Nelson Orgy

update:
beyond-the-rainbow

They should name prisons after this man.  Mandela !  Never mind this overblown humbug  notion of the Greatest figure since the Crucified,  his is a stunning testament to apartheid's tolerance of one of it's dissident prisoners, proof that one prison at least appeared to turned out a reformed character - Robin Island could be the model of all maximum penitentiaries.
Well,  he is rightly credited with his post-penal zen, yet he still should be a penitentiary poster-boy, an icon of hope and tenacity.

Was he innocent when tried ?  Well, clearly not as innocent as when he emerged, penitent, blissful and with seemingly serene sagacity from his incarceration.  His majesty was further crystallised by maintaining a royal silence over the carrion calls for criticism of the ongoing and blatantly heinous antics of his ruling ANC comrades in the subsequent two decades after his release until his demise, reaching its zenith in the Marikana massacre in August 2012, not to mention the forgotten episode of the Shell House massacre in March, 1994 which he claims to have authorised*. 

Nelson is the opium of terrorism who gives terrorism transformative powers.   He is both Spartacus and Fawkes.  Yet he is, in reality, merely the vacuum which these archetypes are projected onto.  Terrorism's soft metamorphosis made possible by the sublimation of prison stoicism.

The orgiastic self-serving maypole festivities of the great and the good for this chameleon's pre-funeral are an outrage to anyone with any remaining human sensibilities.
This isn't merely bad culture,  this is it's successor, civilisation gone putrid with a decadent will.

Is terrorism now circumstantially justifiable ?  Will Guy Fawkes be celebrated with statue outside of parliament alongside of that other, actual, regicide,  Oliver Cromwell ?

                                                    

"I don't think Mandela was a corrupt politician, he did after all spend 27 years in jail for his principles, maybe some of the others are, maybe not".

-Maybe some of the others ? that's an understatement you can only make if you're blithely ignorant.  Mandela was not in an ignorant position and yet he said nothing, for the sake of not tarnishing his Mahatma-like living legend.   I also doubt he would of, for the sake of principles, chosen to spend anytime in prison.  That was imposed on him. (Sure, he would of been willing to spend a short spell which would give dues after, as a freedom-hero triumph (which is what happened, although 27 years was almost certainly longer than he bargained for).  Don't make it sound like a sacrifice he was willing to make.  His was a gamble on a successful revolution backed by the Soviets. A gamble he lost.

You must remember the context of 1961 - most of Africa had achieved dependence around then; he was merely jockeying for a post-colonial position.  If he'd won over the Boers in a coup then, he probably wouldn't have a halo hovering over his head now. 

*In June 1995, ANC and then President Nelson Mandela claimed that he had given the order to defend Shell House, even if it should require killing people.^[5] In 1995 Willem Ratte laid a charge of murder against president Nelson Mandela at the Police headquarters in Pretoria^[6] for the Shell House Massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_House_massacre

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1994/230994029.htm

Marikana massacre:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/16/anc-absent-marikana-massacre-memorial

the lost prison manuscript:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9116391/the-mandela-files/

Moral and spiritual idealisms with all their efforts and disciplines aimed at the future are forms of the very mode of awareness which give us trouble.  For they perceive good and bad, ideal and real, separatively and fail to see that "goodness" is necessarily a "bad" man's ideal, that courage is the goal of cowards, and that peace is sought only by the disturbed.  

- Alan Watts  Nature, Man and Woman, 1958

More vs. Cromwell; Gunpowder plots

A man who refuses to believe in a god or an afterlife can never be trusted, only
because he would not acknowledge any authority or principle outside himself.

~ Thomas More

It is rather obvious: democracy has become a quantitative argument rather a qualitative one.  This is not paradoxical: staying true to the democracy concept would mean setting a qualification on it.  Young and old, male or female, vote by all means,
but only if you pass a rudimentary test.  The setting of such a test in itself would encourage deeper reflections on what the political structure is.  

If you define democracy in quantitative terms, the argument will always 
be at a pittance: more suffrage (for teenagers now) is such a bottom of the barrel, obfuscatory non-debate.  But if you had to prove your interest, have a certain level of understanding, by a qualification test to vote - only then, can a democratic experiment begin.  

It then wouldn't be condoning xfactor-brow level decision making that sways polls on the naive wavelengths which sway fashion herds thereby proving democracy's failure, which, besides it's corporate cloning, is the real cause of the current disillusionment with politics.  


Democracy at a dangerous impasse

There are 4 choices:

1. Universal suffrage, or the quantitative position (current 'enlightened' system: the suggestible masses)

2. Compulsory voting.

3. No voting (Russell Brand's revolt, or the reductio ad absurdum to fascism and          totalitarianism as an answer to the two party conundrum- is: 'whats the point? may    as well give in to the seemingly inevetible' - Cyclops trumps dualism).  What nobody wants to contemplate is a return to feudalism - theres a system - no voting, just squabbling Barons.

4. Qualified voting.

   

Revolution:  few questions

Why are those who have public voice, who are using their platform to idly advocate revolution,
not willing to step out of their comfortable police-protected shoes and start one?

Or don't they know how ?

It is obviously a desperate measure, and poses the question - is revolution

entirely committed by the unconscious ?  And is that what is being advocated in this
call of the collective will ?

Just how are the subjects themselves going to be become rulers?  
(As Hannah Arendt puts it)

Why is it that no one has laid out, measure by measure, what dismantling the system
would entail, or how it would take place?

Or is it supposed to occur spontaneously, entirely unplanned ?

Or is it, by its nature, incontingent ?

If so, are logistics, protocol, and contingency measures which we
should forever seek to do and live without - in the true spirit of revolution ?

Is revolution merely the quest for the organic by the light of complacency through the

eradication of all systems ('constructs') ?

If that is the purpose and spirit of revolution, if that is its definition, then does that explain

the relative failure of its spirit in the past ?

How, after a hypothetical euphoric revolution, would disarmament be enforced on citizens ?

Can the allure of revolution be described as a spirit of irrationality, proven by euphoria?

Has revolution been distinguished from anarchy - and if the revolution is not to be anarchic,

what is it then?

Is it going to lead to more forms or strive to remain anarchic and formless?

Is this ecstasy of revolution merely an emotional sensation which cools ?

The Hypothetical outcome of revolution

1. Starvation
2. Arson

3. Anarchy, then necessary expedient.  An arbitrary tyranny or "reign of fear", explained off
    as a temporary measure by that eloquent summation: To make an omelet, you have to break eggs.

Protesting 

To simply affirm the right to protest by doing so , is not to think the unthinkable, it

is to perform that which is completely sanctioned and to endorse that which is entirely impotent.

It is nothing more than gratuitous luxury, a graceless performance of catharsis regardless of purpose, comprehension, or intent.

To the individual, the protest is a self-right to express their 'views' as individuals, in solidarity with others.   On the contrary,  it re-affirms and upholds the non-society, the non-community ethic of a successful corporate state.  Because there is nothing individual or communal about it.   Of course, they aren't really expressing their view, as it is nothing more than mere social conformity with tagline, thereby rendering this 'conscious' stance idiotic.

Fighting power is not only oxymoronic, it is also worship of power.

Students protests are nothing new as noted by Machiavelli,  they are a sign of a successful rule.  Anarchy has always been solely the luxury of aristocrats, artists and students.

The men who are symbolic heroes for the occupy camp*, and villains of the Stuart regime:

*for entirely the wrong reasons.  Heroes to resistors of imperial might, their pro-active intent inspired IRA atrocities - not something that most Fawkes mask wearers at Occupy would care to know, nor understand.



http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/what-does-revolution-mean-you
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/russell-brand-the-jeremy-clarkson-of-the-left/

Bryant Park, NY

"Hell is full of good wishes and desires" -  Saint Bernard of Clairvaux


The myth of progress, rather like the myth of enlightenment -

is that enlightenment could be attained collectively through
collective will, rather than personal will (there's a myth of our epoch).
The American president is "ruler of the planet" (Superman II) Superman is the myth of America's will, the myth of its "enlightenment", that of coke and marlboro.

This isn't merely a naive, innocuous theory, it's a perverse faith which has consequences

that would seek to destroy anything which stands in its way. 
The triumph and the summation of the enlightenment is the nuclear warhead.

With that phallic-mushroom heresy began the slow rollback of the enlightenment fallacy,
and the beginning of the cessation of the American epoch. 

Superman is how America saw itself: forward looking, morally right, generous, magnanimous & the benchmark-keeper of all decency.  Now the Apollonian veil of its
clean promise seems sullied, It is now beginning to see itself as it really is.

Its prime mobile was a vehement opposition to  old Europe - 

backward-looking, too Catholic, too Gothic, too old and full of

charnel-house basilicas to fit its glossy, forward looking ideals.  

It was the attempt to roll back the medieval to a Renaissance-inspired neo-classical ideal.

The war against Islam is interesting in that it is a war with the heretics of enlightenment - who wants to hold back the tide, of the democratic ideal. 
In essence, it seeks to oppose and reject violently the liberality of wall street usury and debt-interest fallacy, that blind mayhem of greed, endless frontier-horizon yellow-bricked roads to neverland, which yields nothing more than the consequent gross commercial idealising of all material.  The consequences, however unintended, of Luther, Calvin, & Locke.

Poet's Revolution

The attachment of the sign of the economic to every spontaneous insurrection under the sun is a commonplace in the Marxist tradition. For Baudrillard, bursts of revolutionary activity governed by the “pleasure principle” and the “radicality of revolt”—such as that witnessed in “the destruction of machines, in pre-Marxist, utopian and libertarian discourse as well as in the ideas sustaining ‘the cursed poets or the sexual revolt”—sought a new and more radical “total symbolic configuration of life.” But under the spell of Marxism, these strands of rebellion are abstracted out of movements in political economy, and, at worst, sacrificed as less important moments of the unfolding of history through the “development of productive forces.” It is this sense of finality from which revolutionary activity must escape, of some end toward which our efforts are driven. The “here and now” of revolution must be reinstated. Against the “imposition” of the meaning of revolutionary finality, Baudrillard instead celebrates “the radicality of desire which, in its non-meaning, cuts through all finality”

Hackney - Hackneyed

~ Taxi cab. Carriage for hire,
~ Worn out (by a constant stream of customers).
Or, in other words, prostitute.
trite (tr t) adj. trit·er, trit·est. 1. Lacking power to evoke interest through overuse or repetition; hackneyed. 2. Archaic Frayed or worn out by use.

Monarchy, Democracy, Corporatism, Socialism, Tyranny

Its odd how nobody seems to see capitalism as democracy.
That is, Democracy as systemic product of corporate industrialism, (rather than the Greek enlightenment) and socialism as another product of democracy (disregarding 'national borders', we are talking primarily about ideas, not culture).
It is generally understood that capitalism had something to as we know it came with the industrial 

revolution, but its rarely understood how, coupled with Enlightenment utopianism,
it brought about democracy after the French revolution.
The masses yearned to be zoomed to the painterly Arcadian idylls of aristocracy

they got the slavery of advertisements instead.  

They received perpetual mayas of Arcadia via the democratised arts 

of advertising design-layout in newspapers and magazines.

All the mooted "Progress" in the last two hundred years has gone hand in 
glove with mass production.

Democracy arises from Monarchy, and Tyranny arises from Democracy.

Monarchy then arises from Tyranny, but it takes a great yawn of time.

We bemoan capitalism, but it is germaine with democracy.
Communists still talk of its decadence.  The early communists, circa 1848,
complacently confused the ancient regime with the new oligarchic
trade class.  They couldn't attack the latter as easily as the former.

The former were not slippery global nouveaus, they were the old landed
establishment.

Upon Weber and Butterfield

Capitalism is an abused semantic.  For it is corporatism, not capitalism which should be the derided concept.  It can be traced back to Martin Luther (although this heresy is as old as man) and his vision of a Theocracy uber-alles.  His idea was to effectively combine the secular and the sacred realms -  monastic and mundane worlds.  

That the mundane world outside of the monastery walls should apply the punctilious values of the holy ones and, the monks freed from their vows.  What followed after Luther married his nun, was that the outside world (almost all of northern Europe) was ultimately subjected to the values of the clock (regular prayers) and its implied industriousness.  

In this clash of worlds, free will was abandoned, as everybody was judged under the same august moral standards (e.g. the work ethic).  It was no longer a choice whether you wanted to be righteous, in extremis, the appellation of reprobate or elect was applied over all.

Democracy is slowly turning to tyranny.  It has already turned to tyranny,

if you look at the USA and almost every post-colonial state.  As soon as Europe
imploded its monarchies, the pattern of revolution, democracy and tyranny
(Spain, Germany, Austria, Italy) ensued.  Now we're all saddled firmly in the sin of usury.  

There is the pervasive idea that tyranny is now absolving itself in consumerist
utopias of capitalist democracy.
But this progressive idea of perfectability, this rejection of original sin,
means blaming nature instead and is only possible by exploiting men,
beasts and nature, ideally elsewhere, out of mind.

                              

                                                                   XX

Josephus:

                                                                                 XX

 


Latest headlines:  "Profit is not dirty elitism", says Cameron at the conservative party conference.
But corporatism, definitively, is.

Next week:  Spengler & how we'll never be happy.

Higgs-Boson don't know, but the little girls understand

In equal proportion to our growing human population and consequential eco-destruction,
there grows the spectre of cannibalism.

The Marxist critique is Elitist

 

Just as capitalists or the Oligarchy and those in its pay-tow don't have an excuse for the economic insecurity of the masses, it doesn't automatically infer that Marx was right (as Eagleton puts it).  The fact is, Marxism is accepted and believed by people who cannot explain it or understand it*.
Whereas, the same is true, for example, of Catholicism but nobody is going to argue in dissertation after dissertation that it is a basis for an economy.  

Marxism is opposed to the very thing that it is aping (religion).It has the scintillating seduction of intellectual elitism all over it.  
Its discourse lies entirely in intellectual abstraction promulgating further intellectual abstraction (never simplifying, but always re-negotiating itself as more and more complex).  Grasping its thesis is an out-of-reach mystique.  Its an abomination of Calvinist theologising mixed with Rousseaun.
It is pervaded by an air of arch-scholasticism, generating for itself a qabbalah of impenetrability enabling it to perpetuate its discourse and the professorial-clerical class
with it.  No one really understands the intentional byzantinism of Das Kapital et al, so more professors and dissertations are needed.

Marx himself exudes the spirit of the degenerate bourgeoisie class (who he claimed to despise in favor of the proletariat).  Unless you take the reading that the dictatorship 
of the proles as the consequence of industrial capitalism and that, only post-prole, would 
the utopia of classlessness be achieved.  Then Marx would not be the degenerate 
bourgeoisie, but he would be anti-prole.  So it goes, back and forth in a circular argument.

If you take a solidly materialist view of humanity i.e. the Darwinian one, without the 
crutch-of-God view, of humans as mammals hence social creatures, then hierarchy 
is still the evident state of our our socialism, our being, societies, ordered or disordered.

 
*Their excuse being that "do not" is not the same as "cannot", i.e. they believe they will, one day.  Perhaps then utopia will be had.

tags: Ralph Milliband.

The whole economy is based on fraud and forgeries.
All work ultimately is commissioned by the wealthy
or those employed by the wealthy.  The real wealth is all
in debt-banking & crooked land development and based on loans which
is now linked to gov bailouts.

Yes, its too abstract.  This is how it was allowed to happened.  
No-one can be arsed to think about it.
Its emotionally unsatisfying, so no thought is allotted to it. 
This is what is taken advantage of by the degraded consciousness involved.

To continually argue about loans, overdrafts and where 'the cash' is allotted
is to avoid the root problem and get mired in the symptoms.  The root problem
being Usury.

As long as we think, in line with modern notions of democracy,
that education is the same for all - i.e. that everyone can have
the propensity of anyone else - thereby denying that some
individuals have certain, very particular, even peculiar inherited
qualities that aren't easily assimilated, then we have the
dream of Ochlocracy.

It hasn't fully won out, because the false can never actually win,
it could only do so if it were not false.  This is another reason
why good and evil are not equals.
Evil is a perverted facsimile of the Good.

This makes one think of the moon, but the moon is obviously reflecting
light, it doesn't pretend to be the thing it is reflecting from, it just receives and
gives a soft emanation of that light.

- "I was reading summat bout good & evil and it was saying that evil doesn't exist.
God created everything but not evil. Evil is the turning away from God.
The disconnection from Him. This is the great heresy".

-Yes.  Heresy, a Greek word, means Taking away from the Whole.
i.e. nothing new is actually Created, only something is removed thus altering the whole.
A denying of the whole, un-wholly, hence unholy.

The Vatican shouldn't be confused with Freemasonry.
The latter was created in opposition to the former.
Freemasonry could be seen as a Luceferic cult in the metaphor Milton's fallen angel in Paradise Lost.
He wants to outdo his master, he thinks he can find the keys.

Dorkins, this idiot thinking is so tiresome

By Gad !  This idea that all we need to do to live in harmony is to erase religion. 
Turn out the churches, mosques, citadels, synagogues, temples and convert them to
apartments, nightclubs, bars and market halls.  Or just demolish them all.

Is this really going ro end all wars and bring on Utopia ?

Lets take World War I as an example. Those teenage boys lined up to hack down and be hacked down.  Was it piety,  patriotism.. No, it was social stigma which drove them, like Neanderthals drove the hairy Mammoths off cliff edges to extinction.  World War II, which was even bigger and better than the first installment, wasn't exactly a religious war either.

But in the television series The Root of All Evil?, later retitled The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins claims that we're ignoring 'the elephant in the room' - the Religions, whose eradication will stop terrorism and war in a future where all bogeymen are dispelled.  Its rather shallow thinking.

It makes one wonder who the biggest idiot-thinker actually is - between the religious believer, or Dawkins.
Well, they're both in clover - that's all that passes muster these days  - 'paydirt'.
The only idiot is the one who doesn't turn a dime on gibberish talk.

Tobacco Mencken

The recent anti-smoking advertising by the NHS reveals an utterly depraved society because it appears that nobody can think beyond two options: either worthwhile because it works; or that it simply doesn't work to dispel the seduction of smoke.  But beyond this seemingly straightforward dualistic thoughtpost - What of the 3rd possiblity   - That it encourages smoking...?  If you know anything about advertising and the human brain, you'd know that there is no such thing as bad advertising. 

                                                                                   X

Below: Mencken.  Who remembers Babbittry ?
(Babbitt. - A narrow-minded, self-satisfied person with an unthinking attachment to middle-class values and materialism.  After George F. Babbitt, the main character in the novel Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis.)

Witch Trials

The suppression of witchcraft was renewed after the reformation.  The puritan fervour
of the establishment at the time of James I saw superstition and the 'old religion'
everywhere and wanted it rooted out.  Folk customs / herbal remedies were all seen
as part of the old religion and hence a threat to the new order, so this was all labelled
 sorcery and evil along with Popery/Catholicism.

The concentration of witch trials in Lancashire is interesting as this is the most catholic
 part of England today.  Being to the west, then it was similarly a 'wild' region as notably
the puritan stronghold was in the east and the south.  This is because the west then, as now,
has the influx of the Irish.

These great persecutions had their high points under James I and Oliver Cromwell, both
raised Calvinists.  Of course Cromwell famously took his fight against the irrational
into Ireland and is remembered evermore at Drogheda.

 Rhino Horn

"Unless their demand in the far east is abated, they're doomed to disappear off the face of the earth".





Three Chinese caught with rhino horn - Crime & Courts | IOL News | IOL.co.za

A Monarchist-Anarchist note

Something has gone awry in English monarchy;  

it has fossilised.    

                                       It is quite obviously doubtful that we are in a Monarchic Age.  Before the rollicking blip of Charles II, there was posited the notion of "Divine Right", or divinity, a complete misconception of anointment.   This  attitude, not seen since Caligula, was impassioned once again by Cranmer in the post-Renaissance, northern humanism.
Absolutism could also be called Obsolescence.

Monarchy hints at nothing more than a dynamic mystique of grace, thrust by martial prowess and chivalric magnanimity.
 
Unsurprisingly, the upset began with a break with the 

direct line - Richard III, - the carpark king -
a meekling, deposed in a military coup by Henry VII 

on Boswell field.  Perhaps it began and ended with the
ignoble falsification of his reputation (why the need 

to explain, prove or justify your 'right' ? - quite un-royal, but the absolutist position par-excellance).  


The usurper's son, Henry VIII, caused a major disruption 

by heeding his low-born advisers - parvenus all -
in staging the Dissolution, murdering Queens,

and unwittingly ushering in (after relatively short
 
reigns of Edward VII, Lady Jane Grey, Mary I) the Elizabethan age - 

of Elizabeth I ,who's mother, Ann Boleyn was judiciously and cowardly executed by her own father.
She, in her turn, had her unplanned successor James 1

mothers head toppled (Mary, Queen of Scots). 
James I, as Elizabeth before him, were puppet-

monarchs to the Cecil Lords.  This whole period could be
viewed as a ill-conceived and badly conducted relapse to  viking, pagan barbarism*, an attempt to return and renew but driven by a feeling but without lucidity.

The Tudor period stands as a reign of one of the most disordered and psychopathic dynastic episodes in world history.

 
In this gross deviation from organic tradition, Monarchy became hampered by advisers, mandarins, ministers, bureaucrats, 'judges', and parliaments.  The familiar territory of Pharisees and Sadducee's.   

Suffice to say, by the introductions of  the Hanoverians we had essentially, a surrogate, cadet line filling the vacuum of real (royal) Monarchy.  From Anointement, we arrive at mere Appointment. 

   
Now that they actually no longer rule in any way defacto, and the 'right' is disturbingly questioned, and largely now a matter of 'better than nothing' - solely a shadow, an ambassadorial vassal, merely a commercial brand worth maintaining, no longer for the rights of it's subjects - but justified solely by 'divine' right.   


*in the skin of a "reformed christianity".  In truth, it had nothing to do with theology, only an ersatz, boring
emulation of prior papal excesses in the Italian Renaissance.

Cranmer, by Gerlach Flicke.

Hackney riots: 5.3 milly

Dripping Gucci

Just for the record...A funding from the regeneration grant for the benefit of, presumably, Ralph Lauren, Jaeger, Dior, Burberry, Aquascutum, Pringle, Yucky Gucci and Gad knows whom else..

Will it bring people into the area? Yes.  Will they go anywhere else, i.e. beyond the retail strip on Morning Lane ?  Very unlikely to benefit anyone other than the new gentrific coffee shops nearby, nevermind the community.  It'll be a self contained reject-shop strip village.  Some trade maybe gained in passing for Paddy Power, Coral bookmakers, Iceland or a very big supermarket that ends with O.
The street hardest hit around here is Clarence Rd which is an intermingling of residential and shops, who's damages sustained by the riots were restored by private donation shortly after the event. The only thing they've had to deal with is blocking a bid by paddy power to set up another bookies on it (as if two large ones already in the proximity don't cater).  Its time to declare our culture bankrupt if the taxpayer's government is funding haute brands and turning a blind eye to the absolute pointless desperation of bookie shops - You've got to be amazed at the double-standard - isn't street heroin/cocaine illegal ?  
Why ? 

Exley on Buggers

Homosexuality is an extreme position, but an extreme position that has to be inhabited. 


"..(in the asylum)  There was a consolation in believing that someone had recognized these homosexuals as being ill, even more of a consolation in believing that they had perhaps committed themselves.  They were not walking their pink poodles, leeringly clacking their eyeballs all over their made-up sockets, and "slaughtering the innocents" along Third avenue.  Neither were they holding "open meetings" with a view to persuading their legislators that they were just a bunch of jolly-good boys exercising a Hellenistic inclination".  - Frederick Exley, "A Fan's Notes"


"Faggotry is the Mugabe of personality disorders, once it takes hold, it never lets go". 
- Dr.  Moreau

Ethically Juvenile

Just because a race is intrinsically juvenile is not to say that they're not also a joyous people.
But that doesn't deny the characteristic of over-arching juvenilia.
The African American is, as the title implies, not all African -
a mixture of varying degrees, but like Obama, there is often
more Caucasian inheritance than is generally recognised.  He's not really
a black leader, if you also factor in his cultural bearings.  

What is quite certain is that African leaders in Africa don't share his liberalism.  In all of post-colonial history exceptions to this maybe found, but they are extremely rare and always thwarted.  Even in the case of Mandela, who merely presided over a transitional period, hindsight reveals him as an exception.  He was, it is undeniable, a culturally and tribal African, but also educated in European law at Witwatersrand university by whites who had no truck with policies of 'affirmative action'.

Oppression of blacks may never again be generally considered right, but considering that
the oppressed aren't always morally superior, perhaps oppression, in context of
the austere straight talking mores of the past, was a practical measure. 
To expect people then, (in a culture where Darwin didn't even dream of calling himself
an atheist) to make the optimistic leap in thinking that black culture was in any way compatible
with a society which was then (unlike now), ethically christian.

This brings us to the question of ethics.  Africans are ethically juvenile - in that
the christian ethic makes a deep impression on them in a way it no longer does for Europeans, or 'westerners' possibly since the early middle ages.  They take to Christ with open arms, and not merely due to the efforts of missionaries.
This could be because Christianity is a stark contrast to tribal codes which are a paradigm
of superstition and fear of the spirits of the dead, and in extreme cases, involve human sacrifice, and justify child molestation and rape.

The innocent give to the world natural emotion & unbridled joy.
Innocence, in the abscence of ethics is easily corruptable, while the price of ethics are 
also the breeding out of innocence.  Cane and Abel are two facets of a single psyche.


 Below:  'Necklacing',  a particularly unpleasant South African custom:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/south-africa-rape-facts

The PERVERSE ECONOMY

To prey on the percieved poverty in the exotic world
is an obscene economy.  But it is becoming our economy.
It is already the biggest industry sector in Britain.
I wonder if this is the case in northern europe too.
If you want to know why the bookshops, antique dealers
and record shops like virgin or hmv are closing or have closed
down for good - the answer again, is Charity. charity shops
dont have to pay rates, or often, staff.  On one hand, we have
too much and more than enough to give, so donate your time and money; on the other, we're lamenting the death of our retail and production economy and fearing for the fate of the underclasses in northern towns and the future of small-shop retail and the future being a total tescopoly.

Notes on Husbandry

As a descendant of horse breeders, 
and Lords who kept human gamekeepers

Breeding is a fact known equally by aristocrats and their minions, the peasants.
Such is the form: the aristos are the well bred, the peasants, less so. Sometimes there is a reversal of this general state.  There are at least two ducal families in England today who have proven the exception to this law, and have sullied their pedigree and need to be broken, (made extinct) remoulded and for it all to begin again. 

Mould needs breaking, and resetting

Of course this is par for the course, dynasties must die.  The current royal family for example, is teetering badly.   The Trojan horse in their DNA is hard to say, there's a lot of it because of the relentless pharaonic inbreeding of all European royalty, their strength always comes from beneath, a 'commoner'(relatively speaking) such as Diana or  the Queen Mother, (Bowes-Lyon family) who averted the threat of possible future haemophiliac episodes.
Diana especially, re-established the healthy thoroughbred in contrast to Charles's ailing DNA.  The current crown prince bears the stamp of his mother's strength (tall, good frame) and his father's weakness (early balding, buck-toothed).

Maketh Lords in our midst

But  the royal problem is a microcosm of all human breeding dilemma's.  Pedigree is made by taste, taste is definitively what the philistine lacks, and the barbarian often has.
Having a good quota of both barbarity and pedigree, in the truest sense, is the making of nobility.