Posted on 04/08/2010 5:45:06 AM PDT by C19fan
apparently the New York Times is on board with Marxism until it starts to compile an actual body count
Yeah, well. Stupidity is like a box of chocolates.
Kristof is pretty good on Africa. He makes no excuses for the thugs who run the region.
That will not happen, because Mugabe is a dictorial Marxist. •
Kristof was “stuned” to find out that it actually costs money to provide health care and an education for the natives.
What a dork.
Obama = America’s Mugabe
I noticed throughout this article that the author is still trying to find some way to blame whites for their sins of commission, and now of omission. He made no statement regarding the complete infantile non-action by the “people” who let a thug live in their midst. Funny, libtards will never abandon a sacred “socialistic or racialistic” meme, regardless of the abundance of evidence placed at their feet. Bottom line to this author is that the rest of the world (read white world) should force reforms in Zimbabwe. What those reforms would be and how they would be enforced he ain’t saying. Anybody in Europe got a well disciplined Army laying around that wants to deploy to a third world hell hole for an unstated amount of time? Do I see any hands? Guess the great European moralizers will find some way to blame the US for this. Just sayin.
America in a 'nutshell' and in the New York Times.
Do they get it? Or, is this just a case where truth inadvertently 'outs itself' by those who otherwise, do their best to contain it?
No to hope and sadly no good change in sight. There are more and more ‘Black’ people who realize their worst nightmare is delivered not from White community; but rather, from ‘their own’.
“Problems Facing Our Socialism” by Barack Obama, Sr. http://prestopundit.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/problems-facing-our-socialism-by-barak-h-obama/
OBAMA ON THE NATIONALIZATION OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
“There is a statement made on nationalization [in Sessional Paper No. 10]. True there are cases in which nationalization is bad, but there are, likewise, quite a few benefits to be derived from it. On this subject I would like to refer the authors to Prof. Bronferbrenner’s [sic] work on the “Appeals for confiscation in Economic Development”* [sic -- the referenced article is titled "The Appeal of Confiscation in Economic Development"]. Nationalization should not be looked at only in terms of profitability alone, but also, or even more, on the benefit to society that such services render and on its importance in terms of public interest ..” *Econ. Development and Cultural Change — Vol III, No. 3, 1955 pp. 201-18
OBAMA ON THE CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY KENYANS OF ASIAN AND EUROPEAN DECENT
“There is also a statement that nationalization will apply to African enterprise. How can we talk of nationalizing African enterprise when such enterprises do not exit? If we are going to nationalize, we are going to nationalize what exists and is worth nationalizing. But these are European and Asian enterprises. One need not be a Kenyan to note that nearly all commercial enterprises from small shops in River Road to big shops in Government Road and that industries in the Industrial Areas of Nairobi are mostly owned by Asians and Europeans. One need not be a Kenyan to note that when one goes to a good restraurant he mostly finds Asians and Europeans, nor has he to be a Kenyan to see that the majority of cars running in Kenya are run by Asians and Europeans. How then can we say that we are going to to be indiscriminate in rectifying these imbalances? We have to give the African his place in his own country and we have to give him this economic power if he is going to develop. The paper talks of fear of retarding growth if nationalization or purchases of these enterprises are made for Africans. But for whom doe we want to grow? Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country? It is mainly in this country that one finds almost everything owned by the non-indigenous populace. The government must do something about this and soon.”
OBAMA ON 100% TAXATION
“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”
OBAMA ON MARX AND TAXATION
“The paper wishes to encourage domestic accumulation. This is a good gesture except for the underlying assumption which one only reads between the lines, that it is individual private enterprise and business that tends to encourage accumulation. True, in the paper there is a realization that taxation can be used as a means of forced saving, but it is given a secondary place in this respect. Certainly there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay. It is a fallacy to say that there is a limit and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on the individual free enterprise to get the savings. Who are we going to rid ourselves of economic power concentration when we, in our blueprint, tend towards what we ourselves discredit? In paragraph 47 the paper state that the company form of business organization is a departure from the direct individual ownership typical in Marx’s day. Yet one who has read Marx cannot fail to see that corporations are not only what Marx referred to as the advanced stage of capitalism but Marx even called it finance capitalism by which a few would control the finances of so many and through this have not only economic power but political power as well.”
If you wade through all his politically correct bona fides, there is a message there.
The White regime was NOT nasty and brutish. It was under near constant attack by Soviet-supported “liberation” Marxists, and then later, even the left-wing, by the PC Govts of the UK and the USA. The only choice for the White Rhodesians, who had been there for centuries, was to circle-the-wagons and fight.
If Rhodesia had been “left alone” (an impossibility, I know) I am convinced it would now be an African Hong Kong or Singapore. Yes, minority whites would have disproportionate wealth, but it would a peaceful, very wealthy country, and would have developed a black governing elite as well, with a multi-racial Government with a solid rule of law.
Just think what the future holds for black ruled South Africa.......
Is obliged by a firing squad.
I am very sorry for the natives of this once-beautiful country. I am less forgiving of the British, Americans, and other Westerners who should have known better. Everyone could see who Mugabe was, even before he took over. This was all predictable.
But the British, especially, made out the Rhodesian whites as being “oppressive” (a term Kristof still uses).
Nowhere does Kristof indicate that he gave the sick, pregnant woman the two dollars she needed for her medicines. I hope that he did, and just left it out of the story.
Well, do you want to have a decent country or get back at Whitey? Looks like they chose the latter.
A friend of mine recently moved from South Africa. I have been hearing from her and many others for several years now that South Africa is at the tipping point....and it is not tipping in the good direction.
And I’m sure the the well-heeled westerner donated some of his ill-gotten wealth to help that pregnant woman and the hospital.
Same Sh*t happening now in S. Africa-—killing white farmers. Chase the ones with the know how out—S. Africa will be looking like Zimbabwe in a few years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.