HOW TO SAVE AFRICA – A Real Alternative To Foreign Aid
By Watt Tyler
Frequently we hear about the problems in Africa, and there seems to be no end to the appeals for help – be it for money, for UN peace-keepers, aid workers, extra troops, etc. The appeals for help have continued all our lives: advertisements run with sad-looking black children’s faces – if only you could help, just give £2 a month… adopt one of those big-eyed children, adopt the village, send a tenner, do a fun-run, wear a ‘funny’ red nose, make a Christmas box package….Western countries accept refugees and asylum-seekers by the thousands, and then their families arrive too, these people claim to flee war, strife, persecution and otherwise…We support them and their families, provide money and services, sacrifice our peace and prosperity to help… Billions of tax-payers’ money is sent to Africa through the government, and untold amounts by other means…yet there are still problems. Civil wars rage, there are the horrific cases of ethnic cleansing and genocide, political persecution continues, mass rapes occur, there is widespread poverty and all the problems that poverty brings. It just never gets sorted.
The foreign aid business is very self-indulgent. It brings great publicity and wealth to the stars involved but never really changes anything.
So how could Africa be helped?
One problem in Africa is the friction between different groups, and this is also the cause of many other problems there, (e.g. this contributes to the poverty in various ways). One example of inter-ethnic problems was the civil war(1) and genocide in Rwanda, in which Tutsis and Hutus clashed; estimates of the number killed in the civil conflict vary, but during a single hundred day period of the strife it is believed that perhaps a million were killed in what is termed by many as the Rwandan Genocide. It is a reality that groups compete and there are tensions between different groups. Of course, each individual case has its own triggers, often these are related to one group being perceived as taking advantage of another group in some way or oppressing another group in some way, etc. Frequently there is the perception that one group is dominating another group in social and/or political terms – for example in 1972 the Asians were expelled from Uganda, and much of the resentment of the Asians was because of their social and economic advantages over the indigenous African people(2). Of course, with groups having different propensities (racially, and not relatedly, culturally) then differential distributions in occupations will usually be found(3). However, whatever the trigger cause and/or reasons for that being the case, the truth is that groups compete and inter-ethnic tension is the way of nature. Having ethnically homogeneous societies is the best solution to this. This reduces the problems that such forced mixing brings, and hence lowers the levels of human misery.
History has proved that multicultural societies can never be free, peaceful and wealthy.
The inter-group tensions and competitions are not only for resources and survival – they also manifest in competition for cultural dominance and in other ways. It is simply not possible for all different cultures to be practised in one place at one time(4). May women roam free and drive on the roads? What does the architecture look like across the cities? Is there to be freedom of speech? Someone’s culture has to give. Diversity causes destruction of culture. Also, in many contexts attempting to achieve this diversity of cultures results in problems. For example, may cartoons that offend some groups be published or not? If not, then this offends those who think they should. Of course if certain groups are offended, then there is bloodshed. It is not a happy situation sharing space with such incompatibilities. The idea of cultural dominance also pertains to the attempts to enforce alien cultures upon African countries, this is unfair and does not work very either – much better to let indigenous people practice their own culture in which they feel comfortable, and to which they feel suited.
Without homogeneity, there are always the tensions, and governments can hold tensions down, but only by oppressive means. These means manifest in various ways, for example restrictions on free speech(5) and imprisoning those who appear to be a threat to the tense peace(6). There are cases in which members of ethnic African groups are prohibited by law from even acknowledging membership of the group to which they belong – such restrictions on identity, cultural expression, free speech and other freedoms are deemed necessary to hold the diversity together without bloodshed. In some cases troops are brought onto the streets. While the tensions are present, they can only be reduced by suppressive means. Only homogeneity can really solve these problems in a humane manner.
Thousands of years ago philosophers like Aristotle realised the folly of multicultural societies.
To achieve homogeneous societies, the alterations that were made to many of the borders need to be reversed. Colonists or others drawing new lines and putting different groups together does not work. Leave it alone. Large influxes of refugees also is a problem for homogeneity, but without the wars and poverty in Africa, there would be less need for such movement of people. Mass immigration for whatever reason (s) causes a problem in this respect.
Once a country is ethnically relatively homogeneous, then they can start to build their future. However, they need to build it without being owned and controlled by foreign bankers – and not held down by massive debts and all the problems that debt brings(7). International bankers needs to leave them in peace, and not drag them into enslavement and poverty with interest on loans that enslaves the Africans (and the terms attached to such loans frequently are problematic).
“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws” Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
The control of money, and debt, is control of a country. Money is used as tool of control in many cases. African countries need their own currency, controlled by themselves.
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.
By presenting money to an African leader, be it loans, aid or otherwise, such a person can be controlled and corrupted; hence facilitating his abuse of the African people in his country. Foreign bankers can use such leaders as puppets, and hence control the Africans in the relevant country. In some cases, such puppets will even be put into power by the globalist bankers; this can be engineered by wars, revolutions or other means.
“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance.” James Madison
Apart from debt-slavery and ownership of African countries by foreigners, there is also the problem of dependency in a more general sense. For example, if Africans are led to believe that they cannot achieve anything and must wait for foreigners, then this tends to harm the Africans in a number of ways. Of course, this tends to reduce the tendency to be independent, but other harms are also caused, including matters such as a sense of inferiority and the problems that that can bring.
With their own currency and own resources, Africans can start to build their own independent futures for themselves on their own terms. Trade can be established with other nations if they so desire. However, the international globalists will have no power and no puppets. The power will reside amongst the nation itself. The people can live together in peace and prosperity, building their own future as free and proud peoples. Africans do not need the wars and the debts(8) and dependencies that, amongst other things, wars bring to a people.
Since a country is, in a fundamental sense, a piece of land, then why could a homogeneous group of Africans in their own country, free and proud, not be able to build their own future on their own terms on their own piece of land? They have resources, they have freedom, they have peace. Let them enjoy and prosper.
So if we really want to help Africa, then the first thing is to leave Africa alone. Of course, there might be exceptional emergencies in an African (or other) country that require short-term emergency assistance. However, colonialism and ownership of African countries is harmful. Africans need to have their own countries in which they can practice their own cultures in peace. And on the subject of peace, foreigners should not be mixing up different groups by redrawing borders or moving people around. Africans should be allowed to live in their African nations in relatively homogeneous groups – hence avoiding the tensions and inter-group conflicts and other destructions that are associated with diversity. No more civil wars, no more using rape as weapon of war, no more destruction of culture and identity, no more genocide, no more poverty caused by wars, etc.
Compassionate nationalism with freedom and independence is the best solution for the African nations.
And maybe these solutions could help improve the lives of people in nations outside Africa too.
(1) 1990-1993 (or 1994 according to some accounts, 1993 being the ‘official’ end)
(2) In many such cases in which an immigrant group enters an African country, the loyalty of the immigrant group is in question: how could they be loyal to their new country and people instantly? And if they were, then what does loyalty mean to them to abandon their own country so suddenly? These questions cause discomfort to the African people, and add to the suspicions, not unfounded, that the immigrants are just there to loot the country, take what money they can, and to take advantage of the indigenous people. The truth is that people do, in general, feel fraternity to their own group, and not to other groups. And most people are fully aware of this fact.
(3) Of course, there are not only the racial and cultural differences that affect these differential distributions, but also other factors such as historic reasons, and, not unrelated to other factors, the fact that some groups differentially favour other members of their own group, etc.
(4) The sharing of space causes destruction of culture: this is inevitable. See: https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/immigration-is-destruction/
And also: http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
(7) If one examines the international bankers who enslave and control nations, one finds it is the same people who promote diversity. Diversity is used as a weapon of destruction and to facilitate control.
(8) In many such wars, it is found that the same group of foreigners is equipping and debt-enslaving both sides. Hence, from a financial perspective this presents a ‘win-win’ for the group financing the wars. This also presents a ‘lose-lose’ for the Africans in question.