Category Archives: Britain

Stop Shopping Till You Drop, Or Till A Terrorist Drops You

Britain, Economy, Europe, Homeland Security, Islam, Terrorism

THE NEW COLUMN is: “Stop Shopping Till You Drop, Or Till A Terrorist Drops You.” It’s currently on Townhall.com. An excerpt:

“Another attack in London by a loser terrorist, “tweeted President Trump. “These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard.”

Prime Minister Theresa May and the mad media fumed over the president’s insinuation that the Parsons Green “bucket bomber” was a “Known Wolf,” and not a lone wolf. But Donald Trump was entirely on the mark. May and her men knew Yahyah Farroukh (whose information the British press is protecting).

The “Known Wolf,” left free to hunt for prey, is the rule more than the exception in a country, Britain, that will do nothing to stop the likes of the little snot who struck in a London underground train, on September 14.

The same authorities find the will and the legal wherewithal to jail Englishmen for thought crimes, say, reciting verbatim anti-Islam verse from a book by Churchill.

Where President Trump went wrong was in calling the hissing snake “sick and demented.” The snake, taken in and housed by a tenderhearted, stupid British couple, was just being a snake; doing what his ilk has done since the seventh century.

The “sickest and most demented” of the lot are the British authorities.

Scotland Yard? MI5? All are MIA.

When it comes to protecting the lives of innocents, British security is missing in action, habitually, and some say intentionally.

Khuram Butt, one of the London Bridge attackers, starred in a Channel 4 TV documentary, The Jihadis Next Door. Butt was not on the lam during the shooting. He was not being investigated by the security forces, or hunkering in a bunker in Iraq. He was parading around in Barking, east London, broadcasting his intentions to the British people and their protectors. Why, even the Imam at the local mosque had expelled Butt for his murderous lust. But to his British groupies, within and without government, Butt was fit to be filmed living among them, scheming against them.

Twenty-two-year-old Salman Abedi murdered 22 youngsters in the Manchester Arena. He packed his bomb with shrapnel, ball bearings and nails. With such a fiendish device, surgeons must slice open the surviving victims, picking from the flesh and burrowing in the bone for embedded shards. To most decent people, Abedi was detritus. He ought to have been watched, segregated from civilization, deported, and, hopefully, dispatched one day.

But to the security service MI5 Abedi was part of the terrorist “assets” they had cultivated in Manchester “for more than 20 years.” The sanctimonious Ms. May has the audacity to scold President Trump for cryptically hinting at her culpability in enabling terrorism, when May was the home secretary under whose imprimatur Manchester’s resident terrorist cell was developed as an MI5 asset. (“Terror in Britain: What Did the Prime Minister Know?”)

The London tube attack was the fifth attack in Britain this year. Naturally, the state sluggards of British counterterrorism are seething over any leaks of information to their lowly subjects. Leaks reveal their ineptitude, their dereliction of duty and the elaborate protections they put in place for their privileged wards.

If not complicit, as veteran journalist John Pilger has convincingly contended, the British government and counterterrorism outfits are certainly criminally negligent. …

… READ THE REST. Stop Shopping Till You Drop, Or Till A Terrorist Drops You” is currently on Townhall.com.

You can find the Mercer Column weekly on the Unz Review, Daily Caller, WND.com, frequently at  American Thinker, Townhall.com, and other fine outlets, where The Column generally appears. And it’s always posted, eventually, on IlanaMercer.com, under Articles. Please share.

Douglas Murray Gets Rave Reviews Despite Ripped-Off Title & Unoriginal Theme

Britain, Colonialism, Europe, History, IMMIGRATION, Islam, The West

What kind of a “book review” passes no judgment on the author under review, in this case neoconservative Douglas Murray, while simultaneously, if surreptitiously, pointing out that the title and theme of his book, The Strange Death of Europe, are, well, unoriginal?

All Murray, an articulate Second Hander, has done is to elegantly restate the tragedy of inviting immigration and Islam into Europe while ignoring identity and civilization, themes our side (Old Rightists) has been pounding for decades. Our side doesn’t ponder wistfully, but attacks the culprits with verve and vim.

Yes, Murray is not happy. He’s gone all wistful about Europe’s demise through immigration. I remember writing, in 2005, about the response of American neoconservatives to Muslim riots in France. They (Frederick Kempe, Francis Fukuyama, Jonah Goldberg) gloated. Their Schadenfreude was tinged with a sense of American exceptionalism. Riots are not happening in the US because we’re superior, they crowed. Krauthammer, Mark Steyn: that was their position. Other than making babies at home and total war abroad, Steyn had refused at the time to propose an immigration ban. My point: Neocons are seldom on the vanguard of conservative thought. Yet, after marginalizing those who are, onto the scene they prance, managing to appear cleverer and more seductive than everyone. How do they get away with this?

As to colonialism: Murray, it appears, has been unable to come up with a better explanation for the “suicide of the West” than the hackneyed guilt over it!

In Into the Cannibal’s Pot, published in 2011, I presented a chapter on Africa BC (Before Colonialism) and After, citing the great Sir P. T. Bauer at length. The book, written 6 years ago, was unequivocal: Condemn or condone it, before colonialism there was nothing in Africa.

Here’s the wishy-washy Chronicles review:

George Dangerfield’s The Strange Death of Liberal England was published in 1935.  It is an exceptionally well-written book and became a cult classic, its haunting title suggesting a mysterious crime, as in a thriller.  Dangerfield’s theme was the decay of the civilization created by the British Liberal movement in the years that led up to 1914.  Douglas Murray’s book is consciously indebted to its antecedent, and makes a ferociously well-argued case that Europe is now engaged on a parallel course: “Europe is committing suicide.  Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide.  Whether the European people choose to go along with this is, naturally, another matter.”

That challenging exordium states the theme, which Murray pursues with unrelenting tenacity and wide grasp of fact.  The mass movement of peoples into Europe coincided with a loss of faith in Europe’s own beliefs, traditions, and legitimacy: “Europe is now deeply weighed down with guilt for its past.”  This is a fairly recent development.  Half a century ago, “colonial guilt” was not current; it is now widely accepted through sheer repetition as historical and psychological truth.  And yet most adults at that time had no idea of this supposed burden of guilt.  Most people reckoned that the British Empire, barring a few grubby episodes, was on the whole a good thing.  And it extended the civilization of Europe.  When in 1969 Kenneth Clark was commissioned by the BBC to write and present a TV series, he called it Civilization.  He meant European civilization, with a few nods toward oriental buildings.  There was some sniping from the left, but the TV series, with its accompanying book, was enormously successful.  There was a precedent in The Rise of Christian Europe (1964), a series of lectures delivered to the University of Sussex by Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of History at Oxford University.  Trevor-Roper did not believe in African history; “there is only the history of the Europeans in Africa.”  To turn in that direction

‘we may neglect our own history and amuse ourselves with the unrewarding gyrations of barbarous tribes in picturesque but irrelevant corners of the globe: tribes whose chief function in history, in my opinion, is to show to the present an image of the past from which, by history, it has escaped.’

They’d hang him for that today.

Such was the tottering establishment opinion of the era.  “While the likelihood of cultural erosion remains irresistible,” says Murray, “the options for cultural defence continue to be unacceptable.”  The rise of “colonial guilt” fed the idea of Europe as a unitary state, with its own structures of rights, laws, and institutions that superseded the nationalisms that divided Europe.  The European Union was conceived, born, and grew into sickly manhood.  Its hallmark was a borderless Europe, with no internal frontiers—and not much of an external one.

And to that Europe the migrants came—legally, to begin with, and then in vast numbers with no pretense of legality.  In Britain, Enoch Powell first raised the problem of absorbing the numbers.  He was at once reviled as a racist, and dismissed by Edward Heath from the Cabinet.  In fact Powell was never a racist.  (In India he learned Urdu to interpreter level, and was well regarded by his Indian constituents in Wolverhampton.)  He was a nationalist, for whom England was the supreme value.  His “Rivers of Blood” speech made discussion of immigration impossible for many years.  But he had understood the problems of integration; and the later spilling of blood in the capital went far toward his posthumous rehabilitation.  Not that there has been any sign of this in official pronouncements.

Murray’s central theme is the ever-widening chasm between government policy and the views of the population at large.  In the early postwar years European governments simply imported workers; they needed them, especially Germany.  Later on immigration took a sharply ideological turn.  When Tony Blair allowed free entry to the U.K. for the eight new accession countries in 2004, the government announced that it expected 13,000 people per year to take advantage of the scheme.  This was plainly ridiculous.  Britain was an extremely attractive haven to the Eastern European countries, all much poorer, and their numbers resident in Britain soared from 170,000 in 2004 to 1.24 million in 2013.  But this was a deliberate policy of societal transformation imposed on the nation, “a culture war being waged against the British people using immigrants as some kind of battering ram.”

There were excuses.  Governments believed, or affected to believe, that the Gastarbeiter would return to their home countries.  They did not.  They brought in their families, old and young, and put down roots.  So politicians began to talk of “controlling immigration,” with no feasible means of achieving this; such talk became merely “an electoral trick.”  The next recourse was that of the Conservative mayor of London (probably the last of that party), Boris Johnson.  In a column for the Daily Telegraph titled “Let’s not dwell on immigration but sow the seeds of integration,” Johnson wrote, “We need to stop moaning about the damburst.  It’s happened.  There is nothing we can do now except make the process of absorption as eupeptic as possible.”  After half a century of failed eupeptic endeavor, for which governments were solely responsible, it takes some chutzpah to chide the citizenry for not trying harder.  It is one thing to believe that some immigration is beneficial to the host country.  It does not follow that the more immigration, the better.  But this was the default position of the liberal media and those who appeared on TV.  Those holding different views did not appear on TV.

The cultural downside of mass immigration became evident in the new century, and following the 2011 census.  An Old Bailey trial found nine Muslim men—seven of Pakistani origin, two from North Africa—guilty of the sex trafficking of children between the ages of 11 and 13.  One girl of 11 was branded with the initial of her “owner,” M for Mohammed.  High-profile cases with the same import came out of Rotherham and other northern centers.  In Rochdale 1,400 cases of sexual abuse were traced; they were sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism.  The authorities took no serious action, and the media reported these events with studied euphemisms, such as “Asian men” instead of “Pakistani” or “Muslim.”  The official view promoted talk of a “melting pot” (a term that never applied to Britain) and hid the implications of population growth.  The number of migrants continues to soar well above the official figures.  Although net migration figures for recent years are far in excess of 300,000, “the number of new National Insurance numbers issued each year (because they are required for work) has been more than double that.”  Immigration and rising birthrates among immigrants account for almost all the population growth, which ensures that the demographic makeup of the U.K. will change significantly within the lifespan of most readers of this book.  Murray concludes this somber chapter: “the voices almost everybody wanted to demonise and dismiss were in the final analysis the voices whose predictions were nearest to being right.”

Murray demolishes the economic case for high rates of immigration in a devastating chapter, “The Excuses We Told Ourselves.”  The basis of the welfare state is that people are able to take services out of the system because they have paid into it through their working lives.  But new migrants who have contributed nothing make immediate demands on healthcare, schools, and housing.  A study by University College London found that from 1995 to 2011 the potential cost of immigration to Britain was £159 billion.  “The reality is that whatever its other benefits, the economic benefits of immigration accrue almost solely to the migrant.”

Then there is the problem of aging.  In order to maintain a numerically stable population, a developed country needs a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman.  Across Europe in recent years that rate has fallen below replacement level, partly for economic reasons.  The costs of bringing up a child and providing for a decent education for him are well known, and frankly dismaying.  The aged, their numbers ever-growing, need care, which can come from migrant workers.  But those same migrants will themselves grow old.  The “diversity” argument holds that they bring new cultures and attitudes—“and of course the endlessly cited example of new and exciting cuisine.”  Their social and political views, however, may be startlingly different from those of the host country.

The travails of Continental Europe are extensively visited here.  They are not shared by the Visegrad group (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic), which, being Christian, refuses to have anything to do with Angela Merkel’s policy of a quota system for largely Muslim immigrants.  Their line is “You broke it, you own it.”  Murray has been to Lampedusa, an offshore island that serves as a gateway to the Continent: “Once onto Lampedusa you are into Italy, and once into Italy you are into Europe.”  The migrants are passed on, making their way to France, where virtually nobody is a first arrival—the Atlantic crossing to Bordeaux holds no charms for them—and congregate near a Channel port where the great prize is entry to El Dorado, Britain.  In several excruciating chapters, Murray details the hellish consequences of people-trafficking and the refusal of the authorities to face up to the problem.

Merkel continued to assert the moral aspect of multiculturalism: “it suddenly seemed as though some of the absolute bases of Western civilization were being offered up for negotiation.”  What is now happening is that entire national populations fear “Le grand remplacement” (Renaud Camus’s term), described by a brilliant novelist-philosopher, Michel Houellebecq, whose dark novel Submission imagines a future in which France votes for a moderate Muslim party as the only means of keeping the National Front out of power.

Population displacement hides behind that thoroughly bogus concept of “net migration,” the figure at the forefront of the British government’s policy of reassuring its citizens that immigration is under control.  If the numbers of leavers and newcomers are not far apart, then all seems to be in order.  But suppose that in a given year half a million left the U.K., and another half a million entered the country: Net migration is nil.  Would that be hailed as success?  In that case, the interesting question is not simply arrivals, but leavers.  For a pointer to the future, look at France.  In 2016 an estimated 12,000 millionaires left France; 60,000 total, since 2000.  Where did they go?  Top of the list came Australia, an outpost of Europe with a superb climate, generous social arrangements, and freedom from the migration problems of Europe.  Another thing: Australia and New Zealand have no inheritance tax.  Wealth protects itself, and wealth is part of the future.

For the Europe left behind, the prospects are less alluring, as the states have to pay for the demands of their own citizens and of immigrants, most of whom are simply gatecrashers who cannot be repatriated or repudiated.  Murray’s final two sentences read, “Prisoners of the past and of the present, for Europeans there seem finally to be no decent answers to the future.  Which is how the fatal blow will finally land.”  Dangerfield’s elegiac musings on The Strange Death of Liberal England come to mind as the author characterizes the aftermath of the Sarajevo killings.  It is his equivalent to Sir Edward Grey’s “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”  Dangerfield wrote,

‘Now the gracious, the terrible twilight absorbs, minute by minute, the low German coast, and seems, in the mind’s eye, to creep reluctantly westward . . . And now the half light fades away altogether, and on the splendour of Imperial England there falls, at last and forever, an inextinguishable dark.’

Change “England” to “Europe,” and Dangerfield’s conclusion is Murray’s.

‘Conservatives’ Fail Litmus Test As Defenders Of ‘Western & Christian Tradition

America, Britain, Christianity, Communism, Conservatism, Constitution, History, Left-Liberalism, Neoconservatism, States' Rights

By Dr. Boyd Cathey (who, as is his wont, has covered it all—except for one other defining issue on which conservatives have failed miserably: Their gushing support for Mandela and his ANC).

You can tell a lot about a person by the friends he cherishes, and you can intuit much about how a writer thinks on one topic by how he thinks on another, related topic. This surmise is not always true in every case, but, I think it applies in a great majority of situations. Tell me what a person—a distinguished author, a political leader, a cultural icon—believes, his perspective, on this or that significant historical event, and you can usually gather a valid impression of his world view and overarching philosophy.

A few years back I created my own measure, my own test, as it were, to determine on which side of immense and fundamentally unbridgeable divides various writers and authors, politicians, and others come down. It seemed to me that we could take, historically, several major conflicts and wars, that fundamentally shaped not only subsequent history, but also, indelibly, the consciousness, thinking and cultural outlook of succeeding generations, and utilize them as markers.

I came up with the following five:

1)     The  English Civil War, 1642-1651;

2)     The French Revolution, 1789-1799, also including the Napoleonic Period, 1799-1815;

3)     The War Between the States, 1861-1865;

4)     The Communist Revolution, 1917-1920; and

5)     The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939.

I won’t dwell at length on my reasons for selecting these conflicts as measures—I will save that discussion for another time. But I will say I believe how we think about them clearly illustrates where a person stands in relation to the accumulated inheritance—that great continuum—of Western and Christian tradition. Respond correctly on all five (as I see it), and you are a staunch defender of that heritage and most probably have been able, in some fashion, to understand the fundamental connection those conflicts have in the context of our civilization and our willingness to defend it.

Obviously, for most self-described “conservatives,” there are at least two “giveaways” in my list, that is, two of the five questions they would very likely answer correctly: about the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution. Most “conservatives,” if queried, would have certainly opposed them.

It becomes harder after that, and, I suggest, even more critical to a determination. Not that many current “conservative” writers or politicians are intimately familiar with the history, causes, and issues surrounding the English Civil War.  Yet, I would state most vigorously that issues debated then were, in microcosm and incipiently, some of the issues we continue to debate today, and that a faithful and thinking defender of the continuity of Western tradition must, necessarily, come down on the side of the Royalists, as opposed to Oliver Cromwell’s authoritarian experiment in democracy. King Charles, for all his mistakes and bad decisions, nevertheless, represented the traditions of his country and, as he stated at his famous trial, represented “more the people of England” than the rump “democratic” dictatorship of the Cromwellians and Roundheads.

Back in the 1960s, back when William F. Buckley’s magazine, National Review and Russell Kirk’s journal, Modern Age, were arguably truly conservative, the question concerning the Spanish Civil War would have, likewise, been a giveaway. Almost all conservatives would have viewed that conflict in the light of a much larger, universal conflict between international Communism and those forces opposed to it, and this despite the fact that the anti-Republican Nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco did receive some support from Fascist Italy and Hitler’s Germany (while the Soviet Union not only supported the Republic, but eventually via the Spanish Communist Party eliminated most of its opposition in Spanish Republican ranks). But not today; indeed,  many of the dominant “conservatives” of 2017—the Neoconservatives—come down passionately on the side of the socialist Republic, and, employing the linguistic armor of the Left, they attack the Nationalist, Catholic and traditionalist forces that fought against the Republic, as “fascists.”

Finally, there is the War Between the States, and it is here, in this case, where we indeed can separate the true traditionalist conservatives who comprehend and accept the continuum of Western Christian civilization, its virtues, and its authority, and those who have, in reality and to varying degrees, severed themselves from that continuity. It is here that we can range on one side those who accept and participate in that “great chain of being”—that fundamentally religious and hierarchical structure of all matter and life, decreed by God, Himself, and present in our historical consciousness, and those who do not accept it. For support, in some form, of the Confederacy becomes that crucial measure that determines not just a political outlook about states’ rights and the original meaning of the American Constitution. It also demonstrates a vision of reality and of our existence as human beings created  by and subservient to God as part of an organic whole, a Creation which must continually be protected and defended against those who would seek to puncture it,  or distort its meaning, if not, eventually, to subvert or destroy it.

Certainly, there are those of good will and, let us call it, “invincible ignorance” who have been educated to think that the primary issue in 1861 was slavery, and that Abraham Lincoln was simply reacting to those “rebels” who wished to destroy “the sacred bonds” of Union, while advancing the great humanitarian cause of “freedom.” So much for the caliber and character of our contemporary educational system, not to mention Hollywood’s ideologically tendentious (and mostly successful) attempts to influence us. Yet, that mythology surrounding the Southern Iliad of 1861-1865 will not stand serious cross-examination.

Consider these popular myths and shibboleths:

The War was about slavery!” Not really accurate: the war aims cited repeatedly by Lincoln and Northern publicists were that the War was to “preserve the Union.” Indeed, if abolition of slavery had been declared as the principle war aim in 1861, most likely a great majority of Union political leaders, not to mention Union soldiers, would have recoiled, and the Northern war effort would most likely have collapsed. It was difficult enough to gain wide support in the North, as it was. Remember, Lincoln was elected with less than 40% of the vote in 1860, and barely gained pluralities in most Northern states.

“Lincoln freed the slaves!” Not so; Lincoln freed not one slave. His Emancipation Proclamation, issued first on September 22, 1862 and finalized on January 1, 1863, supposedly “freeing the slaves,” only applied to those areas not under Union military control or occupation, that is, territory of the independent Southern states. It did not apply to the “slave states” within the Union or controlled by the Union military, including Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Thus, Lincoln’s proclamation “freed” slaves where his action had no effect, but left it untouched where he could have “freed” them. Not only that, exactly one month prior to his initial proclamation he had been interviewed by Horace Greeley, editor of The New York Tribune, where he forthrightly stated: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it… What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union….” [August 22, 1861] The amendments to end slavery came after the conclusion of the war and after the death of Lincoln.

And most recently this charge: “Robert E. Lee and other Confederate military leaders who had been in the US Army committed treason by violating their oaths to defend the Union, and Confederate leaders were in rebellion against the legitimately elected government of the United States.”

It is this accusation that has become the ultimate weapon of choice—the “ultima ratio”—for today’s fierce opponents of the various monuments that honor Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, P. G. T. Beauregard, and other Confederate military leaders, and for the belief that they should be taken down. And most especially, it is spewed forth as unassailable gospel by many Neoconservative writers, publicists, pundits, and their less distinguished camp followers in much of the NeverTrump elites of the Republican Party.

Most recently, we have witnessed the spectacle of Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, apparently “channeling” (!) Robert E. Lee and declaring that if Marse Robert were alive today he would gleefully join in the chorus to bring down those monuments honoring Confederate soldiers and leaders. Tell us, Rich, so the great general would be there right beside the “antifa” Marxists and Black Lives Matter vandals, that is, those “new” friends you have made over on the extreme left?

Even more obtuse views come from Mona Charen, a long time Neocon publicist and NeverTrumper, who fears that the GOP is “being taken over by Trumpists and Neo-Confederates”! Perish the thought, Mona!

But it is from the foul mouths of “conservatives” Andrew Bacevitch and Max Boot that the worst venom emits, and, fascinatingly, it could have just as well come from a member of the communist Workers’ World Party as from Bacevitch (who writes for The American Conservative, but voted for Obama twice) or Boot (who was John McCain’s foreign policy advisor during McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign).

Just a few quotes from Bacevitch:

“My complaint about Lee—I admit this to my everlasting shame—was not that he was a slaveholder who in joining the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery. It was that he had thereby engineered the killing of many thousands of American patriots who (whatever their views on slavery and race) wished simply to preserve the Union. At the beginning of the Civil War, Lee famously remarked that he could not bring himself to take up arms against his home state of Virginia. This obliged him to take up arms against the very nation that as a serving officer he had sworn to defend? No less than Benedict Arnold, Robert E. Lee was a traitor. This became, and remains, my firm conviction.”

And then this from Boot:

“…what is it that we are supposed to be grateful to the Confederates for? For seceding from the Union? For, in the case of former U.S. Army officers such as Lee and Jackson, violating their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”? For triggering the most bloody conflict in American history? For fighting to keep their fellow citizens in bondage?” 

Now, these individuals are, supposedly, well-educated, with valuable university degrees, writers of some (I would submit, undeserved) repute. I do not believe they fall into the category of invincible ignorance; I do not believe that will suffice as an explanation or excuse for the hatred-laced and furious animus they demonstrate against a Lee or any other faithful military leader of the Confederacy. Rather, they fall clearly on that other side of my unbridgeable divide—they implicitly, through this major indicator and precisely because they are educated, reject the continuum of Western Christian civilization. They may protest not, but, in effect and through their views, they effectively do so. And, as such, they are the enemies of those who do defend that great chain of being, that European inheritance of those who went before us, the legacy of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. Thus, they must be called out and their vision denounced for what it is: the “Fifth Column” of the progressivist Revolution that seeks to radically remake the world and man…and that remade image is not one that comes from God.

Two years ago, in 2015, in response to the hysteria (including the actions of the invincibly stupid Nikki Haley) concerning the display of Confederate flags after the criminal acts of Dylann Roof, I authored a long essay, first published in the Confederate Veteran magazine, and then picked up by the Abbeville Institute. Much of the ludicrous reasoning offered by Bacevitch, Boot, Lowry, and Charen (and other Neocons) I attempted to answer back then, in particular the utterly ridiculous charge that General Lee somehow violated his oath to defend the Constitution as a member of the US Army. Accordingly, I reproduce portions of that essay today.

Lastly, Dr. Lee Cheek has written a shorter, but fine, defense of General Lee, and I pass that on as well.

Once again, I ask your indulgence: there is much here, but in these critical times, it is incumbent upon us to be informed…and prepared for the battles ahead.

==========================================

~ DR. BOYD D. CATHEY is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.

Milton Friedman Understood Rhodesia In 1976

Africa, Britain, Colonialism, Communism, Race, South-Africa

VIA AFRICA UNAUTHORIZED:

“Of the 49 countries in Africa, fifteen are under direct military rule and 29 have one-party civilian governments. Only five have multiparty political systems. I have just returned from visiting two of these five—the Republic of South Africa and Rhodesia (the other three, for Africa buffs, are Botswana, Gambia and Mauritius). If this way of putting it produces a double take, that is its purpose. The actual situation in both South Africa and Rhodesia is very different from and very much more complex than the black-white stereotypes presented by both our government and the press. And the situation in Rhodesia is very different from that in South Africa.

Neither country is an ideal democracy—just as we are not. Both have serious racial problems— just as we have. Both can be justly criticized for not moving faster to eliminate discrimination— just as we can. But both provide a larger measure of freedom and affluence for all their residents—black and white—than most other countries of Africa.

Both would be great prizes for the Soviets—and our official policy appears well designed to assure that the Soviets succeed in following up their victory in Angola through the use of Cuban troops by similar take-overs in Rhodesia and South Africa.

The United Nations recently renewed and strengthened its sanctions against Rhodesia. The U.S. regrettably concurred. We have, however, had enough sense to continue buying chrome from Rhodesia under the Byrd amendment, rather than, as we did for a time, in effect forcing Rhodesia to sell its chrome to Russia (also technically a party to the sanctions) which promptly sold us chrome at double the price.

Rhodesia was opened up to the rest of the world less than a century ago by British pioneers. Since then, Rhodesia has developed rapidly, primarily through its mineral production—gold, copper, chrome and such—and through highly productive agriculture.

In the past two decades alone, the “African” (i.e., black) population has more than doubled, to 6 million, while the “European” population (i.e., white) has less than doubled, from about 180,000 to less than 300,000. As Rhodesia has developed, more and more Africans have been drawn from their traditional barter economy into the modern market sector. For example, from 1958 to 1975, the total earnings of African employees quadrupled, while those of European employees a little more than tripled. Even so, perhaps more than half of all Africans are still living in the traditional subsistence sector. …”

… READ THE REST: “Rhodesia in 1976. A fascinating view from a famous economist.”