The Return of "The White Man's Burden"?

Are we a nation or a charity?

How many millions in free health care for Hitians (esp. those brought to south Florida hospitals has the American tax payer ponied up w/o even being asked? Half of America is on acid, they don't realize we are the world debtors nation & want us to give Afruca a 100 billion for "climate change" last month & now want us to become hopeless Haiti's baby sister, China doesn't act like this they aren't occupying 3 nations & spending billions on foreigners nor throwing away their economy w/ Cap & Trade nonsense, they arent paying a billion to give KSM a 5 year trial for a crime he already confessed to. I feel that a imposter has gotten ahold of our treasury (not to mention our justice department and all the rest).

China, detestable as the regime is in certain respects (it is just like a mob family), operates in all the good ways that American Presidents and diplomats sued to until the yuppies came along (hitting a zenith with Obama).

-When Africa tries to so obviously use "climate change" alarmism as a mere means of blackmailing money and aid out of the guilty white west, and Ethipoian delegates say that their willing to settle for a 100 billion up front in increasing payments for the next 50 years (from America primarily) for the purpose of helping Africa "cope with climate change" whatever that means, American diplomats just 20 years ago would've laughed the African global welfare hucksters out of the room. "'I will settle for a 100 billion up front' Who the fuck do these African primitivest ake us for Zulu's?'" George Kennan and Oliver North would joke had they been in power now. Ofcourse neither nor patriots like North and Kennan are anywhere close to the Obama adminstration and George Kennan and other statesmen unafraid of saying "America First" are long gone, replaced by namby pampy liberals with degrees in Multicultural Studies and Oppression Studies from Weslyan and Brown, literal, pussies who bow down to African dicators to quell their third world hard ons. They where only too happy to shovel the American tax payers money into the money bags of the Robert Mugabe's and General Gaddafi's of Africa. The whole continent is terminally corrupted and it's a waste of time to even try to help these goverments (outside preventing epdimics), the whole contient is cursed with misgoverment or so it has been since the end of colonial rule on the contient. I now see where the Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's we Americans nknow and hate so well got their roots for these Africans are even better hucksters and shakedown artists and ehortationists than they are. The African delegates at the sinister Coopnhegan Climate Summit just started to collectivly shourt, repeating some African tribal phrase or whatnot again and again like barabarians at the gates. Their refrain probably translates roughly to, "DON'T FORGOT ABOUT AFRICA! DON'T FORGET ABOUT AFRICA!". The African poliical huckster has usually been educated in Europe for a little and knows how to push all the liberals buttons to make them reach for their nations collective wallots. They guilt weak chinned European liberals (and now American weak chinned liberals too!!) by saying that "you, in the west, have forgotten us and neglected us". Aren't tehy embarrsed to talk to their colonial owners-France England, Belgium, etc,-like they are, literrally, the children of the white europeans that white europeans all once thought if them as-children (as far as civilization was concerned). The great benefactors and enthusaists of Gilded Age imperialism-Teddy Roosevelt, Cecil Rhodes, the BOer leader Peter Krueger, etc. all shared atleast one general belief in common which was that Africans (among other "Mongogreloid" races) simply weren't equipt to govern themselves without descending into their natural state of anarchy, chaos and barabarism. But now it almosy seems as if this sadly determivistic view of Africa (which would obviously apply to African extracts like Haiti and Jamaica too) is some-what true. Haiti would be better off had Canada been running the nation for 50 years,and most all of Africa would be dramaticly worse off had European colonalism never come to what was a savage jungle and brought with them civilization (trains planes, automoblies, mickey mouse, offefe, magazines, the printed word, shoes, and all the 800 thousand things that certainly weren't invinted in Africa.

I mean what do the Haitians look like right now? they look like the black New Orlenians, like children screaming for help from their parents, who can make all their troubles go away and give them aide and shelter and food again and again and again forever. Yet it does no good. Its not our fault that Africans, in general, around the world, elect hucksters and con-artists to reprsent themselves in goverment posts. Just imagine a contient so full of corruption that the slimy, racist, anti-white, black Power, would-be-warlord, South African President, Jacob Zuma (read Peter Hitchens profile of Zuma in the American Conservative). Barring the discovery of some phenominally fought over rescource on the African contient, it seems to me that Africa will, no matter how you may or may not like it, be the poorest contient on earth. We have to come to terms with the facts of the matter. Their is no "Blank Slate" Steven Pinker showed that years ago. Africa doesn't have to be such a hell hole. It can be better than it is but it will never in my estmiation. Same goes with the black-white education/achievment gap which just won't go away no matter how much money the left pours into the task, how maany tests they make easier to leseen the test score gap and all the other outragous liberal schemes to thrawt honest hard working whites because their white.

It seems we haven't escaped the era of the "White Man's Burden", have we now? Just look out the national window to Haiti where platoons of American white do-gooders race into the nation. We saw the same mobilization in New Orleans after Katrina, Iran after their earthquake and after the Tsumani in the mid-2000's that wracked so much hof poly-Asia. This is a product of being too wealthy for too long perhaps. Americans (and I mean white Americans by "Americans") have 1. grown to take their/our huge post-WW2 wealth for granted almost as a constant that will continue as it has automaticly forever and 2. They have devolped a masochist, anti-white, self-hating, third world fetishizing pathology that makes them disdain even the suggestion of acting on grounds of national intrests.

Witness the terribly inept American anti-war movement that was led by the left (to the movement eventual downfalll). These self hating old hippy leftists that took the reigns of the anti-war movement (enter George Galloway) where so fucked up with their own "White Man's Burdens" issues that they couldn't even manage to argue against the war(s) in Iraq and Afganistan on grounds of national intrest (seemingly ever). In shunning self intrest & national intrest (as the idiot internationalists these liberal types are) they discarded the best arguments(s) against the Iraq (and Afgan) war(s) a crucial error which posssibly lead to the failure of what could've been a succeful movement had patriots from the Buchanan wing of the GOP lead the anti-war movement instead. But rather than argue that "I troops are heroes and thats just the point, its not worth shedding our best and brightestst, our blood and treasure in conflicts that have little to do with our national security at all. If we want to stop the next 9/11 we must secure our borders and ports and airports and fix our broken Immigration Units. Doing that would not only be a 1000 times cheaper and more effective in protecting us than a war in Iraq it would save us billions in other areas. And then again, why are we having our boys fighting and die and loose limbs and why are we spending billions we don't have on wars for people who , atelast in Iraq, hate us. !9 year old American young men should not be arriving home with out their legs just to help build a nation of people who spit upon his effort and our nation and all that we've done for the Iraqi's. We deposed of their dictator, spent trillions rebuilding their society setting gup the first arab democracy in the region. I think we've give more than enough of our blood and treasure on Iraq, this was a war of charity, we owe them nothing, if anything, the Iraqi's owe us!"

But instead of making fiery, logical, populist, patriotic arguments of national intrest in favor of withdrawl from Iraq the potheads at MoveOn.org, the Cindy Sheehans and Code Pink's and the rest of their ilk made anti-American arguments against the war that accused our President of deceit, conspiracy to make his friends rich, war crimes, they painted and someimes even called our soldiers murderers making them out to be sadistic cowboys running around Bagdad killing little brown people for fun. They threw red/pink paint on veterans and generals on the hill to symbolize "the blood on thir hands". They accused Donalds Rumsfield and the whole goverment of war crimes and rambled about half baked leftist conspiracy theories about Haliburton, the Caryllyle Group, Exxon Mobile, putting Bush and Cheney in office to bring the nation to war and increase their profits. Micheal Moore's shameful documentary film, "Farhenheit 9/11" asserted that the CIA had trained and created Osama Bin Laden, training Bin Laden at exactly the tactics he would use against America on September 11th, 2001. In truth, the CIA had a tenous indirect relationship with Osama and Osama got most of his funding from his brother Salem and his uber-wealthly Saudi cla though he did fight alongside the Mujohaiden who the US did fund to fight the Soviet invaders inAfganistan. Also, the CIA never trained Bin Laden least of all would they have treained him or any other Afgan freedom fighter how to ram airliners into sky scrapers considering their were not such sky scrapers to ram 747's into in Kabul at the time (or today probably too). This isn't the only such blatantly fallacious claim made by Moore and inturn made by his army of folowers in the course of the entire decade of the aughts. The most outragous perhaps is the claim that we went to war in Afganistan to build a pipeline which funnily enough has never been built still as of 2010.
Again, rather than saying "Bush went o war in Afganistan to build a pipeline" point out that we ran off to war in Afganistan with no long term gameplan or any conception of what the endgame was there. We were pissed off after 9/11 and ran off too war in a mindless rage not thinking off the long term at all. It would have been approbarite to go in and atleast shock and awe the Taliban into learning a lesson about who not to host (e.g. Al Quada). Thats what we should have done and then left within a year or two. rather than getting bogged down in a pointless occupation. We should've realized that we couldn't stay there forever and make sure Al-Quada didn't come back. We didn't have the money nor the will to do so. And the war was futile in that all that we did really was focre a nomadic inclined people to move into either Pakistan or someother Islamic country like Yemen where Al-Quada set up shop. We have to realize that Al-Quada is not a nation but a franchise that is scattered and has bases in Yemen, Jakarta, East Timor, Nigeria, Syria, and many more places (including probably the US) where we can war at all at once. We can't occupy Yemen and Nigeria and Syria and Afganistan and Pakistan all at once. But we can secure our borders and ports, and tighten the screenin process for deciding which muslims are allowe dto entire the United States and we can do all that for much cheaper".

This is basically, as I said before, the Buchananite Old Right paleocon arguments against the war and the American people would've had no trouble embarcing them. Because just like Pat Buchanan himself, we who opposed the wars on the right we're known to be patriots. With Buchanan you didn't have to wonder if he was using the anti-war movement as a front for his anti-americanism or anti-capttilist crusade. Americans didnt want to embrace anti-american demogauges and other forms of hucksters that made up so much of the anti-war movement like Jesse Jackson, George Galloway or Tim Robins.

You Can't Say That!: A Lesson In Crime-Speak

I picked up a liberal little book called, "They Said What?" by Jim Hunt, which the editor of The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild, describes as "a compendium of reactionary statements by American officials. Outragous in content, pitchy in style, the quotations reveal the long history of jingoism, racism, exism, and elitism that so mars our country. You want the evidence? Here it is." on the back cover.
Well, anyhow it's a collection, mostly, of quotes from Woodrow Wilson and TR era type politicians identifying difficult, impolite, un-PC truths about race, gender, intelligence, culture, and the like. Hunt makes use of the changing mores surrounding the word "negro". Many quotes within the small book would be prefectly unremarkable if you merely replace the word black with "negro". They are saying all the crucial difficult things that we are not allowed to say today thanks to the likes of Mr. Hunt and are dying as a nation because of it. For instance, coincedentally, the first quote i flipped the book open to see was the following quote from Woodrow Wilson's Secterary of State, Robert Lansing discussing a subject that has boomranged its way back into the forefront of American news media: Hiati and why the Dominican Republic is so much richer than it.

"It is well to distinguish at once between the Dominicans and the Haitians. the former, while in many ways not advanced far enough for the highest type of self goverment, yet have a preponderance of white blood and culture. The Haitians on the other hand are Negro for the most part, and, barring a very few highly educated politicians, are almost in a state of savagery and complete ignorance."

- Sectetary of State Robert Lansing, 1917.

The funny thing is that just 2 weeks ago when Haiti went nuts, i read Jared Diamond, PC as one can be, gently pointing out the exact same point Lansing points out here almost a 100 years ago about why Haiti is so poor and the Dominican Republic is so much richer and well off (cause Haiti has hardly any white blood).

Why was Lansing discussing this recently resurgent subject of the root of Haitian poverty? Because as alarmingly few people have pointed out since the Haiti earthquake America has occupied Haiti before for as long as 15 years. Woodrow Wilson got the Marines into Haiti in 1915 and they quickly came to the conclusion about Haiti (that its virtually helpless under black rule and would do better back under a French protectorate).

This is 1984 the nation we live in today, in which pointing out such things is simply against the social law.

Haiti

The responce to the Haiti earthquake reminds me of the frentic reaction to 9/11 in the type of brain freeze gamma-rays the quake has satrarated in America. Every person on the internet, except a few, says "give, give, give". And no one stops to think, "hmmm geez...Haiti has been surviving on foreign for decades and it hasn't helped,.....maybe i shouldn't think about this."

I understand helping those injured now, but this will inevtiably i fear and liberals, hope, turn into an extended US occupation. The Haitians aren't nearly as rich, in a sence of the world, as the Iraqi's are, they're just beggars. They won't fight a US occupation of there nation, they've bless us for it.

They should have been handing out condoms not aid to Haiti for 2 decades. The nation's problems come from how densely populated the nation is.

Using Haiti to exsplore the Piggy Bank of the Democratic Party: Poor Brown People

I wonder if the Hiatian goverment has made any overtures to be incorporated into the United States like Puerto Rico?

Ofcourse, Obama would say no, only because it would kill him poltically, though who knows what he would say or do if he could get away with it. In 2060 America when whites are a minority within the United States maybe Haiti will be incorporated as a way for the Democrats (which will be, by then, the de facto latino-black party) to swallow up another couple million democratic votes over night. Thats essentially what the Democratic Party today is begiging to prepare to do in the push for amnesty that the liberals will begin after the health care ordeal subsides.
They want amnesty to, simply, import 20 million illegals over night who will vote entirely for the Democratic Party and will be in the tank for the Democratic Party forever, literally, forever (until around 2060 perhaps when the GOP becomes completly unconservative).

This is gets to an important point about the border. There is not endless time to deal with our broken border. Once latinos become to large a voting block the GOP will lose it's nerve (stupidly because latinos actually don't care about amnesty as much as is assumed) and not run Republicans with patriotic immigration stances. Once the latino population gets to a certain size, if the borders aren't secured they will never be secured or atleast not until latino America decides to do so around the end of this century. Because you see while the latino-black coalition is building its majority over the next decades by birth rates and by importation of blacks and latinos by the millions legally and illegally (through a unenforced border they don't want enforced), they will need an open border to bring in new millions for future amnestys to make them into democrats over night. Once the latino-black coalition achieves a plurality of votes around 2050-2060, they won't nessacrily to keep the border broken to import latino/democrats. But even once the latino-black coalition (which, again, will be the Democratic Party) achieves a racial based majority and whites become a minority group in the US, they might want even more millions of latinos flowing over the border to cement their majority even more.

You must understand that in a few decades time, there will hardly be any difference between racial lines and party lines. They will correspond completly. The percentage of America, latinos and African Americans make up will be near to the exact of the electorate the Democratic Party will capture. So if White Americans (once known as Americans) and asian-Americans compose 40% of the US population, the GOP will receive probably something like 45% of the population.

Thus around 2060, when latinos and blacks make up, say, 64% of the nation's population, they and there party, the Democratic Party will have a de facto lock on the Presidency and on control of the house and senate (the lock being tied by the unbreakable bonds of latino and black ethnic solidarity), they may be able to do alot of stuff they wanted to do: things like tax white rich people more and extend affirmtive action into insane areas and so fourth but they perhaps won't have enough of a majority to do everything like ya know bring mandate that no countys in America be over 90% white or something unimaginable to us because there still the Republicans (aka the whites and asians) who have 40% and can block 2/3rd majority vote of approval. So the Democrats solution will to be to simply grant another amensty to the 20 million new illegal immigrants who have walked into America thanks the open border the Democrats made sure stayed broken.

So they'll pass an amnesty for 30 million illegal immigrants and a year later theres suddenly 27 million new democratic votes cast and now the Democrats have enough to mandate there be no counties that are over 90% white.

HERE IS THE COMPLETLY UN-POLTICALLY CORRECT WAY TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF THE HAITIANS (IN THE LONG RUN)

A painting of the first succeful slave rebellion inwhich French slaves succefully revolted against France, creating the first free black republic, Haiti. The cost to Napelonian's empirial pocketbock would create the impetus for the selling of French Louisanna to America.

Let France or Canada (aka white Europeans) run the nation again. Much of the little infastcure in Hiati was built was by American occupation (1915-35) and French occupation. Let's face it, folks.
I personally might choose to make it a protectorate of an independent Republic of Quebec.
But, truthfully, all these suggestions are fanciful. There’s no chance that the international community will declare the first-ever black republic an official failure.

President Woodrow Wilson, this pious fan of the KKK sent the US Marines to occupy the wretched nation of Haiti in 1915.

The ugly truth about colonalism is that white rule was the best thing that ever happened to Africa and pan-African Republics such as Hiati. Its suprsing that few an anti-American commentators such as Howard Zinn haven't mentioned America's occupation of Hiati. Woodrow Wilson brought the marines to run the nation and in a way we again today. No, it's not the presence of whites in Haiti that exsplains why its so poor today but the absence of whites that does. But ofcourse the absence of white influence can never be a reason for black poverty in the land of poltical correctness.

"Papa Doc" Duvalier, the black power post-colonial era dictator of Haiti, who ruled the nation from the 50's to the 1970's-one of a slew of such post-colonial 3rd world tryants such as Robert Mugabe & Fidel Castro.

Here is Steve Sailer illumanting article which fluidly points out why Haiti is so poor (that question which everyone asks but everyone doesn't want to answer truthfully):

Why Haiti Is So Hopeless; And A Very Modest Proposal

By Steve Sailer

Does President Barack Obama have any more idea what to do with Haiti after the horrific earthquake than did President Woodrow Wilson when he sent the Marines in back in 1915? Obama has put his byline on the January 15 Newsweek cover story Why Haiti Matters, but he can’t seem to come up with an answer to his headline question beyond typical Obamaesque self-absorption: “We look into the eyes of another and see ourselves”.

(He has seized the opportunity to amnesty a lot of Haitian illegals in the U.S... But increasing Haitian immigration has been a little-noted Obama preoccupation for some time.)

If we’re looking for something to do for Haiti that will help it in the long term, it’s just not at all clear how. (I do make a very modest proposal at the end of this article). The 1915-1934 U.S. occupation built some infrastructure, but isn’t exactly remembered as ranking up there with Iwo Jima as the Corps’ finest moment. The long run effect of U.S. rule through mulatto surrogates seems mostly to have paved the way for Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier’s disastrous 1957-1971 black power government.

Other suggestions I’ve heard over the last week: handing Haiti back to France; handing it over to the Dominican Republic, with which it shares the island of Hispaniola (but little else besides deep mutual antipathy); and to Canada. I personally might choose to make it a protectorate of an independent Republic of Quebec.

But, truthfully, all these suggestions are fanciful. There’s no chance that the international community will declare the first-ever black republic an official failure.

So, Haiti will nominally keep on keeping on—under the purview of the U.N. and the U.S. taxpayer.

Haiti’s Malthusian poverty is the default state of mankind. Its rapidly growing population is kept fed by the more than 10,000 foreign charitable organizations active in the country.

Commentators have been competing to come up with ever more complex explanations for “Why Haiti Is So Poor”. The single most important cause is probably that Haiti attained its independence as early as 1805, culminating in a massacre of the remaining whites, before the end of the slave trade. Despite theoretically being a French-speaking, Roman Catholic, Western Hemisphere country, Haiti remains culturally rooted in Africa. Wikipedia’s article on the History of Haiti notes [January 17, 2010]:

“At all times, a majority of slaves in the colony were African-born, as the brutal conditions of slavery prevented the population from experiencing growth through natural increase. African culture thus remained strong among slaves to the end of French rule, in particular the folk-religion of Vodou, which commingled Catholic liturgy and ritual with the beliefs and practices of Guinea, Congo, and Dahomey.”

Indeed, Haiti isn’t even particularly poor for a country with an African culture: 22 sub-Saharan African countries have lower per capita GDPs than Haiti’s $1,300, with Zimbabwe last at $200.

Most Haitians speak Haitian creole rather than French. Although the creole features many French words, the grammar is more African, so most Haitians are cut off from French literary culture.

Similarly, voodoo, with its black magic curses, makes up much of the substance of Haitian religion, with West African deities, such as the stylish and ominous loa “Baron Samedi”, demanding placation.

Thus Duvalier, a brilliant black doctor and sociologist turned maniacal dictator, used his study of voodoo and his resemblance to the popular depiction of Baron Samedi to convince the black masses that he was a powerful sorcerer and take power from Haiti’s mulatto elite.

Unfortunately, Duvalier began to believe his own propaganda about the power of voodoo. For instance, as Time Magazine reported in 1963, when Duvalier had a falling out with Clement Barbot, the head of his notorious goon squad, the Tonton Macoutes:

“But in voodoo-entranced Haiti the whisper went around that no one could kill Barbot. He had the strange power, they said, to change himself into a black dog and escape at will. In Port-au-Prince, Duvalier's policemen went around shooting black dogs on sight.” [Haiti: The Living Dead, July 26, 1963]

Much of the educated classes emigrated, leaving Haiti brain-drained.

Papa Doc died in 1971, making his somewhat less sinister son, Baby Doc, the 19-year-old President-for-Life. This playboy squandered his popularity with the black peasants in 1980 by marrying a daughter of the mulatto elite, a stylish Lena Horne-lookalike with expensive tastes. By 1986, Baby Doc was in exile in France.

Since then, American Presidents have spasmodically hired and fired Haitian dictators. At the request of the Congressional Black Caucus, Bill Clinton invaded Haiti in 1994 to restore the black radical defrocked priest Jean-Baptiste Aristide, who had been overthrown in 1991 by mulatto military leaders. The Bush Administration apparently more or less kidnapped Aristide in 2004 and sent him into exile in South Africa. Bush turned nominal power over to a shadowy band of “rebels”. UN peacekeepers were brought in to occupy the country and keep the gangs from running quite so amok. Now the Obama Administration appears to be the main de facto power in Haiti.

A new book edited by Jared Diamond, Natural Experiments of History, focuses heavily on the comparison of Haiti and the neighboring Dominican Republic that Diamond began in his last bestseller, Collapse. Diamond, the author of the Pulitzer-winning Guns, Germs, and Steel, is both smart and about 90 percent honest. That makes him the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind that is contemporary intellectual discourse.

Diamond’s January 15th article in the leftwing U.K. Guardian, A Divided Island: The forces working against Haiti, summarizes his thinking on how Haiti’s quantity and quality of population have hurt Haiti compared to the D.R., which has a moderate per capita GDP of $8,200. It’s dry, but more frank than most of what you’ve heard:

“But Haiti's area is only slightly more than half of that of the Dominican Republic so that Haiti, with a larger population and smaller area, has double its neighbour's population density.”

(Economist Tyler Cowen blogged yesterday that until a decade ago, when kidnappings became routine, he hadn’t been afraid of crime when he visited Haiti because the population density was so extraordinary: “There's just not enough room for anyone to mug you, at least if you exercise due caution. Nor, for that matter, were there very many beggars, since usually there was no one to beg from.”)

Diamond goes on:

“The combination of that higher population density and lower rainfall was the main factor behind the more rapid deforestation and loss of soil fertility on the Haitian side.”

In Collapse, Diamond praised the D.R.’s old megalomaniacal dictator Rafael Trujillo (1891-1961) for stealing much of the forestland and exploiting it cautiously in a rational manner. Dominican kleptocracy helped avoid the tragedy of the commons that contributed to the ecological ruin of Haiti, where the common folk chop down all trees for cooking fuel.

Diamond goes on to point out,—cautiously!—another advantage the D.R. has over Haiti: it’s whiter.

“A second social and political factor is that the Dominican Republic – with its Spanish-speaking population of predominantly European ancestry – was both more receptive and more ­attractive to European immigrants and investors than was Haiti with its Creole-speaking population composed overwhelmingly of black former slaves.”

The relative whiteness of Dominicans isn’t widely understood in the U.S. because we are mostly familiar with the largely black Dominican baseball players, such as Sammy Sosa. But Dominicans generally tend to look more like the American-born Dominican mulatto slugger Alex Rodriguez than the black slugger Manny Ramirez. The current president of the D.R. looks likefat guy in the Laurel and Hardy movies crossed with Muhammad Ali, and he’s the only one of the last five presidents with any clear black ancestry. the

Trujillo had an explicit policy of whitening the Dominican Republic’s population through immigration from Europe—and expelling Haitian illegal immigrants. He was the only national leader actively to recruit Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany during the 1930s.

Diamond continues:

“Hence European immigration and investment were negligible and restricted by the constitution in Haiti after 1804 but eventually became important in the Dominican Republic. Those Dominican immigrants included many middle-class businesspeople and skilled professionals who contributed to the country's development.”

To summarize Diamond, Haiti has more people per fertile acre of farmland and less human capital per capita.

That human capital can be purely cultural. Thus another former sugar-growing black Caribbean country, Barbados, independent since 1966 although Queen Elizabeth II remains the official head of state, has a per capita GDP of $18,900, an average life expectancy of 74 years.

As Lawrence Harrison, head of the Cultural Change Institute at Tufts University, told me in 1999:

“The culture of slavery, as well as zero-sum traditional African culture, powerfully sustained by a religion (Voodoo) without an ethical code, are palpable to any foreigner who has lived [in Haiti], as I did for two years. Barbados, which I have visited several times, remained a British colony until 1966, by which time it had substantially absorbed British values, attitudes, and institutions. The Barbadians are sometimes referred to as Black Englishmen or Afro-Saxons.”

(Still, that raises the question of why Barbados has a lower crime rate and a higher literacy rate than some other ex-British colonies like Jamaica. The late Robert MacNeil’s PBS series The Story Of English suggested that selection played a role: “[Barbados] was the first main port of call for the slave ships. It is said that unruly slaves from the least domesticated tribes were progressively shipped up the ‘claw’ of the West Indies until they reached Jamaica.” [p. 220])

Barbadian blacks were cut off from fresh infusions of African culture when the British Parliament voted the end of the slave trade in 1807. Sugar plantation owners could no longer afford to work their slaves to death and replace them with new slaves from Africa. The British government carried out an orderly emancipation, with compensation for slaveowners, in the 1830s.

Although 90 percent of Barbados’ population is said to be “Afro-Bajan”, Barbados has a fairly large mixed race middle class who typically call themselves “white” (for example, the Barbadian pop singer Rihanna, who is considered black in America, recently complained “I Was Bullied At School For Being White”.) and espouse traditional white standards.

Ironically, more than few of these West Indians who call themselves white in the Islands have gone into the civil rights business as black leaders in the U.S. For example, President Obama’s “African-American” Attorney General Eric Holder called America “a nation of cowards” last year for not talking enough about race, is a light-skinned Bajan-American.

Economist Thomas Malthus’s insights are severely out of fashion in the Industrial Age. But what else is Haiti going to do besides subsistence farming?

There has been some growth in manufacturing jobs in Haiti. But the Chinese industrial juggernaut makes that unpromising.

Call centers for France? Perhaps, but Parisian French isn’t all that widely spoken. (In contrast, Barbados has begun to compete with India in the offshore call center business.)

Tourism? Back in the day, Bill and Hillary Clinton honeymooned there. But almost nobody goes to Haiti anymore. The poverty is just too depressing for tourists. As Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. famously pointed out in President Obama’s favorite sermon, The Audacity to Hope:

"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ...”

Sadly, therefore, much of the logic of Malthus applies to Haiti. Only outside charity and emigration keep it from starvation.

One obvious step that could help Haiti in the long run has, unfortunately, dropped almost into the realm of the unmentionable these days: increased funding of population control efforts. (Full disclosure: I’m a Catholic).

Third World birth control used to be a fashionable progressive cause. When I was a kid, Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, made about 20 guest appearances on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. The Rockefellers and George H.W. Bush were strong advocates of the need for Third Worlders to reduce their fertility.

But today, it’s hard to find much on Google about Haiti and contraceptives. According to a 2001 World Health Organization report: “Among sexually active women, 13% used a modern method of contraception and 4% relied on traditional methods”.

And the other 83 percent?

It appears that Haitian women now wisely want to reduce the number of children they have—Haiti’s total fertility rate is said to be down to 3.8 babies per lifetime, the same as Saudi Arabia’s. But Haitians need to bring their fertility down to European below-replacement rates for a couple of generations to allow the land to recover—and the people, hopefully, improve their “human capital”.

Let’s make long lasting Depo Provera contraceptive injections free to Haitian women.

Anyone got any better ideas?

Would blacks be better off had they never come into contact with Europeans/whites?

I'm not the only one to point out how little there is to say, in a certain away, about the Haiti quake. Well when i heard about the Haiti diaster and saw the amazing pictures of the Nation ruined infastructure, the first thing i thought about was Jermiah Wright, that brutish rogue. That demogauge is retired, living in his huge house in, of all places, a all white private community by the name of Beverly, Illinois. (He tells the poor south side blacks to hate whites sunday morning and rolls back to his all white community in his Benz, laughing the whole way.) I imagined that Rev. Wright was surely kicking back at his Beverly pad and watching the cable coverage of the Hiati quake=probably taking a brief break from writing the book Random House or some other publishing house has quitely paid him to write. And i thought what would Jermiah Wright be thinking as he reclined in his lay-z-boy and watched the destruction of the Hiatian countryside and saw white Americans handing out aid, food, operating on injured Haitians, etc. Wright has been saying for decades that blacks would be better just getting away from the sinister whites, how could he reconcile that with what we all saw in Haiti? His matra as a preacher was that "white people's greed keeps a world in a need", whites, in his estimation, where at the root of the genocide, disease, misery, poverty, violence, strife and famine that blighted the Third World. How does Rev. Wright and his many disciples of anti-white stylied black liberation theology sqaure there assertion that blacks are better off when whites aren't around to oppress and exsploit them with the fact that those African nations that have isolated themselves from the western world have only been worse off as a result?

In a way, Rev. Wright's beliefs about how whites have only held blacks down and that if white europeans had just steered clear of the motherland then Africans would be far better off today. This, of course, is a nice thing to believe. We want to believe that people are not ever constrained by biology and ofcourse that we are all equal. It would make sense as an exsplanation of the success and fanfare of Rev. Wright among South Side blacks that his popularity among his flock at Trinity Church of Christ is as someone who every Sunday tells pews full of black people that 1. black poverty and underachievment is not there fault but white's fault. Basically Wright, craft was to tell his congregation reassuring, comforting lies on a consitent basis and in a entertaining and fiery manner. From this angle, the modern black Sunday church exsperience is a excercise in communal self esteem boosting.

Of course though Rev. Wright is wrong/lying. Blacks have benefitted beyond imagination from contact, however coarse, with Europeans. This doesn't excuse slavery or brutality in Europe's African colonies, but, overall, Africa is far far better off today as a result of the Europe's time in Africa. Let's be honest here, however reductionist, the British and the Boers arrivived at the southern tip of a African contient that was still emmersed in the Stone Age-this at a time when Europe's had long passed the renassaince, the reformation, and where sailing around the earth, building castles and cannons while the Africans where largely living as primitive savages, half naked, living in mudhuts and hunting tigers with spears. The Boers where dressed in suites and top hats, with monocles and wool vests and bow ties. Take this instance from 1896, a group of Boers are trapped after there train breaks down in the middle of the Zulu nation. It didn't take very long for Zulu warriors, clad in little more than animal skin and leather covering there crotches, spotted these white Boers and charged towards the group of Boer families with spears in hand by the hundreds from almost every direction. The Boer's are doomed right? No, because those dutch/scottish/hugenot Boers had a new weapon with them a millenium beyond the techonolgy of the Zulu's spears. They had the Maxim gun, the first rapid fire machine gun, a product of us whites conniving, sinister minds. The Maxim Gun was helping the British conquering Africa from the North in the Sudan at the same time the Boers where doing the same in the south of the contitent. So, one of the boers brught out the Maxim Gun and with shocking ease gunned down the radius of charging Zulu warriors, there speed, agility and endurance meaning nothing in the face of the machine that the Teutonic mind has produced.
To put it tersely, Europeans came to a contient that was essentially a stone age jungle and left it with locomotives, railroads, hospitals, modern archeture, Unviersitys, water fountains, planes, cars, medicine, pencillen, polio vaccine, vaccines for thousands of other human plagues, and alot of other shit- no to mention all the trillions of dollars we, in the west, have given the African contient. Oh but you say, "what about all the Africans that the Europeans killed?" Untrue. The Europeans doubled the life exspectancy in decades in Africa?

Media Bias & the Hiatian Earthquake

The companion news-story to the Haitian earthquake has been"The 700 Club" host Pat Robertson's claim that the Hiatian earthquake was brought about by the "deal they made with the devil" in order to beat the French and gain indepdence in the 19th century through a ferecious slave rebellion-the first sussecful slavery revoultion which hurt the French pocket book so badly that it led Napepolian to sell the Louissana Territory to America during Jefferson's Adminstration.
Apparently the liberal media is also, as always, making a big hoo-haw about something, there favaroite villian, Rush Limabaugh said about Obama's relief effort in Haiti which i don't know and don't really care to know (i know it will be ridiclously distorted by the wretched Wanda Sykes' of the media).
Anyways, Pat Robertson's remarks are odd, he must refering to something could he really be speaking extemprnously when he says that. But i'm sorry to say i'm not outraged like all those who are pretending to be.

But get this: a liberal celebrity said something similiary absurd about the great quake. His name is Danny Glover. Remember him? Yeah, i used to like him to. His voice has changed radically since I've last seen him in a film. I recall him once sounding sophisticated and old school, like a gruff black barber circa 1943. Remember how he spoke in "The Royal Tennabaums" when Wes Anderson put him ina bow tie & a blue suite and made him talk jive with Gene Hackman? Well its shocking to here him now, he sounds like a generic black guy having drunk to much whiskey. In a interview after this Hiatian quake he said that the earthquake was the result of the failure of the Coopenhegan Climate summit according to Glover (who i recently discovered to be a crazy radical leftists, when i saw him in the film version of Howard Zinn's definitive anti-american, PC, history of the United States alongside Matt Damon, Alice Walker (the 2nd rate Toni Morison), and other such creatures.
I must say that both Glover and Robertson's remarks on the earthquake are ludicrous but if one has to choose Glover's exsplanation is the more absurd in my mind. I mean, he surely is saying that if only Obama had given away not a 100 billion to corrupt Africa but 200 billion of our tax dollars the teutonic plates below the Caribbean would reconsider moving in such a tumtulous fashion.
But Danny Glover's idiocy has gone virtually unreported by the Mainstream Media. With Robertson the liberal media can do a favariote hobby of theres and bash white Christians. If they covered Glover's remark (which is more signfigant because Glover's comments are not unique but common in the aftermath of natural diaster like this earthquake occurs.
And by the way: aren't there hundreds of Hiatian and other 3rd world/African reverends who have been known to constantly make statements just like Pat Robertson's? I'm sure Hiatian priests and preachers who will blame this blight upon them on sin. And don't they do child sacrifice in Haiti? just like in the Congo and most of Africa? Or something barbaric like female gentaila mutatilation? or cermonial rape? Surely these practices, which are far more backward and "outragous" than anything that has come from Pat Robertson's mouth, are more worthy of exsposure and being condemned? But ofcourse, white liberals see African culture are sublime and superior to our own so they just rag on poor old Pat Robertson while, these do-gooders say not a word about the barbarism that occurs everyday in Africa and 3rd world slum nations like Haiti.