« "Kerry is believed to be keen to dust off..." Guardian | Main | Planked Salmon »

08 April 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

kxd

"keep the status quo"
you can say that but you weren't on our side of the fence. Apartheid meant nothing to you.
To my family it meant a government controlling where we went, where we lived, who we associated within the country and what level of position of we allowed to attain in that society *by law*. It also meant brutality if we dared to offend those in power. I would like to think a man like yourself would react the same way I would have to such an oppressive government had I been old enough to do something. That is I'd rebel.

Now with regard to the 'democracy' panacea idea, I am in total agreement with you, suprising as that may be a for a South African who was very briefly under the thumb of apartheid. But I also view democracy as a low form of government, and I am loathe to trust any form of government even in the best of times. I also agree with you in that majority rule being pushed in SA and Zimbabwe is a big part of what led to the mess they are both in, albeit one is much worse off than the other precisely because SA allowed for a transitional government. The problem with SA is that the transition did not last. It should've. We should've waited much longer for majority rule. It would've been better for something like a ten-year coalition government between the ANC and the NP. But hindsight is 20/20.

Make no mistake though, the genocide of whites you speak of doesn't excuse the behavior of Ian Smith's party or the PW Botha's party anymore than the current regimes in both SA and Zimbabwe can be excused. You won't find me defending Mugabe or the current ANC party, they are a bunch of thugs/ wanna gangsters living off the fat of the land while their countrymen starve. But so was Smith and Botha, just more sophisticated.

Tyler

A Somali is not a Pole.

Peter Hitchens had an excellent article about why they wanted more labor. It wasn't cheap prices, it wasn't because they loved immigrants, but because they hated average Britons.

Parts of London are under Sha'ria law, Pakis (disingeneously referred to as 'asians) rape girls with impudence as the police fear to do anything because of 'racism', but seem to have no problem throwing people in prison for 'inciting racial hatred'.

Yes, it all sounds bucolic. I hope it stays on that side of the Atlantic. Your island traded its freedom when it gave up its guns for an illusion of safety.

Medicine Man

It is indeed interesting how our "economic nobility" tend to have little concept of noblesse oblige.

Tyler

Why are things like that though? Why did Rhodesia & SA go under shortly after white rule ended? Why is the continent such a basket case?

But you're right, I would have rebelled as well. I can't fault for you for standing up. I don't think you look at what happened through rose tinted glasses, but the rest of the world does, and your country has suffered for it.

A number of my in-laws are white 'Saafies', and they fled their homes rather than worry about being butchered and raped with machetes. Could Smith or Botha have eased into things differently? Perhaps - as you said hindsight is 20/20. Or did they think it was going to end like this regardless of how they handled the situation, and kept the status quo as long as they could?

harry

Oh fiddlesticks Sir.

1) Yes a Somali is not a Pole. Poles cant run long distance for their life. Britain now has one olympic medalist who can.

2) I personally consider the phrase "an excellent article by Peter Hitchens" to be an oxymoron. As far as I can tell he was the perfect reverse barometer. Whatever he thinks, is almost guaranteed to be wrong. On this score however he may have had a point. The middle classes do hate the working classes, probably cos they are afraid of them. Nasty dirty brutish people. Army is the best place for them ;). I hope that you are not right about this, but I can see that you might be.

There are NO parts of London under Sharia law. You can tell because there is no part of London which is free of aggressive drunks come 11pm. There is however an Erith in North London. I am glad the Erith is there, and I am particularly glad for Tayyabs in Whitechapel. Fantastic Lahori kebabs and so cheap! I recommend it to anyone. The areas around there is of course very muslim. 100 years ago it was very Jewish. Neither is/was a bad thing. Where do you think you went for a decent bagel in London?

There was a horrific scandal in Bradford. Disgusting. I personally dont think it was because the men concerned were muslims. I think it was because the men concerned were scumbags. Their victims were working class english girls whose parents were mostly absent. The men concerned are now all in prison. We refer to Pakistanis as Asians cos of the huge amounts of racism and violence directed at Pakistanis during the 70s and early 80s. I know. I was there. If you use the term Paki in public discourse now you are considered to be a racist because that was the usage back then. I dont condone this political correctness but the situation was very poor back then. Too many Pakistani families were killed in fires set by their neighbours pouring petrol through their letter boxes and lighting it.

What I dont understand is that America is itself a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country. You eat Pizza, and General Tso's chicken. Lucy Liu is an attractive American film star. You have substantial asian and muslim immigration. Hell, the earliest settlers to your country came from 3 different continents. I cant believe that you really think the multiculturalism is more of a problem than an asset. Certainly its not all good back home. But the cultural melting pot is a far better problem than the underpopulation and economic collapse that would otherwise happen.

Thats probably why America has choosen to allow massive Mexican immigration.

William R. Cumming

David H.! Is there a good write up of the following from your comment:

"And in the Falklands, as Harry notes, she was very lucky. Had the Argentinian pilots and armourers sorted out their fusing problems more rapidly, both the war, and the whole course of British politics subsequently, could have been very different."

No rush!

And thanks!

zanzibar

David

The UK went through a challenging time during that period. I worked as an investment banker then and remember well the partial nationalization of British Leyland. It's interesting that two Indian industrial groups now own the venerable marques of Jaguar, Rover and Leyland. That period is a good example of the insidiousness of "inflationism" and the kinds of social chaos that it can create. Maggie Thatcher with her strong convictions and steely determination, IMO, helped Britain pull out of the vortex of increasing anarchy.

Now, I did not follow the Falklands imbroglio with any real attention as it happened. And did not realize that the fates of history could well have been turned around with Britain suing for peace.

We can have a long discussion on the subject of economics and global finance. Although I was never formally trained as an economist, I did spend the last decades of my professional career as a money manager and had the opportunity to both interact with many economists and observe the subject at close hand. IMO, contemporary economists are wannabe mathematicians believing that economics can be made "respectable" like the hard sciences. As a consequence, I believe the study of economics has devolved into the false certitude of models and empiricism while failing to study adequately economic history in the context of the socio-political environment. Humans may believe that their decision making is rational but the history of human behavior proves that not to be true all the time. I believe the humanities needs to be liberated from the "social scientists".

I completely agree with your point that - "Bernanke and others were talking about the ‘great moderation’, which had supposedly paved the way for an era of economic stability, at a time when a whole range of forms of ‘financial innovation’, together with accumulating imbalances, were creating a radically unstable system". I have now become convinced that the current set of Ivy League Ph.Ds that drive western economic policy believe their academic theories so intensely that they have become completely bereft of any common sense.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-12/rescuing-europe-from-debt-crisis-begins-with-men-of-mit-as-matter-of-trust.html

The fact that central banks run by these individuals are beginning to go "supernova" makes me believe that we are now in the terminal phase of this so far 50 year debt super-cycle with an unanchored monetary regime. In all similar instances of history that I am aware, the middle-classes have paid the price for their obsequiousness to the prevailing "orthodoxy".

Fred

"...could you first remind me what so great about Great Britain?"

Harry, it was a great country once. Then men (and women) did just like you say you did in a comment to Tyler later on in this thread:

"Its true that the classic new labour voter works in the City and hires a Bulgarian cleaner to work off the books. I know I did."

If you want to fix it perhaps instead of hiring a maid you should clean your own books (at home) and clean up your own country by running for office and defeating one of those British politicians you can't celebrate.

SAC Brat

The Argentinian pilots were releasing their bombs at too low of an altitude for them to fuse, so while they had good hits, there where no explosions, according to a history book I read. The BBC did a great disservice by running a story on the lucky ships, thereby alerting the Argentinians of their faults.

mbrenner

A few inconvenient facts. the British economy did poorly throughout the 1980s relative to other West European economies. It improved substantially after she was gone in the 1990s as successive governments succeeded in shifting the economic base to financial "services" through massive deregulation. For a while it competed successfully with Luxembourg, Cyprus, the Caymans etc. Without that push,Britain would have remained in the doldrums to which it has returned as of today. The condition of the poor, those of modest income, the elderly and the sick is far worse in Britain than any other country in Western Europe. Those are the facts.

Mitterrand said of Thatcher: "She has the lips of Marilyn Monroe and the eyes of Stalin." I guess it's the former that are attracting such admiring attention.

David Habakkuk

WRC,

There was a useful discussion last year on a website I don’t know, but which seemed to have some informed commenters.

(See http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=230569 )

As SAC Brat says, the problem was that the Argentinian pilots were flying in so low that the bombs did not have time to fuse. What was required – and was eventually done – was the improvising of a retardation device which would enable a sufficient delay to stop the planes blowing themselves up, while ensuring that the bombs exploded on their targets. Elsewhere I have heard it suggested that the problem may have had to do with ‘poor communication between posh pilots & humble armourers’, which would hardly be a cause for surprise.

In relation to the politics, a critical fact is that when the Labour Party swung sharply to the left after Thatcher’s victory, part of the Labour right left the party to found the Social Democratic Party, which went into alliance with the Liberals. At the time of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, the combination – known as the Alliance – had been winning by-elections and securing very high poll ratings, on the basis of the acute unpopularity both of Labour and the Tories.

The victory in the Falklands effectively broke the momentum of the Alliance. Had the Argentinians not invaded, events might have turned out substantially different. Had the war been lost, they quite certainly would have done.

David Habakkuk

Medicine Man,

None at all. And the phenomenon has wide implications.

One possible implication is a widespread breakdown of social trust. An interesting example was provided by the comments on an entry yesterday in the Financial Times ‘Alphaville’ section, discussing a report on a note by Goldman Sachs announcing that they were going to short gold.

(See http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/10/1455162/goldman-advises-to-short-gold/ )

A recurrent view among the commenters is that the note was an exercise in disinformation. An example:

‘IME, "advisory" notes of are largely about generating better entries for forthcoming trades, particularly ones that can generate stop runs the promoters can be on the other side of when initiating their positions.

‘Thus, the thesis outlined in notes in generally the opposite of what the promoters expect to happen, but the believable-sounding-but-wrong thesis is necessary to help tip already-precarious sentiment just a little more negative in the short term, ideally triggering stop runs, such that the real belief can be backed at a better entry point.’

This complete lack of trust in the integrity of major financial institutions – and, by implication, a fair measure of lack of trust in the FT’s coverage – is not being expressed by left-wing radicals, but by the kind of generally fairly conservative people who read the paper. Where this ends I simply do not know, but I think it is unlikely to be pretty.

Tyler

A lot of disingeneous hackery (hurr drunks so no sha'ria) designed to cover up you've capitulated to the foreigners because admitting Enoch Powell was right is too much for your narrow Labor throat to swallow.

Your last paragraph, with its idiotic juxtaposition between food choices making immigration a-ok and reliance on dim tropes (melting pot! Multiculturalism! Economic collapse) makes it clear you have no clue what you're talking about.

America hasn't chose to "allow" massive ILLEGAL Mexican immigration, its been imposed on us by our elites in order to pull Labor's slight of hand and elect a new populace at our expense and benefit the oligarchs with coolie labor.

You obviously have no clue about what's going on in your own country as well, since Bradford's cowardly police force admitted they were scared of being called racist for going after those rapists. And your response? To abloo blood blood about how once maybe possible some Pakis had a crime committed against them, so grooming pre-pubescent girls for sex is alright.

Typical self hating white. Disgusting.

William R. Cumming

Zanzibar!

It is becoming notable that the Nobel in Economics is going to the non-quants!

David Habakkuk

zanzibar,

I agree with you about the lack of commonsense among those running Western central banking. Part of the problem, I think, has to do with there being too many academics among central bankers – partly with precisely those characteristics of much contemporary academic economics to which you refer.

A dismissive reference by Ben Benanke about the work of two very fine economists, Charles Kindleberger and Hyman Minsky, has been doing the rounds on the web over the past few years:

‘“Hyman Minsky (1977) and Charles Kindleberger (1978) have … argued for the inherent instability of the financial system but in doing so have had to depart from the assumption of rational economic behaviour.” A footnote adds – “I do not deny the possible importance of irrationality in economic life; however it seems that the best research strategy is to push the rationality postulate as far as it will go.”’

(See http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/11/bernanke-an-expert-on-the-great-depression/ )

Unless this looks very different, seen in context, the comment is extraordinarily crass. Anyone will any familiarity with historical arguments will know that it is commonly plausible to construct plausible-sounding ‘materialist’ and ‘idealist’ readings of the same phenomena: the invasion of Iraq being a case in point. Of course, such interpretations can frequently been shown to be wrong.

However, in very many cases, the most plausible interpretations involve elements of both ‘materialist’ and ‘idealist’ explanations. To use the fact that it may be possible to create an elegant and plausible-sounding interpretation of the Great Depression purely in terms of the interactions of ‘rational’ agents as providing good grounds for ruling out the possibility that financial systems can become radically unstable is daft.

To hand over the running of the Fed to an academic economist whose whole career has been built on the basis of a particular interpretation of the Great Depression, and of the belief that one can apply the lessons of this reading to current policy, is cuckoo. The reason for this, ironically, brings us up against one of the problems of the ‘rationality postulate’. Common sense – and also I understand the work of ‘cognitive scientists’ – suggests that our receptivity to information is in part a function of how far it does or does not challenge our image of ourselves.

For Bernanke to admit that the use of monetary policy to cope with the problems created by collapsing asset bubbles might have the negative effects ‘Austrians’ had predicted – and in particular simply lead to further and potentially more damaging bubbles – would call the whole value of his career into question. So, not surprisingly, he has not done this.

In the event, as with the dot-com bubble in the late Nineties, and the housing bubbles in the mid-Noughties, we are once again seeing the take-off point, where for a combination of ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ reasons people rush into already overvalued markets for fear of being left out of the party.

As to QE, for years we were told that this was not really money-printing, and that the Fed and other central banks had an ‘exit strategy’. Supposedly, it was only erratic and unstable people who talked about ‘QE to infinity’. However, last week Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph described ‘the world’s most closely followed monetary theorist’, Professor Michael Woodford of Columbia, suggesting that it might be advisable to ‘go further and eliminate government debt on the bloated balance sheet of central banks’. Meanwhile, the former head of the British Financial Service Authority, Lord Turner, talked of a write-off which should cover ‘previous fiscal deficits’ – the stock of public debt.

(See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9970294/Helicopter-QE-will-never-be-reversed.html )

I have difficulty understanding what precisely this would actually mean. However, the only possible justification for such courses of action, as indeed Evans-Pritchard suggests, has to be that the situation is already so unutterably bad that apparently lunatic policies have become the least worst option.

But if this is so, it becomes even more difficult to see any even reasonably tolerable outcomes to the current situation. And it does come to seem even more extraordinary that people like Bernanke who got us into this mess are still running things.


harry

Tyler

1) When did I say I was white? Did I mention I was half Jewish? Is either point relevant to this debate?

2) There is no Sharia law in the UK. This is a fact. I dont know why you dispute it. English courts remain sovereign in England.

3) I live in New York. But I have family in London. I was raised in London. My education was entirely in the UK.

4) Enoch Powell was a fellow of my old college. He was considered one of the best classists of his era. But do you really think the "rivers of blood" speech was an accurate prediction? I am afraid I dont.

5) America will be majority "minority" in the near future. This will happen because the "minority" population has a much higher birth rate than the "native" population. I think of demographics as fate. If this immigration had not happened, the population would grow steadily older in much the same way that Japan is growing steadily older. This tends to lead to slow steady decline.

6) One of the joys of living in London was the opportunity for exercising ones preferences. My old habits included Dim Sum on Baker Street. Cycling through Regents Park and along the Regents Canal. Watching British soccer and the Rugby. Visiting Tayyabs for kebabs. Good conversation with interesting and educated people from all over the world. You may take joy in other things but can you really say that there is no advantage in this cosmopolitanism? Immigration has brought many good things to the UK. Disraeli. The Rothchilds. Churchill (half american) not to mention a winning cricket team (thank heavens for South Africans fleeing their home). Im sure you are right that it has come with some disadvantages. Capitulation to the foreigners is an odd phrase. We are a commercial people and we are as happy to take russian roubles as Israeli shekels. I see no capitulation unless you think that a waiter has capitulated to his patrons?

Finally the grooming in Bradford was disgusting and I make no appology for it. I dont know how you thought I did. It was nothing but a disgusting crime. But there are plenty of crimes committed by non-muslims. It seems hackery to paint an entire religion with the crimes of a few. Hitler was a Christian wasnt he? For the avoidance of confusion, I am a Catholic.

I'm sorry you are disgusted. I hope I have persuaded you to think again.

harry

No you are right. She wouldnt have. See Bob Carr's comments.

harry

For what little its worth I agree entirely.

harry

Thatcher started that push. It started in 1986.

kxd

"why did Rhodesia and SA go under shortly after white rule ended? Why is the continent such a basket case?"

At the risk of incurring the wrath of my fellow African brethren: Education. Majority rule allowed an entire uneducated voting majority bloc to vote thugs and thieves into power. I have no love lost for Ian Smith, I found him to be a racist man, but he wasn't wrong about majority rule destroying the country.(Britain also has to take blame in this regard, they insisted on majority rule throughout the former colonies and I think it led to the irrepairable damage you see in Africa now. Like you said, democracy is no panacea). Majority rule allowed Mugabe to come power, a small-minded man, who allowed the wholesale slaughter of whites and blacks who were not members of his own tribe. Mugabe played the western world into thinking he would be the nation's Washington, instead of its Saddam.

South Africa was a slightly different matter. Mandela was not a saint, but he was a decent man, a uniter. He knew what would lie ahead for the country if both sides did not heal together and try to move on together. That's why De Klerk(another individual who should get more credit for his part in ending Apartheid peacefully) was made the Deputy President during Mandela's presidency. It's why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was formed. Both sides had to forgive each other over the atrocities committed and move forward for the country to heal and progess. The problem, however, was a debate over how much actual power Mandela had within the ANC itself after his release from prison. Some have argued that Thabo Mbeki and the other young leaders, who were running the ANC in exile while Mandela and his contemporaries were on Robben Island, were the ones making the actual decisions. Mbeki and his contemporaries weren't thugs like Mugabe. They were straight up thieves. They saw that there was money to be made and a public to be fleeced. A lot of south africans have the view that Mbeki, Zuma and the rest of that brigade betrayed the fight against Apartheid for riches. Funnily enough I had a History professor, born in Zambia and spent time in Rhodesia and SA, tell me that he didn't trust the ANC as far back as the 80's. He said the writing was on the wall that they were going to betray the cause because the individuals leading them at the time were more interested in filling their pockets. De Klerk argued for a longer transitional government with a rotating presidency in the negotiations before the 1994 elections but the ANC demanded an immediate transition into majority rule. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before ANC leaders could execute operation "hustle and flow".

So why is the continent such a basket case? because of an uneducated majority populace who were given the right to vote and then the charlatans and demagogues charmed and swayed them. They played on the populaces predujices, fears and anger and gave them "enemies", like white farmers, to focus their rage on. So that the charlatans and demagogues could continue to live off the fat of land while not incurring the people's wrath. That's my pessimistic view of the whole thing anyway.

Medicine Man

I remember reading anecdotes about how some of the people most furious about the financial crisis were smaller players on Wall Street. A front row seat to witness the pillaging but no access to the monetary backstopping that the large, politically connected firms enjoy. I can understand the distrust; "a nice financial system you have there -- shame if something happened to it."

Mike

Did you actually read what I posted above? If so, why this utterly irrelevant and baffling response?

Tyler

Because generally its whites who are so self-destructive in regards to race and culture. You never see a hispanic crying over the cannibal feasts of the Aztecs, or a Cambodian apologizing for Pol Pot, or Jews for being so heavily involved in the slave trade, but damn if everything bad ever isn't whitey's fault.
Just ignore the entire prosperity thing that goes along with Western Civilization and focus on the fact that whites are bad and everything bad that happens is because of whitey.

So they are no Muslims going around enforcing sharia law on the street, but all those signs that are put up saying no alcohol, western clothes, etc and backed by the force of young thugs at the order of the imans mean nothing you see because the courts are nominally 'English'. Yeah okay. I have a bridge to sell you.

You're another fantasy islander with no skin in the game, celebrating the end of majority status as if its something ideal. You think with whitey dethroned we're just going to end up in utopia so you can gorge on the cuisines of the world? I'm still digusted and you're a fool, a selfish gluttonous one at that.

We were told for years that housing prices only go up, and look how that turned out. Things are coming to a head due in part to the idiotic 'blank slate' theory that thinks everyone is equal. You think adding 30 million new coolies who will overload the straining welfare system with their needs is a good thing? Okay. Majority minority is based off the assumption everything stays hunky dory, and if you were paying attention you'd realise its not.

Waiter and the patron? Please. More like the slave barring his belly to the overseer. You really think those Pakis and Somalis are assimilating, which is the key. Ask the Swedes how importing the Third World is working out for them - but hey that massive jump in rapes that accompanied them bringing in massive numbers of Pakis/Somalis is just a coincidence. Only a racist would notice that.

Your crocodile tears are noted, but you refuse to do anything about it so you can sate your gut on dim sum. Disgusting. Maybe if Catholics were throwing peoples in camps wherever they go, you might have a point. They don't though. Rape and violence follows the third world when we import them to our cities en masse. A much more relevant example then your pathetic argumentum ad hitler.

All you've convinced me of is that as long as you can 'scratch an itch', to hell with what the result looks like. Another liberal in love with his own decadence.

Tyler

Education is the other panacea of the Left & their neocon allies. How much good money have we thrown after bad in a failed attempt to try and 'educate' people? Kansas City bankrupted itself hiring Olympic fencing coaches for inner city kids.

Genetics plays more of a role than the Left wants to admit, and while they double down on the discredited blank slate theory Rome burns around us. Since reality refuses to conform to the leftist view of the world, the wonks at the NYT have decided that Algebra really isn't necessary for high schoolers and is just a waste of time because minorities don't do too well at it.

!?

Tyler

Also I'd say the victims of the London bombings, your recent riots, and all those who've suffered thanks to Labour's attempt to elect a new populace would indeed agree with Enoch's "rivers of blood" conclusion.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad