Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Africa and the New World Order


By Colin Liddell Comments (31) Print

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.

It may have been the dawning sense of this new global “division of labour” that hastened the removal of the old colonial system from Africa rather than any impetus caused by the largely feeble efforts of African nationalism. Although colonialism certainly taught the African to hate the White man by driving home his inferiority in a number of key indices, [b]anyone who has lived in Africa, as I have, will know that petty tribalism, and not broad-based nationalism, has been and is always likely to be the driving force in that considerable part of the world.

So, what use does the global economic order have for Africa? Sadly, the Africans are terrible producers, lacking the precision, conscientiousness, group ethic, and self-sacrificing qualities needed to constitute a hard-working, reliable industrial population. Not to mention the issue of IQ! They are equally inept when it comes to consumption, and not only because of their proverbial penury and otherwise laudable penchant for reusing every piece of junk that comes their way. Even when they have money to burn, they seem more attracted to simple bling than to acquiring the wide variety of gizmos, gadgets, home appliances, bric-a-brac, and exotic interests that support vast export industries. The lack of protection accorded property in Africa also plays an important role in disqualifying them from this key economic function.[/b]

This means that Africa’s economic destiny is simply to be a raw material source—oil, gas, minerals, and a few tropical crops—something for which its still relatively virgin vastness makes it an ideal candidate. In the past this was always the case, although then it was gold, ivory, and slaves that slowly turned the wheels of commerce. Nobody thought the continent was worth bothering about beyond this, especially the Sub-Saharan portion. That was until the discovery of the Americas, two virgin continents that proved eminently more developable.

The tragic shortage of labour in the fast developing New World, in large part caused by European diseases, led to the unfortunate institution of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and while the labour mobilized at the crack of whip played a key role in working sugar cane plantations and silver mines, the partial success of the system also fostered the mistaken belief among Europeans that Africa and the Africans had the same sort of economic potential as anywhere and anyone else in the World. All it would take would be a few guns, Bibles, and copies of Samuel Smiles Self-Help to turn Bulawayo into Chicago.

This is how 19th-century colonialism really should be seen—as a vote of confidence by Europeans in the capabilities and ultimate potential of the Black man. Without the belief that the African could ultimately become just as economically upstanding as the European or Asian, the great 19th-century wave of colonization and investment in the Dark Continent would never have happened.

Harold Macmillan’s Winds of Change speech probably marks the point when European colonialists and capitalists realized that the game was up and that, for one reason or another, Africa was never going to be America or Japan, leapfrogging from wilderness or agrarian backwater to economic greatness.

Once the colonialists upped sticks, merely allowing Africa to revert to its wild state was not an option. In the period before colonization, various goods from the interior had naturally trickled down to the European and Arab trading posts and forts dotted along the coast. However, in the post-colonial period the kind of amounts produced by this process were wholly insufficient. Although the flags were lowered, Africa had to be kept on tap. This is what determined the characteristics of Neocolonialism: a system that could get the raw materials out more efficiently than the natives would left to themselves. Absolute efficiency was not required as that would simply flood the market and reduce profits, but some quickening of Africa’s natural tendencies was required.

The characteristics of the system of Neocolonialism that emerged included:

Creating and maintaining vast ethnic and tribal patchwork states that ignored the principle of local self-determination

Fostering tribal divisions to keep the states weak, encourage tyranny, and to exert leverage on the rulers

Various forms of bribery, including corporate bribery, foreign “aid,” and other incentives

Granting major Western corporations carte-blanche exploitation rights and allowing them access to cheap unskilled labour to supplement imported skilled labour

Occasional, low-key military intervention

The most successful African dictators, like the Congo’s Joseph Mobutu and Ivory Coast’s Félix Houphouët-Boigny, realized that their role was to facilitate raw material extraction, rather than develop their countries or challenge the ex-colonial masters. They instinctively understood that their slice of the profits should be used in ways the Neocolonialists found non-threatening—depositing the money in Swiss banks, for example, importing European haute-couture, or building shining palaces or cathedrals in the jungle.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/africa-and-the-new-world-order/#disqus_thread

But Neocolonialism could only work when applied to weak states, of which Africa has plenty. Some African rulers, buoyed up by Islam, Communism, or Arab Nationalism, could escape its grasp. Examples here include Nasser in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya, and Mengistu in Ethiopia. Against such rulers, Neocolonialism could do little except play a waiting game.

Nor was Neocolonialism always negative. Under its first president Houphouët-Boigny, Ivory Coast saw particularly good relations with its ex-colonial power, France, and the development of the country’s coffee and cocoa crops, with a large influx of foreign labour from poorer Northern countries like Burkina Faso and French experts who helped run everything from the army and economic planning to the cocoa harvest. This gave the country one of the highest standards of living in post-colonial Africa, leading to the term “The Ivorian Miracle,” although problems started to set in following the slump in the price of its main export cocoa in the 1980s.

[b]Many of the coups and revolutions in post-colonial African history that otherwise look so random and pointless, and seem like the result of tribalism or over-ambitious army officers, start to make more sense in the context of Neocolonialism. Ivory Coast is a good example. In 1999, Houphouët-Boigny’s successor, Henri Konan Bédié, was removed by a coup; while in 2002 an attempted coup tried to remove Laurent Gbagbo, and ended up splitting the country into Northern and Southern halves. Unlike their esteemed predecessor, both these leaders succeeded in antagonizing France, most noticeably by attempting to shore up their positions through mobilizing resentment against immigrant labourers and foreign economic interests.

But old-fashioned Neocolonialism of the type that was behind removing Bédié and putting and keeping Mabuto in power in the Congo had to rely on low-key opportunism and subtle methods. The public back home could not be made too aware of the bribery, contacts with thugs and tyrants, weapons smuggling, and occasional employment of small groups of mercenaries. The environment of the Cold War also meant that Neocolonialism had to tread softly, so much so that even petty dictators like Robert Mugabe, who could benefit from the crutch of having a White population to oppress, were able to defy it.

But the soaring need for African commodities combined with the festering apathy of Africans, who, after 50 years of being tyrannized and brutalized by their own kind, have largely lost their faith in the dream of independence, has led to a major revamping of Neocolonialism, so much so that it has effectively become something else that can best be termed “Global-colonialism” because (a) it is designed to subordinate Africa to the global division of economic functions, (b) the moral justification for the system hinges on globalist “humanitarian values,” and (c) its chief agents are the key globalist nations, America, Britain and France.[/b]

The system retains many of the methods of Neocolonialism, including setting tribe against tribe, extensive bribery, weapons smuggling, and giving the green light to those with their own axe to grind. But there are also important differences:

Unlike Neocolonialism, which preferred long-term rulers and only sought to remove leaders who were uncooperative, Global-colonialism has a preference for shorter-term leaders and places more emphasis on elections. This actually creates more leverage as rulers constantly need the endorsement of the West. Even if elections produce the “wrong” result, they can always be declared invalid due to ballot fraud or corruption as these phenomena are always present in any African election.
While Neocolonialism tended to be low-key and avoided publicity, Global-colonialism is noisy and demonstrative. It always tries to involve the media, which is one of its key arms. (In the event that the individuals and groups it elevates turn out to be Al-Qaeda sympathizers or genocidal thugs, expect Orwellian U-turns and the full exploitation of the public’s short attention span and near total ignorance of Africa.)
Global-colonialism is prepared to use much greater military force. This includes the smuggling of larger quantities of arms than before, as well as higher calibre weapons, such as the Ukrainian tanks the U.S. was caught smuggling to the Southern Sudanese rebels through Kenya in 2008. It also includes direct military intervention of the kind that removed Gbagbo and prevented Gaddafi crushing the Libyan rebellion. There is a preference for air power and specialist ground forces rather than the kind of heavily involved military intervention that has occurred in other parts of the world. Cost may be a factor. Nevertheless, this is certainly a step up from the old days of “The Dogs of War.”
To justify such military action, “human rights” and “protecting the civilian population” are tirelessly invoked. However, such “Totalitarian Humanism” can be applied very selectively, as we see in the case of Ivory Coast, where massacres by the French- and UN-approved rebels did not result in any military action being taken except on behalf of the same rebels.
There is a willingness to change borders as seen in Sudan and the suggestion that Libya too might be partitioned.
Perhaps because the system is new, Global-colonialism places great importance on getting someone—indeed anyone—to sign the chit for its actions. This is supposed to give a disinterested gloss to any intervention. Ideally, the signer should be the United Nations, but other suitable candidates include the African Union, the Arab League, or even, I suspect, the local chapter of the Abidjan Boy Scouts.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/africa-and-the-new-world-order/#disqus_thread

@cap my brother you cant me this up lol
some things he said there are so true but am tired of telling my people to understand whats going on.

cap28:

But Neocolonialism could only work when applied to weak states, of which Africa has plenty. Some African rulers, buoyed up by Islam, Communism, or Arab Nationalism, could escape its grasp. Examples here include Nasser in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya, and Mengistu in Ethiopia. Against such rulers, Neocolonialism could do little except play a waiting game.

Nor was Neocolonialism always negative. Under its first president Houphouët-Boigny, Ivory Coast saw particularly good relations with its ex-colonial power, France, and the development of the country’s coffee and cocoa crops, with a large influx of foreign labour from poorer Northern countries like Burkina Faso and French experts who helped run everything from the army and economic planning to the cocoa harvest. This gave the country one of the highest standards of living in post-colonial Africa, leading to the term “The Ivorian Miracle,” although problems started to set in following the slump in the price of its main export cocoa in the 1980s.

[b]Many of the coups and revolutions in post-colonial African history that otherwise look so random and pointless, and seem like the result of tribalism or over-ambitious army officers, start to make more sense in the context of Neocolonialism. Ivory Coast is a good example. In 1999, Houphouët-Boigny’s successor, Henri Konan Bédié, was removed by a coup; while in 2002 an attempted coup tried to remove Laurent Gbagbo, and ended up splitting the country into Northern and Southern halves. Unlike their esteemed predecessor, both these leaders succeeded in antagonizing France, most noticeably by attempting to shore up their positions through mobilizing resentment against immigrant labourers and foreign economic interests.

But old-fashioned Neocolonialism of the type that was behind removing Bédié and putting and keeping Mabuto in power in the Congo had to rely on low-key opportunism and subtle methods. The public back home could not be made too aware of the bribery, contacts with thugs and tyrants, weapons smuggling, and occasional employment of small groups of mercenaries. The environment of the Cold War also meant that Neocolonialism had to tread softly, so much so that even petty dictators like Robert Mugabe, who could benefit from the crutch of having a White population to oppress, were able to defy it.

But the soaring need for African commodities combined with the festering apathy of Africans, who, after 50 years of being tyrannized and brutalized by their own kind, have largely lost their faith in the dream of independence, has led to a major revamping of Neocolonialism, so much so that it has effectively become something else that can best be termed “Global-colonialism” because (a) it is designed to subordinate Africa to the global division of economic functions, (b) the moral justification for the system hinges on globalist “humanitarian values,” and (c) its chief agents are the key globalist nations, America, Britain and France.[/b]

The system retains many of the methods of Neocolonialism, including setting tribe against tribe, extensive bribery, weapons smuggling, and giving the green light to those with their own axe to grind. But there are also important differences:

Unlike Neocolonialism, which preferred long-term rulers and only sought to remove leaders who were uncooperative, Global-colonialism has a preference for shorter-term leaders and places more emphasis on elections. This actually creates more leverage as rulers constantly need the endorsement of the West. Even if elections produce the “wrong” result, they can always be declared invalid due to ballot fraud or corruption as these phenomena are always present in any African election.
While Neocolonialism tended to be low-key and avoided publicity, Global-colonialism is noisy and demonstrative. It always tries to involve the media, which is one of its key arms. [b](In the event that the individuals and groups it elevates turn out to be Al-Qaeda sympathizers or genocidal thugs, expect Orwellian U-turns and the full exploitation of the public’s short attention span and near total ignorance of Africa.)[/b]
Global-colonialism is prepared to use much greater military force. This includes the smuggling of larger quantities of arms than before, as well as higher calibre weapons, such as the Ukrainian tanks the U.S. was caught smuggling to the Southern Sudanese rebels through Kenya in 2008. It also includes direct military intervention of the kind that removed Gbagbo and prevented Gaddafi crushing the Libyan rebellion. There is a preference for air power and specialist ground forces rather than the kind of heavily involved military intervention that has occurred in other parts of the world. Cost may be a factor. Nevertheless, this is certainly a step up from the old days of “The Dogs of War.”
To justify such military action, “human rights” and “protecting the civilian population” are tirelessly invoked. However, such “Totalitarian Humanism” can be applied very selectively, as we see in the case of Ivory Coast, where massacres by the French- and UN-approved rebels did not result in any military action being taken except on behalf of the same rebels.
There is a willingness to change borders as seen in Sudan and the suggestion that Libya too might be partitioned.
Perhaps because the system is new, Global-colonialism places great importance on getting someone—indeed anyone—to sign the chit for its actions. This is supposed to give a disinterested gloss to any intervention. Ideally, the signer should be the United Nations, but other suitable candidates include the African Union, the Arab League, or even, I suspect, the local chapter of the Abidjan Boy Scouts.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/africa-and-the-new-world-order/#disqus_thread

more revealing is the comments page

^^^

yes i read some of them and you can see how contemptous they are of africans, i wish more nigerians could wake up and understand how these people see us, it will provide us with the much needed kick up the backside to do something to change our situation.


one thing i have to say though is that his analysis of neo colonialism in africa is very accurate.

^^

Do you sleep dreaming about white people and their racism

Wow !!!!

frosbel:

^^

Do you sleep dreaming about white people and their racism

Wow !!!!

Abeg help me ask am that question again!

Kai dan buru ba!

frosbel:

^^

Do you sleep dreaming about white people and their racism

Wow !!!!

morpheus24:

Abeg help me ask am that question again!

Kai dan buru ba!

typical attitude of the cowardly nigerian - too foolish and ignorant to deal with the issues raised in the article - only good at tryign to attack the bearer of the message - no wonder it was so easy for the europeans to conquer us - with weak punks like you lot in our midst we have no hope.

Performance is the single most important ability responsible for the unified progressive continual resolve of a people; dont just take my word for it, look closely enough you'll bear witness to this playing out in the world of today.

Cultural promotion is a very important discipline in cultural performance; on the other hand, cultural performance is a prerequisite for cultural promotion. The alignment of ones self is not important to us alone but is very much significant as a unified entity; as a people. Similarly, performance based on culture has a 'shock and awe' affect on the whole of humanity.

searching . . .

We are searching for that which we already have, its a loop; a cycle that has been scientificaly created. Maybe the best way to describe this is 'laboratory created' yet with out the use of a conventional laboratoy. Minds have been manipulated towards a non-profitable course and its so deep that it would probably take a 'detox' to do away with all the toxin.

In the next few years we will need to wise-up and step-up, the last time western military planes were carrying out manouevers on African airspace was during worldwar, i think its high time we wake-up and smell the cofee.

We have to keep up with the times, we have to keep up with the times

cap28:

typical attitude of the cowardly nigerian - too foolish and ignorant to deal with the issues raised in the article - only good at tryign to attack the bearer of the message - no wonder it was so easy for the europeans to conquer us - with weak punks like you lot in our midst we have no hope.

Bearer of message. Ha!

Its called borderline Obsessive compulsive disorder with a stinch of extreme paranoia and a dab of grandiose delusionary mania

Lets de-spell, many of us are under the illusion that we practise some form of democracy when infact this couldnt be further from the truth, the forms of government in many of our countries is a lucrative list; when you hear people saying use the term 'puppet master' it isnt meant to alert you unless you read into what it really suppose to mean.

Obviously, it reads as defined, that could include prioritising the interest of a foreign government over the one in which you are deemed to be leader.

However, its way more complicated than this, what we are actually identifying with here is a case of some governments using democracy as a cover-up to a more altogether different form of political system.

It looks like democracy because its meant to, but infact it is also a totalitarian or an authoritarian regime in favour of a 'nation state'

Democracratic [/b]system of government as defined by an encyclopedia:

"A form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives i.e social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination; equal participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law".

 
[b]Totalitarian system of government  as defined by an encyclopedia:
"
A political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. i.e through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, apotheosis, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror".


Now what system of government would you say a country uses when it professes and practices 'democracy' whilst under the influence of totalitarian instructions(that are NOT common knowlegde to citizens) from a 'nation state' ?

What is 'democratic' about it'?

So, what use does the global economic order have for Africa? Sadly, the Africans are terrible producers, lacking the precision, conscientiousness, group ethic, and self-sacrificing qualities needed to constitute a hard-working, reliable industrial population. Not to mention the issue of IQ! They are equally inept when it comes to consumption, and not only because of their proverbial penury and otherwise laudable penchant for reusing every piece of junk that comes their way. Even when they have money to burn, they seem more attracted to simple bling than to acquiring the wide variety of gizmos, gadgets, home appliances, bric-a-brac, and exotic interests that support vast export industries. The lack of protection accorded property in Africa also plays an important role in disqualifying them from this key economic function.

Lol I like this.

are you sure it wasn't written sarcastically?

to me, it seems to put us in a good light. not a bad one.
it reads like something u would find in The Onion.

Jenifa_:


Lol I like this.

are you sure it wasn't written sarcastically?

to me, it seems to put us in a good light. not a bad one.
it reads like something u would find in The Onion.

The author meant every word

well then the joke is on him.

I still think it's sarcasm though. Especially if read in the context of what's going on around the world(financial crisis) today.
unless he wrote it years ago.

They are equally inept when it comes to consumption, and not only because of their proverbial penury and otherwise laudable penchant for reusing every piece of junk that comes their way. Even when they have money to burn, they seem more attracted to simple bling than to acquiring the wide variety of gizmos, gadgets, home appliances, bric-a-brac, and exotic interests that support vast export industries.

I still laugh when I re-read this.

The Plans being hatched for Africa is more horrible that what the average African can imagine, it becomes more dangerous when you know that Nigeria is at the center of it all.
The control of a Nation with the largest standing army and population in the continent(Conventional warfare), the largest and most penetrating social engineering engine(movies,music and culture - Psy Ops) daily penetrating and shaping the opinions of the continent, vast mineral resources and a large population of uneducated and ignorant populace is a price any imperialist nation with a good intelligence analyst would go for.
As we talk Nigerian troops are being used to intimidate and force NWO imperialist policies on Liberia,Sierraleon,Sudan and Somalia masses in their OWN COUNTRY by their AFRICAN BROTHERS working for the interests of a FOREIGN nation(not even in the continent). More painful is the fact that Nigerians are not aware of our sons and daughters being there, the few that knew does not know WHY they are there, the fewer that knows WHY can't do anything about it and so AFRICOM and its objectives lives on.

I will say it again, There is NOTHING like Boko Haram, the aim of this CIA Operation is to put Nigeria in the world stage as an Islamic Extremist and terrorist infested country, getting it ready for domination. just like there is no Al Qaida but just any targeted Muslim country or population that is anti imperialist and anti-America .
The Horrors are coming very soon,and Nigeria has very Little time left to counter this initiative.

cap28:

typical attitude of the cowardly nigerian - too foolish and ignorant to deal with the issues raised in the article - only good at tryign to attack the bearer of the message - no wonder it was so easy for the europeans to conquer us - with weak punks like you lot in our midst we have no hope.

Yawn!!!

I got that chip off my shoulder a long time ago.

We have to work out or salvation and not keep holding on to the white man as the cause of our problems.

Move on mate ! 

It is Capitalism pure and simple.

Capitalism makes SLAVES out of the masses and enriches a few.

Cap you may want to pull a discovery on the beginnings of capitalism. As you know Europe was in the DARK AGES for over 1000 years. When Europe pulled out of the dark ages, it was largely because of the new technology STOLEN from Northern Africa during the crusades.

Make a long story short merchants became rich and started a bourgeois class/middle class. Because it was only dirt poor whites and , here it comes, THE 1%.

When you check on the beginnings of capitalism and how it operates, its easy to see why I as a Black am typing online here.

Because of Slavery. Which was America's first Greatest product.

Capitalism = THE DEVIL!

ignore poor broke fools like morpheus. He the delusional one. He talks about himself in the 3rd person. so you know he is not dealing with a full deck.

MandingoII:

!

ignore poor broke fools like morpheus. He the delusional one. He talks about himself in the 3rd person. so you know he is not dealing with a full deck.

I don't get it . First your homo aZz is on Cap's D.I.C.K then its off it, then its on it again. Make up your mind peanut head.

PS. Stop trying to sound smart will ya and go play with your 22's.

They spinning N**Ga they spinning !!!!

More cursing!