HaAretz, my wife´s daily fishwrap, has stolen the Army´s secret database on Jewish settlements in Yehuda and Samaria, and is publishing it garnished with venomous comments. The self hating Jews of the paper discover that Ofra, a forty years old Jewish village, is built on a plot that under the Jordanian regime, had been registered as private land. There are people born in the place who already are grandparents, and our leftists are determined to expulse them from their ancestral homes. I dont know how property rights are legally acquired in Israel and in Samaria, but I know that in Spain land was conquered from the Muslims and distributed according one´s participation in the war. In the Roman Empire, the legionnaires after 25 years of militqary service received a plot of land to settle, mostly in conquered territories. Latin American lands were distributed by the Spanish Crown or sold to settlers. In my youth, the Government of Paraguay advertised in the University of La Plata offering 5,000 Hectares of land in the Chaco to anyone with an academic title promising to settle for the land for five years. Not one I know of took up the offer. I know that Amman, the capital of Jordan, was settled by Muslims from the Caucasus, sent by the Turkish Sultan. Transjordan, as Palestine, was empty and desolate. I suppose the Sultan granted them property rights. Ofra was built on lands bought on land bought for money. The fact that it was made under miliary occupation invalidates the sale? After forty years? In Argentina, if one occupied a land for 25 years, it was his. Legally. He could inscribe it in the Catastro. The point is that the Palestinians are quite passive, they have paid for their rights, but the Jewish leftists will not stay quiet and let their brothers live in peace. They are decided to throw them out of their homes and exile them, possibly to Brooklyn.
On the other hand, the Beduin nomads of the Negev, have taken over most of public lands and built goatskin tents and goat and camel corrals. Apart from Social Security payments, their main economic activity is stealing. There are no roadside signposts in the Negev, they have been collected and sold as scrap metal by the Beduin. Jewish leftists are forcing the Government to grant property rights to their extensive "farms" and provide free water, electricity, sewage, schools and clinics. Why Beduins, our enemies, are defended, while Jews in Samaria, are attacked? My conclusion is that Jewish leftists are not interested in the Palestinians or justice or equality, they are moved by bitter hate against the Jewish nation. They want to harm us. They want us to notice them. They are sick. Sick, sick, sick.
On the other hand, the Beduin nomads of the Negev, have taken over most of public lands and built goatskin tents and goat and camel corrals. Apart from Social Security payments, their main economic activity is stealing. There are no roadside signposts in the Negev, they have been collected and sold as scrap metal by the Beduin. Jewish leftists are forcing the Government to grant property rights to their extensive "farms" and provide free water, electricity, sewage, schools and clinics. Why Beduins, our enemies, are defended, while Jews in Samaria, are attacked? My conclusion is that Jewish leftists are not interested in the Palestinians or justice or equality, they are moved by bitter hate against the Jewish nation. They want to harm us. They want us to notice them. They are sick. Sick, sick, sick.
19 comments:
So why, then do they have so much influence?
Anon.
Fortunately, they are bothersome but powerless. The left is powerful in the media and specially in the international media, but the mass of the people is sane and instinctively feels where its interest lies.
In Southern Africa, these same type of people eventually mobilised the "International Community" against the mass of the whites. And successfully.
Anon.
Yes, that is a very bad precedent. Already there is a beginning of international boycott of Israeli universities.
Tell me please if a person in his mind would do such a thing?
A person in his mind may not, but your enemies may be out of their minds.
I read that in many of the settlements the Jews would buy the land, but the former owners would not sign and register the deed because they were afraid of being targeted as collaborators. So the Palestinians would surrender control of the land to the Jewish buyer, and then after a period of years would gain squatters title like the example you gave in Argentina.
Anon, are you a former White Seffrican?
They also boycotted South African universities, some of which contained the most decent people you could imagine, trying to help everybody in the population, and responsible in many ways for the Western Civilisation in that country.
The point was to inspire deep feelings of guilt and unworthiness in people who would be susceptible to feel those emotions, because of their basic decency.
This is the Achilles Heel of the best of our people; the need to put the interests of others always ahead of our own. It is, I believe, a physiological trait and likely something to do with "mirror neurons"; the very opposite of psychopathy. Some is good, but too much is dangerous.
Anon.
Anon.
It is not productive to call these people self-hating, at least not if you wish to understand them and defeat them.
They, are, of course, engaged in a struggle to gain control of Israeli society.
It is, however, amusing to see the same methods being used in Israel as in the US (by the same type of people, most likely).
To Ronduck
"Yis ah em" (a former white Seffrican").
Anon.
Anon, it is good to see that someone made it out of that hellhole alive. I used to read the racist detroitiscrap.com blog and a White Seffrican used to post there under that moniker. It's amazing all of the Seffricans I see on conservative sites, like this one on Brussels Jounal: Kan-Wil-Sal.
Actually,Ronduck,emotionally, you never make it out of South Africa.
However,in truth, in some ways it is now better while in other ways it is worse. The old system had to change, but what to replace it with?
And furthermore, it will continue to change; the fat lady has not yet sung her little song.
We shall see what transpires. It remains a rich country with some gutsy people, of all races. They are very resourceful. And, increasingly, the world understands.
The world understands, but I wonder if it cares. The new generation does not know that Rhodesia has been ruined, they think it was much worse before. And Kenya! Ask Barak Obama.
For a long time, the western media and politicians sytematically misled the western world about the realities in Africa. Mainly, this was because they could not resist the opportunity for sanctimonious moral posturing; classic "useful idiots". Even if these expose's were sometimes justified, the solutions advocated were facile and directly contributed to the western naivite that allowed the various human rights catastrophes to unfold. But now the media are generally more prone to tell the truth, as the realities are now difficult to hide, and the colonials can no longer be blamed.
And, given the huge mineral and other wealth of the continent, there all sorts of people who do care; the Chinese, eg, the City of London etc. But these are not the older European colonialists, many of whom wanted to build sustainable, stable and civilised societies, and who have now been forced out. And the blacks and whites have both been the losers here, while the original media types and mendacious politicians who ultimately engineered these disasters (eg Zimbabwe, the Congo)are now very quiet. But they will never apologise.
While the white settlers should have compromised earlier, and must accept some blame as well, the situation could and should have been managed more intelligently.
Anon.
I agree with everything, except the conclusion. How could the situation be managed more cleverly? I cannot remember even one successful decolonization process. Rhodesia? Kenya? South Africa? Algeria? Congo? Nigeria was delivered to the natives in a very well prepared and orderly way, yet the civil war was inevitable. Goa in India? Maybe the French did it better, Cote d'Ivoire continued to be, for a long time, a paradise, but lately it collapsed, as is the general rule. Maybe Hong Kong was well managed, but with the Chinese it is easy.
The fault is the idea of "handing over". These places should not have been suddenly handed over to the majority on a one-man-one-vote basis. The majority should have been gradually enfranchised at a time before the anti-colonial mentality became widespread, on the basis of a qualification, eg education level or income. This was tried, eg in Rhodesia, but too little and much too late. Part of the blame for this must lie with the local whites, and some with the colonial powers.
I do accept that ultimately there would have been irresistable pressure for a universal franchise but at least there might have been time for a black middle class to evolve, whose interests lay in maintaining economic vigour, hospitals, universities, etc.and who might have formed political parties that were multiracial. These countries were literally handed over to the pitifully small handful of people with any post-secondary education. Although (and I agree with you) this process was never going to be easy, the way it actually happened meant that they had no chance whatsoever. Zero.
Anon.
Anon,
There were several examples of countries where decolonization was deliberately slow and the administrative machinery was transferred to locals in an orderly way. Example: Nigeria. The British had organized a very smoothly operating government, they sent people to study in England, they trained them, they did everything right. The old colonial functionaries continued to receive their salaries and pensions, and kept vacationing in Jos. This idill lasted a few years, then there was civil war and then a total collapse of civilization. I am sure that in coming generations, a native middle class will arise and stabilize the country.
I suppose what we are talking about here is what is required to make these countries successful in the long run. Perhaps it is easier to identify what will make them fail: tribalism, Malthusian population explosions, corruption, the abandonment of the expatriates by the "International Community",and which in turn leads to their exodus and the collapse of management. It would be better if the governments decided to contract out the managerial functions which could not be performed by domestic people (and some can be done by domestic people), for as long as it takes to train up locals, and some expatriates might be induced to settle and become permanent residents. I am thinking here of the Brazilian model, and I am sure you know more about this than I do.
In the end I think it comes down to a ratio game; the proportion of capable people, of any race, that can function safely in the society. I am sure there is a threshold effect; above this threshold, these places can work quite well. Think Botswana, or even Zambia, which, although not perfect, is not violent.
Too optimistic? Maybe.
Anon.
Anon.
Brazil is something else, it is not based on expatriates but native populations and immigrants that settled a hundred years ago and mixed with local populations. Brazil is not and never was a colony, as it was always bigger and richer than Portugal the metropolis, to the point that the Portuguese monarchy moved to Brasil. Brasil has taken up Portugal´s role and is very active in Angola and Mozambique.
Regarding contracting expatriates to run the government, it is a very bad solution. Expats have short term perspectives and care little about the country. You could not get a stable population rooted in the place like Kenya, Nigeria or Rhodesia had before independence. White people loved those countries. No extra pay can buy that.
You are absolutely right, the best solution would have been to have found a way for the white settlers to have stayed on. South Africa still has this opportunity, to some extent, fortunately. But in Zimbabwe, for instance, they have to start again, as virtually all the whites have gotten out. The only solution is to contract outside people, and hope that some will choose to stay long term; and maybe try to encourage some of the originals to come back. None of this is ideal, but I think better than letting it all go to hell. And, frankly, the UN or someone has to be prepared to intervene to maintain law and order, if and when the state fails. This will not be popular with anyone, on the left or right, but it has to be a precondition for international aid.
Anon.
The UN is made up by Mugabe and his kin.
Post a Comment