It is early morning here and wish to register a thought: as a consulting and design engineer, over thre quarters of my time workload is permiting, getting permits for people who wants to build something. Last week I finished the fire, water, sewage and drainage permits for a 4 floor building, and it was a long and difficult battle that lasted.... TWO YEARS! Yesterday I sent to print a 50 pg long environmental impact assessment for a Cochinese (Indian origin Jew) in the Negev who want to install solar power on his chicken coops - and make use of the subsidy offered by the State for the project. It took me two months of work on-off to collect the information and to organize it. In the blog note of yesterday, about the Tamp Bay desalination project, I noticed that the hardest part was the permitting, the actual building of the plant was considered a cakewalk.
What do I learn from this situation? One is that I am good at writing these elaborated documents and justifications, and giving presentations convincing my colleges who work for the permitting insitutions, that make up the permitting process. Second, there is a demand for these services, I could easily build up a large office. I would like to reflect on the general impact of this new situation, that you have to spend ten years to get the permit for building say a pyramid while the actual contracting the slaves and building materials and so on takes half of that time and effort. But I have no time to think and nothing clever comes to my tired brain. A good day to all.
12 comments:
It would be much quicker to just pay the permitting committee.
Anon.
No one seeking and environmental permit will dare to fall under suspicion of some irregularity. Thousands of "greens" are just waiting for that. It is preferrible to undergo the torture and faking that it has some deep meaning.
In Nigeria, this would not be a problem. You are living in the wrong country.
Anon.
I know. I felt very at home in Nigeria. In my times the British presence was still strong. And I had the strings to the money bag of a strong Permanent Secretary. Ah, and the morons of Barclay Bank. You cannot imagine what a disorder reigned and how money was "managed". It was paradise, at so young an age.
I can imagine with great detail how Gaydamek made billions in Angola.
I can imagine it very well. I lived for years in sub-Saharan Africa, including post-independence, and loved every minute of it. Much of what happened could not have been imagined, even by a very creative novelist.
Anon.
The British created a paradise in Africa (and Argentina too). In less than a generation, the natives succeeded in transforming it in hell. Rhodesia is the most extreme example. Civilization is very fragile.
Considering Rhodesia,I cannot think of any similar example in history, when a technologically superior civilization simply retreated without having been forced to, and abandoned territory to be so despoiled in this fashion. Perhaps I have not read enough Gibbon.
Anon.
Yes, it is without precedent in history. Lately, as information is becoming public, I am inclined to think that what happened was not a simple retreat and abandonment of territory. What happened can and should be seen as a war, where the Rhodesians lost. Lost to whom? Certainly not to the nominal winners, the African parties and movements. They lost against the British and American governments, against the Nordic countries's governments, against Christian churches. The governments that decided to wage war against Rhodesia did it for internal political reasons, to appease leftwing organizations. I am sure if Rhodesians would have not given in as they did, American and European troops would have invaded the country and delivered it to the natives. Rhodesia was lost because it would not change its image of a colonial creation and would not seek allies where their fate was being debated and decided: the British Labor Party and the Democratic Party of the USA. Sometimes I think that the South African way was the only possible, and in fact, against what is being sometimes said, the country is prospering and whites are making more money than before. I dont agree that there is an organized genocide against whites, it is just that they happen to live with Africans. Like someone living in central Detroit, not a good neighborhood for whites, blacks, yellows, iridescents.
This is an interesting perspective.
However, in my mind, the "Rhodesians" were, and still are, an expeditionary force of the British people; as are many in South Africa, and half of white America, most of Canada, nearly all of Australia and New Zealand, and scattered people elsewhere. So in my mind, and I am one of them, British colonials are all part of the great Anglo-Saxon diaspora, in turn part of the Anglo-Saxon people; we are all one people and, contrary to appearances, this identity remains an important truth for us.
The goal of Empire in the 17-20th centuries was to expand our territory, our civilization, and to extend our population base beyond the small confines of the British Isles; and this project succeeded beyond our wildest dreams, until the rot set in.
So Rhodesia, as I prefer to see it, was a retreat; but as you rightly say, it was a retreat organised by the cultural elite (including the "government" of the UK), various defeatists like the "International Community" (ie ex-university communists suddenly having to "earn" a living in "agencies"), the anti-Western UN, the churches (who seriously do live in another world), and sundry other types of parasite.
So, if it was a war, it was a civil war, and in fact the first shot was in India two decades before. The British Govt decided it was neither worth it, nor economically possible, to hold on to these places; and in India they were correct, for it is now a civilized and successful place and a friend to the British people. Yet in Africa, this is absolutely not the case; as the objective record clearly demonstrates. In Zimbabwe, the rulers have allied themselves with the world's worst governments, and are openly stealing from, and murdering the few productive people left in the country; and are an open enemy of their own black citizens, who live in squalor, poverty and starvation far worse than in Ian Smith's time. This is not to say I believe that white majority rule could or should have gone on forever, but that there were different and more humane ways to organize these countries than simply to hand them over, and stab the whites in the back.
Here's the point: the govt in Britain now is clearly incapable of protecting even the UK itself from invasion and cultural conquest (mass immigration, ie). And in so failing to protect even the very home of their own people, they are continuing the civil war which they started so long ago, and of which Rhodesia was just a part. But for anyone with wisdom, who looked at the treachery against the Rhodesians committed by successive UK governments, the extrapolation to the current surrender of Britain to a foreign people and culture, could only have been a logical conclusion. Enoch Powell was such a man.
Anon.
I am glad that you agree that Rhodesians lost their country not to the currently ruling Communist Party, but to an international coalition of left wing forces led by the mother country's government. Why did this happen?
Following Socratic reasoning, no one is evil except by mistake, and therefore the British people took the side of the African natives against British Rhodesians out of sheer ignorance and miscalculation. After Bandung we all believed that the newly discolonized countries would fast become developed and surpass old and tired Europe. No one imagined that the current descent to bestiality was a possibility. We tought that Nigeria, for example, a country well on the road to middle income, would soon be an African giant. Within this mental framework, it may have seen rational to uproot 100 - 200,000 Rhodesians to win the goodwill of the new Third World giants. Great Britain was then a poorer country than is today and needed foreign markets. Siding with Rhodesia would have meant the loss of all Third World markets - so it seemed then. It may have been a rational calculation to betray Rhodesia.
But it was a mistake made out of ignorance. Third World countries were fakes made of papier-mache, they did not exist as functional entities, their armies were a joke. We in Israel made the same mistake, Nasser's gradiose speeches and the Arab masses shouting on the streets made us believe that we faced the Wermacht and the end of Zionism was at hand. Yet the Egyptian Army was routed in the first day of fighting, they turned around and run away. No one imagined the sheer fakery that the Third World was. This mistake is still behind American politically correct thinking. But time is passing and the British and the Americans are getting to know from closer range what these people are, and they are fast losing their awe and starting to laugh them off behind their backs. Soon they will treat them according to their real worth. Then Rhodesia will be recovered to the British race and civilization.
I hope. One hopes it might even be recovered also for the benefit of the Zimbabwean majority, who are basically friendly and pleasant people who might truly be prepared to run a multi-racial country with productive white farmers feeding them (and the rest of Africa), and
white engineers,doctors, educators and business people free to raise the standard of living of everyone, with competent locals being promoted to positions of responsibility, and real investment made in schools, clinics and infrastructure .
But the Western leadership is still largely composed of these highly malignant and paradoxically anti-Western ex-communists.
Who, for example, is really in charge in the UK, and what is their deep agenda? Why are they so into this world-government climate scam?
As an ethnic Briton, I cannot really answer these questions with any certainty, and the answers that spring to mind are not re-assuring.
Anon.
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
Post a Comment