Quote notes (#44)


Anti colonialism is imperialist, and imperialism was anti colonialist:

Consider the path that Alassane Ouattara took to power: Educated in the US, career in Washington, raised to high position in the IMF. In due course jointly holds high position in the IMF plus high position in the Ivory government, despite the fact that he seldom visits the Ivory coast, briefly flying in from Washington from time to time, Election rigged in his favor in the Ivory Coast by UN troops, large numbers of native thugs imported from neighboring country. Population replacement and ethnic cleansing of the native population. Alassane Quattara then flies in from Washington to take power, despite the fact that he had not bothered to show up to his high Ivorian government job for six years. Clearly, the power that installed him over the Ivory Coast was located in Washington, not the Ivory Coast. Imperialism is still going strong today, and it still spouts anti colonialist rhetoric. Similarly Aristide and Mugabe, installed from without against the wishes of the locals.

[… ]

The British empire was not conquered by imperialists, but by eighteenth century merchant adventurers, who mixed honest trade, piracy, conquest, and state formation. The nineteenth century imperialists took it over from the colonialists, and immediately the empire went into decline. In the nineteenth century, Colonialists right wing, Imperialists left wing and anti colonialist.

Today’s anti colonialism is still imperialist, as illustrated by population replacement in the Ivory Coast.

(Jim has worked on this crucial distinction before.)

November 22, 2013admin 9 Comments »


9 Responses to this entry

  • VXXC Says:

    Yes. A useful attack. A useful weapon.

    Let’s rewrite the history of: America, post Reconquista Spain, Ancient Greece, the Phonecians, the Dutch, modern Europe and so on…without colonies.

    Rather Grim isn’t it? All those young men with talent and ambition and not enough prospects.


    America more than anyone else extant now needs a Frontier. As Lure/Void points out. As was known by Theodore Roosevelt among others.

    We don’t need to be the Global Slumlord. See – Ivory Coast.


    admin Reply:

    You’ve got to get onto Twitter.


    Michael Reply:

    right after i update myspace


    Posted on November 23rd, 2013 at 12:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Manjusri Says:

    Postcolonialism – via the dollarized economy – has practically been “Imperialism without the Hassle”. The wonderful thing about doing business with African regimes in dollars and euros is that all the money gets reinvested in French villas, Mercedes-Benz, UBS accounts and the NYSE-Euronext; we get the resources, and all the money flows back into our economy- how perfect!

    OTOH, those nasty Chinese come in and do business in RMB. That’s no good… what’s an African strongman to do with that? Buy a villa in Hainan? A fleet of Red Flag limos? ICBC accounts and Shanghai funds? PFFT. So that money gets reinvested in the local economy through the only thing of value you can use RMB for – construction! Thus, suddenly, after decades of being mismanaged basketcases having their wealth sucked off by Western elites… these sub-Saharan nations are suddenly posting double-digit GDP growth.

    But the Chinese are evil, so everything they do in Africa must be for the worse, right?


    VXXC Reply:



    it’s all yours.


    Posted on November 23rd, 2013 at 5:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    Leftists like to trace leftism to the people who sat on the left hand of the French assembly, which traces back the left to its very first pretense to be something other than a religion, and then traces it no further. The French left, before they were “the left”, were Gallicans,

    I will stipulate I’m nominally Galic [celtic] and Catholic But let me break ranks here and check Jims premise.
    Local autonomy and resistance to a one world order theocracy is leftist? The same theocracy we say is the demon seed of the Cathedral?
    The french Assembly and french leftism proper died off?, differing significantly from its anglo cousins, This is the same assembly that Thomas Jefferson Ghostwrote the constitution for oui ? Sounds kind of like my dad going on about how its all because of the sixties.

    It was in the anti slavery movement that the predecessors of today’s left began to distinctly depart from Christianity: For the New Testament takes a very tolerant attitude towards slavery: The New Testament gently suggests that Christians free their own slaves, but does not require it, and clearly prohibits Christians from freeing other people’s slaves, though they are perhaps permitted to close their eyes to other people’s runaway slaves and look the other way. The civil war conspicuously and spectacularly exceeded not only what the New Testament requires, but also what it permits.

    Similarly, with the emancipation of women, they really had to ditch Christianity and started doing so, for while the New Testament is mildly disapproving of slavery, it endorses stern patriarchy in no uncertain terms, and thus, with women’s suffrage, we begin to see the familiar anti Christian modern left, though it was only in the 1940s or so that large numbers of Jews were permitted to join the modern American left.

    So Christianity explicitly supports the state and status quo Give unto Ceasare, yad yada yeah well if you had the Roman legions sandals on your neck you would too. But Christianity implies something entirely different, Its crustal clear what its true values are and what it thinks of purely temporal powers. Anyone still read Gibbon. Sure protestantism was a step in the wrong direction but as surely as reaction tags Jefferson a lefty in the “mold” of Che, Jesus and Saul are Marx and Stalin. As I used to argue into the night over Jamesons Christianity is a desert religion we are a forest people.Sure im hopelessly imprinted on Gothic Cathedrals 5000 year old Deistic conspiracies chanted in latin. But I dont see how the dark triad doesnt turn out to be a stool.I suggest we learn to stand on two legs like men. Rather than limp along on a cain like the GOP


    Posted on November 23rd, 2013 at 5:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    yeah until you convince me otherwise the chinese are evil cyborgs without human emotion


    Posted on November 23rd, 2013 at 6:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotto Says:

    This reminds me of some of the pan-Asian nationalist critiques that were popular at the turn of the last century. The colonized have long understood that the anti-colonial do-gooders were simply colonizers in their own right.

    Birth control, human rights, free trade, universal suffrage, and NGO’s running your banks, schools and hospitals, or we’ll carpet bomb you.

    (As an aside – whatever anti-spam system you have in place is driving me nuts. It’s rejecting 9 out of 10 attempts to comment. It must not like VPN very much. Is there anyway to whitelist various usernames?)


    Posted on November 24th, 2013 at 12:01 am Reply | Quote
  • graaaaaagh Says:

    The dichotomy Jim describes is partially analogous to a peculiarly American threefold set.

    American imperialism of the first kind consists of foreign intervention by the United States government for the official territorial gain. This was not off-limits to self-described progressives a hundred years ago—Theodore Roosevelt is the archetype here—and William Allen White, openly progressive by the 1910s, gives us a great example of it in 1899:

    “Riots against the police are occurring in Havana. They will keep occurring. No Latin country governs itself. Self-government is the most difficult thing in the world for a people to accomplish. It is not a matter that a nation acquires by adopting a set of laws. Only Anglo-Saxons can govern themselves. The Cubans will need a despotic government for many years to restrain anarchy until Cuba is filled with Yankees.”

    The mercantile element to this is clear in the case of Hawaii from 1893 on, as well as in numerous interventions in Latin America, though these were distinct in that they did not typically involve annexation.

    What ended up happening in Cuba was, of course, an instance of American imperialism of the second kind, whereby Yankees did not overrun the island but merely confiscated it from Spain and then made it “independent”, not for ostensible American glory but for the sake of a demotist ideal. See also: Hohenzollernism!, United Nations, Color revolution (Google “How Georgia got to know George Soros”).

    This sort of moral crusade obviously had an appeal that American imperialism of the first kind did not. Even William Jennings Bryan, a noted opponent of the first kind, volunteered to fight in Cuba—he ended up getting ill in Florida and never saw battle—but this did not make him any less known as an “anti-imperialist”. The first kind was still popular, though, and one of McKinley’s reëlection campaign posters seems to imply a potentially indefinite American occupation of Cuba.

    American imperialism of the third kind—this was chiefly a Northeastern tendency—came from a view of Southerners and Midwesterners as backward and in need of civilizing Yankee influence. H. L. Mencken articulates this in “Sahara of the Bozart” (1920):

    “In all that gargantuan paradise of the fourth-rate there is not a single picture gallery worth going into, or a single orchestra capable of playing the nine symphonies of Beethoven, or a single opera-house, or a single theater devoted to decent plays, or a single public monument that is worth looking at, or a single workshop devoted to the making of beautiful things.”

    Mencken, Sinclair Lewis, and other Brahmins of the early 20th century were a new incarnation of the same spirit which had motivated the “Reconstruction” of the South in the 1870s. This attitude was clearly not inherent to the progressivism of the 20th century, but is now characteristic of self-described progressives.


    Posted on November 24th, 2013 at 8:02 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment