Colin Liddell

To paraphrase Harold Macmillan, a “wind of change” is blowing through Africa. But, unlike 1960, when the former British Prime Minister made his famous remark, the wind today is not that of a growing national consciousness in the mud huts and shanty-towns, but instead the stiff breeze of a new kind of Neocolonialism.

Already this year, we have seen significant events in three places: Sudan, Libya, and most recently Ivory Coast, where the country’s President, Laurent Gbagbo was successfully removed from power with the active military participation of France and the United Nations. In these three cases we can see the emerging lineaments of a new modus operandi in Africa, one that secretly recognizes the limitations of African society and under a false flag of humanitarian concern ruthlessly exploits what the continent has to offer.

To understand what is happening, we need to bear in mind Africa’s very specific role in the greater global economic order. In fact, this also explains a lot about its history. In order to maximize economic efficiency in the last few decades, the world has seen a major separating-out of the key economic functions, rather like the division of labour described by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, and while any racial implications in this reorganization are strenuously denied, much of it is based on the inherent characters of different national and racial groups.

For example, the qualities of the Germans and the Asians have marked them out as the world’s premier manufacturers; while the individualism, extravagance, sense of entitlement, and former economic greatness of North Americans and some Europeans make them the perfect global consumer class. While many may look askance at citing consumption as an important economic function, in our overproducing global economic system it is vital. Without the massive trade deficits of the West, the rest of the World would be sunk. Indeed, it is the world’s overwhelming need for a major consumer that more than anything shores up America’s increasingly hollow power.

I have a confession to make. Despite contributing fairly regularly to this much demonized “extreme right-wing” publication, I’m really a rather bland moderate, possessed of unexceptional ideas. In fact, you could best describe me as a bit of a fuddy-duddy; strictly a pipe, slippers, and cocoa sort of guy as far as politics is concerned. If I have a true comfort zone, it is the white line running down the middle of the road that we all happen to be travelling on.

This probably sounds like I’m denying the old tried-and-tested but somewhat time-worn political categories, and I know there are many who wouldn’t blame me if I ditched this terminology derived from 18th-century French parliamentary seating arrangements, but, no, not this week. For me there still is a Right, a Left, and a Centre; and my favourite locale is the latter, which means I’m very far from the “extreme Right”!

The real problem I have with the system is how it is applied to the existing political landscape. For me the “extreme right” simply can’t be AR as there is nothing extreme about promoting legitimate interests and good, old-fashioned common sense. In the same way, my image of the Centre is not the right wing of the Democratic Party or the left wing of the Republicans—nor for that matter Britain’s Lib-Dems, the Blairite wing of New Labour, or the Cameronians. For me all these groups, along with virtually every mainstream party in the West, are just part of a very, very crowded extreme left-wing.

It might now appear that all I’m saying is that there is no such thing as a right wing and that we’re all either moderates or leftists of one degree or another. But, no, I’m not saying that either. Just because everybody stands on one side of a room doesn’t mean the other side of the room ceases to exist. It’s still there, and, indeed, there are even a few odd creatures inhabiting it!

Just like most countries in the West, the United Kingdom has now become a “moral welfare state” (MWS). Just like the socio-economic version, this involves helping those deficient in some way by imposing a kind of levy on the general population. Indeed, revealing the Left’s far greater success in the cultural realm than the economic, it could even be said that the MWS has made considerable progress and that now moral communism exists in the UK, where people live according to the dictum:

From each according to his morality, to each according to his depravity.

Although the system is undeclared and camouflaged—it has obvious PR shortcomings—its workings were amply demonstrated by two recent news stories from the UK, namely,

“World’s largest paedophile ring” uncovered

BBC

16 March, 2011

and

Six footballers jailed over gang rape of 12-year-old girls in midnight park orgy

Daily Mail

18 March, 2011

In the MWS, rather than money, it is morality that is taxed, with the decent members of society losing much of the status and respect that their superior morality deserves, while this is redistributed to the morally deficient who are protected and morally compensated for their failure. The key point of moral welfarism is that the morally deplorable, both as groups and individuals, are not made to feel unduly inferior. This means that certain behaviours, subcultures, and tendencies that invariably produce ‘evil’ – as it is traditionally understood—are spared any kind of moral condemnation.

Ellison Lodge’s attempt to bring order to the debate about Jewish nationalism and influence in America was very laudable and plausible. His categories have the appearance of fairness and balance, which is an achievement in an area that generates so much “heat” and miasma. His four categories also have a pleasing symmetry and simplicity that almost reminded me of Newton’s laws of planetary motion. However, after a few days rolling them around in various portions of my rather convoluted and un-geometrical mind, I couldn’t help thinking that they made the classic Western (or White) intellectual error of equivalence, which is treating things as if they all exist on the same plane.

This sort of thinking, rather like Newtonian physics, has the appearance of rationality, extension, and universal applicability, and, more than this, just like Newtonian physics, it almost always works. For example, there is certainly equivalence between German and French national rights and interests. Although these might have been addressed at various times by different methods—politics, economics, and war—the idea that both countries had roughly equal national rights and weight has always informed their history and their relationship.

When France was dominant at the time of Napoleon’s ascendancy, the idea of a German national interest mobilized things beneath the surface and prepared the way for his downfall. Likewise, when France was crushed by the superior military genius of the Germans in 1870 and 1940, the idea that France was somehow still equal to Germany kept the national flame burning strongly. This idea of a just equivalence of national interests between all the European nations has led at various times to wars and more recently to the unfortunate situation where the nations have agreed—based on the idea of a kind of negative equivalence—to temporarily subsume their legitimate national interests in the bureaucratic swamp of the European Superstate.

I’ve been a U2 fan since the 1980s. But one thing that has continually bothered me over the years, as I am sure it has a considerable number of my fellow fans, is Bono’s extracurricular urge to be seen as some sort of Messiah figure, especially as his moral compass is about as accurate as a sundial in a coalmine.

Over the years, this has not only led him to pen some naïve and cringeworthy lyrics, but, in the latest case, has seen him flirt with the genocidal ideology of Marxist ANC extremists, who, egged on by the anti-White racism implicit in the international Marxist movement, believe in butchering all Whites in South Africa.

During a recent interview Bono suggested that ANC chants like “Kill the Boer” and “Bring Me My Machine Gun” had a legitimate place in South African culture, demonstrating gross naïvety or something worse.

Unlike many rock songs that invoke violent and bloodthirsty imagery merely for effect, “Kill the Boer” is taken very seriously by those who sing and hear it, being a clear call to butcher innocent civilians, and has been repeatedly acted on. It has played a leading role in a smouldering culture of genocide against White farmers and their families, which has seen well over 3,500 of them butchered and often savagely mutilated since the start of what can best be called the Neo-Racist South African State.

Contrary to what most of the pundits are saying, the recent Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election in the UK was very revealing about the state and direction of British politics.

With Labour winning a seat they have held since its inception (42 percent of the vote), the Liberal-Democrats coming second with a marginally increased percentage of the vote (31.9 percent), and the Conservative vote being squeezed in a seat they had little hope of winning (12.8 percent), political commentators have been left with little of interest to remark on. But this is because they have been ignoring yet again the increasingly important substratum of British politics and how it impacts on the top flight.

I’m not about to say that the substratum parties—essentially the BNP, UKIP, and the Greens—are about to break through, but, with parties outside the big three scoring almost 12 percent of the vote in the last general election, how the political establishment deals with this increasingly important segment of the electorate will determine which of the big parties runs Britain and how.

The most significant fact of the 2010 general election was the narrowness of the result. After 13 years of economic mismanagement, rising taxes, and destructive social engineering, at a time of severe economic turbulence, and with a leader who lacked the glib charm now required by voters, the Labour Party should have been wiped out by the Conservatives.

As it was, there was only a 5 percent swing from Labour to Conservatives, so that the Conservatives were forced to rely on the help of Britain’s perpetual bridesmaid party, the Lib-Dems, to form what may yet prove to be ramshackle coalition.

The latest, heart-warming, yuletide news from the city of Charles Dickens’s Xmas Carol concerns the slashing of a policeman’s throat in broad daylight in front of Xmas shoppers. I say “heart-warming” because once again the establishment is showing its usual charity to the criminal underclass by refusing to mention or even hint at the race, appearance, or even general demeanour of the attacker. We do get age (30) and gender (male).

Of course, we can fully understand their logic as it would be a heartbreaking tragedy if London’s cowed and jittery population were to be given this information and then take evasive action on seeing people who resembled the killer. My, what would that do for race relations in this throbbing, vibrant, Olympian Cosmopolis? Yes, the myth of racial harmony and the non-ethnic nature of crime must be enforced at all costs, and make no mistake about it, the editors of papers like the Daily Mail, where I first saw this story, have had their orders about such “sensitive topics.”

But, aren’t I assuming too much? Possibly. But then there is little alternative when there are glaring omissions from many crime stories.

First of all, the dreaded R-word, “racism”! I am not going to spend this entire article shying away from it or going round it. Nor am I going to accept Leftist interpretations of it; nor, for that matter, overly defensive Rightist interpretations. Stripped of its connotations and associations, I want it, for the purposes of this article, to simply mean the phenomenon of people consciously valuing and preferring their own race, rather than unconsciously. For this second possibility I have another word, “sub-racism”—the theme of this article.

Whether racial consciousness produces Auschwitzes or polite, well-managed immigration restrictions is entirely another matter. My own belief is that openly discussing race and our natural race-based feelings is the best way to avoid serious unpleasantness; while not to do so is more likely to cause such unpleasantness. Assuming that the Holocaust did in fact happen—I automatically refuse to accept any view of history that needs to be enforced by law—it seems possible that part of the savagery was driven by racial ambiguity, caused by the degree to which Jews in Germany had interwoven themselves in German society, while at the same time remaining a distinct group.

In the excesses of the Nazis is it not possible to detect the mania of self-purification so characteristic of witch hunts, political purges, inquisitions, and hygiene campaigns, rather than an attack on some alien “Other”? Perhaps a clearer understanding of who was a Jew and who was a German, and who controlled this and who controlled that, would have mitigated the brutality of the Holocaust when Germany was put through the grinder.

I don’t know the exact words of the popular refrain now doing the rounds, but I think it goes something like this: “Greece. Now Ireland. Next Belgium, Spain—panic, panic, panic—collapse of the €uro, blah blah blah, etc., etc.”

When it comes to the Euro, we’ve been treated to one gleeful prophecy of doom after another. And, actually, such doom would be something of a blessing in terms of stopping the worrying march of Euro Federalism, but as with a lot of popular predictions, there is a sizable chunk of wishful thinking involved.

OK, the Euro looks crap right now, but what a lot of people don’t realize—including many who should know better—is that it was always intended to be a bit crap, unlike the Deutschmark that it replaced—more Vorsprung Durch Scheiße than Vorsprung Durch Technik.

This might not be so obvious to those of you living in the import economies of the Anglo World—effectively still living off their WWII laurels—but it’s pretty clear from here in Japan, another ultra-efficient, high-exporting ex-Axis country with a large, hard-working, conscientious labour force.

You’ll have seen the pictures by now. The broken glass of the Conservative Party’s HQ building in central London, the outnumbered and frankly passive police, the ring of cameramen circled round the still remaining shards of glass as yet another plump-faced student mollycoddled in a scarf steps up for his photo op kicking in a bit of broken glass.

Yes, just like when they mispronounce wines and give each other air kisses, the English middle-classes are at it again, imitating the French -- all the result of some terrible inferiority complex that Agincourt, Waterloo, the Industrial Revolution, the colonization of North America, the creation of the British Empire, and the Beatles vs. Johnny Hallyday have done nothing to dispel.

But the student riot in London is also the latest example of how the old hard Left manages to keep breathing a little oxygen, in particular the Socialist Worker’s Party. (Yes, I used the singular possessive because I’m sure there can only be one genuine worker in the entire party, the chap who industriously churns out such alliterative masterpieces as the widely distributed “F**k Fees” placard.)

Being hard Left, they are, of course, a tiny minority of people with rather disgusting psychological habits, reviled and ignored by the general public if voting statistics are anything to go by -- and they are. Their true milieu and political ecosystem is the world of the 1930s, but since that swamp has gradually dried out into a desert, they have shrunk to irrelevance. Rather than doing things in their own name, and finding the proverbial two men and a dog called “Trotsky” in attendance, the SWP, like other small hard Left groups, has evolved into a political parasite, trawling the streets of Britain’s cosmopolitan microcosm like a proverbial Bad Samaritan looking for any angst out there so that they can latch onto it and feel the warmth that has long since departed their own movement.