Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Governments are for the Corporations: As Then, So Now

with one comment

You may think I’m nuts focusing on the creation of the diamond and gold empire from South Africa, and its connections to the United States government, higher (and lower) institutions of learning, in fact the colonial tripartite educational system (elite // middle // lower) and ITS history, why so much emphasis on social science and psychology in (America, today), and the tax code — which, with it, has implications for whether or not we even own ourselves, or our own offspring.

Then we want the legal system that really came with the corporation, to somehow protect us, when in fact the primary legal — social — educational — and media — SYSTEMS are spinoffs of colonialism.

And some of the corporations established in this manner (colonialism, displacing people, stripping the land of assets, concentration camps, labor camps, slave labor, if necessary, genocides, splitting up families for “the cause,” etc.) — are still around being run by the descendants.  A lot of the wealth (not all, but a lot) was made before the United States degraded its currency and set up the income tax (and all that).  It’s also fascinating to see how they were started.

Because the basic DNA hasn’t changed that much, I believe.

However we cannot deny there are international connections and historical connections between South Africa, Southwest Africa and the British and German Corporations that settled them, and some International ones — and how things are going now, internationally.

There is also a connection between how the Prussians/Germans responded to rebellions against being colonized and displaced — and education systems (then and now) and in general, some things have changed– but it sure don’t look like strategies or polices have.

I can then show in how state governments (as in, for example, the state of Massachusetts, or California, or Maryland, etc.) are treating state citizens — essentially lying to them about their own assets (one rule for us, another for you) while attempting to consolidate control, exploit the human population as a resource, and of course raise taxes.

But no one wants to believe it — because the United States isn’t all THAT bad, is it?

  • So in order to discuss some of the courts — we have to face the finances.  For example:
  • And who we’re dealing with, that would put forth some whoppers like this, and so entrench everyone into the system that, to pull the rug out wouldn’t be in their own best interests.
  • So the “CAFR” stuff NOW has to be shown in perspective of how these things were set up to work.


THE DUTCH WEREN’T APPARENTLY MUCH BETTER (THEY WANTED THAT SLAVERY, SET UP APARTHEID (ONE OF THEM DID, ANYHOW) AND OF COURSE A NATIONAL EDUCATION SYSTEM.  (Henrik Frensch Verwoerd).  Our American Education system is modeled on the Prussian one, for that matter. We are talking late 1800s, Great Scramble mentality.

Some day this material will sink in, I’ll bet.   For divorcing or separating people now who want Family Court Reform, personal protection, child support enforced or child support reduced, and ethical individuals in the courtroom; they want to be treated like real people and not an exploitable resource (either for a former spouse, or for the local county’s courts) Let’s Get More Honest about what time of day it is.  That court exists as part of a very, very large commercial operation, funded by the public/private enterprises (which our government now is), which you gave jurisdiction to (not your fault, our population was trained) in form of consent, somewhere along the line:   I “consent” to do commerce by seeking some service from this very large corporation (USA, Inc.) — either get a license, get a marriage certificate, birth certificate, and face it — social security (trust) number.  Moreover, I “consent” to working for a wage and given central HQ a cut in advance for investment “for my benefit,”; moreover in order to keep the hours required for this wage sufficient to pay (rent, mortgage debt, survive, etc.), whether subsistence or middle class, I “consent” to send my kids off to the local schools to be trained up in the right way to live, the dominant politically correct value systems, and not how to run businesses, invest, or learn a true version of history.

It was not too many generations ago that people fought the issuance of SS#s for children — it’s not ALWAYS been here, you know…  Obviously.  So overall, we have consented (regardless of how good or bad the alternatives – -not consenting — seemed at any stage) to many things which have contributed to no real ethics or justice in government any longer.

Well, once we get into the charters, it’s clear that the indigenous people made some mistakes when they consented to give the future colonizers something — either mineral rights (King Lobengula of the Matabele), or something…

CAFR: If $600B ‘fund’ can’t fund $27B pension, $16B deficit, why have it?

Carl Herman
Washington’s Blog
June 18, 2012

RELATED: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2011
RELATED: 2011 CalPERS Comprehensive Annual Financial Ended June 30, 2011
RELATED: CA CAFR shows $600 billion tax surplus, 1% demand ‘austerity’

(I’m getting there — not to day on the above topic…)

So consider this post another “core sample” of the history of Diamonds, and Gold (both discovered in Sub-saharan Africa) and how the Germans and British (who are related through their monarchies anyhow) handled things, and learned from each other, and the nastier and less honest the things they learned (sometimes using American technology), the greater the profits and wider the empire.

In this matter, I did talk about Middle Class education is for control of the Lower Class for the privilege of the Elites.  IN THIS, we can look at the Prussian model of compulsory state education, inspired by an unexpected and humiliating defeat (1806) by Napoleonic armies.  “Never again” quoth the Raven the Prussians, and set up a hypermasculine, serve-the state, three-tiered education system to this day.

Hegel apparently was involved in setting up the Prussian educational system, but that should be on a separate post.  What I am trying to tell us is quit believing all the myths, and start to understand where each (whoever reads this post) stands in the mix.  Pls. excuse slapping up some Wikipedia just to reference it, here.

The twin battles of Jena and Auerstedt (older name: Auerstädt) were fought on 14 October 1806 on the plateau west of the riverSaale in today’s Germany, between the forces of Napoleon I of France and Frederick William III of Prussia. The decisive defeat suffered by the Prussian Army subjugated the Kingdom of Prussia to the French Empire until the Sixth Coalition was formed in 1812.

~ ~ ~

The battle proved most influential in demonstrating the need for liberal reforms in what was then still a very much feudal Prussian state and army. Important Prussian reformers likeScharnhorst,GneisenauandClausewitzserved at the battle. Their reforms, together with civilian reforms instituted over the following years, began Prussia’s transformation into a modern state, which took the forefront in expelling France from Germany and eventually assumed a leading role on the continent.

TheGermanphilosopherHegel, who was then a professor at theUniversity of Jena, is said to have completed hischef d’œuvre, thePhenomenology of Spirit, while the battle raged. Hegel considered this battle to be “the end of the history”, in terms of evolution of human societies towards what we would call the “universal homogeneous state”[2]

HEGEL — File under EUROCENTRIC and other people are objects in the subject’s hands.

Eurocentrism of Hegel, Marx, Mueller, Monier Williams, Husserlby Rajiv Malhotra Co. 2001:


During the colonial era, the naïve assumption of Western superiority was given authority by thinkers such as Hegel, who developed a “universal” theory of history, which was, in essence, a theory of European history in which the rest of the World was taken to be objects rather than subjects. For Hegel, as Said has pointed out, Asia and Africa were “static, despotic, and irrelevant to world history.”1 Hegel’s view of history was highly influential, on both Marxist and humanist historiography.

His rather extreme ethnocentrism should thus not be swept under the rug, but analyzed as a central aspect of his thought. Since Hegel, Ethnocentrism has often blinded the West to the parochialism of its supposed “universals”.

Particularly egregious are the attempts by thinkers such as Hegel to define as universal features that are, in fact, quite culturally specific. This includes his “universal history”, which saw Europe and America as the pinnacles of human evolution. Hegel wrote, for example, “universal history goes from East to West. Europe is absolutely the end of universal history. Asia is the beginning.”2

This idea was clearly a justification of Western colonial exploitation. But Hegel took the idea even further. Since his “history” is solely defined in Eurocentric terms, any act committed by the Europeans, no matter how reprehensible, is justifiable as a necessary step in human evolution. Hegel wrote that:

“Because history is the configuration of the Spirit in the form of event, the people which receives the Spirit as its natural principle…is the one that dominates in that epoch of world history…Against the absolute right of that people who actually are the carriers of the world Spirit, the spirit of other peoples has no other right.”3

Hegel saw the evolution of human history as a unified totality, proceeding via the evolution of the “world spirit”. The “world spirit”, for Hegel, was Western, with other cultures subsumed to the dustbin of history, forced either to adapt to the West or be trampled underfoot by this “world spirit”, which in Hegel’s writing appears as a complex metaphor for the reality of Western aggression. Even within the West, Germany occupies a special destiny. Hegel writes4:

“The Germanic Spirit (germanische Geist) is the Spirit of the New World (neuen Welt), whose end is the realization of the absolute truth, as the infinite self-determination of liberty that has for its content its proper absolute form. The principle of the German Empire ought to accommodate the Christian religion. The destiny of the Germanic peoples is that of serving as the bearer of the Christian principle.”

All non-Europeans are mere objects in the hands of the Europeans, under this theory of history. When applying his theories to Africans, Hegel arrived at the following blatantly racist conclusions5:

“It is characteristic of the blacks that their consciousness has not yet even arrived at the intuition of any objectivity, as for example, of God or the law, in which humanity relates to the world and intuits its essence. …He [the black person] is a human being in the rough.”

Colonialization was the teleological imperative by which consciousness in the form of the superior Europeans must appropriate the others. He wrote6:

“By a dialectic which is appropriate for surpassing itself, in the first place, such a society is driven to look beyond itself to new consumers. Therefore it seeks its means of subsistence among other peoples which are inferior to it with respect to the resources which it has in excess, such as those of industry. This expansion of relations also makes possible that colonization to which, under systematic or sporadic form, a fully established civil society is impelled. Colonization permits it that one part of its population, located on the new territory, returns to the principle of family property and, at the same time, procures for itself a new possibility and field of labor.”

Hegel also applied this “logic” specifically to his analysis of India. He depicted the British colonialization of India as an inevitable stage in his process of “evolution”. He wrote:

“The British, or rather the East India Company, are the masters of India because it is the fatal destiny of Asian empires to subject themselves to the Europeans.”7

. . . .

Europe possessed, according to this paradigm, exceptional internal characteristics which permitted it to surpass all other cultures in rationality. This thesis, which adopts a Eurocentric (as opposed to world) paradigm, reigns not only in Europe and the United States, but also among intellectuals in the peripheral world. The pseudo-scientific periodization of history into Antiquity, the Middle (preparatory) Ages, and finally the Modern (European) Age is an ideological construct which deforms world history. One must break with this reductionist horizon to open to a world and planetary perspective – and there is an ethical obligation toward other cultures to do so.

Chronology reflects geopolitics. According to the Eurocentric paradigm, modern subjectivity especially developed between the times of the Italian Renaissance and the Reformation and of the Enlightenment in Germany and the French Revolution. Everything occurred in Europe.”

See Brits/BSAC (1889), Germans/DKG (1886?) and Brits/Germans/the new Colony SWAC (1892)

I’m thinking, very deeply, about just how much of what we think of as American, contributed to some of this — whether technology, or being a marketplace for products we just don’t need.  Right now, the “indigenous people” of the united states seems to include pretty much not only the ones who were indigenous from the start, but also those who are being colonized, as we speak, for what can be drained out of them (profits, that is).


[BSAC coat of arms]

To review:  No one really needs diamonds — they turn out to be as plentiful as the sand, although industrial diamonds are used to form other tools.  They are beautiful, but as a requirement to demonstrate marital affection and commitment, they’re a sales tool and a creation of the ad industry.

As most likely is, marriage itself anyhow.

All I know is, the characteristics of Cecil Rhodes et al. do seem to resemble the characteristics of people I’ve been dealing with for a few decades now, primarily that two-facedness, absolute lack of empathy, concern ,or morality and consistent conniving to ALWAYS win each engagement, NEVER budge an inch, NEVER concede a mistake in public (or a crime) and in general, when they are in the general area, there is no peace.  The intense pressure to never speak up, and to coverup (and, if possible, be induced to collude in) oppressing others — selling out an immediate family member seems to be a real initiation into this particular gang.   What a bunch of g-ddamn hypocrites.

However, that’s probably not topped by all the programs and initiatives stating they wish to control “bad” people and protect good, law-abiding people.

Let’s talk about who and what sets the laws.  These types of law have nothing to do with morality or ethics, and everything to do with commerce (trade).

As it shows in this flag for the BSAC.  What’s on the bottom, center?  Commerce.  Any Justice or Freedom springs off that.  They are not central — they’re peripheral.

[BSAC coat of arms]

image by Bruce Berry, 05 Sep 2002

The Royal Charter establishing the BSAC was approved on 29 October 1889 by Queen Victoria. The blazon (10 May 1909) read:

Through negotiations with Lobengula, King of the Matabele, Rhodes was able to gain access to the lands north of the Limpopo and formed the British South Africa Company (BSAC) in 1889 under a Royal Charter for the purpose of settling the territory and bringing it under British rule.

The Pioneer Column was formed and the territory of Mashonaland subsequently peacefully occupied.

By 1890 Rhodes had become Prime Minister of the Cape, but continued to steer events in his new country to the north, adding Matabeleland to the BSACo’s territory after the Matabele had been defeated in 1893. The name “Rhodesia” was first used in public by Mr. F.J. Dormer of the Argus Company in 1891. Dr. Jameson, friend and assistant to Rhodes, proposed adopting this name for the new country in 1894 at a banquet in Cape Town. On 23 April 1895 it was officially adopted. Joseph Chamberlain, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, issued a proclamation confirming the name to be official in 1897.

1,2,3,4 — Consent, Corporation, Colonization, Wars of Conquest…

Here a link to how they were mowed down with the Maxim guns: (First Matabele war):

There was a delay just over two months (August to October) while Jameson corresponded with Rhodes in Cape Town and considered how to amass enough troops to undertake an invasion of Matabeleland.

BSAP columns rode from Fort Salisbury and Fort Victoria, and combined at Iron Mine Hill, around the centre point of the country, on 16 October 1893.[2] Together the force totalled about 700 men, commanded by Major Patrick Forbes and equipped with five Maxim machine guns. Forbes’ combined column moved on the Matabele king’s capital at Bulawayo, to the south-west. An additional force of 700 Bechuanas marched on Bulawayo from the south under Khama III, the most influential of the Bamangwato chiefs, and a staunch ally of the British. The Matabele army mobilised to prevent Forbes from reaching the city, and twice engaged the column as it approached: on 25 October, 3,500 warriors assaulted the column near the Shangani River.[3] Lobengula’s troops were well-drilled and formidable by pre-colonial African standards, but the pioneers’ Maxim guns, which had never before been used in battle, far exceeded expectations, according to an eyewitness “mow[ing] them down literally like grass”.[4] By the time the Matabele withdrew, they had suffered around 1,500 fatalities; the BSAP, on the other hand, had lost only four men.[4] A week later, on 1 November, 2,000 Matabele riflemen and 4,000 warriors attacked Forbes at Bembesi, about 30 miles (48 km) north-east of Bulawayo,[3] but again they were no match for the crushing firepower of the major’s Maxims: about 2,500 more Matabele were killed.[3] Lobengula fled Bulawayo as soon as he heard the news from Bembesi.[3] On reaching the outskirts of Bulawayo on 3 November 1893, the pioneers blew up the magazine there, setting the royal town ablaze.[2] They marched into the settlement the next day, set up base in the “White Man’s Camp” already present, and nailed the company flag and the Union Jack to a conveniently placed tree.[5] The reconstruction of Bulawayo began almost as soon as the fires were out, with a new white-run city rising atop the ruins of Lobengula’s former residence.[6]

One more time.  HISTORICALLY, it’s the corporation (“commerce”) first, complete with force (arms to protect), then the legal structure (one law for it, another for the people slated to be colonized), then the political.  seems to me, anyhow.

British South Africa Company : introduction

Between 1890 and September 1923 the territory now known as Zimbabwe was administered by the British South Africa Company (BSAC) in terms of a Royal Charter granted to Cecil John Rhodes by Queen Victoria.  The Charter empowered the BSAC to, inter alia, make treaties, promulgate laws, preserve the peace, maintain a police force, acquire new concessions and generally provide, at the Company’s expense, the infrastructure of a new Colony.

Am I the only one, or does this sound something like what we have in the United States, or had?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


The first flag of sovereignty flown over what is now Zimbabwe was the British Union Flag (Union Jack) raised at Fort Salisbury on 13 September 1890, which marked the beginning of prolonged British influence in the region. Instrumental in bringing European pioneers to the area was the 19th century British imperialist and financier, Cecil John Rhodes, whose British South African Company (BSAC) was later given prospecting and mining rights by the Matabele king, Lobengula. The company’s own flag had not been received from England when the Pioneer Column – financed by Rhodes and whose mission was to establish ‘control’ of Mashonaland – set out from South Africa, so a Union Jack was carried instead, the first company flag only arriving in Fort Salisbury in 1892.

The flag of the BSAC was raised in the Matabele capital of Bulawayo on 04 November 1893 after the Company’s forces led by Major Patrick Forbes drove the native Ndebele from the town. The flag consisted of a Union Jack emblazoned with the BSAC badge in the centre. The badge comprised a yellow lion holding an elephant’s tusk and standing on a red and yellow wreath or torse; under the wreath were the letters B.S.A.C. in black. The badge was derived from the crest of the arms granted to the British South Africa Company twenty years after it received its royal charter. The blazon (10 May 1909) read: Gules, the chief semee of besants, the base semee of ears of wheat Or, a fesse wavy argent between two bulls passant in chief and an elephant passant in base all proper; the fesse charged with three galleys sable, for the crest, a lion guardant passant Or, supporting with its dexter fore paw an ivory tusk erect proper. The supporters (added 25 May 1909) were two springbok.

Yep.  Anyhow, first he got consent from the King for mineral rights, and soon after, here comes the privately financed company and war.  HOW QUICK was it?  Let’s go over this again:

  • 1889 charter by Queen Victoria granted to BSAC.
  • 1890 flag raised, Cecil Rhodes being prime minister of the cape.
  • 1893 Matabele driven out  by the company’s forces (not the political, but the commercial, army), flag raised in Bulawayo.
  • 1894 or so, they were calling it “Rhodesia.”

Well, I have already plastered references to the British South Africa portion all over my two blogs, so here come the Germans — and that’s also Diamond talk:  now, Namibia, but by late 1886 or so, “German Southwest Africa.”

For a vivid, researched and relevant today description, see the chapter from American Investigative journalist Mr. Epstein’s book, published in 1982.  His research included:

(from “ENDNOTES“)
The Rise and Fall of Diamonds began as a project for the German magazine, Geo, which in 1978 was planning an American edition. The editor, Harold Kaplan, wanted a long report on the mining of diamonds, and he offered to finance a trip to the world’s diamond mines.I first went to the offices of the De Beers Diamond Trading Corporation in London at Number 2 Charterhouse Street on November 28, 1978. After receiving an initial briefing on diamond production from Richard Dickson, the public relations officer in charge of visiting journalists, I flew directly to Johannesburg, South Africa. From there I proceeded to diamond mines in Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Kimberley. Then I went to the diamond cutting centers in Antwerp and Israel, and back to De Beers’ headquarters in London. The trip took eight weeks.

 …In Johannesburg, I spent a good deal of my time at the offices of the Anglo-American Corporation at 44 Main Street. I was especially struck by the genteel and very English atmosphere that prevails here in this part of South Africa. At lunch, for example, the service begins with an English butler serving drinks. Then everyone is ushered to a long table with fine china and crystal glasses. A wine steward pours French claret while a chef, standing at a side board, carves roast beef to each guest’s taste. After the meal Cuban cigars are passed around the table. It is much more like dining in a private club in England than at a South African mining company.

Anglo-American executives who explained De Beers’ diamond mining strategy included Peter J. R. Leyden, the manager of Diamond Services, L. G. Murray, the chief geologist for De Beers, Barry R. Mortimer, the chief public relations consultant for De Beers, and Ivor Sanders, the public affairs officer at Anglo-American.

“The interview cited in the chapter with Harry Oppenheimer took place December 4, 1978, in his office. It lasted for about an hour. I was greatly impressed by the ease with which Oppenheimer could discuss the geopolitics of diamonds.”


“The question of how nations at war acquire the strategic materials they need from their enemies remains an especially difficult one to research. Throughout the Second World War, Germany was entirely dependent for its supply of industrial diamonds on its British enemy. There were no synthetic diamonds in those days, and the only source for many important types of diamonds were the mines and fields in the British Empire under the control of the diamond cartel. Despite embargoes and intensive policing by intelligence services, Hitler managed to acquire his diamonds. The source of research for this chapter is a document I acquired under a Freedom of Information request.”

(See endnotes in general).

Another source on “De Beers, Oppenheimers and the Diamond Monopoly”  brings it up to 2011, incorporates how discoveries of diamonds in Russian had to be controlled, ditto discoveries in Canada and Australia; De Beers going private (again) in 2001, the Anti-trust suit  by the United States (1945ff and a lot more).  I don’t know how much is reliable, but it is informative and gives an idea of the scope of influence:  International….

Now, about the parts the Germans claimed (lest the British get everything.  Note, Wilhelm II of Germany was a grandson of Queen Victoria.  Lots of relationship between the monarchies…)

Wikipedia on Wilhelm II; because it intersects with this business about colonization of Africa…

Wilhelm was born on 27 January 1859 at the Crown Prince’s Palace in Berlin to Prince Frederick William of Prussia(the future Frederick III) and his wife, Victoria, Princess Royal of the United Kingdom. He was the first grandchild ofQueen Victoria and Prince Albert, but more importantly, as the first son of the Crown Prince of Prussia, Wilhelm was (from 1861) the second in the line of succession to Prussia, and also, after 1871, to the German Empire, which, according to the constitution of the German Empire, was ruled by the Prussian King. He was related to many royal figures across Europe, and as war loomed in 1914, Wilhelm was on friendly terms with his cousins the Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and King George V of the United Kingdom.[1] He often tried to bully his royal relatives.

A traumatic breech birth left him with a withered left arm due to Erb’s palsy, making his left arm about 6 inches (15 centimeters) shorter than his right arm, which he tried with some success to conceal.

As a scion of the Royal house of Hohenzollern, Wilhelm was exposed from an early age to the military society of the Prussian aristocracy. This had a major impact on him and, in maturity, Wilhelm was seldom seen out of uniform. The hyper-masculine military culture of Prussia in this period {{Kingdom of Prussia only dated back to 1701}} did much to frame his political ideals and personal relationships.

Wilhelm also idolised his grandfather, Wilhelm I, and he was instrumental in later attempts to foster a cult of the first German Emperor as “Wilhelm the Great“.[5]

In many ways, Wilhelm was a victim of his inheritance and of Otto von Bismarck’s machinations. Both sides of his family had suffered from mental illness, and this may explain his emotional instability. When Wilhelm was in his early twenties, Bismarck tried to separate him from his parents (who opposed Bismarck and his policies) with some success.

Bismarck planned to use the young prince as a weapon against his parents in order to retain his own political dominance. Wilhelm thus developed a dysfunctional relationship with his parents, but especially with his English mother. In an outburst in April 1889, Wilhelm angrily implied that “an English doctor killed my father, and an English doctor crippled my arm – which is the fault of my mother”, who allowed no German physicians to attend to herself or her immediate family.[6]

Next to the throne

The German Emperor Wilhelm I died in Berlin on 9 March 1888, and Prince Wilhelm’s father was proclaimed Emperor as Frederick III. He was already suffering from an incurable throat cancer and spent all 99 days of his reign fighting the disease before dying. On 15 June of that same year, his 29-year-old son succeeded him as German Emperor and King of Prussia.

Although in his youth he had been a great admirer of Otto von Bismarck, Wilhelm’s characteristic impatience soon brought him into conflict with the “Iron Chancellor”, the dominant figure in the foundation of his empire. The new Emperor opposed Bismarck’s careful foreign policy, preferring vigorous and rapid expansion to protect Germany’s “place in the sun.” Furthermore, the young Emperor had come to the throne with the determination that he was going to rule as well as reign, unlike his grandfather, who had largely been content to leave day-to-day administration to Bismarck.

Early conflicts between Wilhelm II and his chancellor soon poisoned the relationship between the two men. Bismarck believed that Wilhelm was a lightweight who could be dominated, and he showed scant respect for Wilhelm’s policies in the late 1880s. The final split between monarch and statesman occurred soon after an attempt by Bismarck to implement a far-reaching anti-Socialist law in early 1890

Historian David Fromkin states that Wilhelm had a love-hate relationship with Britain.[17] According to Fromkin:

From the outset, the half-German side of him was at war with the half-English side. He was wildly jealous of the British, wanting to be British, wanting to be better at being British than the British were, while at the same time hating them and resenting them because he never could be fully accepted by them.[18]
Langer et al. (1968) emphasize the negative international consequences of his erratic personality:

He believed in force, and the ‘survival of the fittest’ in domestic as well as foreign politics… William was not lacking in intelligence, but he did lack stability, disguising his deep insecurities by swagger and tough talk. He frequently fell into depressions and hysterics…

…Under Wilhelm Germany attempted to develop its colonies in Africa and the Pacific, but few became self-supporting and all were lost during World War I.

In Namibia a native revolt against German rule led to the Herero and Namaqua Genocide, although Wilhelm eventually ordered it be stopped….

GERMAN SOUTHWEST AFRICA (MORE, BELOW) IS NOW “NAMIBIA.” “NAMDEB” IS A Govt/Corporation partnership: Namibia and De Beers.” See the URL below:

NAMDEB: 1994

Marine mining has surpassed land based mining in yearly production in Namibia

A 50/50 joint venture partnership with the Government of the Republic of Namibia

“Diamonds have been part of Namibia’s economy for more than 100 years. First discovered by a railroad worker named Zacharia Lewala near Lüderitz in 1908, they prompted a diamond “rush”.  The deposits along Namibia’s coast and ancient river beds are so rich that early prospectors could sometimes find stones glittering on the sandy surface of valley floors.

“Today, finding, recovering and processing diamonds is more complex, but Namibia’s resource of very high quality diamonds remains substantial. We conduct land-based alluvial mining operations in Namibia’s Northern and Southern Coastal Regions, and marine-based mining in the Atlantic Ocean off the Namibian Coast.

“Since being established in 1994, our equal partnership with the Namibian Government has added more to the country’s GDP than all other mining activities combined.

(Of course their is a philanthropic foundation to give some of the profits back):

“Namdeb has successfully ensured that the country’s most inaccessible diamond resources are turned into wealth that touches the lives of all Namibians. The Namdeb Foundation was established in 2010 as the Corporate Social Investment vehicle of Namdeb. This initiative has led to the consolidation of more than ten (10) different Namdeb funds and/or schemes which are aimed at contributing towards socio-economic development in Namibia.

“Since its inception in 2010, the Namdeb Foundation has enjoyed a long and proud tradition of supporting communities throughout Namibia, thereby demonstrating the virtue of goodwill towards the plight of the needy and disadvantaged communities through financial and material donations”

This “history” description is completely devoid, naturally, of WHO built the railways within 6 years.  Or that, while acknowledging that a Texan (Sammy Collins) did start mining underwater in the 1960s, all the double-dealing and sabotage that (De Beers at the time?) undertook to put him out of business and make sure there was no real competition….  See Chapter 19 of the Epstein book for details.


Rocky coast near Lüderitz = Peter Tarr

The key word in re: “Luderitz” should be, approximately, this image, which is over 100 years old.  Kodak was just getting started, apparently, around this time:

Herero who survived their escape through the arid desert of Omaheke.

Boys in Chains

GERMAN SOUTHWEST AFRICA  in 1913 (dark green)


For nearly 400 years after Bartolomeu Dias dropped anchor in its waters, the bay remained an obscure anchorage on a barren part of the African coast, except for a rapacious scramble for whales and guano in the 19th century.

Angra Pequena would change forever after Adolf Lüderitz, a merchant from Bremen in Germany, contrived to purchase the bay and adjacent land in 1883. In addition he later purchased all of the coast to the south as far as the Orange River and to the north as far as the Kunene River.

Within months Imperial Germany placed his acquisitions under its “protection” and proceeded to colonise the future South West Africa. The process took exactly a year, from its inception on 24 April 1884 to the dispatch of a resident commissioner on 23 April 1885, with Angra Pequena utilised as the entrepot. The offshore islands and Walfisch Bay, earlier annexed to Britain, remained in British hands.

For lack of a natural harbour elsewhere, Angra Pequena remained the principal port for German South West Africa, despite its being out of the way in the south. It was renamed Lüderitzbucht (Lüderitz Bay), eventually shortened to Lüderitz, after Adolf Lüderitz was drowned at sea in 1886. A plaque in his memory is located on Shark Island.

THE MAN WHO BOUGHT A COUNTRYFranz Adolf Eduard Lüderitz, the man in the gold-rimmed glasses, was an unlikely empire builder. A tobacco merchant from the German city of Bremen, he inherited the family business from his father after he himself had failed as a rancher in Mexico, where as a young man he bred horses and cattle.One day he looked at a map of Africa, saw an empty space and decided to take it, since “nothing better (was) left.” Foreign powers such as Britain, France, Belgium and Portugal were fast gobbling up the continent.Lüderitz sought and obtained prior assurance of German protection when in 1882 he declared his intention to build a factory for purposes of trade on a desert coast he had never seen. His grand design was to acquire possession of land in the interior from tribal chiefs and to “introduce German goods under German labels”.

For such a project he needed “the protection of the German flag”. Besides he did not want to pay duties to the British authorities on imports through Walfisch Bay.

LUDERITZ HELPED BUY UP THE LAND, CONTRACTED FOR GOLD ( BUT NOT PAID IN GOLD), DIDN’T FIND THE GOLD & COPPER HE’D EXPECTED, BUT NOTICE WHO BOUGHT HIM OUT — THE CHARTERED COMPANY “DKG.”   3 years later, he dies at sea (reminds me of “Barnato” after Rhodes bought him out), and about a generation later, someone discovers the diamonds.

He initially sent out a young man named Heinrich Vogelsang as his agent. Vogelsang persuaded Joseph Fredericks, a tribal chief who claimed suzerainty over that part of the coast, to part with Angra Pequena — the anchorage along with all land within a radius of 8 km — for £100 in gold coin and 200 rifles.As it turned out, Lüderitz did not pay the £100 in gold, but in trade goods. The good chief for his part chose not to reveal that his predecessor, David Fredericks, had already sold part of the land to someone else.Less than three months after the first deal, Vogelsang bought all of the coast from Angra Pequena to the Orange River, to a width of 20 “geographical miles”. Known for a time as Lüderitzland, the acquisition contained vast treasure in the form of diamonds, although nobody knew it at the time. It would eventually become the Sperrgebiet.The agreed price was £500 in gold and 60 rifles, but as before no gold changed hands. Lüderitz again paid in trade goods.

Vogelsang had plied Joseph Fredericks with strong drink. Moreover he led him to believe that geographical (or German) miles were identical to English miles when they were in fact five times as long. When the chief later became aware of the deception, he rued the loss of “more than half of Bethanie” (his tribal territory).

Lüderitz later bought the coast north of Angra Pequena, as far as the Kunene River, from other chiefs for the princely sum of £170 in all.

To all intents and purposes he had bought an entire country, the future South West Africa, in little more than two years from 1 May 1883 to 19 June 1885. He owned about a third of it outright and held mineral rights to a large part of the remainder.

Unfortunately for him he had run out of money. Unable to exploit his acquisitions and concessions, he sold them to the Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft für Südwest Africa (DKG), a chartered company founded in Berlin to develop the colony.

Lüderitz had failed as a trader and his geological expeditions — each more costly than the one before — failed to discover the gold and copper he sought.

With a subsidy from the DKG he went on a final expedition in search of mineral wealth. On his homeward journey in a small boat with a flimsy sail, he and his helmsman were lost at sea, somewhere between the Orange River mouth and Angra Pequena.

Diamonds were discovered 22 years after his death in the desert he had once owned. Almost a century later, they are still being mined.


And, the prisoners of war, before dying, helped build the railway, the harbor, and the town.

Namibia’s Island of Death: Shark Island

{{Although no question the Germans (those ones at least) had it down to an “art” it does seem they borrowed the concept of “concentration camps” from British in the Boer wars. }}

Between 1904 and 1908 a series of wars were fought by the indigenous people of Namibia against German colonial forces. The most famous was waged by the united Herero nation, the occupants of central Namibia, who in the initial battles and skirmishes defeated the German colonial army. However, Kaiser Wilhelm II soon sent reinforcements from Berlin and at the end of the war in 1908, the Herero nation was all but destroyed: socially, culturally; economically, psychologically and physically. Over 80% of Herero men, women and children were wiped out. 

Many southern Namibian communities suffered the same fate when they took up arms against the Germans in 1905. In fact, only 50% of the Nama people of the south were still alive after the war.

There is, however, another aspect of the Namibian genocide that has remained almost entirely forgotten in the years that have passed since 1904-08.

Following the defeat of the Herero, the German army set up five internment camps for “prisoners-of-war”, strategically placed around the colony. The concept was borrowed from South Africa, where only a few years earlier the British had been responsible for thousands of deaths, using concentration camps in the Boer War.

… Most of the prisoners, who compose the working gangs at Angra Pequena, are sent up from Swakopmund. There are hundreds of them, mostly women and children and a few old men. There are many small children among them and not a few babies. Children as young as five or so years of age are made to work and are ill-treated like their unfortunate elders … Heavy loads of sand and cement have to be carried by the women and children, who are nothing but skin and bone.

“The loads are out of all proportion to their strength. I have often seen women and children dropping down … When they fall, they are sjamboked [whipped] by the soldier in charge of the gang, with his full force, until they get up. Across the face was the favourite place for the sjamboking and I have often seen the blood flowing down the faces of the women and children and from their bodies, from the cuts of the weapon …

“I cannot say how many gangs there are as they work in different parts of the town. A lot of them work on the island, where we were not allowed to go.”

(Angra Pequena was the original name of Luderitz and is still the name used in the Cape)

To amplify the point that Luderitz’ infrastructure was built with concentration camp labour, carried out without recourse to proper nutrition and medical facilities, the statistics of the railway works between the towns of Luderitz and Ketmanshoop are particularly relevant. According to numbers kept and compiled by the German Colonial Administration, a total of 2,014 concentration camp prisoners were used for railway construction on the Luderitz line between January 1906 and June 1907. 

The same statistics coldly note that 1,359 of those prisoners died while working on the line: a 67% mortality rate! One imagines a trail of human bones running parallel to the actual tracks.

The most horrific event relating to the Luderitz camp, however, was the decision in mid-1906 to incarcerate the southern Witbooi, Veldschuentragers and Bethanie communities on the island. The Nama groups, who had initially surrendered to the Germans, in the hope of retaining dignity and assets, were instead sent to Shark Island.

The biggest of these groups arrived on 9 September 1906 and consisted of over 1,700 people, all of whom were sent directly to the island where they joined other Herero and Nama prisoners. To them, there seemed to be no illusions as to what incarceration on Shark Island entailed.

The fact that Herero prisoners had died in droves on the island throughout 1905 and 1906, as witnessed by Kariko and others, meant that the German Colonial Governor Lindequist was well aware of the death warrant he had signed for the Nama prisoners. There was a reason the small, barren outcrop was called “Death Island” by German troops.


From “Esther M. Zimmer Lederburg / Eugenics / German South West Africa

On 16 November 1882 Adolf Lüderitz, a German merchant from Bremen, requested protection from German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, for a station that he planned to build in South West Africa.

On April 10, 1883 Lüderitz emissary Heinrich Vogelsang landed at Angra Pequena (“Little Cove”) and negotiated a fraudulent lease of land from Joseph Fredericks, “Kaptein” of the indigenous Bethanie community. (Vogelsang used the unit of geographical miles in lieu of ordinary miles, effectively obscuring the true amount of land to be leased.) Lüderitz turned Angra Pequena into a trading station, and after Bismarck declared, on April 24, 1884, that the station and the surrounding area would be henceforth a German protectorate1, renamed the cove Lüderitz and began making use of it as a naval base. The general area was renamed ”Lüderitzbucht” (”Lüderitz Bay”).

The German flag was finally raised in South-West Africa on 7 August 1884, the German claims on this land having been “confirmed” during the Berlin Conference of 1884. However, since the indigenous peoples never held the idea of individually held land as “private property” (land could never be alienated by any individual, no matter what his rank), all German land claims were actually fraudulent.

Interesting, huh?

In April 1885, the Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft für Südwest-Afrika (German Colonial Society for Southwest Africa, or DKGSWA) was founded with the support of German bankers (Gerson von Bleichröder, Adolph von Hansemann), industrialists (Guido Henckel von Donnersmarck) and politicians (Frankfurt Mayor Johannes von Miquel). DKGSWA was granted monopoly rights to expolit mineral deposits.2 The new Society soon bought the assets of Lüderitz’s failing enterprises. Once diamonds were discovered (in 1908), they — along with gold, copper, platinum, and other minerals — became a major investment. However, at this time the colonial aim was to dispossess the indigenous peoples of their land for the use of German settlers, as well as be a source of raw materials and a market of German industrial products.3

Lüderitz drowned in 1886 while on an expedition to the Orange River. In keeping with Bismarck’s policy that that private rather than public money should be used to develop the colonies, the company bought all of Lüderitz’ land and mining rights.

HEINRICH ERNST GORING — get the connection yet?

In May 1886, Heinrich Ernst Göring was appointed Commissioner of German South West Africa, and established his administration at Otjimbingwe. A law was subsequently passed to create the colony’s legal system: one set of laws for Europeans, and a second set of laws for natives.4

Commerce, Conquest, One set of Laws to protect Commerce, another set for the future workers.

Over the next several years relations between the Germans and indigenous peoples continued to worsen. In 1888 the first group of Schutztruppen (colonial protectorate troops) arrived, sent secretly to protect the base at Otjimbingwe. The Schutztruppe detachment consisted of two officers, five non-commissioned officers, and 20 black soldiers.

By the end of that year, Göring was expelled from South West Africa by Samuel Maharero, leader of the Herero people, when it was found that Göing had extended his house over a Herero ancestral graveyard.5 Also, by the late 1880s, the South West Africa Company was nearly bankrupt and had to ask Bismarck for help and additional troops.

Above table on Wilhelm II — he’d just become King of Prussia and the German empire when his father died, in 1888.  Remember the Competition with England and sense of inferiority, hyper-masculinity etc., going on at the time…

In 1890 Germany declared German South West Africa a Crown Colony, and sent additional troops to the area.6 At the same time, the colony grew through the acquisition of the Caprivi Strip in the northeast, which promised new trade routes. This territory was acquired through the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty between Britain and Germany.7

Almost simultaneously, in August through September, 1892, the South West Africa Company, Ltd. (SWAC) was established by the German, British, and Cape Colony governments, aided by financiers to raise the capital required in order to enlarge mineral exploitation (specifically, the Damaraland concession’s copper deposit interests).

An International (German, British and Cape Colony (essentially British) COMPANY was formed to raise capital.  Although Germany and Great Britain are supposedly intense rivals, they had not problem cooperating when it came to plans for displacing the resident Africans….  Also note, their monarchs are related (if not inbred….)

German South West Africa was the only German colony where Germans settled in large numbers. German settlers were drawn to the colony by economic possibilities in copper (and later, diamond) mining, and especially farming. In 1902 the colony had 200,000 inhabitants, though only 2,595 were German, 1,354 were Afrikaner, and 452 were British.

By 1914, 9,000 more German settlers had arrived. There were probably around 80,000 Herero people, 60,000 Ovambo people, and 10,000 Namaqua people — all referred to, disparagingly, as “Hottentots“.

Rebellion Against German Rule

“Generally, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Africans did not simply accept the yoke of colonialism and many fervently resisted … As Lundtofte has observed, ‘[t]he European hunger for power and attempt to exploit resources in Africa in the 1890s assumed various forms but in most cases provoked Africans to rise in rebellion. Examples of atrocities committed by Europeans in their attempts to pacify these rebellions are innumerable.’”8

The first “Hottentot Uprising” of the Nama and their legendary leader Hendrik Witbooi (Namaqua chief) occurred in 1893-1894. The following years saw many further local uprisings against German rule. Descriptions of the two uprisings with the most devastating local impact, follow…

Here’s a Magazine article which makes absolutely no mention of its (gruesome) past, commenting on how the “Forbidden Zone” (because of the diamond mining) is now becoming a national park:
The once-restricted, Sperrgebiet region in southern Namibia is now the country’s newest national park. And thanks to its strict exclusion policy boasts an unrivalled array of unusual plants and animals, writes Olivia Edward
The signs are clear and unequivocal. Go beyond this point and you could end up having to pay a fine of one million Namibian dollars or spending two years in prison. Standing out in the middle of a desert landscape, where the only defining features are the track we’ve driven in on and the barbed-wire fence we’re now standing in front of, it’s difficult to see exactly what these signs are protecting. But although it’s hidden, there’s treasure under the sand, patiently waiting to sparkle. This is Diamond Zone 1, or Sperrgebiet, a German word that translates as ‘Forbidden Zone’, a 26,000-square-kilometre diamond-mining area that has been off limits since the first ‘unbreakables’ were picked up here by a railworker in 1908.
‘THE BLUE BOOK” found by British after the War, but later suppressed, and dismissed as propaganda, ALTHOUGH IT CONTAINED ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL.


Jeremy Silvester, Jan-Bart Gewald, eds. Words Cannot Be Found: German Colonial Rule in Namibia: An Annotated Reprint of the 1918 Blue Book. Leiden: Brill, 2003. xxxvii + 366 pp. $49.00 (paper), ISBN 978-90-04-12981-8.

Reviewed by Meredith McKittrick (Department of History, Georgetown University)
Published on H-SAfrica (July, 2007)

This famous report was republished in honor of the 2004 centenary of the 1904-08 Namibian War–in which Herero and Nama fought, and were defeated by, German colonial occupiers at a horrific cost. The editors, Jeremy Silvester and Jan-Bart Gewald, intend it as “a memorial to those who died” (p. xxxvi). They have added to the original Blue Book a substantial and informative introduction that places the document in its historical context, exploring its creation, its near-destruction, its importance to Namibian history, and its significance to a larger history of colonialism and genocide. They also include a thorough bibliography and an index, helpful to readers overwhelmed by the report’s 356 pages.

The Blue Book’s origins lie in the First World War, when South African forces under British command invaded German-controlled Namibia. After defeating the German army, the colony was governed under a South African military administration. British and South African officials were aware that a case would have to be made for retaining control of Germany’s colonies. When the British government requested “a statement suitable for publication” that “natives” of these colonies were anxious to live under British rule, officials in South West Africa were already prepared, having translated German documents and collected additional information on “the treatment received by native races” under German rule. The resulting document, according to Silvester and Gewald, “served to scuttle any attempt by Germany to retain control over Namibia” (p. xix).

The 1918 Blue Book offers a history of German occupation and rule of Namibia; ethnographic information on the colony’s various “tribes”; narratives of various examples of African resistance; long descriptions (textual and photographic) of German atrocities toward Africans, committed by both settlers and military men; and an explanation of the German legal code for Africans. It makes for grim reading even for someone familiar with descriptions of colonial violence.

The report’s primary creator–a military magistrate stationed in a small town–was also critical of British actions in Namibia after the war, to the point that it ended his government career.  …

The construction of the Blue Book was unusual in that it relied so heavily on the accounts of the defeated. German authorities had left a detailed archive of their time in Namibia, complete with the use of “concentration camps” after the 1904-08 uprising, and photographs of hanging and flogging victims. These were featured prominently in the Blue Book. So were African voices. A major feature of the report is statements by Africans complaining of mistreatment by German employers and officials. The editors note that the events of 1904-08 are largely absent in Herero and Nama orature.

To some extent, the experiences and perspectives of those who lived through German colonial rule and the repressions that followed the Herero-Nama uprising against the Germans survive within the so-called Blue Book. The editors could have done a bit more to explain how these perspectives are necessarily filtered by the medium of a British government report (written by the same government that was, in fact, turning a blind eye to or committing acts of violence itself). But the information is nonetheless very valuable given the lack of African sources on the period of German rule.

The editors argue that this African testimony constitutes a valuable source on “the particular features of colonial genocide,” and they are right. The Blue Book is also “a key text in the production of colonial discourse” (p. xxxiii) in which “German” vs. “British” identities were constructed alongside a white supremacist, paternalist ideology (in the form of derogatory terms for Africans, among other things).

But the German-British opposition was to some extent a temporary one, a product of a particular historical moment. Britain never investigated any of the Blue Book’s allegations. Once South Africa was awarded Namibia as a mandated territory in 1920, a new agenda came to the fore: unifying the divided white settler community of Germans and recent, mostly Afrikaner, immigrants from South Africa.

The Blue Book very nearly did not survive this process of reconciliation. In 1926, orders were given for its destruction. All known copies of the Blue Book in Namibia were destroyed by 1935; the circulation of those copies that remained in British hands was tightly controlled.

Citation: Meredith McKittrick. Review of Silvester, Jeremy; Gewald, Jan-Bart, eds., Words Cannot Be Found: German Colonial Rule in Namibia: An Annotated Reprint of the 1918 Blue Book. H-SAfrica, H-Net Reviews. July, 2007.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13408

Copyright © 2007 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooks@mail.h-net.msu.edu.

Note:  The information was handy for proving the Germans should not resume control of SW Africa, when it’s time to play German versus British.   (Keeping in mind, again, the monarchs behind the nations were often intermarrying and interbreeding anyhow), but then, when it became convenient to UNIFY rule, the Blue Book was less relevant.
Interesting how it was destroyed ca. 1935 — and what was going on in the United States around this time….  history is almost always subject to politics.
Regarding this Unification of 1920, when German SW Africa came under control of (British) South Africa:

[“My country of birth, Namibia, was twice colonised”]

Southern Times
April 10, 2012

Destroying a Continent
By Udo W Froese

On Thursday, March 22, 2012, the German Bundestag planned to debate its historic role as a former coloniser, particularly in Namibia.

Germany had kept a thundering silence until now on its history as a former colonial power, having committed genocide against the people of the Herero, the Nama and the San. These human beings were not fed porridge and carrots.

They were just slaughtered.

However, not only Namibia suffered a severe double-stroke of inhumane Caucasian-Christian misfortunes.

But, my country of birth, Namibia, was twice colonised.

First, in 1884 my forbears under Kaiser Wilhelm 2 conquered the geographic part between the British Cape Colony in the south and Portuguese West Africa and Angola, to the north, naming it Deutsch-Suedwest Afrika (German South West Africa).

Britain immediately annexed Bechuanaland, now Botswana, to drive a wedge between the Boer Republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State and the Germans, as the German Kaiser had reportedly supported the Boers in their wars against the Brits.

[[when it’s Brits versus Germans, the Brits take quick action]]

Namibia was again colonised in 1920, this time by the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, the Boer General, Jan Smuts. Smuts was as much a racist and fascist as he was an elitist.

The slain anti-apartheid activist Ruth First, wife of the late Joe Slovo, documented in her book “South West Africa” that Jan Smuts and his government saw South West Africa simply as a country suitable for white settlement, ready for parcelling into white men’s farms. South Africa had acquired a colony.

[[South Africa having been itself a Colony.  Get the picture?]]

If the African (the local African population) was to survive, he would have to adapt himself to South Africa’s traditional (white colonial-settler) system, entering the white man’s service in a permanently subordinate position.

First commented, “(Jan Smuts) regarded South West Africa as a mere extension of South Africa, despite any sacred trust for the territory’s indigenous inhabitants that he had assumed.”

In her book “South West Africa”, Ruth First describes the developments as follows: “Under the Germans the largest tracts of land had been owned by the government (in Berlin) and large concession companies like the Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft (DKG).

“The South African government expropriated the land of the concession companies (which would include the ‘Sperrgebiet’ of the diamond company ‘De Beers’, today the parastatals (‘NamDeb’), and declared all unallocated areas to be Crown land.”

First explains her research, “When South Africa took over the administration of South West Africa, there were 1,138 farms in white use, totalling 11,490, 000 hectares.

“She (South Africa) immediately applied her own land-settlement legislation to the territory. A Land Board was set up to allocate farms to new white settlers, and the land rush began.”

Ruth First reported, “By 1926 the white population had swollen to almost double that of 1914, despite the repatriation of some 6,000 Germans.

“In six energetic years of land settlement, the ‘sacred trust’ had been secured as a white man’s country. Land-hungry white South Africans, spilling across the border, were allocated huge farms, virtually for the asking, that were then petted and pampered into eventual solvency. Expense seemed no consideration.”

Since then, Germany had received a notorious leader in the form of Adolf Hitler. Under his brutal dictatorship, millions of people were murdered.

The Nazis made evil history. To this day, Germany pays “Wiedergutmachungsgelder”, or reparation monies to the Jewish community. However, to this day Germany has not settled its bloody scores in its former colony, today’s Republic of Namibia.

It is to this day that racism prevails. Are Africans a lesser people than Caucasian-Semites?

The colonial-apartheid war in Southern Africa as part of the global Cold War from 1970 to 1998 cost Southern Africa 15 million indigenous black African lives.

It was extensively reported that the colonial-apartheid regime had obtained its arms and ammunition from Israel, Britain, Germany and other Western countries, despite an arms embargo firmly in place.

The international West overtly and covertly supported the colonial-apartheid creation the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance (DTA) in Namibia and other internal political structures all under the South African occupation until 1990.

South Africa’s former regime’s brutal military’s war in northern Namibia and southern and eastern Angola in support of the pro-Western UNITA under Jonas Savimbi were equally supported by the international West.

As John Pilger’s quote at the beginning of this column, “imperialism” is back on track.

What can be said to all this? Same (type of) people running the place today…. Have character, purpose, tactics, or strategies changed that much? Playing tribes against each other when convenient, then when done with them, slaughtering them. What would be different if it had been understood from the very beginning the intents of the invaders?

Would it have made a difference, or not made a difference — given technological advantage of say (late 1880s), the world’s first machine guns — practiced by people associated with and working for Cecil Rhodes on indigenous people in Africa; the world’s first concentration camps — apparently an idea from the Brits in suppressing the Boers originally, but (as is their habit, and see: Wilhelm II love/hate/jealousy relationship with his British half, i.e., the maternal half of his royalty) perfected to a horrific degree by the Germans — first on the indigenous people in Africa, and after perfected and refined, transmuted later to Goering, Hitler, Holocaust against the Jews for the purpose of extermination.

Coverup of the corporate history and its character, of course.

I’m not saying this to create a condition of everyone “drowning in guilt,” but hopefully to waking up from some sleep about how pervasive this matter is — and start gaining at least an education about how the groups that set up operations “THEN” are likely to be operating “NOW,” which a steady procession of documentation (not only AFrican) alleges they are.

Moreover, when this comes out, generally the same “regimes” are three steps ahead and able to turn it to their advantage while claiming concern about “blood diamonds,” as has been documented in a WSJ article (year, 2000) in which then-President (not for long!) Clinton was working alongside — of all groups — De Beers — to certify what was and wasn’t a “conflict” diamond!!!

Was he about to bite the hand that fed and inspired him as a young man a few decades earlier, as a Rhodes scholar?

So, I think we have to accept some of these things, those who are concerned about the present legal system, child abuse, wife abuse, child-stealing/molestation/familicide, and the re-phrasing of this as “high-conflict custody” then used as an excuse to transform government, etc. etc.

It was never about anything much else than profit… EVER…. And those of us who know about this from the individual or family clan level have a responsibility to make the decision, quoting a known blogger, “we will not shut up and not go away” (along with knowing what to talk about, which is where we have parted paths, and I report sometimes on groups some of the mothers believe have their best interests at heart, as well as on the topics censored and ignored by these groups, historically, while feeding the women social facts which, when true, are still not actionable — they are not the larger picture, and omit the money trail.  You can’t go far without that!).  They do not address the “franchise” nonprofit corporation taking federal funds aspect — almost ever, while quoting some that are part of that franchise — the supposedly anti-domestic violence parts.

The British and German colonists did the same over a century ago, trading protection (supposedly) of one tribe against another for what the colonists wanted, usually mineral rights and land.

See next post:

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

December 3, 2012 at 9:00 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: