The Failure of Democracy in Africa
The ongoing violence in Iraq has caused observers to reflect on the challenges of bringing democracy to tribal societies. Before the Iraq War was launched in 2003, the Bush administration assured Americans and the world that the removal of Saddam Hussein would result in the creation of a peaceful, well-governed, and democratic society. But it is now becoming clear that building a successful democracy is not as easy as many Americans had assumed. Pure democracy is a system that works well in particular cultures, and not all cultures are equally capable of building harmonious democratic societies.
If the Bush administration had been interested in studying the track record of democracy-building efforts in tribal cultures, they should have studied the experience of Sub-Saharan Africa, where the introduction of pure democracy 50 years ago resulted in disaster for the people of the region. For the purposes of this article, I am defining ‘pure democracy’ as majority rule under universal suffrage, in which all citizens of adult age are guaranteed the right to vote in national elections.
In 1957, Ghana became the first black African country to gain independence from European colonial rule (Sudan gained its independence in 1956, but it regards itself as part of Arab Africa, rather than black Africa). The Prime Minister of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, had won an election in 1956, campaigning on a platform of attaining immediate independence from British colonial rule. Nkrumah had served as Prime Minister from 1951 to 1956, a period in which Ghana enjoyed internal self-government, under the supervision of the British colonial governor in the country. The governor had the power to veto decisions by Nkrumah that he felt were harmful to the interests of the colony. This was the period in which Ghana enjoyed the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity in its history.
Two conservative Ghanaian politicians, J. B. Danquah and Kofi Busia, opposed Nkrumah’s campaign for immediate independence. They wanted to preserve the status quo, because of the stability and prosperity which Ghana was enjoying. They preferred a more gradual path to independence, in contrast to the campaign for rapid decolonization. Both men realized that without the supervision of the British colonial power, Nkrumah would turn Ghana into a dictatorship, and impose his deeply-held Marxist beliefs on the Ghanaian people.
The opposition political party that was supported by Danquah and Busia lost the 1956 elections, and Nkrumah was able to lead his country to independence on March 6, 1957. The dire predictions of Danquah and Busia came true, and in a couple of years, Nkrumah established Africa’s first post-colonial dictatorship. Danquah was subsequently arrested and jailed as a political prisoner, and he eventually died because of the terrible prison conditions in which he was held. Busia fled the country in fear of his life, and he returned to the country only after Nkrumah was overthrown in a Western-backed military coup in 1966.
Most of the Black African nations that gained independence after Ghana followed its path by establishing one-party dictatorships. Observers soon began to describe the practice of democracy in Africa as ‘one-man, one-vote, one-time’. In many of the cases, the winning political party at the independence elections used its majority in the national parliament, to pass legislation outlawing the existence of opposition political parties. This left the ruling party with a monopoly of power. This trend challenged the widely held notion that pure democracy leads to more freedom. If anything, in many countries, Africans enjoyed greater personal freedom and prosperity under colonial rule, than they do today under independent governments. While opposition parties have been permitted to exist in some countries in the last few years, the oppressive habits associated with one-party dictatorial rule have been hard to break.
In the 1960s, American conservatives were outspoken against the wave of decolonization and democratization in Sub-Saharan Africa, that was being pushed by the United States and the former Soviet Union. William F. Buckley, in his book, Up From Liberalism wrote:
“We see in the revolt of the masses in Africa the mischief of the white man’s abstractions: for the West has, by its doctrinaire approval of democracy, deprived itself of the moral base from which to talk back to the apologists of rampant nationalism….Democracy, to be successful, must be practiced by politically mature people among whom there is a consensus on the meaning of life within their society….If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be the indicated, though concededly the undemocratic, course. It is more important for a community, wherever situated geographically, to affirm and live by civilized standards than to labor at the job of swelling the voting lists”.
Buckley tried to make the distinction between universal suffrage and freedom, in his analysis of the conditions in the American South before the passage of Civil Rights legislation, which he compared to colonial rule in Africa:
“Does the vote really make one free? I do not believe it necessarily does….Being able to vote is no more to have realized freedom than being able to read is to have realized wisdom. Reasonable limitations upon the vote are not recommended exclusively by tyrants or oligarchs (was Jefferson either?). The problem of the South is not how to get the vote for the Negro, but how to train the Negro – and a great many whites – to cast a thoughtful vote”
Buckley was however careful to distinguish his position in opposing universal franchise in the American South, from that of the southern segregationists who advanced genetic arguments in opposing black voting rights in the South:
“There are no scientific grounds for assuming congenital Negro disabilities. The problem is not biological, but cultural and educational”
Today, if one was to argue in favor of restrictions to the right to vote, one would be labeled as an enemy of freedom. But, as we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and in much of Black Africa, democracy does not necessarily lead to freedom. With hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fleeing their country as a result of the violence that has engulfed that nation, can anyone seriously suggest that Iraqis are freer today than they were under Saddam Hussein? Are the nations of Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo freer today, than they were under colonial rule?
The state governments that existed in the American South during the Jim Crow era discredited the respectable and honorable Western tradition of placing reasonable restrictions on who to allow to vote. Putting restrictions on the vote using poll taxes, literacy tests, and property ownership qualifications, has helped many Western nations to preserve liberty and order for centuries. But Southern state governments in the post-Reconstruction era applied such restrictions unfairly, in a manner which was blatantly discriminatory on the basis of race. In the early part of the 20th Century, Booker T. Washington called on black Americans to work hard to improve their educational and economic status, in order to more fully participate in the American political process. But by denying educated and financially successful Blacks access to the ballot, the state governments of the South destroyed Washington’s vision of building racial harmony in America. As a result, divisive demagogues like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have risen to prominence, and shape the agenda on race relations in America today.
Universal suffrage is a very recent development in the West. Britain attained universal suffrage only in 1928, when all adults over the age of 21 were allowed to vote. A century earlier, voting in Britain was limited to a tiny percentage of the adult male population. The Tories held power from 1783 to 1830, a 46 year stretch that was only briefly interrupted in 1806-1807. Charles Grey finally took over as a Whig Prime Minister in 1830. He passed the Reform Act in 1832, which significantly expanded the percentage of male citizens who were allowed to vote. The 1832 reforms gave one in five adult males the right to vote. The property qualifications for voting were gradually lowered over the decades, enfranchising more and more people, before they were finally abolished in 1928. During this time, the educational, social, and cultural level of the British masses was gradually raised, which enabled a successful transition to majority rule without destabilizing the social order.
In the United States, the founding fathers set out to create a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. At the time the Constitution was adopted, half of the white adult male population could not meet the property qualification for voting in elections. Because women could not vote, that meant that only 25 percent of the white citizens of the US were entitled to vote. The U.S. finally gained the universal franchise in 1965, where adult citizens of both genders and all races were given the right to vote. By this time, the majority of American families were middle-class people who owned their homes—and therefore, such a measure did not threaten the stability of the market economy. Given that Britain and the US took so long to build well-functioning democratic systems, it is unrealistic to expect African nations to have set up successful democratic societies, given the high poverty rates and the low levels of civilization of most of the population.
Classical liberals have long said that one cannot build a free society without putting in place a political system that protected property rights. The 17th Century English philosopher, John Locke, asserted that the prerequisites for a free society were the protection of life, liberty, and property. Locke did not limit his definition of property to material goods, but included as a form of property the ownership of one’s labor. Twentieth century Communists understood that, by abolishing private property through nationalization, they would completely strip private citizens of their means of self-support and independence, reducing them to the status of slaves. This led to a situation where people living under Communism were completely dependent on the government for their very survival, which allowed the government to control every aspect of their lives.
With this understanding of liberalism, Ian Douglas Smith, the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, can be rightly regarded as Africa’s first classical liberal revolutionary. In 1965, he led a revolution for freedom, when he initiated the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) of Rhodesia from Britain. The UDI was intended to preserve Christianity, freedom, and civilization. For that courageous action, Smith became one of the most vilified men in history, and his country was subjected to comprehensive United Nations economic sanctions in 1966. He was falsely labeled as a racist and white supremacist. But, unlike the architects of apartheid in neighboring South Africa, he has never supported claims that blacks are inherently inferior. However, like Buckley, Smith recognized that the low levels of education and cultural development of most of the blacks, made the establishment of a successful pure democracy a difficult undertaking.
In addition, there were numerous previous examples of failed attempts to establish pure democracies in Africa, from Guinea and Ghana, to Nigeria and Uganda, and there was good reason to expect that Rhodesia would follow a similarly tragic path if the universal franchise was extended. Facing a possible future of either a Marxist dictatorship or anarchy, the Rhodesian leadership declared independence and prevented Britain from imposing majority rule in the colony. The lives, liberty, and property of people of all races in Rhodesia were preserved.
Smith was motivated by the desire to uphold the historical Anglo-Saxon tradition of limiting the vote to that segment of the population that would be able to use it responsibly. The Rhodesian UDI of 1965 was modeled on the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Rhodesians had great respect and admiration for America. However, the Rhodesian admiration for America was not reciprocated, and the U.S. joined the rest of the world in denouncing and isolating a friendly country.
The Rhodesian government was unfairly compared to the segregationist state governments of the American South, and to South Africa under apartheid rule. However, Rhodesia did not have the rigid racial segregation that characterized those two other systems of government, and Blacks were allowed to vote in Rhodesian elections. Blacks were allowed to have 16 seats in the 66 member Rhodesian parliament, while whites held 50 seats. Voting was limited to those who could meet the literacy and property ownership qualifications, just like in Britain and the United States in the relatively recent past. Rhodesia was a limited democracy, not a pure democracy.
It was expected that, with time, as black Rhodesians became better educated and more prosperous, they would gradually gain greater representation in the Rhodesian Parliament. Eventually, white and black Rhodesians would share power in the Rhodesian Parliament, under a 50-50 arrangement. This position fell short of majority rule. But since the whites had created and built the country, and were expected to pay a disproportionate share of the taxes even in the future, this arrangement seemed to be fair. Many white and black Rhodesians felt that this power sharing model would prevent Rhodesia from becoming a Marxist dictatorship like Nkrumah’s Ghana, or deteriorating into the chaos of the democratic republics of Congo and Somalia. But the international community would not accept anything less than black majority rule.
By the mid 1970s, Rhodesia had, proportionally, the largest black middle-class in Africa, and it was growing rapidly. This was despite the fact that Rhodesia was under U.N. economic sanctions, and the government was spending vast sums of money waging a war against Marxist terrorists, who were based in neighboring Mozambique and Zambia. Despite those challenges, Rhodesia was a successful limited democracy, governed by the rule of law, having independent courts, and a multiparty system of government. The leader of the official opposition in parliament was black, and he and other black members of parliament were able to openly criticize Prime Minister Smith and his government for what they felt were their shortcomings. This was in stark contrast to the situation in the rest of Africa, where one-party dictatorial rule was the norm, and criticism of the president was equated with treason.
In 1979, a power-sharing agreement between white Rhodesians and their moderate black allies was arrived at. Free and fair elections were held under universal suffrage, which led to black majority rule, but there were strong guarantees put in place to protect white minority rights. The new government was headed by the moderate black clergyman, Abel Muzorewa, and he was committed to maintaining Rhodesia’s capitalist system and its economic prosperity. However, Muzorewa’s government was denied recognition by the West, and Rhodesia remained under U.N. economic sanctions. U.S. President Jimmy Carter and British Prime Minister James Callaghan, demanded new elections that would include the participation of terrorist leaders who did not believe in the democratic process.
New elections were held in 1980, and the Maoist terrorist Robert Mugabe won the vote through appeals to tribal sentiment and by intimidating rural voters in the Shona-dominated provinces. Mugabe was a devoted student of Kwame Nkrumah, having lived and worked in Nkrumah’s Ghana in the late 1950s, where he closely observed how his mentor managed his government. Since 1980, Rhodesians (now called Zimbabweans), have had less freedom than they ever had under Smith.
The economy of Zimbabwe gradually declined from 1980 to 1999. In the year 2000, the Mugabe regime launched the infamous invasions of white-owned farms that completely destroyed the country’s agriculturally-based economy. Ironically, the Zimbabwean government already owned millions of acres of land, which it could have re-distributed to poor blacks, without touching the white-owned farms. But Mugabe did not want a sensible solution to the land question. He was driven by the desire to punish white Zimbabweans for supporting the emerging opposition party, known as the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). As anyone with knowledge of the situation in Zimbabwe knows, Mugabe never had any intention of helping Zimbabwe’s poor, despite his rhetoric on the issue. The black middle-class, which had thrived under Smith, has now been almost completely wiped out. Just as the Bolsheviks of the former Soviet Union enslaved the Russian people by abolishing private property, Mugabe is now in the process of seizing privately-owned business enterprises, just as he seized the white-owned commercial farms. Instead of condemning Mugabe, corrupt African politicians view Mugabe as some sort of hero, for his defiance of the West.
Out of concern for Africa’s future, I founded the African Conservative Forum (ACF) in May, 2007. My organization seeks not just the downfall of the Mugabe regime, but the complete dismantling of the disastrous Marxist legacy that Nkrumah and Mugabe have bequeathed to Africa. One of the major tasks that I plan to undertake is the distribution of 10,000 copies of Ian Smith’s autobiography, The Great Betrayal, to African legislators, civil servants, academics, journalists, university students, diplomats and others. Individuals or organizations that may be interested in assisting in this important task, can contact me.
Reading Smith’s memoirs changed my life. His book helped to make me a conservative. If African intellectuals were to get an opportunity to read his autobiography, they would realize, as I did, that the true freedom fighter from Rhodesia is Ian Smith, not Robert Mugabe. Once they learn about the link between property and freedom, and how pure democracy and political independence do not necessarily translate into freedom, then they would get a true idea of what freedom is all about.
If there is any African leader who deserves a presidential library, it is Ian Smith. His memoirs spell out how Africa can move forward to a future of liberty and prosperity. It is often said that prophets are not honored in their home countries. Smith can accurately be described as a prophet, because he predicted disaster for Rhodesia once it came under the control of the communist terrorist, Robert Mugabe. Many people who opposed Smith in the past are finally coming to realize how right he was. In the British Sunday Times newspaper of September 23, 2007, Judith Todd, a left-liberal human rights activist who was one of Smith’s most outspoken opponents in the 1970s, now admits that “Mugabe was rotten from the start”.
Not surprisingly, the Marxist government of Zimbabwe viciously attacks Smith’s legacy in the history books and in the state-controlled media. But what is more difficult to understand is the reaction of the brave men and women who make up the opposition to the Mugabe regime, whenever the UDI era is mentioned. Zimbabwean opposition activists, both white and black, make strenuous efforts to distance themselves from Smith, out of fear of being labeled lackeys of the colonialists by the Mugabe regime.
The minds of the Zimbabwean people have been so poisoned against Smith, that it seems highly unlikely that he will receive the honor he truly deserves, even if the opposition comes to power in the next general elections scheduled for 2008. I often dream about building an Ian Smith Library here in Nairobi, where I would be able to educate future generations of African leaders about Smith’s admirable legacy. But I guess, given the high cost of such a project, it will remain an impossible dream.
In 1980, when Mugabe came to power, Rhodesia had a GDP per capita that was comparable to that of Malaysia. Today, Malaysia is hailed around the world as one of East Asia’s great economic success stories, and is a newly industrialized country that manufactures goods of all sorts. Yet, in 1980, Rhodesia had economic policies that were more business-friendly than those of Malaysia, and a civil service that was far more honest and efficient than Malaysia’s. Both nations are former British colonies, and have a public service modeled on that of Britain.
Where would Rhodesia be today, if Ian Smith’s vision of power-sharing rather than majority rule, had come to pass? I will try to hazard a guess. Rhodesia would have experienced an economic boom without precedent in Africa’s history, with impressive double-digit growth in the 1980s, 1990s, and beyond. The white population would probably be double what it was in 1980, growing from 250,000 to 500,000. This would have been partly as a result of natural increase, because of the lower costs of raising children in Rhodesia. Many of the hundreds of thousands of Portuguese settlers who fled from the Communist revolutions in Angola and Mozambique would have moved to Rhodesia. There would also have been some immigration from South Africa, as well as from many Western nations, attracted by Rhodesia’s pleasant climate and promising economic future. All those whites would have brought useful skills that would have benefited the country immensely.
Interestingly, the dynamism of the free market would have reduced the racial disparities in land ownership in a fair and transparent manner. This is because the rapid growth in manufacturing, tourism, and other industries, would have led to many black workers abandoning their jobs in the white farms for better economic opportunities in the cities. The resulting rise in average black agricultural wages would have put many white farms out of business, and some of the farmers would have been forced to sub-divide and sell their farms. The newly economically empowered blacks would have purchased plots of land for residential use, or for small-scale horticulture.
If Smith’s vision had prevailed, Zimbabwe would have had a GDP per capita equal to, or higher than, that of Malaysia. But the sad reality is that Zimbabwe’s GDP per capita today is lower than that of Haiti. The Caribbean nations of Barbados and the Bahamas are majority black former British colonies, and they can provide us with a model of what the future could have been in Rhodesia, if the Communists had not taken over. Both nations have maintained the colonial tradition of providing strong protections for property rights, and, today, both nations have a GDP per capita higher than that of Malaysia.
My British and American friends often ask me to predict the future of South Africa, and whether that nation will go the way of Zimbabwe. I am often tempted to tell them what they want to hear – the politically-correct answer that the situations in Zimbabwe and South Africa are different, and that all is well in South Africa. But the past record of the ANC does not give me much cause for optimism. During the days of white rule, the ANC worked to mobilize black support by stirring up anti-white hatred. The late ANC activist, Peter Mokaba, is credited with creating the infamous chant, “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer”. Not to be outdone, the main rival of the ANC among the black radicals, the PAC party, had its own rallying cry, “One settler, one bullet”.
As one can expect, the anti-white hatred that the ANC and PAC stirred up during the era of white rule, did not dissipate with the coming of majority rule. The ANC leadership blames all its failures on whites and the supposed ‘legacy of apartheid’. There has also been an explosion in the rate of violent crime, in which whites have been disproportionately targeted, and which the ANC has shown an unwillingness to deal with. Some 210,000 blacks and 40,000 whites have been murdered since 1994. When he was challenged on his failure to tackle violent crime, the South African Security Minister, Charles Nqakula, told his critics that if they were unhappy with the conditions in South Africa they should leave the country. His statement was widely understood as being targeted at South African whites.
Blacks in South Africa enjoy one of the highest standards of living in Africa. Yet the ANC blames whites for the poverty and landlessness of much of the black population. The government of South Africa owns millions of hectares, and is the largest land owner in South Africa. Instead of offering this land to South Africa’s poor people of all races, the ANC focuses on making the blacks envious of the white land owners who produce most of South Africa’s food. The ANC plans to maintain its hold on power for decades to come, by inciting racial resentment against the white minority. There is a real danger that the country may join the long list of failed democracies in Africa. Unless a new generation of enlightened black leaders emerges in South Africa, committed to promoting Christian values, property rights, and free market economic policies, South Africa’s future looks bleak.
Mr. Waruiru, a native of Kenya, is the founder of the African Conservative Forum, a Christian human rights and public policy organization based in Nairobi. His website is www.africanconservative.org
Comments
If this becomes another “Does race exist?” spat or a traditionalist Catholic pep rally, I will donate five British pounds to The European Institute of Protestant Studies, founded by Dr. Ian Paisley.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And where exactly is democracy working well regardless of the society under democratic rule? Where does democracy mean anything other than the ascent to power of the brutal, the crafty, the corrupt, and liberal and other leftist ideologues?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Where does democracy mean anything other than the ascent to power of the brutal, the crafty, the corrupt, and liberal and other leftist ideologues?
Here’s the problem: democracy isn’t democracy anymore. It is a spoils system where demagogues and pressure groups can chew the meat and bones off the middle class, forcing them to carry more burdens while bearing fewer children. It happens all of the world.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
When referring to democracy, Mr Waruiru doesn’t mean “one man, one vote”, and, as well, he doesn’t mean “the ascent to power of the brutal, the crafty, the corrupt, and liberal and other leftist ideologues”. He explained quite clearly what “democracy” means, and it’s not the definition with which people are comfortable, as a matter of fact, the system of government Mr Waruiru is describing would NOT be called “democratic” by today’s liberal American society - it would probably be called something like “fascist”.
The people voting, from what I gathered, under Mr Waruiru’s proposed system, would be ostensibly “at least middle class”. The definition of “at least middle class”, however, is slippery, and he did not provide any concrete examples, which is understandable.
I hope we all understand what he is thinking: “at least middle class” includes anyone with a “stake” in traditional society, and in the case of many Africans, it would include a traditional familial, tribal, ethnic identity, and the conservation of that system. Hence, a “conservative”.
Herein lies the problem.
The African “conservative” can “conserve” his own tribe and society by trying to, more or less, enslave the other tribes. In Africa this is done mostly through government action, aka “socialism”.
That leads to the question: isn’t Robert Mugabe a conservative? Absolutely he is. He’s the prototypical non-nationalist conservative. Robert Mugabe couldn’t care less about Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe is there for himself, his family, and his “tribe”. Robert Mugabe is where anti-nationalism run rampant will get a country (take not Sid Cundiff).
The question is then: are Zimbabwe’s problems the fault of conservative anti-nationalism? No, they are the fault of liberal nationalism - that is, for example, drawing lines on a map with no real rhyme or reason, given the demographics of the geography, and then willing to let the problem to continue to fester, in order to protect your own “image”.
“The West”, as it is called, refuses to tackle, for some reason, the problems with the lines drawn on maps in both the Middle East and Africa. However, they ARE willing to tackle the issue of boundaries defined before the advent of western liberal governments, a la Kosovo/Serbia.
The problem with Zimbabwe is that it’s an invention of the western liberal governments, therefore it must “perfect”. Inter-tribal conflict is ignored, because Zimbabwe is defined as a “nation”, despite reality.
The problem with Serbia is that it’s an “invention” of Imperial Hapsburg, therefor “imperfect”. Inter-ethnic conflict is focused upon, because Serbia is defined as “fascist”, despite reality.
In conclusion, thank you Mr Waruiru, your breath of fresh air regarding Africa is something that is much needed around here, and I hope to read much more from you in the future.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It is day dreaming if Smith’s vision had passed.Smith’s vision was in a cul de sac. Racial dynamics, so simple in its essence, had escaped Smith’s grasp.No sane thinking european would have emigrated to an african cauldron. Rhodesia today it is very prosperous and a gold mine for particular entities with vested interests which are in control of the land. The people don’t matter to these exploiters. It is a waste of intellectual energy to become peoccupied with african affairs and africans. It can be profitable for certain interests groups , but from an evolutionary perspective, aesthetic , cultural and civilizational angle, it is advisable to leave africa to the africans and have minimal contact with the continent and its peoples. It does not augur well for europeans to become fused or embroiled in there.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A fascinating essay by Mr. Waruiru, especially as concerns
former Prime Minister Ian Smith. Intestingly enough, I
carried on a correspondence with Mr. Smith in 1965. Mr.
Waruiru is correct about the utter failure of decolonialization
in Africa and some other parts of the world.
Oh, and Peter, don’t worry...I haven’t said a thing about
re-starting the Holy Inquistion or about racial nationalism!!
Happy All Saints Day! On behalf of the Torquemada Society.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This essay is both timely and impressively well
documented but the author may have been overly
kind to the US by praising the 1965 Voting Rights
Act as the awarding of an unqualified suffrage to
a uniformly mature and stable American voting
population. Unlike Mr. Waruiri, I continue to be
appalled by the result of that futher nationalization
of the franchise in providing resounding public
support for publc administration and
for centralized control of our education. Since the
mid-1960s the tax burden for a family of four has
doubled in the US.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Ramus states that democracy isn’t democracy anymore (OK and when and where was it?) and Mr. Capp says that Mr. Waruiru’s version of democracy would be called fascist by today’s liberal American society. The problem is that democracy has come to mean simply any government of which the speaker or writer approves and fascist any government of which he disapproves. When necessary, appeals are made to “real democracy” just as Marxists appeal to “real communism”. This leftist use of language has unhappily been adopted even by most reactionaries. (The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was a conspicuous and relentless exception.) It cannot be said that this use of democracy and fascism is simply a harmless convention of the “have a nice day” variety. More than a hundred million have been slaughtered in the last couple of centuries in crusades for democracy or against fascism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In the Fifties Norman L. Stamps wrote a classic study,
Why Democracies Fall, in which he used as examples the
European countries after Wold War I. Brand new democracies
created by Wilson’s folly after a few years of
spectacularly bad government reverted to different
forms of dictatorship, which included fascist ones.
Why, with that kind of example before their eyes did
they expect African countries to turn out any better
is a mystery.
It is one thing to say that democracy is desirable,
another to assume that it is easy to implement.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Tribalism – a kind of xenophobia that one acknowledges only putative blood relatives as familiars and everyone else as polluting strangers – is a poor way to organize a social order of more than a few close villages or more than a thousand folks. It is especially a poor way to do economic business. Nationalism tries to claim that a very large area of millions of people are a tribe, are of the same “family” – an even more risible idea (and “race” the most risible of all, as no lesser mortal than Buckley has said; it is equivalent to saying that all the green-eyed have grounds for forming a political order). A confederation of tribes is a better form, with decisions made by consensus or super majority. Call it “power-sharing”. Better still is the reduction or subordination of tribal significance, as the Greek and Roman polis achieved. I remind of again Richard Sennett’s warning of “retribalization”.
Pony up, Mr. Ramus. Now Iam Paisley’s making peace.
The best constitution is a mixed constitution. Democracy is one element in a mixed constitution, as Polybius taught, following Aristotle’s teaching on “polity”, for the people need a way to protect their rights. A good, mixed constitution also has an element to check democracy. We might bewail Africa’s (and Lebanon’s and the Balkans’) political condition. Is ours in the “liberal” West better? We need a way for taxpayers who are not tax-takers to be able to check tax-takers, exactly what Calhoun called for, exactly what King George III and Dishonest Abe fought against. Today Gringos are despoiled and plundered far worse than King George ever tried to do.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ian Paisley
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Cundiff. You spelled it exactly right the first time :)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Why, that there Ian Paisley, wellsir, he ain’t got no ol’ time spirit-filled foot-washing Bible-based Four Square Gospel primitive religion no more no how, cuz, hoooooooooooo-wee, he done gone and done made himself some peace with them Mackerel-Snappers, Bead-Clickers, Toe-Kissers, and Cracker-Eaters! Why, I betcha he’ll soon be fixin’ to be atallkin’ to them Whiskeypalians! (cuz wherever you done found four Episcapuls together, you’ll always find a Fifth)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
decolonization didnt work because colonization didnt work....the counter movements that were birthed by the colonialism of that era were reactionary and came out from within the societies where an outside power was imposing governance while they (the colonialists) robbed the riches from those nations to bring back to their own.
Unfortunately those counter movements turned out to be foreign led also, and came dressed as national liberation, such as the marxism that presented itself as a revolution of the masses, until the power grab was completed, then the masses that initially supported the liberationist ( marxist), found themselves trapped inside a police state more brutal and aborent than what they had promised to replace.
so the moral of the story is ...interventionism ought to be abolished. but who is going to tell corporations today that they cant seek cheap labor among those nations in their desire to expand consumption and power.
in the modern era corporations are the colonialist powers, the people in those nations who supply cheap labor are the riches they steal, and the promises are the same...we will bring you civilization and wealth.
nation building writ grande.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mukui Waruiru,
A very insightful essay on the tragedy of Africa. As
you probably know we here in the West are in a state
of cultural and political decline, so any insight we
have will not of an older vintage.
Still, humor is important and for a good laugh go to
this site; http://www.ianpaisley.org/, or visit in
person and meet the “Usher from Ulster”, Mr Peter Ramus, himself.
He usually is in uniform, weather permitting.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“...so any insight we have will be of an older vintage.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear Mr. Mukui Waruiru,
Greetings to Nairobi and Kenya from a former resident.
Thank you for an insightful article.
While the West has had its problems with the Wilsonian concept of self-determination and full-fledged democracy, Africa has even more so.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In a recent GQ magazine interview with Colin Powell by Walter Isaacson:
Its not possible to force tribal societies into Democracy. Plundering the country for capitalist cheap labor and securing resources will not bring Democracy. The neo-cons are idealists and the plans they made reflect that. As well we should probably not listen to the same idealists with regard to Africa, or Iran, for that matter.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This is hilarious. In an article containing references to rampant tribalism, the old Calvinist, Peter Ramus, weighs in with support for Ian Paisley, head of a large tribe in Ireland. Ireland, it can be claimed, was the first European colony, in history, and, probably, it will be the last. The Paisley Tribe is a result of that colony plan. This tribe of Paisleyites is still holding the walls of Derry for King Billy, and marching against history. The Rev. Mr. Paisley’s forces are going to need more than five pounds to stop the rot in the Protestant Ascendancy that is ever increasing as the years go by.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think the factor in successful democracies is widespread property ownership. Widespread ownership of property and capital creates a large and flourishing middle class. That’s right – good golly! – the much-maligned bourgeoisie. As Lawrence Taylor pointed out, societies with large middle classes are democratic, enlightened, flexible, progressive and prosperous. Societies in which such classes are weak or non-existent are none of those things.
Other ingredients: a tolerance for a free and open exchange of ideas (rapidly disappearing in the PC West) and strict limits on sanctioned ideology, be it political, religious or philosophical.
Oh, and, of course, a high-value on education. Nations and cultures that don’t value education are backward, poverty stricken, profoundly corrupt and oppressive. Those elements accurately describe the Third World - people, not geography, within whatever borders they reside.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Democracy, as defined by Joe Sobran: Two wolves and a lamb sit down and vote on what’s for dinner.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I don’t like the middle class. They’re usually
benefitting from their parent’s work, and they’re
often lazy and feminized.
I also don’t like over-educated jerks giving
their opinion on this or that. It’s the people who
create the perfect society and it must be re-created
every generation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What “perfect” society is that, Rich?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m not a Paisley supporter, but he scandalizes the people who should be scandalized. Hey, we’re up to here, we never fear, we all are Billy’s sons…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Tribalism – a kind of xenophobia that one acknowledges only putative blood relatives as familiars and everyone else as polluting strangers
Rubbish! Tribalism is built into every man at the core of his being. Since human nature can’t be changed by earthly means, we had better learn to live in harmony with it. All men are human, but not all men are brothers. Such has been believed everywhere, always and by all.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I don’t like the middle class. They’re usually benefiting from their parent’s work, and they’re
often lazy and feminized.
Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you’re talking about… they do do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn’t think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they’re cattle. Well, in my book he died a much richer man than you’ll ever be.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
backward, poverty stricken, profoundly corrupt and oppressive.
Like Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal? :-)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Why, that there Ian Paisley, wellsir, he ain’t got no ol’ time spirit-filled foot-washing Bible-based Four Square Gospel primitive religion
Paisley believes none of that. You must be thinking of Catholic Charismatic Renewal.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
meet the “Usher from Ulster”, Mr Peter Ramus, himself.
Not even close. I currently reside in Absurdistan with you people. You may bury my bones at Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. But somebody threw Paisley’s name at me, so I ran with it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Today Gringos are despoiled and plundered far worse than King George ever tried to do.
Limited government is too protestant for this group, as it lacks romanticism and cavalier fantasy. Good Paleos must side with Tories and Royalists, even Carlists. Except they do a complete reversal when their own ox gets gored—and they become revolutionaries.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr Wariuru,
While I agree with your critique of democracy-worship in general and the African variety in particular, I must confess I am not very surprised that black Rhodesians revolted after being relegated to 16 seats in a 66-seat legislature. Land ownership and literacy requirements are one thing, but racial quotas are quite another.
If I had been a black Rhodesian under the Smith government, I would have been insulted by the inference that my (literate) African brethren and I were not ready to operate on an equal political footing. Having the majority decide when the minority is mature enough to function without political limitations is a recipe for disaster, since selfishness plays an inevitable role in any such consideration.
I am not an expert on African politics, but this article comes close to convincing me that if the Smith government had enacted a civic liberty test rather than a parliamentary caste system, the Mugabe dictatorship could have been averted.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
For “Liberty” in the last comment, please read “literacy”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I long for the time when this culture of
corruption will be turned on it’s head. It’s
unfortunate that the middle class believes itself
immune from the after-effects of this corruption.
It is a dictatorship we live under. It’s a soft
dictatorship, one that is itelf immune from
the hard feelings of the middle class, few they may
be, for the moment.
See, the middle classes are placated. Placated with
two cars and a three car garage. When the fantasy
ends, the dictatorship ends.
I’m no Paleo, I’m no federalist. They are what
has brought our country to this point.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“an even more risible idea (and “race” the most risible of all, as no lesser mortal than Buckley has said; it is equivalent to saying that all the green-eyed have grounds for forming a political order).” ~ Sid PC Enforcer Cundiff
Don’t you give it a break, Sid? Are you going to hijack ever single thread so you can go off on some “race doesn’t exist” tirade?
If you are criticizing “racial nationalists,” then you are only criticizing about 15% of racialists. The vast majority of racialists are not nationalists. In a recent Yahoo Poll (on a major racialist group) only 15% identified as nationalists, and about 80% of the others are backing Ron Paul.
Not that Ron Paul is a racialist - he is not. But many racialists are supporting him because they see that a smaller federal government would be better, in the long run, for the white race.
And even more importantly, if one thinks that race is important, he doesn’t have to be a racialists to believe in the importance of genophilia, kith and kin, or the Burkean notion of primal ancestral loyalties. One, like most paleoconservatives, can just believe in the importance of helping his own. As Thomas Fleming points out in _The Morality of Everyday Life_, traditional Christianity does not require one to forsake kith and kin loyalties.
Sid, your position is essentially that of 1950s liberalism: “race doesn’t matter” or “race doesn’t exist.” And anyone who disagrees with you, you, like a good leftist, brand as a “neonazi” or “racist.”
Regarding the League of the South, have you read Michael Hill’s essay “Kith and Kin”? He argues that in no way should one forsake his traditional racial loyalties.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
Regarding your Bill Buckley quote, here is what Buckley had to say on race back in the 1950s, before he became a neocon. He wrote (with Russell Kirk as joint author) the following:
“The White community is ENTITLED [to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically], because, for the time being, IT IS THE ADVANCED RACE. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but IT IS A FACT that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.”
Research the quote on Google if you think it is not legitimate.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Neither the “White race” or the “African race” have prevailed in Zimbabwe. Mr. Mugabe and his family have done quite well and everyone else has gotten screwed to various degrees. Racial politics is manipulative politics, and it is the last refuge of scoundrels. Western Civilization has accomplished a lot, but it is not 100% equivalent with the white race, nor can everyone with white skin claim responsibility for it’s success.
Mugabe and the “white racialists” deserve each other. If only we could keep them away from the rest of us.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Andrew Capp talks rubbish.
The first Serbian Kingdom was formed in the tenth century and the Habsburgs first appeared at the beginning of the thirteenth.
How could they have possibly ‘invented’ Serbia?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
That suddenly overused - and therefore shallow - phrase “kith and kin” is becoming a self-parody. Come on, none of you had the faintest idea what the word “kith” MEANT until you looked it up.
And as far as loyalty to “kin” goes, doesn’t just about every American Thanksgiving family reunion’s nearly murderous dysfunction demonstrate that most Americans, deep down, really wouldn’t mind seeing most of their relatives disappear from Planet Earth?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
here is what Buckley had to say on race
Does this make WFB a hate criminal? If I take a Blackford Oates novel up to Canada, will the Mounties take it from me?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
every American Thanksgiving family reunion’s nearly murderous dysfunction
Wow, it must be fun carving the turkey at your house! Do you hide the sharp knives?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries. The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them. Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites. What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries? How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem? I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem? And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this? But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
http://whitakeronline.org
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and only into white countries.
This spake the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, and Una Voce America.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
When I wrote that Serbia was an “invention” of the Hapsburgs, I was referring to what the liberal nationalists BELIEVE, not fact.
I am well aware that the history of Serbia goes FAR beyond that of the Hapsburgs, but I can also understand why the liberal nationalists would identify the pieces that came out of the break-up of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire as “inventions”, and would want to re-make the Balkans in their own image. It’s what they believe, but that doesn’t make it so.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The only alternative to a “tribal society”, that is one based to some degree on Blood and Soil, is to have an Ideological basis, known in the USA as the Idea or Proposition Nation. More often than not, the “proposition” is made by some snake like creature to the women folk of a once cohesive society. But once the tribal nature is “overcome”, then the Ideological basis permits indoctrination, re-education in Cultural Marxism etc.
A tribal society can be a nice society. Think Sweden before the third world invasion. An ideological system will never be nice, certainly not once it has undisputed control.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mukui Waruiru,
Welcome to Suicide of the West - The Cyber Version.
We all know neo-conservatives are heirs to the Jacobin legacy of permanent Revolution on behalf of abstract universalisms, but can’t get out of our own way to muster a semi-coherent resistance.
Over there in the Holy Sheets is Peter Ramus, hater of all things Catholic. He would rather score points against Papists than do heavy-lifting against folks that want to dance on the grave of Western Civilization. Can you blame him for his self-hate?
Lurking in the other corner are the “racialists”. Not racists mind you, their crude argumentation is based on empirical evidence and science, not hate. They do blame their failure to find meaningful employment on quotas, not their penchant for scraping knuckles along the floor or talking about mom’s wonderful recipe for meatloaf as the cause for failed job interviews.
Over by the punch bowl are the self-described Roman Romantics. Did you know the Spanish Falange wore blue denim shirts and red suspenders, or that the “Brownshirts” of Italy worked -out everyday for 3 hours, while Charles Maurras was writing about “Man’s sublime craving for Order” ? You will learn this and much, much more if you can stick around for the very next post from a lonely basement.
Personally, I think your continent has a better future than this one. Shun ideology. Turn to Christ. Your day will come. Be kinder to us than we to you.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Over there in the Holy Sheets is Peter Ramus, hater of all things Catholic.
Not true. I do not equate the Catholic Church with those PC paper pushers based at the Vatican. See Krauth’s “the Conservative Reformation.”
He would rather score points against Papists than do heavy-lifting against folks that want to dance on the grave of Western Civilization.
No! I believe that Roman Catholic, as a bloc, are more likely to dance on our grave than do the heavy lifting. I have repeatedly said I respect the virtuous remnant within the RCC, despite our differences.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As Thomas Fleming points out… Christianity does not require one to forsake kith and kin loyalties.
The Lutherans taught him well. Just ask Christian Kopff
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Andrew Capp, Boyd D. Cathey, Paul Gottfried, Kevin and J. K. Baltzersen and Mattt Swartz. Thanks for your comments.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What is Kith and Kin???
“Kith and Kin”
By Michael Hill
The League of the South, unlike the America of the New World Order, is wedded not to a universal proposition: equality, democracy, or the rights of man, but to a real historical order based on place and kin. If we are to survive as a distinct people with a physical place to live, work, and worship, then we must never waver from this commitment.
The late M. E. Bradford in his Remembering Who We Are: Observations of a Southern Conservative (University of Georgia Press, 1985) deals at length, as the title suggests, with cultural identity and historical memory. He cites the following lines by the protagonist of Stark Young’s So Red The Rose, Hugh McGehee, as he sends his son off to join the Confederate Army: “It’s not to our credit to think we began today and it’s not to our glory to think we end today. All through time we keep coming in to the shore like waves, like waves. You stick to your blood, son; there’s a fierceness in blood can bind you up with a long community of life.” The most eloquent of Anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry, chided those who thought that “All things should be made new” by reminding them that “we are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty; our glorious grandfathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of everything. . . . We draw that spirit of liberty from our British ancestors.” Bradford, Young, and Henry all caution us that it is from our Fathers, and not from universal (or even particular) abstractions, that we draw our sustenance as a separate, distinct, God-ordained people.
But for the past half-century, liberals and neo-conservatives alike have been seeking to discredit the idea that a man’s first temporal allegiance is to kith and kin. It is the self-appointed task of social engineers to reshape Creation according to their own ideas of good and evil. They are, as it were, attempting to rebuild the Tower of Babel and, in the bargain, are seeking to nullify the Biblical and historical reality of true nationhood. The cult of equality (both of individuals and cultures), according to Bradford, is the new “opiate of the masses.” Totalitarians of all stripes today champion equality by pushing for an “open door” immigration policy that favors the Third World. They care not whether the massive influx of Muslims, Latinos, and other non-Western peoples poses a threat to the racial, ethnic, and cultural balance of our country. Rather, since the left holds sacred the “rights of man,” they view America as the world’s first universal nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men and cultures are created equal.
If the idea that America is indeed a mere proposition nation is to be realized, then the narrowly defined “posterity” of our forefathers must be broadened to include the whole of Emma Lazarus’s “wretched refuse.” The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 and subsequent legislation and judicial edicts have turned America’s immigration policy inside out by allowing for the influx of millions upon millions of non-Europeans while largely closing the “Golden Door” to European immigrants. Both Third World legals and illegals are encouraged to maintain their own cultures and languages while partaking of the largesse available to them at the expense of taxpaying citizens.
Our situation is reminiscent of the latter days of the Roman Empire when the frontiers were overrun by Germanic tribes who wished to avail themselves of Roman lands and produce. But there was no deep-rooted racial or cultural antagonism between Roman and German. In fact, the German tribesmen had great respect and admiration for Roman civilization, as far as they understood it. They did not wish to destroy Rome; however, they did not know how to save it for the simple reason that they had not created it and thus did not understand what made it work.
Even under the best of circumstances a huge influx of aliens who merely wish to enjoy our material benefits will eventually weaken and destroy our civilization. Simply put, they will lack the desire and understanding to preserve our vital institutions. More importantly, they will physically displace the descendants of the founding stock and we will cease to control the homeland bequeathed us by generations of noble and honorable men and women—our ancestors. We will suffer a fate perhaps worse than that of Rome itself. Already, radical Latinos have launched a Reconquista of our southern borders, and federal judges are thwarting the efforts of Americans of Western European ancestry to turn back the tide. It is abundantly clear with whom the Establishment elites side on this crucial issue.
If we Southerners are to survive and prosper on the lands given us by our forebears, then we would do well to adopt the attitude of historian Frank L. Owsley (one of the Twelve Southerners who contributed to I’ll Take My Stand). Owsley, in his seminal work Plain Folk of the Old South (LSU Press, 1949), writes: “The term ‘folk’ has for its primary meaning a group of kindred people, forming a tribe or nation [in the truest sense of the word]; a people bound together by ties of race, language, religion, custom, tradition, and history. . . . A folk thus possesses a sense of solidarity and is quite different from a conglomerate mass of people. It has most if not all of the characteristics of nationalism [again, properly defined]. Indeed, it may be contended with much force that there can be no true nationalism where the population does not constitute a folk.” Owsley contends that the “Southern people, according to these several characteristics, were a genuine folk long before the Civil War [sic].” Moreover, he tells us that the “greatest single factor, perhaps, in developing the Southern population into a genuine American folk was the common national origin of the bulk of the people. . . . [T]he Southern people prior to 1860 were predominantly British. . . . Appearance, the indefinable qualities of personality, and their manners and customs, particularly their distinctive speech, set them apart from the inhabitants of the other sections of the United States, and in this way strengthened their sense of kinship.”
The League of the South should have as it primary objective the preservation of our people—kith and kin—on their ancestral lands. All else pales in comparison to this. Independence will do the South little good if we fail to preserve ourselves as a distinct people group inhabiting a certain piece of Creation. Once we secure our future as “the Southern people,” then, and only then, can we be about the business of bringing back States Rights and gaining our independence. Therefore, we support a return to a society and civilization based on allegiance to kith and kin rather than to an impersonal state wedded to multiculturalism, diversity, the rights of man, and other similar abstractions. The leaders and the rank-and-file of our organization must be hardliners who insist that quite apart from political ideals, we take our stand in the historic South and for the people who made the historic South what it is. The South is not a universal idea anymore than, say, Scotland, France, or Serbia. Instead, the South was and is a true nation built on the realities of place and kinship that we must revitalize if we are to survive and prosper.
At its core, the South is British-Western European and Christian. Should this change, then the South as we know it shall be no more. As the late Russell Kirk wrote in America’s British Culture: “If somehow the British elements could be eliminated from all the cultural patterns of the United States, Americans would be left with no coherent culture in public or in private life.” He continues with a salient warning: “We Americans live . . . in an era when the general outlines and institutions of our inherited culture still are recognizable; yet it does not follow that our children or our grandchildren, in the twenty-first century, will retain a great part of that old culture. . . . The defence of inherited culture [and, I might add, the people who create and sustain that culture] must be conducted here and now, with what weapons may be snatched from the walls here on the darkling plain at the end of the twentieth century.” When we do endeavor to defend our own people and culture, both liberals and neo-conservatives hurl at us the usual invectives: “racists,” “xenophobes,” “reactionaries.” It is past time that we turn a deaf ear to these bogus charges and set about resisting any attempts to reconstruct a modern Tower of Babel on the rubble of our Southern civilization. Victory goes to the bold.
The League of the South wants to see a South where our borders are sealed against massive immigration; a South where the interests of the Southern people are protected from the ravages of multiculturalism and so-called diversity; a South where a prosperous, self-confident, and distinct people can welcome into its ranks by its own choice and on its own terms productive and sympathetic immigrants; a South that will be a beacon to those nations that wish to defend a traditional way of life against the purveyors of abstract ideologies and a new world order; and a South where Southerners shall know beyond doubt that the fundamental question to be answered, as M. E. Bradford insists, is not the Federalists’ “What shall we do?” but Patrick Henry’s “Who are we?” Indeed, when we know who we are and are willing to defend ourselves and our posterity, then we shall be a truly free people with a bright future. If we fail to grasp the gravity of this basic question, we shall end up in the proverbial “dustbin of history,” and deservedly so.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25955.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
On this “kith and kin” thing, I’ll admit to not knowing what kith meant until I looked it up. One site says it means friends and neighbors, in contrast to kin (blood relatives); another says it includes kin, which would make “kith and kin” redundant. Kith would suffice. I didn’t see any requirement stated anywhere that your friends and neighbors all had to be of your own race or ethnicity or nation or however you want to put it. Many of my friends and neighbors are of different ethnicities, native languages, or religions from me. So kith does not have to imply racial or national homogeneity. Neither for that matter does kin, since many marriages are across racial lines. Among my kith (friends) are a Russian theoretical physicist married to a Brazilian nurse of part anglo, part Amazon indian descent. Their kids are being raised to speak English, Portuguese, Russian, and French.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Kith is obsolete except in the alliterative phrase kith and kin, which originally meant “native land and people” and first appeared about 1377 in Piers Plowman.” - OED
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The classic example of Kith, from the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology, is the Celts in the North and East UK, and the Anglo-Saxons in the South.
‘Kith’ and ‘Kin’ are almost redundant. Kith means more extended family, in the sense of tribe, while kin means more immediate family.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Kevin’s speaking truth. I welcome him! And Kirt’s talking sense too.
Some inconvenient facts.
1. “Race”, as some writebackers understand it, is an 19th Century post Darwinist invention of Arthur de Gobineau, largely concocted to support nationalism and imperialism. His idea of three races was immediately rejected by other European Racialists. Herder, Burke, and De Maistre never used race in this sense, if they used it at all. These three meant a people sharing a common history, not genetic makeup.
2. Jim Crow was invented in the North before Lincoln’s War. It didn’t exist in Dixieland until around 1900, railway cars the exception. See C. Vann Woodward, The Strange History of Jim Crow
3. The Klan in the 20s, at its height, was mostly an anti-Catholic organization. It just struck “Rebellion” out of Blaine’s “Rum and Romanism”
4. Kin means one’s immediate and extended family. Loyality only to such alone is the tradition of the Mezzogiorno, Sicily, and places like my own beloved Harlan County, KY. None of these places, by the way, is very prosperous. The Free Market means dealing with and trusting strangers.
Dr. Hill, a Real Conservative, not a Racialist, is using the term “kin” in this sense and one other: a people who share a common history. I cite him from the 2007 National Conference: The problem with Hispanics is that they are ignorant of our Anglo-Saxon tradition of limited government and human rights [abstract concepts!] and are used to living under authoritarian government. Note here nothing about “race”, and everything about common history. And the first blacks share Dixie’s history. And I know some writebackers will not post what the League’s official statement about “race”, because it would offend their racialist views.
When Dr. Hill speaks of “race”, he means ethnos. And the ethnos he is referring to is the Borderer Backcountry people, the so-called “Scots Irish” (they were neither). This culture is poly-"racial" and has always been shared with its neighbors, to the point of absorption. First Black culture is mostly derived from it. E.g.: compare the two groups’ style of religion.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Totalitarians of all stripes today champion equality by pushing for an “open door” immigration policy that favors the Third World. They care not whether the massive influx of Muslims, Latinos, and other non-Western peoples poses a threat to the racial, ethnic, and cultural balance of our country.” ~ Michael Hill
This sentence would suggest that he distinguishes between ‘race’ and ‘ethnos’; otherwise, listing them both would be redundant.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Now some of the “lesser” neo-cons are turning against mass immigration into the West. I guess they figure their job is done, the West is finished...divided, distracted, demoralized and easily manipulated to serve globalist interests.
The West can’t be saved but it might be reclaimed.
The Age of White Masochism
By Fjordman
Imagine if you planned a country’s economic future using calculations exclusively based on even numbers. For ideological reasons you excluded odd numbers because you declared that they represent bigotry and have divisive nature since they cannot be divided equally in half. Absolutely all calculations for the future would then end up being wrong. This sounds insane and improbable, but what we’re doing now in the Western world is exactly this naïve. In the name of Multiculturalism we completely ignore all ethnic, religious, cultural and, yes, racial differences, because we have decided that these things don’t matter. But in real life, ethnicity, culture, religion and race do matter. Doesn’t that mean that all our projections for the future by necessity will end up being wrong, since they fail to take important factors into account?
Policy needs to be rooted in a realistic assessment of human nature, not in wishful thinking. Good intentions are far from sufficient to ensure good results. History is full of well-intended policies gone horrible wrong. We know from past experience that basing an ideological world view on a fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature is bound to end in disaster. Society will become more and more totalitarian in order to suppress all the information that doesn’t conform to the official ideology. Isn’t this what is happening in the West now?
The rest can be found here:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/10/age-of-white-masochism.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid:
“And the ethnos he is referring to is the Borderer Backcountry people, the so-called “Scots Irish” (they were neither). “
In Northern Ireland we call them Ulster Americans, because they went from Ulster (in Ireland) to America. They are Scots because they largely trace their ancestry to Scotland, and Irish because they lived in Ireland before emigrating to help colonise the future USA.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I commend to Simon Newman David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed, the chapter on the Borderer Backcountry, to learn where this ethnos originated. The whole book ought to be required reading. The Borders hated Highland Scots, Irish Catholics, and especially the Anglican establishment. In North Carolina the Highlanders in the Cape Fear basin remained Loyalists in The War Against American Secession From the British Empire because the Backcountrymen were for independence and were the backbone of the American army.
And “Definition” [sic] doesn’t have the guts to reprint the League’s statement on race, because it would make him reeeeeeeeeeeeeal mad! Everyone else can find it on the League’s website.
And the League has First Black members. So does the SCV. The League has kicked out Klansmen and National Alliance members from positions of leadership. That just makes Stormfronters soooooooooo p.o.-ed!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The following definition of a racist is currently part of college orientation programs in the US:
“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)”
So whites will remain racists until we’ve been diluted to minority status. That’s clear enough now isn’t it?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
RE: KITH AND KIN
I was at a paleoconservative meeting about a year ago (not LotS nor JRC, but another organization, which I won’t name) and everyone there voted to start using “kith and kin” instead of “race” when talking about our loyalties. About 90% voted in favor of using “kith and kin” instead of “race.” The reasoning was that “kith and kin” would give us more political cover so we couldn’t be so easily attacked by leftists, PC police, and Cultural Marxists like Sid Cundiff.
-----
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“...and everyone there voted to start using “kith and kin” instead of “race” when talking about our loyalties. “
Where is the Evelyn Waugh when we need him most? Can you imagine the transcripts from that debate?
“would give us more political cover so we couldn’t be so easily attacked.” And
“...another organization, which I won’t name...”
Let us in on it.The group is known as; “Eunuchs of European Extraction.”
If race-obsession does not lead to insanity, it surely produces great comedy.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The reasoning was that “kith and kin” would give us more political cover so we couldn’t be so easily attacked by leftists, PC police, and Cultural Marxists like Sid Cundiff.”
Its wonderful that we can come up with new terms if it makes people feel more comfortable discussing what respectables won’t discuss. However, you can call it what you like, these sappers are absolutely obsessed with the destruction of the white race. In fact they are telling you to your face it doesn’t exist… while they devote their lives to isolating it for destruction.
The time for defense has passed. The days of being shut down with labels has passed. The time to cling to their definitions of respectability and acceptability have passed.
This struggle can only be won with an aggressive offense. You will never convince the other side they are wrong, but you can eviscerate their hollow beliefs for the benefit of the innocent bystanders.
Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians. White countries for EVERYONE.
You do the math.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid is a cultural Marxist and no friend to the South.
“If a community, or a section, or a race, or an age, is groaning under industrialism, and well aware that it is an evil dispensation, it must find the way to throw it off. To think that this cannot be done is pusillanimous. And if the whole community, section, race or age thinks it cannot be done, then it has simply lost its political genius and doomed itself to impotence.”—“Introduction: Statement of Principles,” _I’ll Take My Stand_.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“...and everyone there voted to start using “kith and kin” instead of “race” when talking about our loyalties...”
Wow, man, that sounds like some stoner meetings I used to attend back in the day.
After they got high they would propose all kinds of substitutions, like, “why do we call a cat a “cat”, man? Why can’t I call, like, my HAND a cat? It’s the system, man, the tyranny of words, that’s how the system keeps you down...”
Yep, cannabis really opens your mind, opens it so much that your brains fall out. Evidently something similar happened at WhitePaeleo’s “meeting” of an unnamed “organisation”. ("Helicopters! Do you hear helicopters? They’re WATCHIN’ us, man!")
Click to flag this comment as abusive
About 90% voted in favor of using “kith and kin” instead of “race.”
Kith and kin are acquaintances and relatives—the people who would show up at your family weddings, holidays and funerals. Race is your extended family going all the way to the Tower of Babel, so to speak. There’s a difference.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians. White countries for everyone.
Don’t they print that above the masthead of “Our Sunday Visitor?”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Peter Ramus
“Kith and kin are acquaintances and relatives—the people who would show up at your family weddings, holidays and funerals.”
...in other words, your worst enemies.
Abel and Cain were brothers.
“Race is your extended family going all the way to the Tower of Babel”
No, the extended family goes back to Adam.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Kith is obsolete except in the alliterative phrase kith and kin, which originally meant “native land and people” and first appeared about 1377 in Piers Plowman.” - OED
“The classic example of Kith, from the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology, is the Celts in the North UK, and the Anglo-Saxons in the South."
“‘Kith’ and ‘Kin’ are almost redundant. Kith means more extended family, in the sense of tribe, while kin means more immediate family.”
This is basically what my OED says.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
If race is extended family then the ultimate extension is the human race. Of what significance is it in terms of affinity if most whites have common genetic ancestry going back less than 1000 years? I don’t know, indeed have probably not even heard of, some of my second cousins and barely know some of my first cousins. This is hardly an unusual situation. Why then should I have greater affinity with say Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair with whom I share more genetics than with the Mexican family which lives next door to me?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“than with the Mexican family which lives next door to me?” - Kirt Higdon
Because Mexicans have different ancestral traditions. Although some are Christian, they are not Western.
With the exception of a small upper class of pure European blood, 60% of Mexicans are Amerindian, and 30% are Mestizo (mostly Amerindian with a few drops of Spaniard blood).
And Mexicans know they are not Western, which is why La Raza ("the race") is the largest Mexican organization in the United States.
I love the Beautiful and Noble White Race, and I’m not going to apologize. Unlike you, I cheer for the survival of Western Civilization and Western Man, not their destruction.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Why then should I have greater affinity with say Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair with whom I share more genetics than with the Mexican family which lives next door to me?”
Why don’t you ask the Mexican family that “lives next door to you”. You know, the ones with La Raza bumper stickers on every vehicle. I’m sure they will have no problem explaining the concept of race to you.
Maybe you should invite them over for dinner so you can explain to them how wrong they are and that their race doesn’t really exist.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Neechee’s (imaginary)Mexican neighbors are not representative.
Most of the Latin American immigrants I know, of both the legal and (gasp!) legal varieties, consider “race” to be a good ways down the list, below Religion, Nationality, and of course, Family.
The pessimism of thinking that our values and faith are not attractive enough to encompass newcomers is unwarranted.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Yea, Matt, Kirt and Sid, race doesn’t exist. But if i doesn’t exist, then how do I - a white man - know whom to oppress? After all, Oprah Winfrey is almost entirely indistinguishable from Zsa Zsa Gabor in her salad days. Barack Obama and Pat Buchanan? I always get those two confused. Bill Gates and Snoop Doggy Dogg? Why, they could almost be brothers.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Matt: Let’s see what Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza, has to say about this:
“We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation.”
“Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes…”
“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Burke,
Of course racial differences exist! I’m merely pointing out that one’s race is not the primary fact of their existence, nor do mature people use it as their primary identifier.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Burke,
Do white academics necessarily speak for the white race? I share a lot of DNA with a certain Professor Dershowitz, but I’d never dream of letting him speak for me in any definitive way.
Dr. Whatshisname probably makes a profession of exploiting white guilt just like Dr. Dershowitz exploits gentile guilt. It’s an unfortunate parlor game, and rational people see past it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Matt: I am not saying that race is the only important aspect. Of course there are others: religion, history, tradition, et al. But nonetheless race is important.
Notice that Jose Angel Gutierrez did not lose his job for the comments he made. Now what if a white professor said: “We have got to eliminate the Mestizo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.” How long would he keep his job?
You see, because of political correctness, the deck is stacked against whites. And what is even worse, the Anglo-European ancestors of whites are the very people who built this country.
White people are only 8% of Earths population, and thus, are the world’s real minority. Only 2% of the women of child bearing age are White, which means that in one generation, only 2% of the world’s population will be White. Non-Whites celebrate this, because they envy, hate and fear us, and Whites lament it, and try to remedy it, because they know it is a looming demographic catastrophe that must be reversed. Setting aside exclusive territory for White people to preserve their kind and traditions is not unreasonable.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Matt you remind me of the liberal media wonks who were stunned when Nixon won the presidency. They said they didn’t know anyone who voted for him.
Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians. White countries for EVERYONE.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Who would choose THESE people as neighbors?:
http://www.freewebtown.com/fatmatt/pictures/redneck.jpg
over THESE people?:
http://www.tomatlan.com/norteno200536.jpg
If you would rather live next to the people in the first photograph, you are more than welcome to do so.
However, I will continue to prefer to live next to the people in the 2nd photograph, and I do not feel the need to explain myself.
If anything, the people that choose to live next to the people in the first photograph need to explain themselves.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Not all of my neighbors and fellow parishoners are Mexican or Tejano. Some are white; the guy from whom I bought my house and who still does occasional electrical and air conditioning work for me is black. One of the priests at my church is a first generation American of Mexican ancestry and one of the ministers from whom I receive the Body and Blood of Christ is a black woman. Almost all my dance instructors are latinos. Since whites are a minority in this town (Corpus Christi, TX), why are we not oppressed? Why in fact are more white retirees moving here to enjoy the mild climate and inexpensive standard of living. Not to mention the warmth and hospitality which the Mexicans and their American descendents use to fool all the gringos about their evil non-Western, Amerindian intentions.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians. White countries for Everyone.”
Wasn’t that the title of Pope Benedict’s 2007 address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Whites have every right to preserve their culture-period..
Click to flag this comment as abusive
ANDREW:
Those pictures are not representative, and you know it.
A true representation would be:
Mexicans:
http://i18.tinypic.com/49b0pko.jpg
Whites:
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/images/npi_brochure1_1_0002.jpg
Now, Andrew, of the above two photos, which group would you prefer to live next to?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Edmund Burke
Nice juxtaposition of photos.
But of course, you manage not to put photos of trailer
park trash, nor biker gangs, nor Jerry Springers’ guests,
nor other exponents of the white race behaving badly…
I take that you do not have a background in science, or
you would have learned the concept of representative
sample and asked yourself if those were or not such.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Even if I had to choose between Andrew’s pictures, I’d choose the whites. Why? Because I prefer my own kind. Nothing is wrong with ancient kith and kin loyalties.
But Edmund Burke’s photos are more realistic, and everyone knows it. I grew up in San Diego and had to leave my old neighborhood and move to Wisconsin.
Growing up, my old neighborhood was mostly white, safe, quiet. Now? 85% Hispanic. Crime increased about 800%. Murders skyrocketed. HIV rampant. In my old Middle School even, Mexican kids were spreading HIV, and about 10% of them had it. Gang wars visited the High School. Quiet streets were replaced with low riders, beer cans, and gun shots.
Unfortunately, I predict that the next Pope will be from the Third World, and he will openly support the Third World invasion of the West, as Jean Raspail predicted in the conservative classic _Camp of the Saints_, which Chilton Williamson, in Conservative Bookshelf, ranks as one of the best conservative novels of all time.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Given what Adriana said in her previous posts - that her ancestors interbred with Amerindians - then she is Mestizo, not white. Thus, it is no surprise that she sides with the third-world invaders.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Re: NEW ARISTOCRACY
In 410 AD Rome was sacked because of uncontrolled immigration patterns. Many of the pagans blamed the Christians for the invasion. St. Augustine, however, in City of God, defended the Christians, said they were patriotic Romans and had earthly duties, and said Christians did and should fight in the army against the invaders.
Democracy is our undoing. And it’s time for a new aristocracy. After some recent meetings in Switzerland, many of us have decided it’s high time for a new aristocracy, a new meeting of Knights to defend the West against these invasions.
Our criteria are for consideration of admission are: (1) must be Christian, (2) must be of pure Anglo/European blood, (3) must appreciate and have an understanding of Western Civilization, (4) must have a classical outlook, (5) and more to come. (Americans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders who meet the above criteria are welcomed to join.)
Many might use the NeoMarxist charge of “racism” since we have an ancestry qualification, but this is the way it always has been. If Mestizos want to create their own aristocracy, then so be it. They can set up the order of the “Enchilada Knights” in Mexico City.
If a Third World Pope is chosen, the Catholics among us are prepared to leave the Church, creating a conservative, traditionalist EUROPEAN Catholic Church that will be based in Switzerland and minister to conservative Catholics abroad.
In a few weeks, I will post information in this website with information for joining the this Traditional European Order of Knights.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“But of course, you manage not to put photos of trailer
park trash, nor biker gangs, nor Jerry Springers’ guests,
nor other exponents of the white race behaving badly… “ - Adriana
Speaking of biker gangs, I’ve had one of them as neighbors too. The head of the Los Angeles chapter of Hells Angels lived two houses from me on a cul-de-sac in North Hollywood and frequently hosted gatherings of his gang. Have to admit they provided more excitement than any Mexicans I know, storing grenades and other explosives in their house and provoking midnight raids by the LAPD SWAT team which resulted in cops with automatic rifles all over my front lawn.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Poster using nick St. Augustine, you’re spoofing us, right? The original St. Augustine was an African Berber who died leading the defense of his city Hippo against white European Vandal invaders.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
No, this is no spoof. Call me Lord Chancery. I’ll post by that name in the future. There is a philosophical reason I chose “St. Augustine,” which obviously was lost on you. If you are interested in coming to a meeting in Switzerland this next March, please let me know.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
St. Augustine: Please do post more information. I’d love to find out more about your Order of Knights. There are some of us left here in the U.S. who have not been completely brainwashed by political correctness.
Everyone:
Here are the two main camps of Mexicans:
Uneducated Mexicans: http://i18.tinypic.com/49b0pko.jpg
Educated Mexicans: http://i13.tinypic.com/42nvamc.jpg
And it’s a lose / lose situation for Anglo-European patriots.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Racialism is not conservatism. This is getting dull. I am white, and I will probably sire a big family of white children, but I hope and pray that none of them will place their whiteness above their Christianity or their family’s good name. I happen to be white, but I have chosen to engage with Western Civilization, and that is more important. Western Civilization is about ideas, and not about posting pictures of other racial groups at their worst.
If all of the passion in the anti-immigration movements was redirected towards family and community building, we’d all be better off.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Western Civilization is about ideas” ~ Schwartz
This is propositional-nation nonsense at its finest, shared by both Leftists and neocons.
From: http://anonymouse.org
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say that 30,000 years ago the white race was wiped out. Let’s say that Sub-Saharan Africans immigrated to Europe around this time, 30,000 years ago, and took over the continent.
Would Western Civilization, as we know it, exist today?
Of course not. This is how infantile propositional-nation nonsense truly is.
From: http://anonymouse.org
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“If all of the passion in the anti-immigration movements was redirected towards family and community building, we’d all be better off.”
This anti-immigration passion is a direct result of our desire to protect our families and maintain strong, safe communities. Was it not the American Conservative several months back that showcased research detailing the ill effects that diversity has on a community? If I remember correctly the more diversity a community has, the less likely persons are to trust one another and engage in civic activities. They can become so diverse that they serve as home to no-one. Let’s all pretend to be shocked at these conclusions.
Its nice (and rare) to see published research confirm what many of us have seen with our own eyes. Currently in LA, Hispanic gangs are ethnically cleansing blacks from their neighborhoods. The Feds have recently charged 60 plus gang members with hate crimes for targeting blacks simply to send a message that they are not welcome in their neighborhood. Now that’s what I call passionate community building, albeit all for La Raza.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-maddox21mar21,1,6828716.story?coll=la-news-comment
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Foreigners are so scary! Brown people are everywhere, and the don’t share our values! White people are so much safer and cleaner than them and it’s imperative that we all band together.
Wait, why don’t we form a funny little club and call ourselves Knights! Yeah, that’s the ticket. We can be the Knights of immigration! It’s like Batman except without the Black suit. Wouldn’t want to send the wrong message, etc.
Blacks are scary too. It can’t be the sorry state of their religious leadership or the piss-poor schools we send them off to, it must be an inherent thing, like how they jump high and stuff.
Who’s with me? Let’s all do our best for a whiter Takimag and a whiter America! If we just repeat Kith and Kin over and over, noone will even think we’re racist!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Question: Why don’t persons like average takimag reader aim some of their criticism at ALL of the non-white countries which have exactly the attitude being parodied?
I’ve not heard anyone criticizing Japan for their immigration policies which were designed to preserve their racial integrity, culture and customs.
Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians. White countries for EVERYONE.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“No, this is no spoof. Call me Lord Chancery. I’ll post by that name
in the future.”
Can’t wait. Keep us posted on the uniform-fitting. Also, The rest of
the “Super Race Forum” uses phrases as identifiers, so can’t
“Edmund Burke III” get a name change too? Something like
PaleSkin Paleo might help when he posts in the Personals section.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“If we just repeat Kith and Kin over and over, noone will even think we’re racist!”
…But they might think we’re pompous “anti-racists” with self-aggrandizing delusions of moral superiority…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think it’s high time for Andrew Capp to head on over to First Things so he can be with his neocon buddies who also want to destroy Western man.
Mexicans:
http://i18.tinypic.com/49b0pko.jpg
or
http://i13.tinypic.com/42nvamc.jpg
.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Very interesting article. Some bizarre comments though.
@ ‘St Augustine’ / ‘Lord Chancery’
I find it quite hard to take you seriously, but in any case:
‘If a Third World Pope is chosen, the Catholics among us are prepared to leave the Church, creating a conservative, traditionalist EUROPEAN Catholic Church that will be based in Switzerland and minister to conservative Catholics abroad.’
Any true Catholic would realize that there is never a good reason for leaving the Church and that you can never create a ‘new’ Catholic Church. To prioritise issues such as race and nation over religion as many schismatics have done over the centuries is to reject the true faith by submitting it to earthly concerns. It is to break away from God’s Church in order to set up man-made sects.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
my daughter is 17 and currently enrolled at a 4 year university. I want her to apply for a credit card so she would have it for emergencies as she will be away from home. She has no credit, but a part time job. Student cards she applied for said no credit was needed but was denied. Any suggestions if
<a href= http://imidiate-cardes.cn/application-discover-credit-card.html >application card credit for a discover card</a>
Ne72Ma9rod
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hello, your site leaves an impression! It’s utterly important that the site should be created by experts, especially a credit related site. I also found a web source presenting various credit card applications for credit history of all types and customer support which can answer any question concerning choosing card or building credit -
<a href= http://disqualifications-cdedit.cn/orchard-credit-credit-carrd.html >orchard bank credit carrd for new credit</a>
<a href= http://difficultcridit.cn/bebuild-credit-how-to.html >how to bebuild my credit</a>
Click to flag this comment as abusive
? I Hi there! I’m in search for credit cards with airline miles. There are several offers at three websites. But I chose one site about credit. Is a reliable, please, tell me? Go to
<a href= http://bestdeals-creditcards.cn/transfer-american-balance-express.html >balance transfer fee blue american express</a>
<a href= http://fix-credircard.cn/unsecured-credit-apply-visa.html >apply for unsecured visa card with bad credit</a>
Click to flag this comment as abusive
9axntt3jyng1e at92176jr5ecmak59 d4ngpp2k