Do you help Africa?

[nisse]

I was surprised by how many forum members are concerned about the well-being of the inhabitants of the dark continent. Just to do away with any misconceptions on my part, I am wondering how many people here are actively involved in humanitarian relief destined for Africa.


Please vote and elaborate on how you are involved. Thank you.

[Loki]

I was surprised by how many forum members are concerned about the well-being of the inhabitants of the dark continent.

Quotes, or did you just make that up?

[Murphy]

There are no active charities for African aid in my immediate area. There is only so much one man can do, I give my charity to the various projects based here. I know that several traditionalist socities have African missions that I would support, but they don't have parishes here either.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

No.it is money wasted on corruption.
Those do-gooders who do are positively cranky .
Look at the HIV results in the world.
Give a free handout to Africa and you aid to a free fok.

[The Lawspeaker]

No. Every penny send to Africa is a penny wasted.

[Eldritch]

Does your country give "development" aid? If it does, there's your answer: you are working to help Africa.

What percentage of your country's GNP is washed down the toilet given to Africa? Take that amount from the taxes you paid last year, and then calculate how long it took you to earn that money. That's how much you are working to help Africa.

[Lithium]

I can, but I don't want and I won't never help them.

[Murphy]

I would just like note, I do not support a state giving aid without the consent of society. It is not charity in that case. Not to mention, I believe western states need to stay the fuck out of Africa with it's current leadership.

[blan]

there are charities in africa directed towards the afrikaneer people and other poor disadvantaged whites in africa and i would gladly help them.
as far as blacks charities it would depended on whos running them and what the project was doing for them but i would never support a charity that only helps blacks and would do nothing for whites, if there are charities that help people in africa of all races including whites i would have no problem making a donation.
But in short where i am is worse off than most african places so i wouldnt bother sending money to places that are in better condition than my own area.

[NSFreja]

I can't understand why other countries (with taxpayers "help"!!!) should send money or other things to Africa.

I mean, they got plenty of everything from almost all countries in the world and what do they do? Nothing! Just sit there and beg for more...

Just few examples:
They got help to get tractors so they can farm, but when they run out of petrol...hah...no more tractors.
Got help building wells to get water...so they can farm etc...what do they do? Sit on their a*s and tell the world "we're starving..." jeez....
They get help with education, do that change their situation? No no no, they still shout "we're starvin'..."

Lazy a*ses is what they are! and until they start doin' something by them self to try to change their situation, no help would be given at all....!!!

[Cato]

Does Africa help me?

[The Lawspeaker]

I don't understand the Africans. I only need to look at the Asian country of Singapore. They have no resources none whatsoever and they got kicked out of Malaysia in 1965. So you have a city without the hinterland and without any resources.
But they have been studying and working their ass off for over 40 years now and they have become one of the richest countries on earth.

Africa abundant with resources and manpower never got beyond starvation and the most heinous wars around the globe.

[Äike]

Sending aid to Africa is the same as giving a heroin addict more heroin...

The Africans can solve their problems themselves, without any help, if the situation gets bad enough. Currently, they have no motivation to solve their problems as they get money from Western countries.

[The Lawspeaker]

So then the question arises: should we even help Africa ?
And I think we should most definitely say NO. If African countries have any debts to Europe: cancel those debts. If African resources can be found elsewhere: buy them elsewhere. Re-route all commercial flights and let's simply ignore the place from now on and let nature run it's course.

[Hussar]

I don't think europeans have any debt with Africa. Thay haven't anymore.


What kind of debt at 50 yrs from the end of colonialism ???

In 19th imperial Japan became an idustrial power in less than 30 yrs. Germany had the capability to recover from the apocalypse of world war II in 20 yrs.

China turned its status of third world nation to economic titan in 60 yrs. India (although much more slowly) is on the way.


AFRICA doesn't lack resources (much more natural resources than Europe), and doesn't lack manpower (60% of population is young).

So, taking in account those factors........no, i don't help Africa. And i don't feel guilty for that. I don't have any moral duty to do (i'm not a missionary). My ideology (i'm conservative) is in favour of Europe.

Without the historical presence of europeans, Africa would be (today) exactly as it is.

[RoyBatty]

I was surprised by how many forum members are concerned about the well-being of the inhabitants of the dark continent. Just to do away with any misconceptions on my part, I am wondering how many people here are actively involved in humanitarian relief destined for Africa.


Please vote and elaborate on how you are involved. Thank you.

Not me :D

"Humanitarianism", "Aid" and "Charity" (in the context of "helping the third world") are for suckers.

Many of the concerned "charities" and "NGO's" are fronts for the Intelligence Services of wealthy countries who use "charity" and "development aid" as a cover for political interference and economic exploitation.

In other cases "charities" concentrate their efforts on extracting the maximum amount of $$ out of soft-headed Westerners and then pocket much of the money themselves through devices such as "administrative costs".

Even in cases where money actually get to Africa most of it will be stolen by corrupt local officials.

It makes no sense to fund out of control population growth and hopeless, corrupt and inept countries and cultures. It is not our "moral responsibility" to save all of humanity. Ultimately all this "humanitarianism" only speeds up the demise of our own civilisation whilst supporting those cultures who are overrunning us.

It makes no sense to fund one's own holocaust. The world is a jungle and unless a person believes in the NWO and One World Government funding the competition is what traitors, idiots and those hostile to us do.

:thumb001:

[The Lawspeaker]

I don't think europeans have any debt with Africa. Thay haven't anymore.


What kind of debt at 50 yrs from the end of colonialism ???

In 19th imperial Japan became an idustrial power in less than 30 yrs. Germany had the capability to recover from the apocalypse of world war II in 20 yrs.

China turned its status of third world nation to economic titan in 60 yrs. India (although much more slowly) is on the way.


AFRICA doesn't lack resources (much more natural resources than Europe), and doesn't lack manpower (60% of population is young).

So, taking in account those factors........no, i don't help Africa. And i don't feel guilty for that. I don't have any moral duty to do (i'm not a missionary). My ideology (i'm conservative) is in favour of Europe.

Without the historical presence of europeans, Africa would be (today) exactly as it is.
Some African countries seem to be indebted to European countries or organizations. I think that we should simply let it go.

[RoyBatty]

I don't think europeans have any debt with Africa. Thay haven't anymore.


Europeans as in "the general population" have no debt with Africa. It's a different matter where EU governments, banks, energy companies, farming conglomerates, industrialists and miners are concerned.

Many of these parties still shamelessly exploit Africa.

[The Lawspeaker]

I personally think that as long as the average African isn't a factory worker, a businessman, a lawyer or a farmer with a proper education and well maintained land - and as long as African manufactured goods do not match the quality and sophistication of what we produce here - as long as the average African youngster doesn't go to college and studies law other things that are important. As long as the African government are not clean of corruption then until then.. we shouldn't help Africa. They will have to help themselves.

As long as the average African doesn't look like this:

http://businessinsouthafrica.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/01302624businessman.jpg

And comes here as a businessman to represent free and honest trade and the rule of law and as long as his word doesn't mean a good and fair deal between a European and an African we should have nothing to do with them.

[RoyBatty]

And comes here as a businessman to represent free and honest trade and the rule of law and as long as his word doesn't mean a good and fair deal between a European and an African we should have nothing to do with them.

"Free and honest trade" and "fair deals" in business and economic and political dealings between countries are the stuff of textbook manuals, not reality.

[The Lawspeaker]

"Free and honest trade" and "fair deals" in business and economic and political dealings between countries are the stuff of textbook manuals, not reality.
Don't be so cynical, Roy. Not all businessmen are perverted, cynical people that only think about a quick buck.

[Grumpy Cat]

I'd rather help poor people here, I volunteer at a soup kitchen. Because I know any money going to Africa is going to corrupt governments not the people who need it.

[Loki]

I think Africans will eventually become self-sufficient, although they are hundreds of years behind the rest of the world. They've got a lot of catching up to do, for a variety of reasons. There are ways to help them, but just throwing money at these corrupt governments is not the way to go.

[Psychonaut]

Of course not.

I don't voluntarily donate to any charities whose funds are used outside of the US, nor do I support political candidates who wish to continue wasting between 1-2% of the federal budget on foreign aid.

[Grumpy Cat]

I think Africans will eventually become self-sufficient, although they are hundreds of years behind the rest of the world. They've got a lot of catching up to do, for a variety of reasons. There are ways to help them, but just throwing money at these corrupt governments is not the way to go.

I agree. And I don't think throwing aid at people doesn't help either. Then they become dependant on aid. There is a saying here "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime."

So yes, throwing money doesn't work, food drops don't work (just as a temporary solution in times of dire famine). What needs to be done in Africa is schools need to be built, and education promoted. That will help more than what the bleeding hearts are doing now.

I'll be honest, I actually almost went to work in Swaziland, at a women's school, teaching computer programming, not because of any special feeling for Africa but because it would be helping women in a country where they are very dependant on men.

[nisse]

Quotes, or did you just make that up?

Why would I make that up? Read the HIV vaccine thread for quotes.

[Loki]

Why would I make that up?

Dunno, maybe because you're trolling?

[Grumpy Cat]

Why would I make that up? Read the HIV vaccine thread for quotes.

Well, I personally think more has to be done to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. It's a mess.

But a way to stop it is through education.

But "education" is a bad word for leftists, that's why they keep dumbing down the school system in Western countries. They love giving people handouts, it makes them feel better about their pathetic selves. They're like those mothers who breatfeed their kids until they're like 10.

You know, God forbid people become self-sufficient.

[Agrippa]

I want to change something about financial-economic system in the world, first for my people, but also for others, I think we all, whole mankind would be better off without the current Financial Oligarchy, the Plutocracy.

Also there are different parts of Africa, I'm more concerned with those closer to my people and more racially-culturally progressive first, especially about non-Muslim Europoids.

However, I have neither good nor bad feelings towards the Negrids in Africa, I would give them a chance and help if they accept it, to our terms of course, we need trade and exchange, yet I would personally never spend money on Africans as long as people in of my nation or any other Europeans suffer too. State/NGO programs are fine in a way, but they often miss the point by being pseudo-humane and Neo-Christian inspired, don't consider longer term consequences.

I see everything in layers and priorities, first those which are related, which are more progressive and promising, then step by step and if something is left, for humane considerations, I would send help to everybody if it is not detrimental to my people...

If we can prevent suffering without significant negative consequences for higher priorities, we should do so. That's my personal opinion.

[nisse]

Dunno, maybe because you're trolling?

Ban me if you think so.

[Loki]

Ban me if you think so.

I might just do that, we will see.

[The Lawspeaker]

Well, I personally think more has to be done to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. It's a mess.

But a way to stop it is through education.

But "education" is a bad word for leftists, that's why they keep dumbing down the school system in Western countries. They love giving people handouts, it makes them feel better about their pathetic selves. They're like those mothers who breatfeed their kids until they're like 10.

You know, God forbid people become self-sufficient.
That's all very nice but why should we help them if they can't help their sorry selves?
Spending money on educating Africans means allocating European tax money to Africa.

[Grumpy Cat]

That's all very nice but why should we help them if they can't help their sorry selves?
Spending money on educating Africans means allocating European tax money to Africa.

Only for a short time. It would be less money than what they're giving now, in the long run. We're helping them help themselves. Aid being sent there now is preventing them from helping themselves.

See, Oprah Winfrey has the right idea, she builds schools, with her money. She won't be funding them forever, they will pay for themselves eventually.

And her reasoning for helping Africans over American kids... well, I have to say she makes a valid point: She said African kids are grateful for what they get while American kids take for granted that they have easy access to education and they chimp out when they don't get the new iPod or whatever new shiny thing that comes out.

[The Lawspeaker]

Only for a short time. It would be less money than what they're giving now, in the long run.

See, Oprah Winfrey has the right idea, she builds schools, with her money. She won't be funding them forever, they will pay for themselves eventually.

And her reasoning for helping Africans over American kids... well, I have to say she makes a valid point: She said African kids are grateful for what they get while American kids take for granted that they have easy access to education and they chimp out when they don't get the new iPod or whatever new shiny thing that comes out.
Yes well. The fact is: it is European tax money. Development aid was also meant to be short-term.
If Oprah Winfrey spends her own money then it is fine with me. I don't care.

But no European tax money should be wasted on Africa.

[RoyBatty]

Ban me if you think so.

Half the forum would have to be banned if that were the case lol :D :thumb001:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first ban" :D :D :D

[RoyBatty]

Well, I personally think more has to be done to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. It's a mess.

But a way to stop it is through education.


Education? Dunno.... we're talking about quite a fundamental alteration of the African's culture and way of life here. Where does one draw the line between being a do-gooder and being a patronising whitey telling the African how to live?

Screwing around is a traditional part of traditional African life. Trying to "reform them" from doing this would be a bit like programming Alex in Clockwork Orange to reform.

Educating primitive peoples with little access to money or goods to suddenly remember to religiously make use of condoms every time before having sex (and they have a lot of sex, the numbers confirm this) is futile. What's the point in even wanting to save them from themselves? They should get with the program themselves or go under. In any case, AIDS / HIV is a very hyped illness. Sub-Saharan Africa is not experiencing a population decline despite the huge numbers of infected cases. Why bother "saving" something which is in abundant supply and of limited use or value?

They need to sort themselves out or end up not doing it. It's not up to others (like us) to do it for them.



But "education" is a bad word for leftists, that's why they keep dumbing down the school system in Western countries. They love giving people handouts, it makes them feel better about their pathetic selves. They're like those mothers who breatfeed their kids until they're like 10.


Leftists love education but the kind of education they have in mind has nothing to do with learning how to read, write or think. Leftist education = Social Conditioning where the class are "educated" into Leftist social programs and agendas.

The entire point of much of this education is to turn the class victims into hapless consumerist zombies who are disempowered and become dependent on the State. Dependence = Weakness = Submission = Complete State Control over the subjects.

The State, Leftists and Professional Political Classes and Elite Families don't want people who may disagree with them, provide some kind of threat to their hold on power, provide competition for existing wealth or who may oppose their agendas. Weak, dumbed down and helpless is how they like things.

Increasingly weak, dumbed down and helpless is what our societies are fast becoming.


PS, thinking about this again we may as well include the "Right Wing" in the above paragraphs. There's little difference between the Elites from the faux Right Wing and the Elites from the faux Left Wing. They're both crooks and both sides are pursuing the same agendas.


You know, God forbid people become self-sufficient.

Indeed. The rulers wouldn't like that very much because it would make their positions much less certain.

[Treffie]

Corruption is endemic in most parts of Africa, so as long as it remains, I won't give. Even Bob Geldof admitted that most of the money raised for the huge humanitarian effort for Ethiopia in the 1980's was whittled away.

[Hussar]

Also there are different parts of Africa, I'm more concerned with those closer to my people and more racially-culturally progressive first, especially about non-Muslim Europoids.


Ethiopids first :)





State/NGO programs are fine in a way, but they often miss the point by being pseudo-humane and Neo-Christian inspired, don't consider longer term consequences.
.


NGO current programs will fail indeed. Exactly like every programm of help developed since the early 60's.

Because the humanitarian passion (without logic) has allowed a continuous flux of helps to the sub-saharan Africa, but hasn't helped those populations to survive without them. This "help" has blocked their economic/material evolution.

European support (for 40-50 yrs) has helped sub-saharan population to survive (physically), but hasn't been enough to teach them to produce their own wealth.

The first example of this non equilibrate situation, is the explosive demographic factor. The European economic support allowed sub-saharans to keep inalterate, a birth rate of 5-6 children per woman, for 30-40 yrs.
So today the sub-saharan population is 4 times its number in 1960.


To clarify better the demographic problem. The point is : the socio-economic development is usually divided in 3 phases. In the first one, we're at a rural level : the life mostly obey to "natural" laws (high birth rate and high mortality = equilibrium). In the second one we're in the industrial revolution (high natality and low mortality = unbalanced rate ). In the third we're at the post industrial society, where we live now (low natality and low mortality = equilibrium reached again).

In the european case......the most umbalanced phase (the second one) was the norm (in its full intensity) just for a limited elapse of time if we look at the history of demography, and constantly decreasing after a given peak : it's like the european society had its own ability to auto-regulate itself according to the new conditions sourrounding it (social evolution, more simply).


Concrete example : europeans used to share a noticeable birth rate (5-6 births per woman) , as long as there weren't medicines etc. ; obviously taking in account a probable premature loss of part of the children : a forma of compensation. But once they reached a certain level of wealth and medical progress, wasn't necessary anymore to have so many offsprings.

In Africa.....i's a paradox : although they have medicines and food (provided by western help) they STILL keep a foolish birth rate. Why ? Because they didn't evolved at all socially. The western help to Africa, allows them to procreate without limits, but doesn't help them to reach the third phase (of the three i mentioned above). So, due such circumstances, sub-saharans are like permanently "trapped" in the second phase (for a unlimited period of time).


I made short a VERY long post........and the explaination is quite poor and exaggerately elmentar and rough, but today i'm tired and i'm suffering (37°C here :(). Sorry for my english here....:coffee:

[Agrippa]

In the european case......the most umbalanced phase (the second one) was the norm (in its full intensity) just for a limited elapse of time if we look at the history of demography, and constantly decreasing after a given peak : it's like the european society had its own ability to auto-regulate itself according to the new conditions sourrounding it (social evolution, more simply).


Concrete example : europeans used to share a noticeable birth rate (5-6 births per woman) , as long as there weren't medicines etc. ; obviously taking in account a probable premature loss of part of the children : a forma of compensation. But once they reached a certain level of wealth and medical progress, wasn't necessary anymore to have so many offsprings.

Thats far too optimistic. The European special social, marriage and family pattern is far older and based on the elimination of the traditional society due to Feudalism-Christianity.

It never was well regulated in more modern times and is now highly destructive, so to correlate it simply with medical treatment and health is insufficient, especially if considering that regionally the birth rates varied significantly under comparable social-medical conditions.

This is the result of cultural, memetic traditions, which influence the spiritual and social outlook and status of the people. Simple put, since Feudalism-Christianity, many children and the bloodline were not value in itself for the simple farmer and later bourgeois population. The first looked at them as working force, but often used contraception or infanticide, sexual abstinence to not endanger the inheritance, especially in areas without too much free land and jobs.

So European, latest since Christianity, were in a way "anti-familial" and "anti-sexual", in Christianity the celibacy and having no sexual relationships at all was the highest ideal, just living "spiritually", for "Christ's sake" ;)

This means there was a different transition here which is in no way natural nor a good cultural regulation in Europe, it was just a reaction because of certain conditions in the wider cultural framework and it DOESN'T WORK!

That is why we have the demographic catastrophy right now, also compare with this:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12370

Also the "international aid" was not just a good-doer thing, often there were concrete economic-political interests involved and what institutions of the Plutocracy did, like the World Bank, can only be considered exploitative, especially if looking which programs they often forced upon the already poor people there.

They used tricks and corruption to cheat many states - in fact all states of the world using debt based money - into the deep debt.

In Africa it was very easy and if the politicians didn't follow the "advices", they were eliminated, just watch the great documentary "Let's make Money" from Wagenhofer.

Fact is, Africans need strict programs for rebuilding or building up (the first time) their basic economy and society, but neither do-gooder moral and Neo-Christian crap-aid - unless being directed in a meaningful way, and of course no Plutocratic bloodsuckers.

If we remove the latter, they will have a better chance of organising themselves with a little bit of help and it won't be detrimental for us, we should just make clear what we want, f.e. those countries taking back or just taking our non-integrable foreign elements...

[poiuytrewq0987]

We need more of this:
http://www.islandcrisis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/TigerWoodsElinNordegren.jpg

[The Lawspeaker]

Shame that she's such a tart as she is one very beautiful woman that could have made any European man very happy.

[Hussar]

Thats far too optimistic. The European special social, marriage and family pattern is far older and based on the elimination of the traditional society due to Feudalism-Christianity.
It never was well regulated in more modern times and is now highly destructive, so to correlate it simply with medical treatment and health is insufficient, especially if considering that regionally the birth rates varied significantly under comparable social-medical conditions.
This is the result of cultural, memetic traditions, which influence the spiritual and social outlook and status of the people. Simple put, since Feudalism-Christianity, many children and the bloodline were not value in itself for the simple farmer and later bourgeois population. The first looked at them as working force, but often used contraception or infanticide, sexual abstinence to not endanger the inheritance, especially in areas without too much free land and jobs.

So European, latest since Christianity, were in a way "anti-familial" and "anti-sexual", in Christianity the celibacy and having no sexual relationships at all was the highest ideal, just living "spiritually", for "Christ's sake" ;)

This means there was a different transition here which is in no way natural nor a good cultural regulation in Europe, it was just a reaction because of certain conditions in the wider cultural framework and it DOESN'T WORK!

That is why we have the demographic catastrophy right now, also compare with this:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12370

Also the "international aid" was not just a good-doer thing, often there were concrete economic-political interests involved and what institutions of the Plutocracy did, like the World Bank, can only be considered exploitative, especially if looking which programs they often forced upon the already poor people there.

They used tricks and corruption to cheat many states - in fact all states of the world using debt based money - into the deep debt.

In Africa it was very easy and if the politicians didn't follow the "advices", they were eliminated, just watch the great documentary "Let's make Money" from Wagenhofer.

Fact is, Africans need strict programs for rebuilding or building up (the first time) their basic economy and society, but neither do-gooder moral and Neo-Christian crap-aid - unless being directed in a meaningful way, and of course no Plutocratic bloodsuckers.

If we remove the latter, they will have a better chance of organising themselves with a little bit of help and it won't be detrimental for us, we should just make clear what we want, f.e. those countries taking back or just taking our non-integrable foreign elements...



In my post i hyper simplified (sorry).....i barely can write in this moment ! :roll eyes

[blan]

the way i see it why help when whites will be blamed for helping in the future,
we brought our religons to them and now they claim we forced our white man religion on them.
when we give them our traditional educational systems then come the critics and say that we cant force our european system on people of another culture,
then programs start and the missionaries and ngo types they are ripped off and then leave generally within 3-5 years or less like 1 year.
we are told that the missionaries arent wanted and that they dont want them disturbing there wonderful culture.

[Osweo]

Where is the 'HELL, NO!' option? :confused:

To be fair though... (;)) THIS:
http://www.africancrisis.org/images/Political_Map_of_Africa.gif
... hardly matches THIS very well:
http://www.africancrisis.org/images/Secret_Map_of_Tribal_Ethnic_Regions_of_Africa.jpg
or THIS:
http://mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/africa_ethnic_groups_1996.jpg

Well though... that may have been a naughty policy of the decolonising powers at the time they withdrew, but it's not our problem any more.

Two of the maps there were from this article, which blames the African elites themselves;

http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=24664
[2 Pics] [Map] The Secret Map of Ethnic Africa they DON'T want you to see...
Date Posted: Thursday 27-Mar-2008
I wrote an article recently wherein I mentioned the complete hypocrisy of African leaders in retaining the Colonial boundaries of Africa. It is something which they and Black Intellectuals in Africa and America complain about incessantly, and yet, they have chosen, by way of a little-known resolution in the OAU (Organisation of African Unity), whose successor is the AU (African Union), to deliberately keep the borders of Africa exactly as they were! Why?

It is in fact, the Afrikaners of South Africa, who are the pioneers of the concept of REDRAWING BORDERS IN AFRICA. But nobody gives them any credit for their intellectual input in this matter! In fact... NOBODY EVEN WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS SUBJECT!

Yet, I ask myself if the redrawing of borders might not help to resolve some of the problems where smaller tribes are dominated by others?

And why should this be a BIG SECRET? Why should we NOT talk about this idea? If Black African leaders and Black Intellectuals in America and in Africa complain that "Colonial borders are a problem" and this is now "The Black Man's burden", the cross which the Black man must bear... Well, why not remove the burden? Why not solve the problem?

For more see: Untold story: The Hypocrisy of African Leaders - Using Genocide against Blacks to retain Colonial borders!

Below is the map of Africa you have come to know. It is identical in borders to when Africa was decolonised in the 1950's and 1960's. It contains the 54 African countries you have come to know:-

But here is the map of Africa you won't see. It is an ethnic map of Africa showing the tribal boundaries of the 300 tribes of Africa. This map is the REAL AFRICA which is largely suppressed. Even an island, like Madagascar is owned by several tribes. The map below comes from a paper I have by Dr C. J. Kruger in Pretoria. It was part of a paper he wrote in September 2000. (That contains another fascinating map of South Africa and how it is split up). But this is what Africa really looks like when you remove the colonial boundaries. I scanned it in as much detail as I could from the original physical document I have. The original source can be seen on the bottom. Look at a country like Nigeria. Then ask yourself: Why were the Biafrans not allowed to have their own little country when they wanted it? Why did a million have to die in a bloody civil war to keep the Biafrans in Nigeria?

Isn't it a bit of the same hypocrisy we see with respect to the American Civil war? The Confederate States had the legal right to secede from the USA. It was their inalienable right. Yet, the Union went to war (illegally) in order to force them, against their will back into the Union! It is a simple fact that the Union's actions, regardless of their moral or other justification were in fact illegal. The USA was maintained as a single state BY ILLEGAL FORCE. Is that not what is happening in Africa? Aren't some Black Africans being forced to remain in states they do not want to be a part of? Aren't their human rights being violated? Weren't the human rights of the Biafrans violated? Weren't the human rights of the Matabele in Zimbabwe or the Anjouans today being violated?
Posted By: Jan
AfricanCrisis Webmaster
Author of: Government by Deception

[RoyBatty]

The whole scenario around Western "aid" for Africa and other third world countries is bizarre.

On the one hand you have Western Governments and Elites ripping off Africa and the Third World, waging wars against them for territory and resources and effectively forcing them into serfdom and slavery via a complex system of unfair trade arrangements and control over local agriculture, industry etc.

On the other hand, these same gangsters operating from the West then promote "humanitarianism" and bleeding-heart type policies to "save the poor Africans" but with DONATIONS AND FUNDS COMING STRAIGHT FROM OUR POCKETS OF COURSE, NOT THEIR OWN.

Not only are they ripping off the Africans, they're ripping us off and playing us for suckers. Many amongst us are too daft to realise this and instinctively "give" when professional beggars approach us with teary eyed requests for assistance to the "less fortunate people around the world".

[Eldritch]

The whole scenario around Western "aid" for Africa and other third world countries is bizarre.

On the one hand you have Western Governments and Elites ripping off Africa and the Third World, waging wars against them for territory and resources and effectively forcing them into serfdom and slavery via a complex system of unfair trade arrangements and control over local agriculture, industry etc.

On the other hand, these same gangsters operating from the West then promote "humanitarianism" and bleeding-heart type policies to "save the poor Africans" but with DONATIONS AND FUNDS COMING STRAIGHT FROM OUR POCKETS OF COURSE, NOT THEIR OWN.

Not only are they ripping off the Africans, they're ripping us off and playing us for suckers. Many amongst us are too daft to realise this and instinctively "give" when professional beggars approach us with teary eyed requests for assistance to the "less fortunate people around the world".

In other words:

Development aid = redistribution of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries. ;)

[Inese]

People of Europe should help Europe and African people should help each other ---- but it is not our duty to help total incompetent and backward people. :rolleyes2: And our countrys pay billion of Euros every year to Africa!! Every single cent is wasted, you know!? Really, i hate the African continent. Please explode :D , there was never anything good coming from Africa to us!

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I want to change something about financial-economic system in the world, first for my people, but also for others, I think we all, whole mankind would be better off without the current Financial Oligarchy, the Plutocracy.

Also there are different parts of Africa, I'm more concerned with those closer to my people and more racially-culturally progressive first, especially about non-Muslim Europoids.

However, I have neither good nor bad feelings towards the Negrids in Africa, I would give them a chance and help if they accept it, to our terms of course, we need trade and exchange, yet I would personally never spend money on Africans as long as people in of my nation or any other Europeans suffer too. State/NGO programs are fine in a way, but they often miss the point by being pseudo-humane and Neo-Christian inspired, don't consider longer term consequences.

I see everything in layers and priorities, first those which are related, which are more progressive and promising, then step by step and if something is left, for humane considerations, I would send help to everybody if it is not detrimental to my people...

If we can prevent suffering without significant negative consequences for higher priorities, we should do so. That's my personal opinion.

Draw your own conclusion.

I hesitated to tell the following experience with the Peace-corps volunteers in the Eastern Cape(Xhosa country)

This woman tried to explain the benefits of a condom to prevent Aids.
All went well even the free condom story.
Then a youngster stood up and asked where to get the free condoms.
"In Mthatha", I said.
"But that is 20 km away"; he answered back.
"The Taxi cost R 5.00 and you give me a months supply".

The Peace Corp doll said that there was no other way.
Out of the blue someone asked whether goats can give aids.
Not likely she answered.
So it is cheaper to make it with a goat than go to Mthatha,this sod said.


Back to square one and so much for helping out.

[Crossbow]

No. Every penny send to Africa is a penny wasted.

With the exception of people working for some (I)NGO's. They make a good living out of that help.

[The Lawspeaker]

With the exception of people working for some (I)NGO's. They make a good living out of that help.
That should be paid for by private investors and not by tax money.

[blan]

most of these ngo workers come to help and the yare given 30-80 thousand dollars for 2 months of work, they stay in 5 star hotels, i could do the same work that they do with less than 2000 dollars



With the exception of people working for some (I)NGO's. They make a good living out of that help.

[anonymaus]

On the one hand...

On the other hand...

Not only are they ripping off the Africans, they're ripping us off and playing us for suckers.

Not to mention the influence groups who capitalize on the disarray by promoting refugee floods and mass immigration.

In Africa friends and foes can drink from the same watering hole.

[Norse Sword]

You cannot help a people monetarily, who still believe eating albino Negroes will give you magical powers. The AIDS epidemic in Africa has nothing to do with poverty. Nor does the rate at which Blacks in America are infected with AIDS at levels that dwarf any other ethnic group.

It is cultural suicide.

One observation is the debacle that is Zimbabwe. The "Black" government seized control of all farmland once owned by (imperialist White farmers) and turned it over to various warlords and tribal leaders.

You know what happened? these same farms that once boosted the economy and fed a nation, fell into disuse and caused the worse inflation rate ever.

[Solwyn]

I'd like to say that I don't help, but as someone so wisely pointed out in the first few replies to this poll, I pay taxes therefore a chunk of my income goes to help one or more loser countries on this planet, who will never ever pay us back. I am big advocate of turning inward and using our money to help solve our own hunger, housing, education, and health care problems, and it really sticks in my craw that so many in the West believe that there are no problems in their backyards. If wanting to be distant in world aid makes me a bad person then I am thrilled to be awful:thumb001:

[Guapo]

Other. I donate money to organizations that help children with Down's Syndrome, Autism and other disorders. Don't care what color they are.

[Eldritch]

Someone suggested I direct your attention to this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17242), and in particular post #4.

I'll also give you another example of how helping Africans (or at least exposing them to civilization) can backfire in horrific ways:

OqQYRXeO0bI

[Sahson]

But "education" is a bad word for leftists, that's why they keep dumbing down the school system in Western countries. They love giving people handouts, it makes them feel better about their pathetic selves. They're like those mothers who breatfeed their kids until they're like 10.

You know, God forbid people become self-sufficient.

Where did you get that Idea from? :confused: I'm a social liberal in many respects, which means I'm rather left-winged about most things. However education is definitely not a bad word for any government that has a left-wing agenda, in fact on the contrary quite the opposite really.

Social governments will pour every $ into Education, and anything else for the people. It's why Rudd spent $48billion on Education, and Healthcare. So I don't understand why you would think of such a thing, since his agenda is a social liberal one.

The major problem with Africa, or some African nations is their government. In Sudan there are schools, but the northern Sudanese keep bombing the southerners, and will bomb their schools, some kids have to go into a bomb shelter, which in every respect is the only infrastructure.

I have lived in Dar Es Salaam, in Tanzania. I have friends who are from Zambia and Zimbawbe. The people from Zambia was no more studious then the Australian people I know of, but they do study nevertheless. As for the people from Zimbawbe, well they were women, and extremely studious. Perhaps this is because of what you have pointed out earlier on in a previous post AcadianDriftwood.

Tanzania is a peaceful nation, but one of the poorest, People there are not really looked after properly. I went there with family, because of my dad's business; The diamonds, and gold Tanzania has is good for my dad's business.

We were there for 2 years, and the reason why Tanzania has issues, is mainly the lack of government funding, and the fact that the African business are raped by Western countries in their diamond and gold sales.

I was surprised just how cheap a 1 carat diamond is over there. Back then I could get a 1 carat diamond for 48,000 Tanzanian Shillings, and a 5 carat for 150,000 Tanzanian shillings. This is $40, and $115 (Australian) respectively. My father has said that businesses in the gold & diamonds of Tanzania don't sell their goods any more to Europe and Australia then they do to the white people in Tanzania.

The average wage in Tanzania is 1,800 Tanzanian Shillings back then. 600 shillings can get you a plump chicken, but it will cost you 4,500 shillings for a meal at KFC. You can imagine what would happen if a local Tanzanian could sell a 1 carat or 5 carat diamond to a white person, or someone who can afford to pay 48,000 shillings plus.

I know last year I talked to a friend in Tanzania to send over some diamonds for my girlfriend at the time, since they were cheap they. It cost me less then $300 and he sent me two 7 carat diamonds over.

There's similar issues with Myanmar as well, Rubies in Myanmar are incredibly cheap. My dad had a Burmese worker who would go back to see his son & family. My dad asked him a favor I think this was my parents 8th anniversary, and my mom wanted some rubies, so my father asked him to bring some back.

Well with $100, or back then MYR800 he brought back 6 large rubies. The funny thing of this story is that he got the stones put into a ring cast, so he could bring it back. the ring to put the gems in, cost him more then the rubies themselves.

[Bloodeagle]

Hell no, I wouldn't send money to Africa. :icon_yell:

It is hard enough for my family and friends to get by in this world, without shelling out hard earned cash, to prolong the pain of these unfortunate souls.

I say, let evolution take its course, with these Africans.
Perhaps, they might evolve into something similar to ourselves in a few thousand millennium.:)

[Wulfhere]

I think my countrymen in the 19th and early 20th centuries did more than enough to try and help Africa, only to be told to fuck of.

[Moonbird]

No, I don't give money to Africa. If I have any money left over I give it to better causes like e.g. cancer research or Finnish war veterans.

[Svanhild]

No money for Africa. I donate some Euros to German homeless people and to a women's refuge here around Hamburg habitually.

[poiuytrewq0987]

I think it's pretty funny that we are so concerned with helping Africa when we've got tons of Europeans who aren't as well-off as most of us. For instance in Bosnia and parts of former Yugoslavia people live on just $200/mo in rural areas and less populated parts of the country. Moldova is another good example, I don't think they live on more than $2 a day.

[Absinthe]

Other; I donate to the Apricity and today I also decided to donate to a dog shelter :)

[RoyBatty]

I think my countrymen in the 19th and early 20th centuries did more than enough to try and help Africa, only to be told to fuck of.

Uhm, not that my heart is bleeding for the poor natives but what you're claiming is simply not true. Your countrymen were primarily helping themselves to large slices of Africa with a little window-dressing "help" thrown in for PR purposes.

Colonisation, exploitation and enslavement does not equal charity, last time I checked. :thumbs up :D

[RoyBatty]

We need more of this:
http://www.islandcrisis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/TigerWoodsElinNordegren.jpg

Send the white skank to Africa, Europe has no use for her. :thumb001:

[nisse]

I think it's pretty funny that we are so concerned with helping Africa when we've got tons of Europeans who aren't as well-off as most of us. For instance in Bosnia and parts of former Yugoslavia people live on just $200/mo in rural areas and less populated parts of the country. Moldova is another good example, I don't think they live on more than $2 a day.

I don't think anyone is concerned about helping Africa. People only want to help themselves and those they care about...and those near them they don't care about (once in a while, when they are in a particularily good mood). This whole "we must help Africa", "I am so sorry for their suffering", etc. etc. is pure hypocritical BS.

That was the whole point of this thread - to show that no one cares. It almost worked. Looks like Loki cares though.

[RoyBatty]

In other words:

Development aid = redistribution of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries. ;)

Yes that also applies, but more specifically it's from the gullible middleclass in rich countries to the Elites and Rich in rich countries. The rich in poor countries get the crumbs. The poor in the poor countries... well, they get nothing of course.

Remember, most of that so-called "Aid" probably never even makes it to Africa even though the claimed intention by Western "NGO's" (NGO's are usually fronts for Intelligence Agencies) and Governments is to use it for this purpose.

National Statistics claiming "country X spent so many millions / billions on foreign aid" are completely meaningless without an exhaustive analysis on the accounts. If one spends a bit more time poking through the books and figures you'll probably find that huge sums of money were paid to contractors and suppliers in the rich Western Country (naturally they are on first name terms with the politicians who decide on these expenditures) to supply supposed "relief materials".

Those materials are usually expired / near expired medicines (worthless), surplus GM Foods (so of course the GM companies get a foot in the door in the already suffering country's agricultural sector), other goods probably worth a fraction of what the Government paid for with our taxes.

In Africa itself the local ruling mobsters will naturally cream off and resell whatever materials do turn up. Oh... there'll be a staged happy photo opportunity with some AP footage for a little "feel-good" News Insert showing happy skinny natives with huge toothy grins eagerly grabbing "food aid" or whatever was sent their way.

Whitey in Europe will watch this spectacle unfold on TV and congratulate him / herself for being so generous to the poor children of nature and go to bed feeling all warm and fuzzy inside, happy in the knowledge that he / she lives in such a civilised Western country which does so much "good" for the less priviliged. :D

Oh well.....call me cynical but that's my view of "charity". :thumb001:

[RoyBatty]

I don't think anyone is concerned about helping Africa. People only want to help themselves and those they care about...and those near them they don't care about (once in a while, when they are in a particularily good mood). This whole "we must help Africa", "I am so sorry for their suffering", etc. etc. is pure hypocritical BS.


That's right. Most people don't really even care about THEIR OWN culture countrymen / women, never mind "Africans" or whatever.

It's just that when it comes to the West in particular, people have been brainwashed into acting and thinking along politically correct terms. They're mortified of being exposed for "not caring about the poor 3d world" or "global warming" or "offending anybody" blah blah blah so they go along with this act, in the process more or less convincing even themselves! :D

[Megrez]

My country is currently leading the MINUSTAH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti), which is the United Nations Stabilization Mission In Haiti, a country that can be considered part of Africa. Of course part of the taxes I pay go for it.

[Liffrea]

People starve, people die, they get crushed in earthquakes and drown in floods, it’s not nice and I don’t take pleasure in it, but I am indifferent, it is the way of the world, and their problems won’t be alleviated in the long term by large amounts of cash (nor in the short term either if we are honest), people (singular and plural) rise or fall on their own efforts and merits, of course nature plays a part but it is a singular human judgement to claim “fairness” and “justice” where there is none.

Humans call nature “cruel” and life “unfair”, which says fascinating things about humans but less about the nature of reality.

[Ibericus]

No, and I will never do.

[blan]

my feeling on the minustah are mixed, most people agree that they really do not do anything in the country.
however before they the UN forces took over there were hordes of gangs running the streets and political issues that were turning into civil war.
Since they have been around its not like that anymore.
i feel much better with them around. the bases near me a chilie and Nepal with a few police from africa, canada, and the usa russia and france.
Brazil is mainly in pap the capitol and many were killed 5 years ago when the gangs were more powerful.
Honestly i know they should not be there and its not Brazils concern but i am happy they are around.




My country is currently leading the MINUSTAH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Stabilization_Mission_in_Haiti), which is the United Nations Stabilization Mission In Haiti, a country that can be considered part of Africa. Of course part of the taxes I pay go for it.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Other; I donate to the Apricity and today I also decided to donate to a dog shelter :)

Why should I donate to Apricity when you leave me to rot in Africa in a dog shelter.:cool:

[Lulletje Rozewater]

That's right. Most people don't really even care about THEIR OWN culture countrymen / women, never mind "Africans" or whatever.

It's just that when it comes to the West in particular, people have been brainwashed into acting and thinking along politically correct terms. They're mortified of being exposed for "not caring about the poor 3d world" or "global warming" or "offending anybody" blah blah blah so they go along with this act, in the process more or less convincing even themselves! :D

The main purpose of donations,charity is to help the others rebuilt their lives. Whether we are talking about people who lost their homes, about the ones who have to fight financial difficulties, the gesture of donating is the one that matters. But the fact is that we all deal, even if occasionally, with financial problems and so, we tend to forget about the ones that are in real troubles that can be even considered life-threatening. The fact is that a donation does not need to be very substantial. Basically, donations charity can start from a couple of dollars to great sums of money. As long as we are considerate and willing to help, any amount is a step towards a better future. And this is all that matters.


Why then do the needy reject my coffins to alleviate their miserable future.

[itsdumbledørebaby]

No. I don't see the point in giving these money grubbing heathens food, shelter, and other goods because.. Look at them! They're obese creatures in good health. They have everything they need, why should we give them more? Freeloading sacks of shit! :eek: