 |
| Mbuti pygmy. Image source |
Enraged by David Cameron's refusal to hand British sovereignty to the European Union of Soviet Socialists, Cameron' coalition partner, Liberal-Democratic Party leader Nick Clegg, resorted to racist abuse, claiming that Cameron, "risked making Britain a ‘pygmy’ on the world stage."
The pygmified Liberal leader seems reluctant, however, to give up his comfy birth as Deputy Prime Minister, a necessary preliminary to the election that will oust the Liberals from Parliament and make way for a handsome Tory majority.
* Pygmy is considered a racist, colonial-era term, which refers to members of a group of hunter-gatherers characterized by shortness of stature and living outside the state structure in the unsettled equatorial rainforest of Central Africa.
See also:
Richard Cottrell: Did the UK just leave the EU? Bilderberg decided six months ago that she’s in forever
Theordore Dalrymple on the Guardian and the "disgrace" of the majority
An editorial in the Guardian on October 25 exposed the nature of what often is called “the European project”: a goal that those pursuing it never state out loud. ...
... Britain’s Conservative Party, the editorial argued, was unfit to govern because of its continued internal division on the issue of the U.K.’s membership in the European Union, the latest manifestation of which was a vote by 80 Conservative members of Parliament in favor of holding a referendum on the issue. A Guardian poll, published in the paper on the same day as the editorial, established that 70 percent of the population believed that such a referendum should be held; 49 percent wanted to leave the union and 40 percent wanted to remain in it (11 percent were undecided).
One can make many criticisms of the Conservative Party, but surely one such criticism is not that 80 of its members of parliament have voiced the disquiet of at least half the nation’s population about the most important question that it faces. The Guardian called the 80 members of parliament “a disgrace,” by which it meant that the opinion of fully half of the population, and possibly more, should not even be heard in the Mother of Parliaments. In other words, the philosopher-kings of the European nomenklatura should be allowed to get on with their work free of interference—because, after all (and as new evidence further proves every day), they are doing such a fantastic job.
Mish: Hell Will Freeze Over Before Finland Signs Treaty; Europe's Blithering Idiots Make UK the Lone Winner
Clegg won't walk. He knows his party faces annihilation in the polls
Emma West and the liberal hatred of democracy
... Emma West was wrong-headed in her rough analysis of what is ailing a Britain she described as now being "fuck all". The real enemies of a relatively low-paid, probably poorly educated person who feels angry and disenfranchised are not her fellow south London residents who happen to have been born in other countries or who happen not to be white. Her real enemies are the politicians who collude with the banks who ruin the economy and the CEOs running the companies that drive down costs via the importation of inexpensive labour, via the off-shoring of more and more jobs and via the sheltering of their profits from the taxation needed to keep this country a decent place to live....Are Pygmies really human?
Congolese Pygmies Being Eaten
The paradigms of multiculturalism and diversity were invented by the elite as virtues a few decades ago, to replace the previous virtue of patriotism, because they met specific economic and geopolitical needs of the elite. But - as is found in evolution - those needs will not be permanent.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, a patriotic and homogenous population was useful to the elite when wars were fought by low tech armies based on mass conscription. (The USA army has famously never won a war since it was integrated in the early 1950s, but then it has never fought such a war where the outcome was of any importance.) But wars are currently fought by tiny professional armies, almost always overseas, backed by total reliance on high tech tools, air power but especially nuclear weapons. But this high tech kit is dependent on plentiful supplies of cheap oil.
As oil supplies decline, and Crude & Condensate has been flat since 2005, then wars of the future look likely to be much more low tech and - thanks to mass immigration - much more domestic.
I wouldn't be surprised if a paradigm of "post diversity" begins to be floated by the elite - in a plausible denial kind of way, of course - within the next few years.
If you want more background, then look at net exports of oil from the middle east, that is production less the rapidly increasing proportion needed for domestic consumption (mostly electricity and de-salination). Saudi Arabia might need to use 100% internally within 15 years, but that would mean no means of paying for 100% imported food.
Gavinthornbury
Gavin, interesting comments. But the future holds many possibilities.
ReplyDeleteYes, cheap oil is running out, but at current prices there are literally trillions of barrels available from the tar sands, shales and the redevelopment of conventional fields, so I don't think the US Military will run short of gas anytime soon.
Moreover, for every barrel of oil already consumed there are many barrels of oil equivalent in the form of natural gas, which if necessary can be converted to a liquid fuel.
For that reason, among others, I doubt we will see a return to a low tech military any time soon, or therefore, a return to a anything resembling a genuine democracy.
(I am assuming, here, that Carroll Quigley was correct in his view that democracy arose as a necessary condition of citizen armies and that it will fade away as the military becomes increasingly the preserve of highly trained specialists.)
On the contrary, it seems more likely that we will see the development of an increasingly sophisticated pseudo-democracy managed by a well concealed cadre of highly skilled scientists and technicians that entirely conceals from citizens the real source and nature of power.
In such a world we might very well see the emergence of two human species, the Eloi and the Morlocks of HG Wells dystopian novel the Time Machine, i.e., an elite class, the Eloi, living completely apart from the slave class, the Morlocks.
It would be a simple matter to genetically engineer both classes to (a) prevent inter-class breeding and (b) to give each of the resultant species the appropriated characteristics: beauty, longevity, etc. for the Eloi, servility, and for the Morlocks, whatever physical or mental powers are required to fulfill their allotted tasks.
Under that scenario, presumably all the original human diversity would be trashed, unless someone had the foresight to create some kind of genetic archive: probably a collection of DNA samples, not people. Thus, human cultural diversity would be trashed along with the people who created it.
Wells predicted this development in the year 802,701 AD, in which prognostication he may have been out by about eight hundred thousand years.