About decolonialization
Author Message
Nulla crux, nulla corona


Posts: 2.927
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1000
Post: #1
About decolonialization
I saw that on a Spanish forum and find that quite interesting:

It is usually stated that the European powers gave up their colonies after World War II due to pressures from the US, who wished to penetrate into the territories that made up the old European Colonial Empires, although there is undoubtedly a sizable amount of truth in this statement, another factor is usually ignored and forgotten, and this is that the surrender of the European colonial Empires was also the result of a voluntary cedings from the part of these European powers:
Seen from the XXI century, the decolonization process -always lubricated with false ornamental idealisms and humanitarianisms- actually turned out to be the cover of a silent struggle between two forms of private property:

1- That of the white colonials, who were on the road to becoming autonomous and constituting the United States of South Africa, the United States of Central Africa, Indochina, Hindustan, the Maghreb, the Nile, the Congo, etc.: the ripe fruit that falls from the tree engendering a new tree. Ultimately, these communities of ethnic Europeans had established powerful networks of influence and, due to their small size in relation to the territory and population they governed would have concentrated great amounts of power and wealth in few hands, forming rival elites, potentially capable of supplanting the globalist ones. In general, European colonials (for example, English farmers in Rhodesia) were taller, healthier, were better constituted, were richer, had greater living space (the fact they dominated dozens of hectares with their own means of production gave them authentic power and sovereignty, not merely bureaucratic or nominal), practiced more sports, spent more time outdoors, eat more meat, had higher birth rates, and their IQ was higher than that of the Europeans from the metropolis. Their religiosity was stronger and, amongst them, drug addiction, homosexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, urban gangs and other symptoms of decline were rare. They produced excellent soldiers. More importantly, they were beginning to develop the qualities of a dominant caste outside the decision-making circles of the metropolis; De Gaulle outlined this last thing when he said, in regard to the pied-noirs (European settlers in Algeria) that they were no longer French because they did not think like Frenchmen, having abandoned the egalitarian ideals of the Enlightenment. Globalization had to prevent the white colonials from constituting countries comparable to Rhodesia, South Africa or Israel at all cost.

2- That of great Western multinationals, led by men, also of high IQ, who had never set foot on the colonies in their lives and who had never had to build a farm from scratch, but simply set out to parasitically seize the conquests of the white colonial settlers. Multinationals destabilized the entire Third World in order to buy its wealth and labour at a bargain price, and also to impede the emergence of rival social elites and independent States (as happened in South Africa and Rhodesia) that would have enclosed within their borders the riches of the territories they controlled, taxing their products in such a way that High Finance would have had to spend significant amounts of capital (capital that would have been used to strengthen the position of those States) to acquire them. Rhodesia, turned into Zimbabwe, applied ethnic cleansing policies to destroy the power of the white farmers, but Nicky Oppenheimer, the patriarch of multinational mining companies such as De Beers and Anglo American Corporation, owns in Zimbabwe an extension of land similar in size to the surface of Belgium, something which would not be possible if the farmers remained on the ground.

There is no need to point out who won. In order to maximize profits, the intermediaries had to be removed, so as to turn the old colonial Empires into a growing heap of brainless starving thirdworlders, with indigenous "elites" that were easily bribable with pay-checks, official cars and small doses of power, it was necessary to remove the white pioneers and entrepreneurs from the equation, instigating authentic anti-white ethnic cleansings. The United Nations, primary responsible, covered up this criminal process with false humanitarian and anti-racist arguments. In reality, no decolonization process was the result of the military success of an anticolonial insurgency (usually of Marxist sign and supported by the USSR and China, if not directly by the UN, London, Washington or already decolonized states, such as Morocco and India). Rather, all decolonizations were the result of voluntary diplomatic cedings -incomprehensible at first- by the part of the metropolis, pressured by business and financial emporiums, foreign powers and sectarian conciliabules.



"The secret to happiness is freedom... And the secret to freedom is courage."

“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” Carl Schurz

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms."

"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Thucydides
2015 Jun 11 00:05
The following 2 users Like Aptrgangr's post:
Artturi (13-11-2015), Zephyr (23-07-2018)

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)