Posts Tagged ‘Government’
Bank of mum and dad goes bust: A third of pensioners forced to borrow money from their children to cover soaring bills
Monday, May 28th, 2012
mpoverished pensioners are being forced to ask their children to help pay their bills as soaring food and energy bills leave them unable to cope.
A poll of 2,000 retirees conducted by the firm Responsible Equity Release revealed that a third admitted to asking their children for money in the last year and a third also fear they may have to sell their house just to get by.
Almost half have taken on part-time work to boost their income, while one in six have no savings whatsoever.
Piling up: A third of retirees have been forced to ask to borrow money from their children to help them pay bills
Further research carried out by Age UK found 11 per cent of pensioners had borrowed money to pay their rent or mortgage.
Many have seen a shortfall in their income due to low interest rates on their savings or have been hit by pensions not paying as much as expected.
Hard-up OAPs need to ask for cash is also hitting their children hard at a time when money is tight due to high living costs.
Michelle Mitchell, charity director general at charity Age UK, told the Sunday Express: ‘It is extremely worrying that such a high number of older people report having to borrow money just to keep a roof over their heads.
Struggling: Pensioners are increasingly having to turn to their children to help with the cost of living a study has revealed
‘Far too many older people are living in poverty and the Government must continue to work pr-actively on ways of getting money to older people who are in desperate need.
Managing director of Responsible Equity Release Steve Wilkie said: ‘More than ay other group, they must feel let down by the Government – the forgotten generation, left to fend for themselves.’
It is estimated that 1.8million pensioners in Britain live in poverty.
Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag, Berlin SPEECH OF MARCH 23, 1933
Tuesday, April 24th, 2012The Speech:IN NOVEMBER, 1918, Marxist organizations seized the executive power by means of a revolution. The monarchs were dethroned, the authorities of the Reich and of the States removed from office, and thereby a breach of the Constitution was committed. The success of the revolution in a material sense protected the guilty parties from the hands of the law. They sought to justify it morally by asserting that Germany or its Government bore the guilt for the outbreak of the War.
This assertion was deliberately and actually untrue. In consequence, however, these untrue accusations in the interest of our former enemies led to the severest oppression of the entire German nation and to the breach of the assurances given to us in Wilson’s fourteen points, and so for Germany, that is to say the working classes of the German people, to a time of infinite misfortune….
The splitting up of the nation into groups with irreconcilable views, systematically brought about by the false doctrines of Marxism, means the destruction of the basis of a possible communal life…. It is only the creation of a real national community, rising above the interests and differences of rank and class, that can permanently remove the source of nourishment of these aberrations of the human mind. The establishment of such a solidarity of views in the German body corporate is all the more important, for it is only thereby that the possibility is provided of maintaining friendly relations with foreign Powers without regard to the tendencies or general principles by which they are dominated, for the elimination of communism in Germany is a purely domestic German affair.
Simultaneously with this political purification of our public life, the Government of the Reich will undertake a thorough moral purging of the body corporate of the nation. The entire educational system, the theater, the cinema, literature, the Press, and the wireless – all these will be used as means to this end and valued accordingly. They must all serve for the maintenance of the eternal values present in the essential character of our people. Art will always remain the expression and the reflection of the longings and the realities of an era. The neutral international attitude of aloofness is rapidly disappearing. Heroism is coming forward passionately and will in future shape and lead political destiny. It is the task of art to be the expression of this determining spirit of the age. Blood and race will once more become the source of artistic intuition….
Our legal institutions must serve above all for the maintenance of this national community. The irremovableness of the judges must ensure a sense of responsibility and the exercise of discretion in their judgments in the interests of society. Not the individual but the nation as a whole alone can be the center of legislative solicitude. High treason and treachery to the nation will be ruthlessly eradicated in the future. The foundations of the existence of justice cannot be other than the foundations of the existence of the nation.
The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, is creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life.
The advantages of a personal and political nature that might arise from compromising with atheistic organizations would not outweigh the consequences which would become apparent in the destruction of general moral basic values. The national Government regards the two Christian confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. It will respect the agreements concluded between it and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed. But the Government hopes and expects that the work on the national and moral regeneration of our nation which it has made its task will, on the other hand, be treated with the same respect….
Great are the tasks of the national Government in the sphere of economic life.
Here all action must be governed by one law: the people does not live for business, and business does not exist for capital; but capital serves business, and business serves the people. In principle, the Government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property….
The Government will systematically avoid currency experiments. We are faced above all by two economic tasks of the first magnitude. The salvation of the German farmer must be achieved at all costs….
Furthermore, it is perfectly clear to the national Government that the final removal of the distress both in agricultural business and in that of the towns depends on the absorption of the army of the unemployed in the process of production. This constitutes the second of the great economic tasks. It can only be solved by a general appeasement, in applying sound natural economic principles and all measures necessary, even if, at the time, they cannot reckon with any degree of popularity. The providing of work and the compulsory labor service are, in this connection, only individual measures within the scope of the entire action proposed….
We are aware that the geographic position of Germany, with her lack of raw materials, does not fully permit of economic self-sufficiency for the Reich. It cannot be too often emphasized that nothing is further from the thoughts of the Government of the Reich than hostility to exporting. We are fully aware that we have need of the connection with the outside world, and that the marketing of German commodities in the world provides a livelihood for many millions of our fellow-countrymen.
We also know what are the conditions necessary for a sound exchange of services between the nations of the world. For Germany has been compelled for years to perform services without receiving an equivalent, with the result that the task of maintaining Germany as an active partner in the exchange of commodities is not so much one of commercial as of financial policy. So long as we are not accorded a reasonable settlement of our foreign debts corresponding to our economic capacity, we are unfortunately compelled to maintain our foreign-exchange control. The Government of the Reich is, for that reason, also compelled to maintain the restrictions on the efflux of capital across the frontiers of Germany….
The protection of the frontiers of the Reich and thereby of the lives of our people and the existence of our business is now in the hands of the Reichswehr, which, in accordance with the terms imposed upon us by the Treaty of Versailles, is to be regarded as the only really disarmed army in the world. In spite of its enforced smallness and entirely insufficient armament, the German people may regard their Reichswehr with proud satisfaction. This little instrument of our national self-defence has come into being under the most difficult conditions. The spirit imbuing it is that of our best military traditions. The German nation has thus fulfilled with painful conscientiousness the obligations imposed upon it by the Peace Treaty, indeed, even the replacement of ships for our fleet then sanctioned has, I may perhaps be allowed to say, unfortunately, only been carried out to a small extent.
For years Germany has been waiting in vain for the fulfillment of the promise of disarmament made to her by the others. It is the sincere desire of the national Government to be able to refrain from increasing our army and our weapons, insofar as the rest of the world is now also ready to fulfill its obligations in the matter of radical disarmament. For Germany desires nothing except an equal right to live and equal freedom.
In any case the national Government will educate the German people in this spirit of a desire for freedom. The national honor, the honor of our army and the ideal of freedom must once more become sacred to the German people!
The German nation wishes to live in peace with the rest of the world. But it is for this very reason that the Government of the Reich will employ every means to obtain the final removal of the division of the nations of the world into two categories. The keeping open of this wound leads to distrust on the one side and hatred on the other, and thus to a general feeling of insecurity. The national Government is ready to extend a hand in sincere understanding to every nation that is ready finally to make an end of the tragic past. The international economic distress can only disappear when the basis has been provided by stable political relations and when the nations have regained confidence in each other.
For the overcoming of the economic catastrophe three things are necessary:
1.Absolutely authoritative leadership in internal affairs, in order to create confidence in the stability of conditions.
2.The securing of peace by the great nations for a long time to come, with a view to restoring the confidence of the nations in each other.
3.The final victory of the principles of common sense in the organization and conduct of business, and also a general release from reparations and impossible liabilities for debts and interest.
We are unfortunately faced by the fact that the Geneva Conference, in spite of lengthy negotiations, has so far reached no practical result. The decision regarding the securing of a real measure of disarmament has been constantly delayed by the raising of questions of technical detail and by the introduction of problems that have nothing to do with disarmament. This procedure is useless.
The illegal state of one-sided disarmament and the resulting national insecurity of Germany cannot continue any longer.
We recognize it as a sign of the feeling of responsibility and of the good will of the British Government that they have endeavored, by means of their disarmament proposal, to cause the Conference finally to arrive at speedy decisions. The Government of the Reich will support every endeavor aimed at really carrying out general disarmament and securing the fulfillment of Germany’s long-overdue claim for disarmament. For fourteen years we have been disarmed, and for fourteen months we have been waiting for the results of the Disarmament Conference. Even more far-reaching is the plan of the head of the Italian Government, which makes a broad-minded and far-seeing attempt to secure a peaceful and consistent development of the whole of European policy. We attach the greatest weight to this plan, and we are ready to co-operate with absolute sincerity on the basis it provides, in order to unite the four Great Powers, England, France, Italy, and Germany, in friendly co-operation in attacking with courage and determination the problems upon the solution of which the fate of Europe depends.
It is for this reason that we are particularly grateful for the appreciative heartiness with which the national renaissance of Germany has been greeted in Italy….
In the same way, the Government of the Reich, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attaches the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See, and is endeavoring to develop them. We feel sympathy for our brother nation in Austria in its trouble and distress. In all their doings the Government of the Reich is conscious of the connection between the destiny of all German races. Their attitude toward the other foreign Powers may be gathered from what has already been said. But even in cases where our mutual relations are encumbered with difficulties, we shall endeavor to arrive at a settlement. But in any case the basis for an understanding can never be the distinction between victor and vanquished.
We are convinced that such a settlement is possible in our relations with France, if the Governments will attack the problems affecting them on both sides in a really broadminded way. The Government of the Reich is ready to cultivate with the Soviet Union friendly relations profitable to both parties. It is above all the Government of the National Revolution which feels itself in a position to adopt such a positive policy with regard to Soviet Russia. The fight against communism in Germany is our internal affair in which we will never permit interference from outside….
We have particularly at heart the fate of the Germans living beyond the frontiers of Germany who are allied with us in speech, culture, and customs and have to make a hard fight to retain these values. The national Government is resolved to use all the means at its disposal to support the rights internationally guaranteed to the German minorities.
We welcome the plan for a World Economic Conference and approve of its meeting at an early date. The Government of the Reich is ready to take part in this Conference, in order to arrive at positive results at last. . . .
Shifts In Methods Of Economic Extraction
Friday, April 20th, 2012The relationship between the colonizers and the mass of the colonized
remained much as it had been before. District officers, with the help of many
“native” subordinates, continued to do their paternal duty to settle disputes
between peasant villagers, punish criminals, and collect taxes. European
planters and merchants still relied on African or Asian overseers and brokers
to manage laborers and purchase crops and handicraft manufactures. But late
19th century colonial bureaucrats and managers sought to instruct African and
Asian peasants in “scientific” farming techniques and to compel the colonized
peoples more generally to work harder and more efficiently. Here was an
important extension of dependent status in the Western-dominated world
economy, as pressure for new work habits supported the drive for cheap raw
materials (exports) and drew in a growing segment of the colonial labor force.
A wide range of incentives was devised in response to the expansion of
production for export and also the abolition of prior forms of slavery. Some
of these incentives benefited the colonized peoples, such as the cheap
consumer goods that could be purchased with cash earned producing marketable
crops or laboring on European plantations. In many instances, however,
colonized peoples were simply forced to produce crops or raw materials that
the Europeans desired for little or no remuneration. Head and hut taxes were
imposed that could only be paid in ivory, palm nuts, or wages earned working
on European estates. Villagers were forced to grow market produce on lands
they normally devoted to food crops. Under the worst of these forced-labor
schemes, such as those inflicted on the peoples of the Belgian Congo in the
final decades of the 19th century, villagers were flogged and killed if they
failed to meet production quotas, and women and children were held hostage to
ensure that their menfolk would deliver the products demanded on time. Whether
out of self-interest or fear, the colonial overlords were determined to draw
their subjects into fuller participation in the European- dominated global
market economy.
As increasing numbers of the colonized peoples were drawn into the
production of crops or minerals intended for export to Europe, colonized areas
in Africa, India, and Southeast Asia were reduced to dependence on the
industrializing European economies. Roads and railways were built primarily to
facilitate the movement of farm produce and raw materials from the interior of
colonized areas to port areas where they could be shipped to Europe.
Benefiting from Europe’s technological advances, mining sectors grew
dramatically in most of the colonies. Vast areas that were previously
uncultivated or (more commonly) had been planted in food crops were converted
to the production of commodities – such as cocoa, palm oil, rubber, and hemp -
in great demand in the markets of Europe and, increasingly, the United States.
The profits from the precious metals and minerals extracted from Africa’s
mines or the rubber grown in Malaya went mainly to European merchants and
industrialists. The raw materials themselves were shipped to Europe to be
processed and sold or used in the manufacture of industrial products. The
finished products were intended mainly for European consumers, whether these
be members of middle and working class families or government contractors. The
African and Asian laborers who produced these products were generally poorly
paid – if indeed they were paid at all. The laborers and colonial economies as
a whole were steadily reduced to dependence on the European-dominated global
market. Thus, economic dependence complemented the political subjugation and
social subordination of colonized African and Asian peoples in a world order
loaded in favor of the expansionist nations of western Europe.
Changing Social Relations Between Colonizer And Colonized
Friday, April 20th, 2012In both long-held and newly acquired colonies, the growing tensions
between the colonizers and the rising African and Asian middle classes
reflected a larger shift in European social interaction with the colonized
peoples. This shift had actually begun long before the scramble for colonies
in the late 19th century. Its causes are complex, but the growing size and
changing makeup of European communities in the colonies were critical factors.
As more and more Europeans went to the colonies, they tended to keep to
themselves on social occasions rather than mixing with the “natives.” New
medicines and increasingly segregated living quarters made it possible to
bring to the colonies the wives and families of government officials and
European military officers (but not of the rank-and-file until well into the
20th century). Wives and families further closed the social circle of the
colonized, and European women looked disapprovingly on liaisons between
European men and Asian or African women. Brothels were put off-limits for
upper-class officials and officers, and mixed marriages or living arrangements
met with more and more vocal disapproval both within the constricted world of
the colonial communities and back home in Europe. The growing numbers of
missionaries and pastors for European congregations in the colonies obviously
served to strengthen these taboos.
European women were once held to be the chief culprits in the growing
social gap between colonizer and colonized, but male officials may well have
been mainly responsible. They established laws restricting or prohibiting
miscegenation and other sorts of interracial liaisons, and they pushed for
housing arrangements and police practices designed specifically to keep social
contacts between European women and the colonized at a minimum. These measures
locked European women in the colonies into an almost exclusively European
world. They still had lots of “native” servants and “native” nannies for their
children, but they rarely came into contact with men or women of their own
social standing from the colonized peoples. Occasions when they did were
highly public and strictly formal.
The trend toward social exclusivism on the part of Europeans in the
colonies and their open disdain for the culture of colonized peoples were
reinforced by notions of white racial supremacy, which peaked in acceptance in
the decades before the First World War. It was widely believed that the mental
and moral superiority of whites over the rest of humankind, which was usually
divided into racial types according to the crude criterion of skin color, had
been demonstrated by scientific experiments. Because the inferior intelligence
and weak sense of morality of non-Europeans were believed to be inherent and
permanent, there seemed little motivation for Europeans to socialize with the
colonized and lots of good reasons for fighting the earlier tendency to adopt
elements of the culture and life-style of subject peoples. As photos from the
late 19th century reveal, stiff collars and ties for men, and corsets and long
skirts for women became obligatory for the respectable colonial functionaries
and their wives. The colonizers’ houses were filled with the overstuffed
furniture and bric-a-brac that the late Victorians loved so dearly. European
social life in the colonies revolved around the infamous clubs, where the only
“natives” allowed were the servants. In the heat of the summer months, most of
the administrators and virtually all of the colonizers’ families retreated to
the hill stations, where the cool air and the quaint architecture made it seem
almost as if they were home again – or at least in a Swiss mountain resort.
Case of S.African white supremacist’s killing ends
Thursday, April 19th, 2012Lawyers have completed closing arguments in the trial of two black farmworkers accused of killing a South African white supremacist.
Police have described the murder as the climax of an alcohol-fueled dispute over money. But during the trial, defense lawyers alleged their clients, one who turns 18 next week, had been abused by Eugene Terreblanche and acted in self defense.
Terreblanche co-founded a group that seeks an all-white republic within South Africa. He had faded into obscurity before his April, 2010 death.
The trial began last October. The verdict is expected May 22.
Obama Campaign Full of White Guilt Ridden Anti-Whites?
Thursday, April 12th, 2012
Reclamation of Unalloyed Identity
Thursday, April 12th, 2012What dominates the order of social and political life in Africa today is not exactly a true African identity. Rather we live in an era where white influence has so expertly and consistently associated the history and culture of Africans with the evocation of feelings of helplessness, shame, guilt, inadequacy, anxiety, abuse, social ridicule, social disapproval, humiliation, inferiority, backwardness, and lack of social and economic status.
So overwhelming is the aversive effect of white dominance that many of our people in Africa feel obligated to reject and repress any effort to search for freedom. This is why the search for true liberation knowledge is derided as paranoiac Pan-Africanism, if not vilified as myopic idealism by those deemed to be failing to move on from a terrible past. We pride ourselves in disassociation from our own past.
We have decided that the less we know about how our ancestors were brutally enslaved the better, and the less we know about the brutalities of the colonial era the better for our present and for our future. We have in this sense of fulminating history created a social amnesia that makes most of us behave like reactionary puppets strung along by the machinations of white domination — by aid-giving and democracy-preaching puppeteers from the West.
It is an amnesia that makes African people get angry on behalf of the good white people, and one sees this each time an attack is made against the evil brought to this planet by white domination. An essay like this one can be classified as homophobic or even racist, not on any merit but for merely attributing historical facts where they belong; ironically seen so by fellow African victims. This is a compelled social amnesia always associated with subordinate Africans who are part of the “born to suffer” philosophy, a philosophy that disallows the discovery and reclamation of the true African identity. Worse still some of our own Africans work so hard to impress the powers that run this world order as shaped by white domination — so hard that they even take great offence at the discovery and exposure of the truly infamous history and culture and white supremacy, shamelessly shielding the white pathological perpetrators of this historical criminality.
We are reminded of how ungrateful we are for failing to appreciate the tremendous value of the white man to human civilisation — for criticising the overly good white man right “from the comfort of a Western country.” Today we live in a world where Africans can stand in defence of Nato’s barbaric ravaging of Libya, all the time vaingloriously pointing us to the direction of an evil Muammar Gaddafi, when they are not shouting raucously about how the bombs brought democracy to hopelessly oppressed Libyans. We are labelled Hague candidates for failing to appreciate and celebrate the bombing of Libya and the callous murder of Muammar Gaddafi.
In Zimbabwe, the MDC-T establishment was quite ecstatic at the death of Muammar Gaddafi, with the information and publicity staff sending out euphoric congratulatory messages about “the coming of democracy to the people of Libya.” Tears flow when you hear African voices cheering white murderers for murdering thousands of fellow Africans, especially under the deceit of promoting democracy. The heart just bleeds.
The MDC-T congratulatory messages were sent out after white domination massacred through Nato some 50 000 Libyans on its trail to kill Muammar Gaddafi, more for his past sins against Western domination, and less for what he was to the Libyan people.
It is a tragedy that today we live in a Zimbabwe where the normality and abnormality of our people’s consciousness and behaviour is politically and socially manufactured and mandated by the power relations shaped by white supremacy — even after more than three decades of what we fondly call independence.
The late Bingu wa Mutharika became “an autocrat” for excluding the influence of the British ambassador in the affairs of Malawi, and his own people wanted to stone him for upsetting the former colonial master, literally the funder of about the entire Malawian economy.
Now some Malawians take the death of Mutharika as a golden opportunity to restore the country’s donor-dependence status. Africa now firmly believes that Western aid is the way to the future and we have whole political parties sworn to this obscenity, if not entire populations. In Malawi, a church leader was quoted in the media as saying: “Now it is time to plead with donors so that perhaps they will absolve us of our sins.” It is just that sad. When our consciousness is so disturbed as to make us helplessly responsive to white-instigated social and political controls, we must know that the very future we seek to brighten is now severely threatened by a massive cloud of darkness.
What we consider appropriate and normal today is defined not by who we are as Africans but by those thoughts, emotions, motivations and values instigated and maintained by the white supremacist establishment — an establishment maintained so well by the African himself, for better or for worse.
We stand as a people whose political power is defined by the political values of white people, we are a people whose economic power is dependent on white endorsement, a people whose only claim to power are the colours of our post-independence flags — the flag itself being a borrowed idea from Western values, just like the suits we fondly wear as an expression of formality and affluence. So the normal social order we pursue today through our politics and our laws is a sponsored normalcy, well designed to sustain white domination over ourselves — us willing subordinates so wantonly wallowing in the fantasy of becoming like the white man one day.
Our politics and our sense of democracy is today more beneficial to the needs of white domination and to the perpetuation of white imperialism than it is to our own needs. In fact, the democracy we pursue is quite inimical to our own needs as a people, so hurtful to our own aspiration and quite deathly to the prospect of our emancipation.
Let us look at Malawi. From 2004 we were told the country was doing well democratically and economically. In fact, what was happening was pliancy of Malawi’s political system to Western imperialist interests, rewarded superbly with a 100 percent donor-funding of the economy.
We were even told of a record-breaking “agricultural revolution,” all made possible by the white donor, whose burden for the lives of Africans is well documented, like Jason Russell is so touched by the plight of the “abducted Ugandan children.”
Now a few bad words by the British ambassador were enough to show us how much democracy and how much of an economy Malawi had. President Mutharika rightfully sanctioned the offending diplomat by ordering him out of Malawi, with Britain withdrawing what was effectively the Malawian economy — its aid.
With that withdrawal came an emphatic withdrawal of the “democratic country” label, itself an award often given not by the governed people but the powerful Western elites, the puppeteers running African politics today. So we had an entire country considering it normalcy to have an economy entirely dependent on the benevolence of the British, and it is sad that the diplomatic spat that busted this master-servant relationship did not make Malawians any wiser. Apparently it has entrenched the nation firmer into subordination.
In fact, it made them stupider and today they yearn so eagerly to place themselves where they believe they belong, exalting white domination to where it belongs, profusely apologising to the British for the unforgivable sins of an overly egoistic president who dared to challenge the supremacy of the white man, sacrificing an entire nation so hopelessly dependent on the wrongfully insulted.
White imperialism and white supremacy is today founded not exactly on the military might of the Westerner but quite sadly on the social amnesia of subordinate Africans. The strategic path of white supremacy has for long been this deprivation of a common cultural platform for the African; taking the platform away so that the African has no capacity to counter attack against his oppression.
What is required of us Africans by white domination is that we negate our common identity, our cultural and historical memories and related practices. When we do so we are celebrated as highly civic and we are rewarded as a democratic people. It is the stick and carrot strategy our leadership has become so accustomed to, even competing spiritedly for the carrot.
The reason we fought down colonial empires was not to model our identity alongside that of the white folk. We fought down colonial empires to reclaim power in its totality. What is this power?
Power is the ability to act or to do, it is strength, it is influence, talent, command, authority, a warrant of total control, a collective advantage. In short it is the capacity to determine one’s own future and to assume full and total control of the present in its totality.
You cannot talk of power when all you have is aid and the benevolence of another people. That is the tragedy of the African leader of today. Look at Zimbabwe and how much we have cried over the illegally imposed ruinous economic sanctions. We should be banning Europeans from entering our well-resourced country, actually banning them until our own interests are observed. But what do we do? We allow ourselves to be held hostage by a system we believe we fought down over 30 years ago.
We need to reclaim our unalloyed identity, to reclaim our history, our cultural identity and our absolute power over all our resources and our politics. Without such a radical stance, we can as well resign to the fate of perpetual subjugation to white domination.
This is what the operative oppression of the African is. It is dependent on the ability of white elites to create and maintain a discrepancy between what subordinate Africans think they were in the past and what they truly were, what they perceive themselves to be today and what they truly are; what they think they should be and what they truly must be. The superstructure of white supremacy is founded on the illusion of the African — on our continental addiction to fantasy.
It is only the African that can successfully precipitate the downfall of white hegemony in Africa. All the African needs to do today is do exactly as Robert Mugabe did with land acquisition, forcibly take it away from the colonially privileged white person, exactly what Julius Malema preaches today in South Africa — take away the mines and the land from the colonially privileged white folk. No apologies and no moralities, or the niceties of the human rights regime.
The African must seize power in all its forms from the non-Africans who hold it in Africa. This is why the economic empowerment policies of Zanu-PF must in principle be applauded.
In principle because we cannot vouch for the practice so far; save for a few ceremonial sign-ups we have read about in the media. But the direction is encouraging, just like the rhetoric of Saviour Kasukuwere, a man seemingly so determined to have locals forcefully adopted in white-owned businesses. That is laying claim to partial stakes, albeit majority stakes. Good enough but not entirely the solution. This writer is actually for complete takeovers, not only of shares but of the entire means of production, innovation, capitalisation and creativity.
Emancipation and independence are matters of justice and not of morality for those that are under the yoke. The morality in the reclamation of stolen lands by indigenous Zimbabweans in 2000 lies only in the just cause behind the operation. Equally the morality of taking over all mines and the entire industrial operation by indigenous Zimbabweans today lies not in the libertarian ideals of today but in the just cause of doing so; only for the sake of the long-suffering black Zimbabwean. There must be no apologies in taking over power from the white establishment.
We seek not to plunder another people but to repossess what rightfully belongs to us and to our posterity. The power stolen from us in the 19th century must be reclaimed with no sense of apology whatsoever. Those among us who believe in partnerships with hegemony that afflicts us continually must re-orient their politics to the cause of the African.
Zimbabwe, we are one and together we shall overcome. It is homeland or death!
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE: FOREIGN POLICY PLANS
Monday, April 2nd, 2012In concluding my remarks on this subject I should like to note a few points concerning the possible ways which may lead to a general pacification of Europe, which might also be extended outside Europe.
(1) It is in the interests of all nations that the individual countries shall possess internally stable and orderly political and economic conditions. They are the most important conditions for lasting and solid economic and political relations between the peoples.
(2) The vital interests of the different peoples must be frankly recognized. Mutual respect for these vital interests alone can lead to the appeasement of the essential needs of the nations.
(3) The League of Nations, to be effective, must be reformed, and must become an organ of the evolutionary concept, and must not remain an organ of inactivity.
(4) The relations of the people towards one another can only be regulated and solved on a basis of mutual respect and absolute equality.
(5) It is impossible to make one nation or another responsible for armaments or for limitation of armaments, but it is necessary to see this problem as it really is.
(6) It is impossible to maintain peace among the nations so long as an international irresponsible clique can continue their agitation unchecked.
A few weeks ago we saw how an organized band of international war mongers spread a mass of lies which almost succeeded in raising mistrust between two nations and might easily have led to worse consequences than actually followed.
I greatly regret that the British Foreign Secretary did not categorically state that there was not one word of truth in those calumnies about Morocco which had been spread by these international war mongers. Thanks to the loyalty of a foreign diplomat and his Government, it was possible to clear up this extraordinary situation immediately. Supposing another case arose in which it turned out impossible to establish the truth so readily, what then would happen?
(7) It has been proved that European problems can be solved properly only within certain limits. Germany is hoping to have close and friendly relations with Italy. May we succeed in paving the way for such relations with other European countries. The German Reich will watch over its security and honor with its strong army. On the other hand, convinced that there can be no greater treasure for Europe than peace, it will always be a reasonable supporter of those European ideals of peace and will be always conscious of its responsibilities.
(8) It will be profitable to European peace as a whole if mutual consideration be always shown for the justified feeling of national honor among those nationalities who are forced to live as a minority within other nations.
This would lead to a decisive lessening of tension between the nations who are forced to live side by side, and whose State frontiers are not identical with the ethnical frontiers.
In concluding these remarks I should like to deal with the document which the British Government addressed to the German Government on the occasion of the occupation of the Rhineland.
I should like first to state that we believe and are convinced that the British Government at that time did everything to avoid an increase of tension in the European crisis, and that the document in question owes its origin entirely to the desire to make a contribution towards disentangling the situation of those days.
Nevertheless, it was not possible for the German Government, for reasons which the Government of Great Britain will appreciate, to reply to those questions.
We preferred to settle some of those questions in the most natural way by the practical building up of our relations with our neighbors; and I should like to state that, complete German sovereignty and equality having now been restored, Germany will never sign a treaty which is in any way incompatible with her honor; with the honor of the nation and of the Government which represents it; or which otherwise is incompatible with Germany’s vital interests and therefore in the long run cannot be kept.
I believe that this statement will be understood by all. Moreover, with all my heart I hope that the intelligence and goodwill of responsible European Governments will succeed, despite all opposition, in preserving peace for Europe. Peace is our dearest treasure.
Whatever contributions Germany can make toward preserving it, these she will make.
Tibetan Genocide versus White Genocide – Social engineering
Tuesday, March 20th, 2012
What you quickly learn when you compare the two is that alleged “anti-racists” vehemently oppose Tibetan genocide because they, like all normal people, believe that these people deserve a home free from harm.
So then why do these alleged “anti-racists” (mostly White people I should add) demand and engage in the destruction of White people?
What the heck makes these “anti-racists” so eager to do this? What heck makes these “anti-racists”,which are mostly White people, anti-White?
Social engineering.
Okay, so you’re probably have a bunch of different questions. Let me answer them in simple terms:
Who: Anti-Whites, posing as “anti-racists”
What: The Media, Government, Academia.
Where: All White countries, ONLY White countries.
How: Social engineering, abuse of authority.
Why: Ohhh geeze, that’s like asking why are we alive.
Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.
