Quote of yesterday: Blair to express his “sorrow” for the slave trade

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 26 November 2006 10:48.

Still needing to be admired by the liberal elite, Vanity Blair - the Jesus of Shallow - will use “British” black newspaper New Nation to make his tired pitch for sainthood:-

It is hard to believe that what would now be a crime against humanity was legal at the time. Personally I believe the bicentenary [of Wilberforce’s Abolition - Ed] offers us a chance not just to say how profoundly shameful the slave trade was - how we condemn its existence utterly and praise those who fought for its abolition, but also to express our deep sorrow that it ever happened, that it ever could have happened and to rejoice at the different and better times we live in today.

... According to notes seen in the possession of Baroness Amos, the Lead of the House of Lords, earlier this month, the Prime Minister wanted to make a bold gesture that will be ‘internationally recognised’. He will back a United Nations resolution by Caribbean countries to honour those who died at the hands of international slave traders.

The notes suggested that Blair was willing to accommodate the requests of many campaigners and is ‘prepared to go further than [he is] being asked to’ on the issue of an apology.

One of the aforementioned campaigners is Rendezvous for Victory. Two years ago these people announced that they were intending to lean on Her Majesty the Queen for an apology. Evidently, they meant Her Majesty the queen of Downing Street. But it isn’t an apology for the past they want. That’s not enough. It’s an apology, and more, for the present:-

... joint co-ordinator, Kofi Mawuli Klu, said he was disappointed by Blair’s suggestion that slavery is a thing of the past: ‘He’s missed the point. They do not understand contemporary enslavement. There is nothing in this statement about the enduring legacy of slavery in terms of racism and global injustice.’

Klu criticised the absence of the word ‘sorry’, claiming: ‘It’s adding insult to the lingering injuries of the enslavement of African people by the European ruling classes. The message is that if you commit crimes against African people you cannot be held responsible; even when you acknowledge that you have done wrong, you do not feel it necessary to apologise.’

Contemporary enslavement! With all due allowance for his ignorance of English, Klu’s clucking can only be read as a desire to apply an eternal half-nelson on the European and white American conscience. He is a race warrior politic enough to confine his remarks here to the European ruling class. But those guys were laid to earth two or three centuries ago, and the modern Jacobins are hardly a shoe-in for Klu’s “You”.

“You”, of course, means good old you and me. As Michael Wharton’s Prof Kiosk would scream, “We are all guilty.” Blair can don the shining raiment of pure conscience and regard himself in the mirror of international plaudit. But he is only encouraging blacks to believe that their lowly circumstance in Western society was, is and always will be the white man’s doing. It’s the perfect environmentalism of victimhood ... an escapist illusion where none of the heritable prolixities and capacities we see in blacks all the time can intrude, and where, therefore, there is no end to the sacrifices we must offer until we simply cease to be.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:22 | #

Isn’t all this revving up for reparations of hundreds of billions to the descendants of those enslaved in the West Indies?

First the admission of guilt, then the shakedown.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:37 | #

Group culpability is allowed, nay encouraged, when the supposed offenders are White. Of course if one were to mention the horrible behaviour of Afro-Carribeans in England, such a blinding flash of the obvious would be howled down as the vile prejudice of that pantomime villain Mr Ray Sissum.

Posted by VanSpeyk on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:39 | #

“joint co-ordinator, Kofi Mawuli Klu, said he was disappointed by Blair’s suggestion that slavery is a thing of the past:”

I have to admit, for a second I thought he was going to mention here the on-going slavery in Africa and other parts of the world (see here:http://212.58.240.36/1/hi/world/africa/3985885.stm). How silly of me. As Guessedworker correctly noted this man is simply an ethnic activist and not really interested in the subject per se.

Posted by Retew on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:32 | #

It’s not so hard to believe when you look at slavery on a timeline against industrialisation.

The world stopped depending upon slaves when it industrialised suffiently not to need very large amounts of sweated physical labour in order to make anything work. It wasn’t a WN who made this observation btw, but the American philosopher and polymath Ken Wilber.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:42 | #

And likewise, now that the rentiers are opening the borders to increase their Ricardian rent, they are reinstituting slavery and de-industrializing the West.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:53 | #

Hello, my name is Blair and I wish to express great Coon-voter-pleasing sorrow for the fact that, instead of following their usual time-honoured custom of killing and eating their captive fellow Africans, maurauding Congoid tribes sold them to Arabs and Whites.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:10 | #

Haha. In a sane world, Al.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:13 | #

What was that motion picture where white men were chasing down and tackling blacks in Africa to enslave them? There was probably more than one of them.

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:51 | #

“...to increase their Ricardian rent”

JB, Im sure youre right, but surely cannot some of our great elites see that in the medium to longer term they are going to destroy the thing that made them and their countries rich in the first place. And possibly they and their wealth along with it.

Im sure, for example, that the EU is a bad thing in itself but it also has the property of being a bad idea for the simple utilitarian reason that it will fail (is failing) to work as per public stated aims.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:53 | #

Lurker,

Keynesian short termism (‘in the long run, we’re all dead’) has robbed economites of their ability to even perceive that there is a long term and that they have interests in it. What cheap popular culture is for the masses, libertine/socialist/social democratic/neocon verities are for the classes.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:54 | #

Okay, can anyone explain why the second bracket above came out as a smilie?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:32 | #

Erm ... (no).

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:53 | #

Lurker,

You are correct that we are at the end of “the rainbow”. Advanced liberalism has, in my oft-stated opinion, a maximum of two decades remaining. The liberal/corporate/global elite has one unifying purpose, and it is this: to make its possession of power and/or wealth stable. Given all that you perceive about you today, I hope that tells you all you need to know about their prospects. This will be a straight fight between them, garbed as Leviathan and propagandising a non-existent liberalism, and an organically felt, rising native nationalism.

The key question is whether the elite will have enough means at its disposal to bribe/dilude an OMOV electorate that threatens to choose survival. My clear expectation is that they won’t because the meta-politics will change as liberalism decays into the soil, and the new meta-politics will give them no succour. In that event, they will have to suspend the Constitution (ie in the UK, the Civil Contingencies Act) and give up all pretence of service to the multitude in England, as they have already given up all pretence of service to its true people.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:44 | #

What was that motion picture where white men were chasing down and tackling blacks in Africa to enslave them? There was probably more than one of them.

“Roots” portrayed the slave trade in this manner. There is a priceless quote in Jared Taylor’s book Paved with Good Intentions from the author of “Roots” about his fantasy-based account of the slave trade. I’ll try to look it up and post it a little later today when I have more time.

I’ve seen numerous television programs take a similar position as well.

Posted by Amalek on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:07 | #

When the slave trade ended, some African chiefs petitioned Queen Victoria for compensation.

Alex Haley was a mulatto whose best-seller was full of fantasy and borrowings, or ‘orature’ as African Americans call plagiarism (e.g. in MLK Jr’s speeches and theses). ‘Roots’ came out at the right moment: long enough after the ending of formal segregation, long enough before the consequences of loosing the negroid on US civil society became too apparent for a majority of whites to feel guilty about the lockdown.

As one critic said, watching ‘Roots’ for several nights on end was a painless penance for guilty whites. Haley was a smart guy- his interview with George Lincoln Rockwell for ‘Playboy’ still reads well—and he included plenty of nice whites giving the blacks a leg-up or sleeping with them along the way so nobody could say he was a Black Panther.

The TV mini-series additionally sanitised the tale. Its picture of slave-hunting in the idyllic villages near the Bight of Benin was comically sanitised.

Despite abundant evidence of Haley’ sharp practice, a Coast Guard ship was named for him as recently as 1999. Like MLK, he is above criticism.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:31 | #

I said: Rentiers were opening borders ”...to increase their Ricardian rent”

Lurker asks: “JB, Im sure youre right, but surely cannot some of our great elites see that in the medium to longer term they are going to destroy the thing that made them and their countries rich in the first place. And possibly they and their wealth along with it.”

The short answer is: They don’t care.

The longer answer is: Ricardian rent, whether received via the government’s monopoly on force (think public choice theory) or via private monopolies or land value rents, debilitates the character of those receiving the rents due to the welfare queen mentality.

The only way to avoid the incentive to open borders created by these rents is to confiscate all of it from both private and public controllers and distribute it evenly to all citizens. The definition of “citizen” is left as an exercise in self determination aka freedom of association.