
Just go to the CIA World Fact Book, pick any of the African countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi etc.), and compare the statistics to any Western country (eg. Portugal, Italy, Spain, Ireland). The disparities are appalling--and it's going to get worse, not better. It has certainly got worse since 1960, when most African countries achieved independence. We, and by this I mean the West, have tried many ways to help Africa. All such attempts have failed.
1. Charity is no answer. Money simply gets appropriated by the first, or second, or third person to touch it (17 countries saw a decline in real per capita GNP between 1970 and 1999, despite receiving well over $100 billion in World Bank assistance).
2. Food isn't distributed. This happens either because there is no transportation infrastructure (bad), or the local leader deliberately withholds the supplies to starve people into submission (worse).
3. Materiel is broken, stolen or sold off for a fraction of its worth. The result of decades of "foreign aid" has resulted in a continental infrastructure which, if one excludes South Africa, couldn't support Pittsburgh.
Add to this, as I mentioned above, the endless cycle of Nature's little bag of tricks--persistent drought followed by violent flooding, a plethora of animals, reptiles and insects so dangerous that life is already cheap before Man starts playing his little reindeer games with his fellow Man--and what you are left with is: catastrophe.
The inescapable conclusion is simply one of resignation. This goes against the grain of our humanity--we are accustomed to ridding the world of this or that problem (smallpox, polio, whatever), and accepting failure is anathema to us. But, to give a classic African scenario, a polio vaccine won't work if the kids are prevented from getting the vaccine by a venal overlord, or a frightened chieftain, or a lack of roads, or by criminals who steal the vaccine and sell it to someone else. If a cure for AIDS was found tomorrow, and offered to every African nation free of charge, the growth of the disease would scarcely be checked, let alone reversed. Basically, you'd have to try to inoculate as many two-year old children as possible, and write off the two older generations.
So that is the only one response, and it's a brutal one: accept that we are powerless to change Africa, and leave them to sink or swim, by themselves.
It sounds dreadful to say it, but if the entire African continent dissolves into a seething maelstrom of disease, famine and brutality, that's just too damn bad. We have better things to do--sometimes, you just have to say, "Can't do anything about it."
The viciousness, the cruelty, the corruption, the duplicity, the savagery, and the incompetence is endemic to the entire continent, and is so much of an anathema to any right-thinking person that the civilized imagination simply stalls when faced with its ubiquity, and with the enormity of trying to fix it. The Western media shouldn't even bother reporting on it. All that does is arouse our feelings of horror, and the instinctive need to do something, anything--but everything has been tried before, and failed. Everything, of course, except self-reliance.
All we should do is make sure that none of Africa gets transplanted over to the U.S., because the danger to our society is dire if it does. I note that several U.S. churches are attempting to bring groups of African refugees over to the United States, European churches the same for Europe. Mistake. Mark my words, this misplaced charity will turn around and bite us, big time.
Even worse would be to think that the simplicity of Africa holds some kind of answers for Western society: remember "It Takes A Village"? Trust me on this: there is not one thing that Africa can give the West which hasn't been tried before and failed, not one thing that isn't a step backwards, and not one thing which is worse than, or that contradicts, what we have already.
So here's my solution for the African fiasco: a high wall around the whole continent, all the guns and bombs in the world for everyone inside, and at the end, the last one alive should do us all a favor and kill himself.
Inevitably, some Kissingerian realpolitiker is going to argue in favor of intervention, because in the vacuum of Western aid, perhaps the Communist Chinese would step in and increase their influence in the area. There are two reasons why this isn't going to happen.
Firstly, the PRC doesn't have that kind of money to throw around; and secondly, the result of any communist assistance will be precisely the same as if it were Western assistance. For the record, Mozambique and Angola are both communist countries--and both are economic disaster areas. The prognosis for both countries is disastrous--and would be the same for any other African country.
Africa has to heal itself. The West can't help it. Nor should we. The record speaks for itself."
hiwall
Has No Life - Lives on TB
This part (speculation) did not really come true.
China's only foreign base is in Africa and then there is this...........................
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-03/doug-casey-chinas-exploitation-africa
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
It's not as if they were wrong...
"The Chinese basically see Africans as no more than a cheap labor source. That’s at best. Other than that, they’re viewed as a complete nuisance. Basically an obstacle, a cost, standing in the way of efficient use of the continent itself."
"The Chinese basically see Africans as no more than a cheap labor source. That’s at best. Other than that, they’re viewed as a complete nuisance. Basically an obstacle, a cost, standing in the way of efficient use of the continent itself."
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Necessary, but not sufficient, Doz...
We need to return to sender the part we have here, too.
We need to return to sender the part we have here, too.
northern watch
TB Fanatic
Doug Casey On China's Exploitation Of Africa
by Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
Monday, 09/03/2018 - 18:30
Via CaseyResearch.com,
A lot of folks are asking themselves this question, and for good reason.
You see, China’s pulling resources out of the ground in Africa at an alarming rate. Not only that, Chinese people are pouring into the continent by the boatload.
That said, it’s not all “bad news.” China’s also started construction companies across Africa, created jobs, and built schools and hospitals.
In short, the question I posed above is trickier than it may seem. So I got Doug Casey to tell me what he thinks.
Keep in mind, this interview is controversial. Please don’t read ahead if you’re easily offended.
Justin: Is China exploiting Africa?
Doug: Of course “exploit” is a loaded word; it implies one-sided, unbalanced dealings, and unfair business—although the word “fair” also has lots of baggage, and politically charged meanings.
But, yes, they’re definitely exploiting Africa. We’re seeing a veritable re-colonization of Africa. Every time I visit Africa I see more and more Chinese. It doesn’t matter which country; they’re everywhere.
It’s important to remember that Africa doesn’t produce anything besides raw materials. There’s close to zero manufacturing, like 1% of the world’s total, in sub-Saharan Africa. And almost all of that is in South Africa. The little there is, is only produced with the help foreigners—Europeans, but increasingly the Chinese.
The Chinese basically see Africans as no more than a cheap labor source. That’s at best. Other than that, they’re viewed as a complete nuisance. Basically an obstacle, a cost, standing in the way of efficient use of the continent itself.
What do the Chinese people think of Africans? They don’t hold them in high regard. Of course, you’ve got to remember that China has viewed itself as the center of the world since Day One. They see all non-Han peoples as barbarians, as inferiors. That was absolutely true when the British sent an ambassador, Macartney, to open relations at the very end of the 18th C. He was treated with borderline contempt—pretty much the way Europeans and Americans have treated primitive peoples since the days of Columbus. It’s actually the normal human attitude, when an advanced culture encounters a backward culture. The Chinese see their culture as superior to even that of the West, and believe—probably correctly—that they’ll soon be economically and technologically superior as well.
Africa doesn’t even enter the equation. The continent has no civilization, no economy, no technology, no military power. The famed Zimbabwe ruins are just some semi-finished rocks piled on one another—and they’re considered iconic. The Chinese see the place the way the Spanish saw Mexico and Peru in the 16th C. Of course they won’t say that in public. In fact it’s very non-PC for anyone to make that observation…
Nonetheless, Africa is going to be the epicenter of what’s happening in the world for years to come. It’s gone from being just an empty space on the map in the 19th C, to a bunch of backwater colonies in the 20th C, to a bunch of failed states that people are only vaguely aware of today. Soon, however, it will be frontpage news. And this is both because Chinese are moving to Africa in record numbers and Africans are leaving as fast as they can.
Many Africans are now trying to make their way to Europe. Every year scores of thousands of them—all young men by the way—cross the Mediterranean on rafts. When they arrive in Europe, they somehow survive by selling bobbles on the street, dealing dope, or stealing. And figuring out how to game the welfare system. Now, I realize this doesn’t sound very promising. But that’s the way things are headed. It’s a growing trend.
Justin: In previous conversations, you’ve mentioned how Africa will be responsible for most of the population growth going forward. Will this happen because so many Chinese are pouring into Africa?
Doug: Well, it’s hard to be certain what’s actually on Mr. Xi’s mind, but I read something a few years ago about how China wanted to move 200 or 300 million of its citizens to Africa. Most people aren’t aware of this. It hasn’t been widely promoted, but this is another trend.
Rich Chinese are smart to diversify to developed Western countries. Poor Chinese go to backward countries, to try to become wealthy. Africa is the prime recipient.
One reason is because China is lending scores of billions to backward countries, mostly for infrastructure development. But the roads, ports, railroads, and what-have-you are built almost exclusively by Chinese companies with Chinese labor, who stay there. The infrastructure is there to enable the export of raw materials, mainly back to China. But the debt has to be repaid. It’s a great deal for China.
It will be interesting to see what happens when a couple hundred million Chinese are living with a radically expanding native African population.
Few people realize this. I ask knowledgeable people what they think the biggest cities in the world will be at the turn of the next century. And they all guess cities in China or India.
But that’s not true. Eighty years from now, Lagos, Nigeria will be the largest city in the world. It’s on track to have a population of more than 90 million. The world’s second biggest city will be Kinshasa in the Congo with about 80 million people. Dar es Salaam of Tanzania will be the world’s third biggest city with a population of roughly 75 million people.
Lagos is no surprise. The city already has some 20 million people. But I was shocked when I heard about Kinshasa and Dar es Salaam, having been to both places.
When I was in Dar in 1982, it was just a big town with maybe one million people. But it was stuck in the past. I mean in the harbor there were tramp steamers dating from the ’40s. It was like stepping back into a time warp. But, even though Tanzania was a police state back then, Dar was both peaceful and exotic. Now it’s sprawling, filthy, unpleasant, and chaotic. I can’t imagine what it will be like if the population projections are correct.
My point is that these are backward places. They don’t produce anything, especially the Congo and Tanzania. I don’t have a clue how people will even survive.
I don’t see how these cities will support tens of millions of people. Where is the food going to come from? What about everything else that people need to survive?
Nobody—including the Chinese—are going to build the infrastructure that will be needed. It’s not going to be there because nobody is investing in Africa except the Chinese. In fact you can’t really “invest” in these places, because there’s no rule of law.
Justin: And what happens if these economies can’t support all these people?
Doug: I honestly think Africa could implode. I mean where is the economic growth going to come from that will be needed to support all these people? It’s turning into the world of Soylent Green in the cities. And in the boondocks, people just sit around on their haunches and beat on earth. Or at least the women do. Men just sit around and palaver all day.
Africans don’t have the Protestant work ethic of Europeans. They don’t have the Confucian work ethic of China.
The average African can’t even save money, for starters. Every one of the currencies in Africa is essentially worthless. Even if you have money to save, where are you going to park it? Africa’s banking system is almost nonexistent. The banks are unstable, and the governments are basically kleptocracies.
Where will Africa get the capital necessary to support economic growth?
Of course, pockets of Africa will experience explosive growth in the coming years. But there’s not a prayer there’s ever going to be a place like the mythical nation of Wakanda in the movie Black Panther. For a lot of reasons. For one, Africans haven’t learned anything from the past.
Just look at what Zimbabwe recently went through. It forcibly evicted 250,000 Europeans, and stole almost all their property. There are only about 5,000 Europeans left there now. I was last there a couple of years ago. The place now produces nothing but people and political agitation. It used to be the breadbasket of Africa. Now it’s going back to bush.
You’d think South Africans would say, “Geez, that country’s economy was totally destroyed by politics and envy. That wasn’t a good idea; we ought to act more intelligently.”
But they’re doing the opposite. They’ve announced a plan to confiscate, without compensation, all the white-owned land. They started with two game farms a few weeks ago. Everything will be distributed to cronies of the President and his ministers. Then, having evicted the two white tribes—the Afrikaners and the British—the remaining nine black tribes will start fighting over everything.
Why is this? Is it because South African blacks are that stupid? I thought about it, and the answer is “no.” They actually view what happened in Zimbabwe as a success.
Justin: Why do you think that is?
Doug: The blacks went from owning, say, 10% of the country’s wealth to now owning, say, 99%. That looked pretty good. The fact the absolute amount of wealth fell by perhaps 75% is irrelevant to them.
It’s a different way of looking at things. No black in South Africa thinks Zimbabwe made a mistake. They consider getting rid of the white people a triumph.
This is obviously racist. But Africa is probably the most racist place on the planet. Most people in Europe and the US either don’t know this or, if they do, they’d never admit it.
Frankly, it amazes me that so many Americans have programmed themselves to feel “white guilt.” Anyone who’s traveled knows that Europe and the US are the least racist societies on the planet.
But all the races are “racist,” to be candid. It’s genetically programmed into humans to fear alien groups. It’s a result of the competition for scarce resources, over millions of years of evolution. Racism may be unsavory, but it’s entirely natural. The only solution is to view people as individuals, first and foremost. Looking for political solutions against racism only makes things worse, not better.
Justin: How could what’s happening in South Africa impact the rest of Africa?
Doug: Well, South Africa has always been the workshop of the continent. Basically, anything industrial that’s ever happened in Africa has come out of South Africa.
But the future looks grim. There are only four million whites left in South Africa. And the smart ones are going to make the chicken run and get out. It’s “unfair,” of course, because the Afrikaners were there only slightly after the Bantus, who came down from the north as the Europeans arrived by boat. The big losers are actually the original inhabitants, the Hottentots (now called the Khoisan).
When the Europeans do leave, they’ll take their education, work ethic, and culture with them. After the two white tribes leave, the nine major black tribes will fight over the spoils. The best case possibility is that South Africa—or Azania, as some politicized blacks like to call it—will break up into several new entities.
They’re already confiscating white farms in South Africa. And what will happen with those farms? They’ll be destroyed and go back to the bush just like they did in Zimbabwe. Modern farming is a very high-tech, management-intensive business.
So, I’m very pessimistic about the future in Africa.
Justin: The Chinese obviously have a lot of skin in the game in Africa. Don’t they have an incentive to erect infrastructure that will support their interests? Or should the African people be making these investments?
Doug: The investment should come from Africans. But that’s unlikely for reasons I’ve already mentioned.
It’s funny. Last month, Robert Friedland gave a speech at the Sprott Natural Resource Symposium in Vancouver. He was talking about his projects in Africa. He spoke of how wonderful their mineral deposits are. And he’s quite correct.
Africa has some of the best mineral deposits in the world in terms of both size and grade quality.
But he mentioned where his investments are located—South Africa and Congo—only once during his entire one-hour speech. And that was quickly and sotto voce, because everyone knows that these governments really only know how to do one thing: steal. In Congo it’s likely to be more overt. In South Africa, they’re passing a law which mandates blacks must own 30% of the mining company’s shares, plus get a 1% royalty, plus be in the majority of management. And a lot more. I may be slightly off in the numbers, working from memory—but it’s going to destroy mining. These people are actually insane.
On the kind of bright side, since the Chinese have significant investments in Africa, they’re not going to let the African governments confiscate their assets and run them into the ground.
If bribing political leaders proves ineffective, it’s possible that they’ll put soldiers’ boots on the ground. They could send in the Red Army to defend their assets. Or send in assassins to take out individual African politicians.
Justin: What are the chances of that happening?
Doug: There’s a good chance that happens.
The people who run these African governments are not going to change their stripes or their culture.
The methodology in Africa has been the same for years. Get into the government. Steal as much as you can. Then go to Europe to live like a billionaire.
These are tribal societies. When one tribe takes over the government, all the other tribes look for ways to overthrow that tribe. If they succeed, they get their chance to loot the cornucopia.
Justin: It’s clear that you’re pessimistic on Africa. But you’ve also said the young people should move to Africa if they want to make a bunch of money.
Do you still think that’s a good idea?
Doug: Absolutely. I know what I’ve been saying may sound contradictory.
After all, if Africa is likely to go into economic, political, and sociological collapse in the decades to come, how can there be opportunity?
There’s plenty of opportunity, however, because the playing field is very uneven in Africa. And that’s exactly what you want.
You don’t want a level playing field; you want one tilted in your direction. If a young American or European stays in their own country, he’s just like 100 million other people. He’s got no marginal advantage.
If you go to Africa, it’s a different story. You’ve got a ton of marginal advantages. You are likely the only person that has a certain background, set of skills, education, capital, and connections. You’re automatically very unusual. That makes it much easier to make things happen.
You can be sitting down with the president, or the richest guys in the country, in a couple weeks after you arrive on the scene.
I think that it’s an excellent place to go for an individual from Europe or America that wants to get wealthy. And have an exotic adventure as a bonus.
Justin: Thanks for taking the time to speak with me today, Doug.
Doug: No problem.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-03/doug-casey-chinas-exploitation-africa
by Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
Monday, 09/03/2018 - 18:30
Via CaseyResearch.com,
A lot of folks are asking themselves this question, and for good reason.
You see, China’s pulling resources out of the ground in Africa at an alarming rate. Not only that, Chinese people are pouring into the continent by the boatload.
That said, it’s not all “bad news.” China’s also started construction companies across Africa, created jobs, and built schools and hospitals.
In short, the question I posed above is trickier than it may seem. So I got Doug Casey to tell me what he thinks.
Keep in mind, this interview is controversial. Please don’t read ahead if you’re easily offended.
Justin: Is China exploiting Africa?
Doug: Of course “exploit” is a loaded word; it implies one-sided, unbalanced dealings, and unfair business—although the word “fair” also has lots of baggage, and politically charged meanings.
But, yes, they’re definitely exploiting Africa. We’re seeing a veritable re-colonization of Africa. Every time I visit Africa I see more and more Chinese. It doesn’t matter which country; they’re everywhere.
It’s important to remember that Africa doesn’t produce anything besides raw materials. There’s close to zero manufacturing, like 1% of the world’s total, in sub-Saharan Africa. And almost all of that is in South Africa. The little there is, is only produced with the help foreigners—Europeans, but increasingly the Chinese.
The Chinese basically see Africans as no more than a cheap labor source. That’s at best. Other than that, they’re viewed as a complete nuisance. Basically an obstacle, a cost, standing in the way of efficient use of the continent itself.
What do the Chinese people think of Africans? They don’t hold them in high regard. Of course, you’ve got to remember that China has viewed itself as the center of the world since Day One. They see all non-Han peoples as barbarians, as inferiors. That was absolutely true when the British sent an ambassador, Macartney, to open relations at the very end of the 18th C. He was treated with borderline contempt—pretty much the way Europeans and Americans have treated primitive peoples since the days of Columbus. It’s actually the normal human attitude, when an advanced culture encounters a backward culture. The Chinese see their culture as superior to even that of the West, and believe—probably correctly—that they’ll soon be economically and technologically superior as well.
Africa doesn’t even enter the equation. The continent has no civilization, no economy, no technology, no military power. The famed Zimbabwe ruins are just some semi-finished rocks piled on one another—and they’re considered iconic. The Chinese see the place the way the Spanish saw Mexico and Peru in the 16th C. Of course they won’t say that in public. In fact it’s very non-PC for anyone to make that observation…
Nonetheless, Africa is going to be the epicenter of what’s happening in the world for years to come. It’s gone from being just an empty space on the map in the 19th C, to a bunch of backwater colonies in the 20th C, to a bunch of failed states that people are only vaguely aware of today. Soon, however, it will be frontpage news. And this is both because Chinese are moving to Africa in record numbers and Africans are leaving as fast as they can.
Many Africans are now trying to make their way to Europe. Every year scores of thousands of them—all young men by the way—cross the Mediterranean on rafts. When they arrive in Europe, they somehow survive by selling bobbles on the street, dealing dope, or stealing. And figuring out how to game the welfare system. Now, I realize this doesn’t sound very promising. But that’s the way things are headed. It’s a growing trend.
Justin: In previous conversations, you’ve mentioned how Africa will be responsible for most of the population growth going forward. Will this happen because so many Chinese are pouring into Africa?
Doug: Well, it’s hard to be certain what’s actually on Mr. Xi’s mind, but I read something a few years ago about how China wanted to move 200 or 300 million of its citizens to Africa. Most people aren’t aware of this. It hasn’t been widely promoted, but this is another trend.
Rich Chinese are smart to diversify to developed Western countries. Poor Chinese go to backward countries, to try to become wealthy. Africa is the prime recipient.
One reason is because China is lending scores of billions to backward countries, mostly for infrastructure development. But the roads, ports, railroads, and what-have-you are built almost exclusively by Chinese companies with Chinese labor, who stay there. The infrastructure is there to enable the export of raw materials, mainly back to China. But the debt has to be repaid. It’s a great deal for China.
It will be interesting to see what happens when a couple hundred million Chinese are living with a radically expanding native African population.
Few people realize this. I ask knowledgeable people what they think the biggest cities in the world will be at the turn of the next century. And they all guess cities in China or India.
But that’s not true. Eighty years from now, Lagos, Nigeria will be the largest city in the world. It’s on track to have a population of more than 90 million. The world’s second biggest city will be Kinshasa in the Congo with about 80 million people. Dar es Salaam of Tanzania will be the world’s third biggest city with a population of roughly 75 million people.
Lagos is no surprise. The city already has some 20 million people. But I was shocked when I heard about Kinshasa and Dar es Salaam, having been to both places.
When I was in Dar in 1982, it was just a big town with maybe one million people. But it was stuck in the past. I mean in the harbor there were tramp steamers dating from the ’40s. It was like stepping back into a time warp. But, even though Tanzania was a police state back then, Dar was both peaceful and exotic. Now it’s sprawling, filthy, unpleasant, and chaotic. I can’t imagine what it will be like if the population projections are correct.
My point is that these are backward places. They don’t produce anything, especially the Congo and Tanzania. I don’t have a clue how people will even survive.
I don’t see how these cities will support tens of millions of people. Where is the food going to come from? What about everything else that people need to survive?
Nobody—including the Chinese—are going to build the infrastructure that will be needed. It’s not going to be there because nobody is investing in Africa except the Chinese. In fact you can’t really “invest” in these places, because there’s no rule of law.
Justin: And what happens if these economies can’t support all these people?
Doug: I honestly think Africa could implode. I mean where is the economic growth going to come from that will be needed to support all these people? It’s turning into the world of Soylent Green in the cities. And in the boondocks, people just sit around on their haunches and beat on earth. Or at least the women do. Men just sit around and palaver all day.
Africans don’t have the Protestant work ethic of Europeans. They don’t have the Confucian work ethic of China.
The average African can’t even save money, for starters. Every one of the currencies in Africa is essentially worthless. Even if you have money to save, where are you going to park it? Africa’s banking system is almost nonexistent. The banks are unstable, and the governments are basically kleptocracies.
Where will Africa get the capital necessary to support economic growth?
Of course, pockets of Africa will experience explosive growth in the coming years. But there’s not a prayer there’s ever going to be a place like the mythical nation of Wakanda in the movie Black Panther. For a lot of reasons. For one, Africans haven’t learned anything from the past.
Just look at what Zimbabwe recently went through. It forcibly evicted 250,000 Europeans, and stole almost all their property. There are only about 5,000 Europeans left there now. I was last there a couple of years ago. The place now produces nothing but people and political agitation. It used to be the breadbasket of Africa. Now it’s going back to bush.
You’d think South Africans would say, “Geez, that country’s economy was totally destroyed by politics and envy. That wasn’t a good idea; we ought to act more intelligently.”
But they’re doing the opposite. They’ve announced a plan to confiscate, without compensation, all the white-owned land. They started with two game farms a few weeks ago. Everything will be distributed to cronies of the President and his ministers. Then, having evicted the two white tribes—the Afrikaners and the British—the remaining nine black tribes will start fighting over everything.
Why is this? Is it because South African blacks are that stupid? I thought about it, and the answer is “no.” They actually view what happened in Zimbabwe as a success.
Justin: Why do you think that is?
Doug: The blacks went from owning, say, 10% of the country’s wealth to now owning, say, 99%. That looked pretty good. The fact the absolute amount of wealth fell by perhaps 75% is irrelevant to them.
It’s a different way of looking at things. No black in South Africa thinks Zimbabwe made a mistake. They consider getting rid of the white people a triumph.
This is obviously racist. But Africa is probably the most racist place on the planet. Most people in Europe and the US either don’t know this or, if they do, they’d never admit it.
Frankly, it amazes me that so many Americans have programmed themselves to feel “white guilt.” Anyone who’s traveled knows that Europe and the US are the least racist societies on the planet.
But all the races are “racist,” to be candid. It’s genetically programmed into humans to fear alien groups. It’s a result of the competition for scarce resources, over millions of years of evolution. Racism may be unsavory, but it’s entirely natural. The only solution is to view people as individuals, first and foremost. Looking for political solutions against racism only makes things worse, not better.
Justin: How could what’s happening in South Africa impact the rest of Africa?
Doug: Well, South Africa has always been the workshop of the continent. Basically, anything industrial that’s ever happened in Africa has come out of South Africa.
But the future looks grim. There are only four million whites left in South Africa. And the smart ones are going to make the chicken run and get out. It’s “unfair,” of course, because the Afrikaners were there only slightly after the Bantus, who came down from the north as the Europeans arrived by boat. The big losers are actually the original inhabitants, the Hottentots (now called the Khoisan).
When the Europeans do leave, they’ll take their education, work ethic, and culture with them. After the two white tribes leave, the nine major black tribes will fight over the spoils. The best case possibility is that South Africa—or Azania, as some politicized blacks like to call it—will break up into several new entities.
They’re already confiscating white farms in South Africa. And what will happen with those farms? They’ll be destroyed and go back to the bush just like they did in Zimbabwe. Modern farming is a very high-tech, management-intensive business.
So, I’m very pessimistic about the future in Africa.
Justin: The Chinese obviously have a lot of skin in the game in Africa. Don’t they have an incentive to erect infrastructure that will support their interests? Or should the African people be making these investments?
Doug: The investment should come from Africans. But that’s unlikely for reasons I’ve already mentioned.
It’s funny. Last month, Robert Friedland gave a speech at the Sprott Natural Resource Symposium in Vancouver. He was talking about his projects in Africa. He spoke of how wonderful their mineral deposits are. And he’s quite correct.
Africa has some of the best mineral deposits in the world in terms of both size and grade quality.
But he mentioned where his investments are located—South Africa and Congo—only once during his entire one-hour speech. And that was quickly and sotto voce, because everyone knows that these governments really only know how to do one thing: steal. In Congo it’s likely to be more overt. In South Africa, they’re passing a law which mandates blacks must own 30% of the mining company’s shares, plus get a 1% royalty, plus be in the majority of management. And a lot more. I may be slightly off in the numbers, working from memory—but it’s going to destroy mining. These people are actually insane.
On the kind of bright side, since the Chinese have significant investments in Africa, they’re not going to let the African governments confiscate their assets and run them into the ground.
If bribing political leaders proves ineffective, it’s possible that they’ll put soldiers’ boots on the ground. They could send in the Red Army to defend their assets. Or send in assassins to take out individual African politicians.
Justin: What are the chances of that happening?
Doug: There’s a good chance that happens.
The people who run these African governments are not going to change their stripes or their culture.
The methodology in Africa has been the same for years. Get into the government. Steal as much as you can. Then go to Europe to live like a billionaire.
These are tribal societies. When one tribe takes over the government, all the other tribes look for ways to overthrow that tribe. If they succeed, they get their chance to loot the cornucopia.
Justin: It’s clear that you’re pessimistic on Africa. But you’ve also said the young people should move to Africa if they want to make a bunch of money.
Do you still think that’s a good idea?
Doug: Absolutely. I know what I’ve been saying may sound contradictory.
After all, if Africa is likely to go into economic, political, and sociological collapse in the decades to come, how can there be opportunity?
There’s plenty of opportunity, however, because the playing field is very uneven in Africa. And that’s exactly what you want.
You don’t want a level playing field; you want one tilted in your direction. If a young American or European stays in their own country, he’s just like 100 million other people. He’s got no marginal advantage.
If you go to Africa, it’s a different story. You’ve got a ton of marginal advantages. You are likely the only person that has a certain background, set of skills, education, capital, and connections. You’re automatically very unusual. That makes it much easier to make things happen.
You can be sitting down with the president, or the richest guys in the country, in a couple weeks after you arrive on the scene.
I think that it’s an excellent place to go for an individual from Europe or America that wants to get wealthy. And have an exotic adventure as a bonus.
Justin: Thanks for taking the time to speak with me today, Doug.
Doug: No problem.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-03/doug-casey-chinas-exploitation-africa
northern watch
TB Fanatic
After World War 2, the European powers, Britain, France were in decline. They walked away from their African empires. It is easy to deal with a declining power, not so much as with a rising power like China.
NW
NW
medic38572
TB Fanatic
MS, any American city that has been taken over by blacks or have black leaders inserted into them end up almost the same outcome.
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Related previously-posted news item in the Swedish national "church" on Ministry of Truthing God's and Jesus' sex away (not posted here to avoid taking the thread OT):
http://takimag.com/article/the_week_that_perished_november_26_2017/#axzz4zba0BK00
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Related analysis...
http://takimag.com/article/africa-destroyed-poster-child-for-liberalism/#axzz5QCh4qyJ4
Africa Destroyed: Poster Child for Liberalism
by Hannes Wessels
August 31, 2018
"The continental catastrophe that has engulfed Africa may go down in history as the greatest politically motivated human calamity of all time. Hundreds of millions of poverty-stricken people are getting poorer while an ever-diminishing, tiny elite get richer and richer. Central authority in most countries is dissipating, legal strictures introduced by the colonial administrations have disintegrated, and the rule of “might of right” is back. Countries in the traditional sense of the word are ceasing to exist as borders are eviscerated by tribal allegiances trumping national identities. Warlords and tyrannical traditional leaders have assumed control over vast swathes of sub-Saharan Africa, and they rule ruthlessly. The world rarely and barely gets a glimpse of the blood-soaked barbarities routinely visited upon a multitude of wretchedly poor and defenseless people, and when they do, they respond with little other than the muttering of meaningless platitudes. The damage being done to the environment through overpopulation, “slash and burn” agriculture, and uncontrolled logging—along with the decimation of wildlife—is sickening, but the “Global Warmists” are silent on this and the “bunny-hugging” so-called “environmentalists” do little other than wring their soft wet hands.
All this has its genesis in the disastrous post-WWII decision made in Europe to rapidly and, dare I say, recklessly abandon Africa, coming on the back of a massive mindset change that saw most Western Europeans suddenly deciding they hated themselves and must henceforth spend the rest of their lives paying penalties for the crime of having been born white. The liberal-socialist political leadership that took power in postwar Europe was in complete control, and the perverts, socialists, and Stalinists who seized control of the once-esteemed BBC were in full cry, leading the glorious retreat from imperium and greatness. The stage was set in 1957 for Queen Elizabeth II to lead a tumultuous welcoming of Ghana’s charismatic (but utterly clueless) Kwame Nkrumah onto the world stage as the first leader of a newly “liberated” colony; the ushering in of a golden dawn and the “de-shackling” of a country. Thus, the catastrophe began to unfold.
Underpinning the events of the next six decades, the left-wing mainstream media did a superb job of convincing the vast majority of people that Africans were only good people and Europeans were only bad people unless they were pedophile priests like the venerated Bishop Trevor Huddlestone, in which case they were modern-day saints. But if you were white and you had the temerity to suggest you were African by birthright, wanted to stay and work in your homeland, and were entitled to the same fundamental human rights as other ethnic groups, you were quickly condemned as a member of a racist, renegade white-supremacist tribe that did little other than extort and enrich itself at the expense of a benighted black populace. Under this sort of racial cover, Euro-Africans were effectively reclassified from 1957 onward as nonhuman in the sense that normal human rights such as those pertaining to property and citizenship did not apply to them. They were unwanted vagrants who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and to hell with them unless they did something wrong, in which case all the rules applied—and more. Thus, when a white riot-policeman stomped on the toe of a black woman demonstrator (Mrs. Phombeya) in soon-to-be independent Malawi, it probably elicited more angry international outrage than did the killing of almost a million Tutsis in Rwanda.
“The world rarely and barely gets a glimpse of the blood-soaked barbarities routinely visited upon a multitude of wretchedly poor and defenseless people.”
The stripping of rights from Europeans has played out in some shape or form in virtually every postcolonial African country and is one of the leading causes of the political, social, and economic collapse that has characterized the “independence” era. And now maybe the final—but possibly the most horrifying and violent—chapter in this wretched saga may yet be written in South Africa with the ANC government signaling its intention to confiscate land without compensation from the white farmers who produce 85 percent of the country’s agricultural produce, much of which goes to countries north of the border. This, if it happens, will be much worse in every respect than Zimbabwe, as it will lead to the destruction of Africa’s industrial powerhouse and the second-biggest economy, leading to mass poverty, starvation, and probably a complex civil war with warring tribes vying for the last spoils of what was once a very rich and prosperous country. This will signal the return in toto of most of Africa to much the same lawless and chaotic state it was in when the colonizers arrived, as well as the squander of its riches and the condemnation of the majority to lives of almost unimaginable misery.
But there is a twist in the end of the tale with the intervention of two of the world’s most powerful men. From Russia comes the news that Vladimir Putin’s government is keen to welcome 15,000 “Boers” to farm in Georgia. Putin’s team is shrewd, and they are not blinded by the modern-day demands of political correctness; they know these are some of the finest and toughest farmers in the world, embracing a Christian ethos, and they know they will make a massive contribution to Russian agriculture. Ironic indeed, when one is reminded it was not that long ago that Russians, albeit under the banner of the USSR, were at war with the same people they now offer sanctuary to.
And in a rare break from the timidity of the past, Donald Trump has stepped into the fray with a “tweet” warning of his administration’s concern over the possibility of another Zimbabwe-style land grab and the ongoing farm murders. This has stunned the country’s leadership. Never before has a Western leader of such stature remonstrated with them in such a way, and the shock was almost palpable. While the public reaction was one of anger, defiance, and outrage, there has subsequently been a discreet but dramatic decision made to withdraw the troubling Expropriation Bill from parliament for “redrafting,” and the political narrative has morphed dramatically from one of confrontation to compromise, bringing relief, albeit temporary, to millions of South Africans. There can be little doubt President Trump will get no credit for this, but he had the courage, the power, and the political will to do something decisive, and the Trump “tweet” may yet go down in history as a seminal moment when a news flash in cyberspace saved a country from destroying itself.
Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the leftist “virtue signalers” are unimpressed and unamused; their aim to destroy Africa is not yet done, and to do this they must destroy Donald Trump. A Democratic Congress will probably do that in November through a process of impeachment, and the American left will thereafter do as little as possible to thwart the destructive tendencies of politicians in southern Africa who have prospered so mightily on the back of unconditional Western largesse delivered by liberal politicians who refuse to hold them to account. For those of us who still wish for a future in our African homelands, we watch Washington with trepidation and hope."
http://takimag.com/article/africa-destroyed-poster-child-for-liberalism/#axzz5QCh4qyJ4
Africa Destroyed: Poster Child for Liberalism
by Hannes Wessels
August 31, 2018
"The continental catastrophe that has engulfed Africa may go down in history as the greatest politically motivated human calamity of all time. Hundreds of millions of poverty-stricken people are getting poorer while an ever-diminishing, tiny elite get richer and richer. Central authority in most countries is dissipating, legal strictures introduced by the colonial administrations have disintegrated, and the rule of “might of right” is back. Countries in the traditional sense of the word are ceasing to exist as borders are eviscerated by tribal allegiances trumping national identities. Warlords and tyrannical traditional leaders have assumed control over vast swathes of sub-Saharan Africa, and they rule ruthlessly. The world rarely and barely gets a glimpse of the blood-soaked barbarities routinely visited upon a multitude of wretchedly poor and defenseless people, and when they do, they respond with little other than the muttering of meaningless platitudes. The damage being done to the environment through overpopulation, “slash and burn” agriculture, and uncontrolled logging—along with the decimation of wildlife—is sickening, but the “Global Warmists” are silent on this and the “bunny-hugging” so-called “environmentalists” do little other than wring their soft wet hands.
All this has its genesis in the disastrous post-WWII decision made in Europe to rapidly and, dare I say, recklessly abandon Africa, coming on the back of a massive mindset change that saw most Western Europeans suddenly deciding they hated themselves and must henceforth spend the rest of their lives paying penalties for the crime of having been born white. The liberal-socialist political leadership that took power in postwar Europe was in complete control, and the perverts, socialists, and Stalinists who seized control of the once-esteemed BBC were in full cry, leading the glorious retreat from imperium and greatness. The stage was set in 1957 for Queen Elizabeth II to lead a tumultuous welcoming of Ghana’s charismatic (but utterly clueless) Kwame Nkrumah onto the world stage as the first leader of a newly “liberated” colony; the ushering in of a golden dawn and the “de-shackling” of a country. Thus, the catastrophe began to unfold.
Underpinning the events of the next six decades, the left-wing mainstream media did a superb job of convincing the vast majority of people that Africans were only good people and Europeans were only bad people unless they were pedophile priests like the venerated Bishop Trevor Huddlestone, in which case they were modern-day saints. But if you were white and you had the temerity to suggest you were African by birthright, wanted to stay and work in your homeland, and were entitled to the same fundamental human rights as other ethnic groups, you were quickly condemned as a member of a racist, renegade white-supremacist tribe that did little other than extort and enrich itself at the expense of a benighted black populace. Under this sort of racial cover, Euro-Africans were effectively reclassified from 1957 onward as nonhuman in the sense that normal human rights such as those pertaining to property and citizenship did not apply to them. They were unwanted vagrants who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and to hell with them unless they did something wrong, in which case all the rules applied—and more. Thus, when a white riot-policeman stomped on the toe of a black woman demonstrator (Mrs. Phombeya) in soon-to-be independent Malawi, it probably elicited more angry international outrage than did the killing of almost a million Tutsis in Rwanda.
“The world rarely and barely gets a glimpse of the blood-soaked barbarities routinely visited upon a multitude of wretchedly poor and defenseless people.”
The stripping of rights from Europeans has played out in some shape or form in virtually every postcolonial African country and is one of the leading causes of the political, social, and economic collapse that has characterized the “independence” era. And now maybe the final—but possibly the most horrifying and violent—chapter in this wretched saga may yet be written in South Africa with the ANC government signaling its intention to confiscate land without compensation from the white farmers who produce 85 percent of the country’s agricultural produce, much of which goes to countries north of the border. This, if it happens, will be much worse in every respect than Zimbabwe, as it will lead to the destruction of Africa’s industrial powerhouse and the second-biggest economy, leading to mass poverty, starvation, and probably a complex civil war with warring tribes vying for the last spoils of what was once a very rich and prosperous country. This will signal the return in toto of most of Africa to much the same lawless and chaotic state it was in when the colonizers arrived, as well as the squander of its riches and the condemnation of the majority to lives of almost unimaginable misery.
But there is a twist in the end of the tale with the intervention of two of the world’s most powerful men. From Russia comes the news that Vladimir Putin’s government is keen to welcome 15,000 “Boers” to farm in Georgia. Putin’s team is shrewd, and they are not blinded by the modern-day demands of political correctness; they know these are some of the finest and toughest farmers in the world, embracing a Christian ethos, and they know they will make a massive contribution to Russian agriculture. Ironic indeed, when one is reminded it was not that long ago that Russians, albeit under the banner of the USSR, were at war with the same people they now offer sanctuary to.
And in a rare break from the timidity of the past, Donald Trump has stepped into the fray with a “tweet” warning of his administration’s concern over the possibility of another Zimbabwe-style land grab and the ongoing farm murders. This has stunned the country’s leadership. Never before has a Western leader of such stature remonstrated with them in such a way, and the shock was almost palpable. While the public reaction was one of anger, defiance, and outrage, there has subsequently been a discreet but dramatic decision made to withdraw the troubling Expropriation Bill from parliament for “redrafting,” and the political narrative has morphed dramatically from one of confrontation to compromise, bringing relief, albeit temporary, to millions of South Africans. There can be little doubt President Trump will get no credit for this, but he had the courage, the power, and the political will to do something decisive, and the Trump “tweet” may yet go down in history as a seminal moment when a news flash in cyberspace saved a country from destroying itself.
Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the leftist “virtue signalers” are unimpressed and unamused; their aim to destroy Africa is not yet done, and to do this they must destroy Donald Trump. A Democratic Congress will probably do that in November through a process of impeachment, and the American left will thereafter do as little as possible to thwart the destructive tendencies of politicians in southern Africa who have prospered so mightily on the back of unconditional Western largesse delivered by liberal politicians who refuse to hold them to account. For those of us who still wish for a future in our African homelands, we watch Washington with trepidation and hope."
Doc1
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Medic, I made the very same point on another thread, but it was, er, apparently not one which board members wished to engage. I make my racial and political observations as one who actually lived in Africa for years and - GASP - oh, my, served in the evil apartheid army. Far from the baby-rapers and African abusers the old SADF was made out to be by the Western media, my comrades were pretty much similar to Christian, suburban, White Americans - though generally made of sterner stuff. Unfortunately for European Christendom in South Africa, perhaps we weren't quite stern enough.
Best regards
Doc
Profit of Doom
Dismember
Concerning Albert’s supposed quote, found this rather deep research, for your perusal.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=340008
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=340008
I suspect that no one found anything to disagree with when you posted.
The Chinese (reading post #62 about their "exploitation " of Africa and the Africans) are pure realists. They lack the Judeo-Christian background that teaches that all humans have souls, are "Heaven eligible", so to speak, (if they accept Salvation) (true) and they don't feel the slightest need for "noblesse oblige", or to make excuses for how most native Africans (and their genetic offspring) transgress most of the laws and rules that allow people to live together in civilization.
THEY DON'T SUFFER FROM "WHITE GUILT"!
I doubt they will have the slightest compunction about treating Africa and Africans exactly like the English did the Irish when hard times and famine hit, and there isn't a country over there with the technological ability to stop them. Spears and machetes are fearsome weapons on the ground and close up, but if things go bad, they'll simply use the many "WMDs" available to every technologically advanced country and solve their "little problem". I doubt it would mean anything more to them than drowning a litter of unwanted kittens or puppies does to some people.
Then again, we've got a whole bunch of people in positions of power in this country who feel *exactly* the same about us Deplorables. We are tolerated solely because we pay taxes and make stuff they need.
Summerthyme
No, not just because of taxes or production. We're "tolerated" because they (at least the higher-ups) know that we can and would fight back, and very likely would win such a confrontation.
