Rishi Sunak's father was born in Kenya in 1949. His family saved up money and sent him to study medicine in England where he settled. His son became Prime Minister.
Mahmood Madani, the father of Zohran Mamdani, the New York Mayoral candidate, was born in Bombay in 1946 but moved to Uganda shortly thereafter. His family didn't have to spend any money on his higher education. He was taken by the 'Kennedy Airlift' from Uganda to America so as to be indoctrinated in Marxism at various very expensive Colleges. Thankfully, he remained as stupid and as ignorant as shit as is evidenced by the following introduction to his book 'neither native nor settler'.
The standard biography of the modern state begins with
the first modern state- viz. the US of A. Traditional states had Kings or Emperors. The US was and remained a Republic.
the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
Apparently some cunts were taught this lie if they were stupid enough to study 'International Relations' back when Diplomacy was considered a cool career choice. Actually, there was no one Westphalian treaty. Lots of different states signed different treaties.
That accord largely brought to an end decades of warfare across Europe, in particular the Thirty-Years War that decimated the Holy Roman Empire.
Which remained in tact. The Wars had run out of steam and would have ended anyway.
At Westphalia, two key components of the modern state were born: religious toleration at home
Fuck off! Religious intolerance increased. Protestants were purged from Hungary in the 1670s. The Huguenots were expelled from France in 1685. One may say that the Peace of Augsburg in 1554 established the principle cuis regio euis religio- i.e. the Prince would decide the state Religion. Some States found it preferable to tolerate private observance of other religions but some did not. Spain was a signatory to the treaty recognising Dutch independence but kept the Inquisition till 1834. Holland too kept suppressing Catholics till the end of the eighteenth century.
Mamdani being a senile ignoramus, thinks European countries became tolerant in religious matters in 1648. The rest of his book shows a similar ignorance of African and Asian and American history. His son is even stupider. He has a degree in 'Africana studies' from Bowdoin College.
and the reciprocal guarantee of sovereignty abroad.
Arrant nonsense! There was some notion that such guarantees had been created after the Great War or the Second World War or the end of the Cold War. That notion was false as the war in Ukraine shows.
Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists were each given social sanction within the empire,
which Empire? The Holy Roman one? But it wasn't Holy, Roman or an Empire. Some 'Electors' were Catholic. Some weren't. That was true a century before the Westphalian Treaties and remained so after it. In some places there was increased tolerance. In others there was increased intolerance- e.g. Bourbon France chucking out Protestants and Hapsburg Hungary throwing out Protestants.
Why does Mamdani not know this? He went to the Fletcher school at Tufts. What was he doing there? Masturbating? Also, what the fuck has he been teaching his students for the last sixty years?
and across much of Europe states agreed to respect one another’s legitimacy and authority in their domestic affairs.
Nope. Particular powers agreed to stop fighting because there was no fucking point doing so. Nothing else changed.
This European story tells a moral lesson.
It really doesn't.
In this story, the modern state is associated with tolerance.
No. In England it was associated with extreme intolerance for Catholics and Dissenters- many of whom emigrated to America so as to gain religious freedom. With the Declaration of Independence, you had the first State where 'separation of Church & State' (at least at the Federal level) could become a reality.
It is both a product and a guarantor of tolerance— among states and within them.
Fuck off! Modern States are about the locals getting very fucking intolerant of some foreign Ruler or stupid monarch and fucking the fuck out of his troops till he fucks off. In the US, the Revolutionary War ended with the expulsion of the Loyalists.
At this triumphant moment, the state imposed a secular peace on the warring factions of society;
Where? Not the US where the Loyalists were told to fuck off to Canada or wherever. Not in Revolutionary France where the Monarchy was told to fuck the fuck off or face the Guillotine. Not in Turkey, were Ataturk told the Caliph to fuck the fuck off. On the other hand, Lenin gave kisses and cuddles to the Tzar and Tzarina. He was a very secular person and would often have a wank while reading about the Treaty of Westphalia.
whatever differences persisted among individuals and groups were subordinated by the law in the interest of peaceful coexistence.
OMG! This fucking cretin thinks that is what happened when India and Pakistan became independent! Hundreds of thousands didn't die. Ten million people didn't become refugees. The Muslim share of Delhi's population didn't fall from 33 percent to 5 percent when Nehru became Premier. Things didn't go the other way in Karachi when Jinnah became Governor General.
But this story starts too late,
too early. The Treaties of Westphalia was about belligerents realizing that the game was not worth the candle. The reason a lot of them happened at the same time was because of a complex system of alliances which often cut across confessional lines.
and, as a result, provides the wrong lesson. This book traces the founding moment of the modern state instead to 1492. That year marked the beginning of the nation-state, the endurance of which was later secured by Westphalian tolerance.
No. Tribal confederations became Nations which became Kingdoms. Emperors might simultaneously hold various Crowns and Princedoms and Dukedoms and so forth.
The nation-state was born of two developments in Iberia.
Fuck off! There was already an England and a France. What there wasn't was a Spain. Italy too was merely a 'geographical expression' till the second half of the Nineteenth Century.
One was ethnic cleansing, whereby the Castilian monarchy sought to create a homogeneous national homeland for Christian Spaniards by ejecting and converting those among them who were strangers to the nation—Moors and Jews.
In 1492, openly practicing Jews were expelled by the Alhambra decrees. But most had converted after massacres in 1391 and 1415. Some ten years later Muslims were ordered to convert to Catholicism. But the 'Moriscos' were only expelled in 1609.
The other development was the taking of overseas colonies in the Americas by the same Castilian monarchy that spearheaded ethnic cleansing.
No. There was no ethnic cleansing though epidemics may have unintentionally affected indigenous people. Europeans were few and wanted the locals to work for them. But this was also true of the Canary Islands.
In this story, modern colonialism was not something that states started doing in the eighteenth century.
Nobody said it was. How fucking stupid is this cunt? Did nobody tell him at Harvard that John Harvard crossed the Atlantic in 1637. That's the fucking Seventeenth Century you Ugandan baboon!
Modern colonialism
was represented by the 13 Colonies which formed the US of fucking A.
and the modern state were born together with the creation of the nation-state.
No. England was a Nation-State with an English Monarch whose eldest son was the Prince of Wales. Then a Scot inherited the throne and there was a 'Personal Union' with Scotland.
Nationalism did not precede colonialism.
Unless it did. Sometimes clans coalesced into tribes which coalesced into Nations because there was an Empire seeking to 'colonize' (i.e. plant colonies of soldier-settlers) on their territory. Sometimes the folk wanderings of tribes created Nations- e.g. the Francs creating France or the Lombards creating Lombardy.
Nor was colonialism the highest or the final stage in the making of a nation.
No one suggested otherwise. However, some 'nations'- e.g. Kenya- are clearly the creation of a colonial power. Uganda may be said to have its nucleus in the Bugandan Kingdom. Maybe the country would have been better off under the Kabaka and the other traditional Kings. Its 80 percent Bantu majority suffered under Obote and Amin both of whom were of non Bantu ancestry. Maybe that is what Mamdani is getting at. I'm kidding. He is incapable of saying anything sensible.
The two were co-constituted.
They had nothing to do with each other. Some 'land-poor' maritime races went in for colonization. Others expanded into their own hinterland in an organic manner.
The birth of the modern state amid ethnic cleansing
where? Spain? It wasn't a modern state. England? No ethnic cleansing though plenty of religious intolerance. In France the expulsion of the Huguenots was political not 'ethnic'. Prussia turned into a modern state without any ethnic cleansing and with a fair degree of religious tolerance. It united Germany and didn't go in for colonies till the 1890s- an expensive mistake.
and overseas domination teaches us a different lesson about what political modernity is: less an engine of tolerance than of conquest.
This stupid cunt has never heard of Alexander the Great. There was conquest before there was modernity. Political modernity is about modern political methods- elections, an independent judiciary, a professional civil service etc, etc.
Tolerance had to be imposed on the nation-state long after its birth in order to stanch the bloodshed it was causing.
Nothing can be imposed on a nation-state until it is conquered. But in that case, it aint a nation-state. It is occupied territory or a 'veiled protectorate' or a 'puppet state' or something of that sort.
In Europe tolerance emerged after Westphalia as the key to securing civil peace within the nation-state.
No. It had no such effect. Intolerance tended to increase and confessional minorities had to flee or keep a very low profile.
Minorities at home were tolerated in exchange for their political loyalty, which, in practice, meant they were tolerated to the extent that they were seen by the national majority as non-threatening.
No. If the majority found the minority to be good slaves or servants they may have enjoyed toleration. Unless very well armed, Minorities generally aren't a threat. It is easy- and fun- to rob and rape them and then take your time torturing them to death. Mamdani, no doubt, thinks that Idi Amin got rid of people like him because he was afraid they would start punching him. Newsflash! Africans think Indians have a meagre physique and are of a cowardly disposition.
This regime of tolerance solidifed the structure of the nation-state by defining the relation between the national majority and minority.
No. It had no importance whatsoever. Minorities simply don't matter. If you belong to a minority- more especially one whose greatest hero was the emaciated Mahatma Gandhi whose remedy for being slapped on the cheek was to bend over and part his ass cheeks while muttering 'Ahimsa! Ahimsa!' - then you may well believe in fairy tales about truly modern nation states as being founded on not expelling Asians anytime you think that will give you a bump in the polls. Come to think of it, if Zohran Mamdani becomes Mayor, Trump may decide to take a leaf out of Idi Amin's book. It would be hilarious if Zohran is deported to the very same Uganda from which his dad was deported at the age of 26.
It is this structure of tolerance that is seen as defining the liberal character of political modernity.
Some modern nations- e.g. US are liberal. Others- e.g. China- aren't at all. Mamdani hasn't noticed. The Kennedy airlift buggered the brains out of this Bombay born boy.
But that is political modernity in Europe.
Moscow is in Europe. It is modern and thus very very liberal- right?
In the colonies overseas, and in the settler colonies where there is no clear spatial divide between nation and nonnation,
This does not exist in nations like Sweden- where there is a Sami minority- which expand organically into their own hinterland. Indeed, even England has its 'Celtic fringe' in Cornwall.
political modernity and its liberalism meant something else. It meant conquest.
Or demographic replacement by reason of higher fertility. That's probably how the Bantu speakers became dominant in Uganda and Tanzania.
As a Eurocentric ideology and political discourse, modernity did not require tolerance abroad.
Yet the British Raj was more tolerant and 'secular' than the UK. Holyoke, who served a sentence for Blasphemy and invented the word 'secularism', made this point very forcefully in the mid Nineteenth Century.
Only people deemed civilized had to be tolerated.
No. Civilized people could be killed or expelled if you didn't like them. Nobody thought the Jews weren't smart and civilized.
Others—marked by their cultural differences from Christian Europeans—
there was no 'cultural' difference between Jews and Christians in Nazi Germany.
had to be made civilized before earning the right to be tolerated.
Nonsense! Which uncivilized group in India or Africa was not tolerated by the British? If anything, there was 'paternalism'. There was no ethnic cleansing even in the 'White Highlands' of Kenya which were deemed suitable for European settlement. In Rhodesia and South Africa the Black population rose. It did not fall. Even in Algeria, the French had to turn tail and run away. The genetic contribution of Europeans to India or sub-Saharan Africa is minimal even if they ruled for two or three Centuries.
The light of civilization could shine wherever populations conformed to Eurocentric ideals.
No the light of economic and military progress shone where there was 'Tardean mimetics'- i.e. imitation of those best at making money or kicking ass. Look at Japan or, more recently, China.
Thus did Europeans turn to the colonies and seek to build there the avatar of modernity: the nation-state, as it existed in Europe.
Europeans did no such thing. Being 'settler colonies', French Algeria and Boer South Africa were different- but became majority rule soon enough. It remains to be seen if all the Whites will have to run away from South Africa.
The French called this the “mission civilisatrice,” which was anglicized as the “civilizing mission.” Had the civilizing mission succeeded, colonial political modernity might have looked a great deal like its European counterpart, with European-style nation-states the world over practicing Christianity and Westphalian tolerance.
Uganda is about 82 percent Christian. 85 percent speak English. Sadly, so long as there are problems in resource rich Congo, there will be problems for its neighbours.
But the civilizing mission failed,
Ugandans are baboons. I was taught this at Harvard. Thus it must be true- right?
resulting in a colonial modernity that veered sharply from the course taken by European modernity.
Martinique chose to remain part of France. It is plenty modern. As for Singapore- don't get me fucking started, mate.
While liberal tolerance took hold in the European nation-state, liberal conquest inflamed the colonies.
There was no 'liberal conquest' and it didn't inflame shit.
By the mid-nineteenth century, the colonizer’s forcible imposition of its laws, customs, educational practices, language, and community life
this happened nowhere in Asia or Africa. Even Portuguese colonies which had once had Inquisitions became too poor and lazy to go in for that sort of thing.
provoked fierce resistance among the natives—
where? In India? Was there ever a rebellion against the imposition of English or the Christian faith? No. Indians clamoured for English education and paid good money to receive it. It was suggested that a motive for the Mutiny was Christian proselytization. But it simply wasn't true. What about Africa? In Uganda, prior to British rule, there had been clashes between Protestants and Catholic Bugandas. Indeed, this religious split is what Buganda people blame for the disastrous rise of Obote, Amin etc. It may be that the Kabaka would have embraced Islam had not the Egyptians sent a delegation which behaved in an arrogant fashion in the 1870s. These are imponderables but what all Asians from Uganda agree on is that the people were very intelligent, peace-loving, skilful and enterprising. Sadly, stupid Leftist theories- of the sort Mamdani was infected with in America- harmed Africa just as they harmed South Asia and China and so forth.
the word that was used to describe those deemed uncivilized. In response, the British put aside the torch of civilization in order to maintain order.
This stupid cunt doesn't get that civilization means people being civil and orderly. It must be said that the brutal Germans provoked savage rebellions like the He He and Maji Maji uprisings in their East African Colony. Interestingly, the Chines 'Boxers' had similar magical beliefs to the Maji Maji at about the same time.
As I introduce below and explain in detail in later chapters, the new colonial method involved drafting native allies and claiming to protect their ways of life.
No. That claim was made by British colonial proconsuls back in Blighty. Why? Because Westminster believed that bullying methods would cause expensive wars. Otherwise, the way to get 'allies' was by supplying money and/or guns.
In the colonies, there would be no native majority built to resemble the colonizer; instead there would be assorted minorities, each preserved under the leadership of a native elite.
I suppose Mamdani is blaming the Brits for not preserving a Bantu majority ruled by the Kabaka. That's quite sensible. The Brits exiled the Kabaka in the Fifties at a time when they thought there could be an East African Federation in which Whites remained the masters in the Highlands. There was a saying at the time- 'the officer class could go settle in Kenya. NCOs should be content to go to Rhodesia. Corporals should fuck off to South Africa.
The native elite’s power was said to derive from custom, but it was the backing of the colonizer that was their true source of authority. Separated into so many distinct races and tribes, the natives would look to their “own” rather than to each other in a solidarity that could challenge the colonizer.
So Mamdani is echoing the British view of Uganda from the Fifties. Perhaps he absorbed it from his parents or other relatives. The Kabaka wanted Bugandan autonomy. He was a bad man. His ancestor should have embraced Islam rather than choosing to remain a kaffir.
Although the British were adept in this method, they did not invent it. The Americans did,
This stupid cunt doesn't get that Americans- like John Harvard- started off as Brits.
in the context of controlling the people Columbus had called Indians.
They continued to be called Indians. Us desis were called 'East Indians'.
Historians of colonization refer to the civilizing mission as direct rule
No. They refer to colonies as opposed to protectorates. Some Crown Colonies had 'indirect rule'. Others did not. Nobody uses the term 'civilizing mission' save in an ironic manner.
and the methods that succeeded it as indirect rule.
Utterly false. Direct rule was always and everywhere succeeded by Independence. Ceylon was directly ruled. Then it became an Independent Dominion and then a Republic. Lugard, in Northern Nigeria, used 'indirect rule'. What succeeded it was independence. Why does Mamdani not know as much African history as a primary school student in East Africa?
Part of my focus in the coming pages is on a surprising outcome of this shift from one system of rule to another: the emergence in the postcolonial situation of a violent nationalism following from the creation of minorities under indirect rule.
Did you know that there was no such thing as Igbos in Nigeria till Lugard created them? That's what led to the Biafra war. Also, there was a time when no Indian knew if he was Hindu or Muslim or that he spoke Bengali rather than Urdu. Indeed, Indians were not aware of their own gender till the British census authorities forced them to pick one sex and stick to it?
The minorities the colonizer created in the colonies sought, after independence, to become the nation.
Muslims did create Pakistan in the parts of India where they were the majority. Is that what this cretin is getting at? Perhaps he means the White minority in Rhodesia or South Africa. It is difficult to tell.
Postcolonial nationalists struggled to consolidate power by transforming society into the home of the nation as they imagined it. The result was an era of blood and terror, ethnic cleansing and civil wars, and, sometimes, genocide.
This stupid cunt doesn't get that the break up of Empires in Europe after the Great War caused big population transfers. The plain fact is, multi-ethnic Empires tend to protect minorities. When they are replaced by nation-states, the minorities may have to run away. This was also true of Egypt, after the fall of the Monarchy, which wasn't a colony but did spend about forty years as a 'veiled protectorate'. My fear is that something similar may happen to UAE or Kuwait if their monarchs are overthrown.
These are the wages of postcolonial modernity, in which political modernity is instantiated by people whose ancestors rejected it.
Everybody's ancestors rejected modernity. This is because they didn't live in modern times. They lived in 'days of yore'.
Embracing political modernity means embracing the epistemic condition that Europeans created to distinguish the nation as civilized and thereby justify aggrandizing the nation at the expense of the uncivilized.
Nonsense! European powers were constantly disparaging each other as uncivilized. In England, the Germans were referred to as 'Huns'. The Germans looked down on the English as petit bourgeois because they had given up duelling more than a century ago.
On the other hand, in Apartheid South Africa, a distinction was made between the Japanese and the Koreans. The former were 'White'. The latter weren't. Perhaps that is what Mamdani is getting at.
The substance of this epistemic condition lies in the political subjectivities it affords.
Because there is no fucking substance to stupid shit this cunt pulled out of his arse.
How does the subject understand herself ?
How does this moron manage to tie his shoe-laces?
If she understands herself as a member of the nation, she is participating in political modernity.
No. Political modernity is understanding yourself as a member of a socioeconomic class with particular fiscal policy preferences- e.g. more spending on education rather than defence if you are a school teacher or the opposite if you are right-wing retard like me.
Colonized peoples lacked this subjectivity until Europeans foisted it on them,
No. The Baganda felt themselves to be a nation. They are happy enough with Uganda's current borders. Once the Congo and South Sudan become peaceful, Uganda will rise and rise. Even under adversity, it has done pretty well. There's a good reason lots of Ugandan Asians wanted to return there.
much as this subjectivity was foisted on Europeans themselves, at least in the early days of the nation-state.
Mamdani was just playing with his own poop when evil European colonizers foisted a gender and a religious and racial and national identity on him. But the same thing had happened to the ancestors of those evil Europeans. Foisting we will always have with us because Kennedy Airlift foisted Marxist indoctrination on Mamdani who would have much preferred to stay quietly at home playing with his own poop.
The Castilians had to impose the nation in order to make it thinkable.
But who foisted Castilianism on the Castilians? Was it the Aragonese? Fuck you Aragonese! Fuck you very much!
Later Europeans, steeped in the idea of the nation,
which appears in the Old Testament.
could hardly think of any other.
Sure they could. The opposite of Nation is 'Empire'. The Assyrians had one and enslaved and transported many Nations.
The immense historical irony of the civilizing mission is that its failure
India is uncivilized. So is Uganda. Let's face it. Darkies are little better than monkeys.
created the conditions in which the nation would come to flourish under postcolonial modernity.
Mamdani assumes that 'civilizing missions' aren't meant to terminate in Independence and Equality. This is because he is a monkey who defiantly eats his own poop.
Parts of this book are devoted to
telling stupid lies. So is the remainder. Kennedy should have stuck to fucking Marilyn Monroe. His airlift was a mistake.
showing how exactly this happened—how the techniques of indirect rule produced in colonized subjects the nationalist political subjectivity.
Darkies are monkeys who walk upright. Europeans foisted gender and nationality on them. Otherwise they would be happily eating their own poop rather than turning up at the United Nations General Assembly to pass resolutions condemning Israel and Global Warming and Sodomy or whatever else it is that darkies are against.
The violence of postcolonial modernity mirrors the violence of European modernity
No. It has been on a much smaller scale. This is because violence costs money and requires a fair amount of organization.
and colonial direct rule.
Which was very peaceful compared to what went before and would come later with Idi Amin.
Its principle manifestation is ethnic cleansing.
only in some places, not others. Tamil Nadu had none. Punjab had plenty. Why? Islam. Muslims hate Kaffirs. When a Ugandan Muslim took power in Kampala, Asians were expelled. This turned out to be a blessing in disguise.
Because the nation-state seeks to homogenize its territory,
No. It seeks to make its territory more productive. This may involve administrative and legal homogenization. However, there will be increased economic heterogeneity as different districts specialize in different industries. Some will be agricultural and are likely to suffer depopulation. Others will be industrial and see increased concentration of population.
True, there may be racist or confessional states- like Pakistan- where massacre gets rids of kaffirs and the Army uses rape to change the DNA of a province- which is what happened in East Pakistan till India stepped in.
it is well served by ejecting those who would introduce pluralism.
No. It is well served by bringing in highly productive professionals and entrepreneurs. Zohran Mamdani doesn't understand this. He wants to do to New York what Idi Amin- another great Ugandan Muslim who hated Israel- did to Kampala.
Ethnic cleansing can take a variety of forms. These include genocide, whereby the minority population is killed en masse,
A majority population, too, can be killed en masse.
and population transfer, whereby the minority is removed from the territory
this can happen to a majority.
or concentrated in a minimal portion of it, away from the majority. Ethnic cleansing unites the examples in this book: the United States, which perpetrated both genocide and population transfer against American Indians;
it also chased away the Loyalists who were WASPs.
Germany, which perpetrated genocide against Jews
and Gypsies
and was in turn victimized by Allied population transfers following the Second World War; South Africa, where white settlers forced blacks into tribal homelands known as Bantustans;
that failed.
Sudan, where the British segregated Arabs and Africans into separate homelands;
Nonsense! The Brits protected Ugandans from Muslim domination and did the same in Sudan for the animists. Obviously, a Muslim would see something very sinister in this.
and Palestine, where Zionist settlers forcibly exiled and concentrated non-Jews, an ongoing process.
Hamas has certainly helped Israel pick up the pace on this.
These examples serve different roles in this book.
No. The role is always the same. It is to illustrate an obvious and very stupid lie.
The United States emerges as the model modern colony
it emerged out of 13 British Colonies who decided to tell Mad King George to fuck himself
from which the others—
the Turks and Kurds who massacred the Armenians?
the Nazis,
who learned how to do labour camps from Stalin- which proves Stalin was from Atlanta, Georgia- right?
white power in South Africa,
which followed Grotius in thinking it cool to enslave and fuck over darkies. Incidentally, they used the term 'kaffir' for Blacks. Guess who they learned that Arabic word from? That's right! It was the Muslims- the greatest slave traders ever. Obama's paternal ancestors were so good at catching and selling slaves that they were welcomed into the Islamic fold.
the British in Sudan,
Brits ended the slave trade. That's why Muslims like Mamdani hate them.
and Zionists—learned.
Zohran Mamdani won't be happy till the Israelis repeat the Entebbe raid in NYC. That will show the folks back home that he is just as good as Idi Amin.
Sudan is the chief example of postcolonial modernity, in which the racial and tribal structures imposed by the British became the basis for explosive civil wars following independence.
Arab tribes began settling in Sudan in the 12th century. This speeded up in the 17th century. Clearly, this was the fault of the British. Currently, the North has a civil war between two army factions. The South currently has a fragile peace but there are tensions between the President, who is Dinka, and the Vice President, who is Nuer. It was Queen Victoria who invented these tribal identities. Prince Albert begged her not to do so but she beat and sodomized him with her hair-brush.
Israel provides a distinctive expression of colonial modernity.
It isn't a shithole. Mamdani is disturbed by this.
Germany provides an example of European political modernity, but my discussion of it is not primarily oriented toward Nazism’s place in the pantheon of destructive nationalisms. Rather, I look to the German case primarily to understand why it has been so hard to dislodge the political roots that nourished the Nazi political project.
Those roots were in the German language and ethnicity. Mamdani will discuss ways in which to get Germans to stop being German and become Ugandan.
The failure of denazification is the key here.
But the key to denazification was the military defeat of the Nazis. The country was occupied. There is zero prospect of it invading Poland so long as its Army does drill with broomstick handles painted black.
The denazification process
involved recruiting scientists and other people who could be useful for the cold war. Germany was occupied. Once France and Britain got nuclear weapons, they had an effective offensive doctrine and thus Germany was no longer a threat to its Western neighbours. As for Russia, it has enough nukes to blow up the world.
treated Nazi atrocities as forms of criminal violence rather than political violence,
like that of the Resistance?
thereby submerging the nationalist political objectives of the Third Reich and protecting its political project from scrutiny.
Nobody had a problem with Germany's nationalist objective to be re-united.
South Africa, by contrast, shows us a way out of the morass of the nation state
into a kleptocracy which smart peeps run the fuck away from
and its obsession with civilization.
Because darkies are incapable of achieving any such thing.
The transition away from apartheid involved
Party hacks becoming very fucking rich
a rejection of the permanent majority and minority identities that lie on each side of the civilizational divide at the heart of the nation-state.
That's true. Smart Blacks are running away from the place just as fast as Whites and Asians.
Post-apartheid South Africa could justifiably have replaced white rule with black majority rule.
It did. The reason it didn't kill and eat the Whites and Asians is because they were golden geese.
Instead the new state adopted nonracial democracy. At the same time, tribalism persists in South Africa, and so there is more work to be done.
Which is why the South Africans wanted to see the back of this ignorant cunt. Who would have thought a guy with a Harvard PhD would be so fucking stupid? But then Obama's dad, too, had a Harvard PhD.
Building Blocks of Political Modernity As I noted, the history of the prevailing state system begins in 1492, with the Reconquista, whereby the Castilian monarchy took over regions of Iberia that had for centuries been under Moorish rule.
i.e. Muslim rule. Mamdani is a deeply bigoted Muslim under the Marxist veneer.
This was a state-building exercise, in that it sought to erect a government—that of the Castilians—over a territory and the people within it.
Oddly, Muslims too have governments and states. Mamdani thinks they just sit around eating their own poo.
But it was more than that. It was also a nation-building exercise in that it sought to change the people within the territory in order to make the population culturally homogeneous.
Muslims never forcibly converted people- right?
Under the banner of “one country, one religion, one empire,” the Castilians first expelled from Castile and Aragon any Jews who would not convert to Christianity.
The English did this two centuries earlier. England was a nation before Spain. What made Spain and Portugal special is that they were the first two nations to cross great oceans and plant colonies across the globe.
Mamdani spends the rest of this worthless book endlessly repeating the same stupid lies. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Zohran got a degree in a subject of which his Daddy is the super-star. But it is utterly shit. Just like Zohran's economic policies. Where the 9/11 attackers failed this young Ugandan Muslim may succeed- at the very least the Israelis may have to launch an 'Entebbe raid' to free hostages in New York if this cunt becomes Mayor.
No comments:
Post a Comment