The Threats of the Third World.

By Robin Hind

Travelers have always been regarded with suspicion by stable communities. One of the many reason was the possibility that they would bring disease to the human or animal residents. Well known were the tragic leprous beggars, economic migrants in their times, who were expected to identify themselves by ringing bells and other ways on pain of death.

Over the centuries measures were taken in many ways to prevent international disease spread. It was regular for arriving ships to be quarantined and infected persons isolated or interned on islands or hulks. Indeed specific signaling flags (still in naval inventory) were designed to indicate disease on board, or that the ship was in quarantine. In some Canadian provinces it was obligatory to have a health check, including a check for venereal diseases, before a marriage license was issued.

This concern about introducing infection in the Western World from the tropics was one reason for the London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene opening in 1899.

Then came the age of arrogance. Popular opinion and therefore political opinion began to believe that it was within human power to control and abolish disease. The gates of nations were opened for those wonderful bounties, “cheap labour”, “the tourist dollar” and that extraordinary unregulated cult of self-gratifying righteousness “asylum granters”.

But health care professionals held a different view, which politicians – too ignorant or arrogant to adopt – instead ignored. Scientists had striven to develop new antibiotics to beat mutating bacteria for decades. But they are no longer succeeding. MRSA Staphylococcus aureus, now resistant to antibiotics, kills tens of thousands a year. Multiple drug resistant tuberculosis, inevitably fatal, now races through the world. Get it and you die.

Now there is a new "super super bug" the New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM-1). The chilling aspect is that the resistant qualities of this organism can be transmitted by plasmids to other bacteria, changing many other types, once common and minimally dangerous, into resistant pathogens.

There is little pharmaceutical hope for the future: In 1990 there were nearly 20 top drug companies developing new antibiotics. Today, only two large companies, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, still have strong antibiotic research and development programs. The rest have been driven out of business by high taxes, third world patient demands for their “rights” to be supplied at cost with drugs (supported by politicians anxious to keep the poor vote, yet unconcerned by the long term damage) and the medical litigation industry – again in it for selfish short-term gain. The necessary science is also more expensive and more difficult; investment is lessening. Politics is killing yet another of its Golden Gooses.

Why should it be no surprise that this pathogen evolved in India? Given the rampant poor hygiene, and widespread availability of blind sell-medication by over-the-counter antibiotics in Asia, Africa and Latin America, this outcome was inevitable. Even though their use is controlled in the West, “know all” patients often pressure doctors into indiscriminate antibiotic use

Why should it be no surprise that Europeans are increasingly afflicted? Migrants from the third world arrive in droves illegally. Even when they are medically screened this is mostly superficial and ineffective. Most of these migrants are “economic refugees” from derelict economies, which have inferior health services. Indeed the diseased have particular motivation to get into Europe, and capitalize on the health systems. The commonest language heard at King’s College Hospital, I was told recently, is Yoruba, associated with a “health visitor” scam.

Others from insalubrious back grounds are brought in as relatives, brides and beneficiaries of asylum goody-two-shoesism. Give a thought to all those poor innocent New Zealand girls now carrying forever the curse of HIV because their government allowed into New Zealand many untested Zimbabwean HIV+ “refugee” stallions (Even supposing these people were threatened they had only to walk across the unregulated border into South Africa or adjacent states to protect themselves.)

What about tourists? Naturally there are risks from both incoming and outgoing tourists but it is far less than that from immigrants who stay longer. Incoming tourists (at any rate those who are desirable) usually come from secure, healthy backgrounds if they are able to afford touring. If they are ill they are most likely to remain at home.

Britain must also remain alert to the out-going sex tourist. Those close to them must be made aware and prepared to acknowledge that these might be infected and infested, and guard themselves and their country. These people could be seen in the same category as pedophiles and rapists – a danger to the nation.

Leaving all else aside there are the strongest possible health reasons for severely restricting immigration into what should be the well protected British archipelago.

Robin Hind

Dear Mr. and Mrs Ireland

By Robin Hind

Dear Mr. and Mrs Ireland

I have been watching you protest along the banks of the Liffey. Have you any idea how ridiculous you look, protesting against yourselves?

“We want more money”, you say, and the “government must provide it” Are you all mindless? No government has ever had money in modern times. They use your money.
So now you are all knocking your heads on the wall asking for more money from yourselves !

Your fault was to believe the bribery of government. “Vote us in” said the politicians. “We will give you something for nothing. Money for your retirement! Free insurance from the catastrophes of life!” Then that nasty little bit of corrupt deceit “ Vote us in and we will take money away from those who have earned it, and give it to those who do not earn ! Vote us in !”

Are you now that stupid, Mr. and Mrs Ireland that you would allow the conman on the corner to promise you something for nothing, with a reassuring “just give me a weenie bit of your money first, say like a down deposit, and I will give you riches !” Have you really allowed yourself to be trapped, like a herd of goats, in that way?

Your Ireland has limited resources, and when the resources shrank in the Famine, your Irish people died. And yet you have been giving away your land space to aliens, given away part of your share to outsiders who have failed their own lands. Do not blame them - they heard – the way people do – that the Irish were giving away their land space, and their money (that part is called “benefits”) for free. “Come to Ireland, make a baby, and you are in for life !” has been the call which we have heard echoing in the far corners of the desolate continents of the poor world. So you have been giving away your patrimony, and are now stamping the angry foot on every-one else’s toes !

I notice that you brought you own baby riding on your back to the protest, perhaps to try to twist someone’s heart?. Poor little mite – did you ever think of saving for her?

You are the ones who have been living the Life of Riley, travelling the world, holiday houses, glamorous motor vehicles, and borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. Does it still not occur to you that borrowing would need repayment?

Now is payback time, but you suddenly realise that you cannot pay back. So you shout and scream, and stamp your foot, and hit your head on the wall, protesting against yourselves.

Robin Hind.

Now you have seen the bully in action

By Robin Hind

Obama and Cameron went world wide on television on the 20th July. This gave Obama an opportunity to display himself as convivial and benignly affable; an exercise in fellowship as he addressed the Prime Minister as “David”. He also showed, when he answered press questions that without pre-written notes, that he rambled ineptly, failing to get to the point of the question at times, and missing the point at others. It seemed that his aim was to show himself as a pliable, approachable, good natured fellow. He steered clear of discussing British Petroleum in his efforts to appear friendly

This performance contrasted with his earlier address to the American Nation (for that read the World) in his inflamed attack on British Petroleum after the accident in the Gulf of Mexico.

It was then that he showed the bully in action. On worldwide television there was no sign of statesmanlike wisdom. None of the dignity expected of the world leader.

The Gulf of Mexico spill is, we all know, a huge tragedy. But was the Obama assault the way to go?

Sane and objective people could have expected the following type of approach from a mature American leader:

“We are all concerned about the tragedy in the Gulf. However, we must remember that tapping the resources of the world is hazardous and always has been. The risks of drilling for oil have been shouldered by those who have taken many risks – risks of personal injury, financial risks, and risks to the environment. In America we have risked, and because of that, we have particularly benefitted from our oil resources. Much of the quality of life of our nation has rested on the availability of various forms of energy which we have mined or bought from others, always treading a narrow path between risk and benefit. The industries, which have made us the wealthiest country in the world - not only the steel, automotive and manufacturing industries but also agriculture - have depended upon this windfall of energy with which we have been blessed.

Our task now is together, in the closest of harmonies, and in earnest co-operation, to battle this catastrophe with all the intellectual, engineering, and financial resources which we and others can muster.”

What we got instead was the accusative and aggressive confrontation. It was a polarization into heroic “us” and villainous “them”. It was a litany of blame and aggression. It was a variant of “if there is blame fix it fast”. It was the adverserial lawyer’s demand for compensatory cash in its crudest packaging.

That was the bullyboy asserting his authority and pulling rank. That was a man who is showing himself that he is inter-nationally divisive, promoting his ego and trying to entrench his authority by fixing blame on a passive target.

The question which therefore arises is who he will gun for what in the future. Which of us will become victims to his arrogant, bumptious aggression? Is this the man whose true nature will polarize the world into conflict within the frame of hypocritical appeasement?

Robin Hind

Mandela - The truths he never told

By Robin Hind

On 11 February 1990 Nelson Mandela was released from prison, and gave a speech, now well known, from the Town Hall in the City of Cape Town, which heralded much about subsequent events.

He subsequently received many accolades and tributes which deemed him to be a great statesman, wise, forgiving and an engineer of peace. He has been described as exemplifying compassion, courage, integrity and hope and was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace.

If he were to justify his praise-singers, if he were sincere in his compassion about the conditions of all peoples in Africa, if he were the messenger who could change the attitudes of entire societies and so better the lot of the misfortunate and unsuccessful, if he were to clearly distinguish and separate himself from the criminal political tyrants of Africa, his speech might have taken this form:



********************************************************************

Friends, comrades and fellow South Africans.

I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all.

I stand here before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people. Your tireless and heroic sacrifices have made it possible for me to be here today. I therefore place the remaining years of my life in your hands.

On this day of my release, I extend my sincere and warmest gratitude to the millions of my compatriots and those in every corner of the globe who have campaigned tirelessly for my release.

I have therefore been chosen to act as spokesperson for my people. I speak not only on their behalf, but I speak to them in the hope that they will recognise the value of the country of which they will inherit a mandate via the electoral process.

The adverse anti-white propaganda which has infested Africa and which eventually began to infect South Africa has had the great danger of causing discontent among many in the population. It has afflicted many, from academics to the least educated of the population, and with so many dangerous possibilities, it exists as the greatest threat to the future of South Africa.

At the outset I wish to apologise to the nation for my involvement in the brutality with which I had been compliant, directly or indirectly, in the past. But I wish to salute, and am grateful for, the fair and forgiving judicial system which characterised South Africa and for which I recognise, in retrospect, my personal indebtedness.

I am grateful for my education, and the capacity which it gave me to become a leader, given my humble of origins. I'm grateful to the culture provided to me by white civilisation and which allowed this education to reach me, as little removed as I was, by my accident of birth; from my origins which were so close to elemental man.

I wish to remind the black population of the benefits they received under white administration. South Africa has become, in not more than three generations, the leading Nation in the entire continent of Africa. It must be obvious to all that is solely the result of the capabilities of the white race, and we must remember forever the contribution of the whites to the well being of black South Africa. It is not by chance that millions of people in the impoverished regions of Africa have clamoured to enter South Africa, whilst it was under white rule, and to benefit from the presence of that unique quality of administration, leadership, orderliness and creativity which the white race brought into this small part of this continent.

We are grateful for what has been created in this wild continent within half a century and the economic success which we are inheriting.

We recognise an extraordinary infrastructure, ranging from transportation on land air and sea, through to the industrial giant which has led black South Africans to a wealth which could not possibly have achieved without the presence of the white race. We must recognise, with appreciation, the costs borne by the white race and that tiny group of taxpayers, at all times only a small fraction of the population -- who offered their support to the black population.

My great fear is that the white race will not forgive me, and my people, for what, as the black race, we have done to them in the way of wars and crimes, inflicted on this small and isolated minority, by a greatly outnumbering majority. We, as I stand here, are grateful for their magnanimity.

I wish to make it clear to the black population the magnitude and importance of the white creators, and request that is never be forgotten.

I also wish the black population to understand that the future success of South Africa is bound to the preservation of the white population, with their expertise, skills, and unique understanding of the land, its challengers, and demands.

I wish to thank the past government for their endeavour and great achievement in creating the Bantustans, with the economic development and incentives which the white race promoted. This availed the black race of an instructional pathway towards an understanding of a democratic and capitalist capability. Let us never forget that as a black race we had never been capable of creating this level of sophistication in the past.

I realise, naturally, that separated development was equally important to the white race. This was understandable given the hope that the white race had that the majority of people in South Africa could take their place with the world’s most productive, to the benefit of all. It has to be recognised, also, that the white race required some means of protecting of their complex civilisation and its material manifestations. The only practical way to do this was to ensure that black productivity and creativity caught up with that of the whites. This was the only pathway towards overcoming the destructive effects of that inequality which birth, heritage, chance and circumstances had inflicted upon the black races throughout the world.

We, in South Africa, are totally dependent on the white race to continue to lead us into the 21st century with that prospect of an increasing prosperity for the entire nation.

We are fortunate to be colonised by the white race and their capacity for patronage which was designed to lead the black race ahead towards incorporation as legitimate members into the first world. It was this which made the black races of South Africa uniquely different. In South Africa we are the most fortunate black groups in the whole of Africa, let alone the Caribbean and South-Central America, to have this patronage. Others have had the opportunity of white beneficiation in their counties before, only to mindlessly destroy their prospects by short term greed and long term foolhardiness.

Never make the mistake of regarding the white race as your enemy. They are you greatest allies in the context of the world as a whole, and allies in the commercial competition which South Africa will face in the future. To turn on the white race would be like a snake eating its tail, with the excuse that it is hungry. Remember, by the power of your numbers you are regarded as the jaws of the snake – so powerful and important if used correctly – so destructive if used mindlessly.

A goal which has always been acknowledged, and which has always been the ultimate aim of all South Africans, is that the black race was to evolve and prosper. But we need the guidance of a civilisation far, far older than that of the black races.

If you wish to preserve out superbly successful system of justice, law and social order: if you wish to preserve the academic triumphs of South African education: if you wish to ensure the future of the health, shelter and nutrition of our people, and to approach the standards of living parallel with that of the best in the world, you must ensure that nothing interferes with the desire of the white race to continue to live safely and productively in South Africa.

We must do everything possible to encourage the white race to stay. To that end the new government will enact legislation to prevent any jeopardy to the employment of members of the white race. We must recognise that the vast achievements of this extraordinary minority will not make them immune to the lure of greater and wealthier nations, which will be only too willing to recruit their many arms of expertises. We will encourage those white South Africans, currently abroad to return by assisting them with passages and offering special tax benefits. This should be looked at as an investment in the future of the black races, and an inexpensive investment at that.

I emphasise that there must never and absolutely never be discrimination against our white South African partners, if South Africa is to maintain its position on the very brink of the first world. Nothing must threaten the investments by the first world, and the unique bridge provided by white South Africans in linking the first world to South Africa by their associations, financial links and their language heritage with Europe.

There must never be a place for boasting about past military success or terrorising a population. There is no place for triumphalism: There is no place for gloating over battles in which thousands of young lives were lost.

There is no place for capitalising upon or parading the diversionary issues in the world, such as the communist capitalist divide, praising the causes of rigid and inflexible personalities, or praising those individuals who took a stubborn stances in promoting their cults obsessively and immutably.

Remember that equality begins with the individual. If respect and dignity are required every individual must demonstrate himself or herself as being equally capable to those whose respect is demanded. No one can expect dignity and respect if they remain inferior. The inferior will beget themselves tolerance, compassion and assistance, but it is unreasonable for the inferior to expect to be treated as equals. Each of you, as individuals, will need to generate the responses that you receive reflected back from societies, in the building your self-esteem. But you cannot demand: You get back what you give out. It is now up to you, Black South Africa, to demonstrate that you are up to it. Create your own esteem.

In conclusion I wish to quote my own words during my trial in 1964. They are true today as they were then:

'I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve.’

There will never be a need for any of you to sacrifice yourselves, unless you are foolish enough to let haste, greed, arrogance, aggression, intolerance, lack of humility and avarice become your destructive masters.

Robin Hind

New Parliament Votes

By Robin Hind

Today saw the long anticipated first vote of the new Black Majority parliament.

The motion, which now will be drafted into law, was passed by a comfortable margin.

It is not anticipated that there will be any obstruction from the House of Lords, which has long exhibited a sympathy towards black majority rule.

The new legislation directs that the British population be adjusted to conform to the Proportionality Concept. This means that the population demography will be adjusted to reflect the demography of race as it is distributed world-wide. The legislation will ensure that immigration policy will be directed at accelerating the black population immigration selectively. The correct proportion for the white population (seven percent, which is the current percentage of whites in the world population) will be achieved by the assisted passage of members of the white population group to “over-dense” nations. An assurance was given that these Assisted Emigrants will have nothing to fear, as their presence in creating multicultural societies has been established as being of universal benefit.

The Speaker gave praise to the South African Government for their assistance. The South African government had pioneered the concept of Proportional Representation, beginning when sports team selections were obliged to reflect the national racial proportionate demography.

An additional motion which was successfully adopted, was that the significance of this achievement be celebrated in perpetuity as a bank holiday to be named British True Freedom Day.

Robin Hind

Arrogance - By Robin Hind

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

William Butler Yeats 1919

By Robin Hind

It was always probable that the African National Congress would lose support. Its membership was too diverse and it could be predicted that “the centre could not hold”.

Inaugural membership of the ANC ranged from Jewish communists (like Joe Slovo) and white liberals (like the Black Sash) through to the multiple ethnically and linguistically distinct groups, many of whom had been in entrenched combat with each other for centuries. Many early supporters of the ANC lived with a fantasy that “independent” South Africa was to be a benign, non-racial, honest, and judicially incorruptible democracy: As these qualities began to leach away, their allegiance faded.

Nevertheless, there was always the hope that a solid, if small, core of government would remain to sustain the equilibrium upon which a civilised society could begin to evolve.

However, one of the early expressions of the ANC was an astonishing arrogance. This was the arrogance which allowed the government to believe that all or any of the White-African “means of production” could be summarily replaced by any Black- African with the appropriate political, tribal and nepotistic qualifications.

It is the same arrogance which is now destroying the core of the structures of governance in South Africa. It is an arrogance which has crept into the mind of every level of the varied spectrum of the population. Small groups now believe that they are in a position to make autonomous decisions; small groups believe that they must “fight for more rights”. Small groups believe that they have the authority and capacity to isolate themselves from the greater society, and embark on maverick forays of their choosing.

Let us look at some examples of individual arrogance:

The recently appointed CEO of South African Airways, Siza Mzimela,[i] a woman of little standing and no proven capabilities, was requested to report to Parliament. This was against South African Airways’ background of corruption, incompetence, nepotism and massive financial loss. However, this neophyte chose to ignore the Parliamentary directive and did not appear. Needless to say this evoked extreme anger from Parliament.

An Acting Judge, Black-African, without any background in the workaday judicial system[ii], was due to hear one of her early cases. She was being tested for her suitability for the post, but she seemed to assume that this was a fait accompli. Normally a judge is available for discussion on the form of the case in chambers from about 8 am. However, when the barristers attempted to approach her before a hearing they were told that she “never arrived before 10am”. Eventually she appeared to the patient Court at about 10:30 am. The rest of that day was an extraordinary caricature. The judge repeatedly ordered recesses for long tea and lunch breaks. In mid-afternoon she proposed an early recess and recommencement the following day.

The parties to this case had waited for over a year for the hearing, and were allocated a limited number of court-days. The hourly costs of the legal team and expert witnesses were huge. The money involved in the settlement was large, and the plaintiff was impoverished. The reason for the recess? She wanted to collect her child from school.

The Master of the High Court is an authoritative administrative post with the purpose of ensuring that certain judicial decisions are put into effect. Recently Z. Agulhas the Black-African Master of the Western Cape Division was ordered, by the High Court, to change a decision she had made. She chose to ignore the decision of the High Court and instead “interpret it” in the fashion of her choice. The plaintiff made a further appeal to the High Court, and yet another order to the Master was made. Again the Master chose again to ignore the High Court.

The President, Jacob Zuma has failed to conform with the Parliamentary regulations relating to disclosure of assets, arguing that he believing that he was exempt.

The ANC chief whip, Mathole Motshekga told reporters that “ministers should not have to appear before the standing committee on public accounts, because “they have a country to run”.[iii]

Winnie Madikizela-Mandela’s recent criticism of Nelson Mandela further illustrates the cleaving of the ANC integrity in a way which had previously been unthinkable.

Zwelinzima Vavi, Secretary General of the powerful Council of South African Trade Unions, displaying his distance form reality by threatening a strike to disrupt the World (Football) Cup as he contests the government decision to increase electricity tariffs.

The twenty-something Julius Malema, the ANC Youth League Chairman, in an exuberant display of imperial delusions, cocks his snoot at having to have a driver’s licence, to pay fines and tax, or to reveal the source of his monumental expenditure.

The same ANCYL is determined to provocatively confront the Zulu-based Inkatha Freedom party, in their home territory[iv].

The South African Communist Party feels that it can contest the ANC central executive decisions.

On 17 and 18 March 2010 a reported 4000 school children went on a rampage of aggression against an accused pop singer outside the Protea, Soweto, magistrate’s court. These children (in school hours) were demanding that his bail be refused and “justice” destroying everything in the area which they could. This march will be compared with the well publicised Soweto and Sharpeville riots of 1976 and 1961 in a later posting.

Rioting demanding “service delivery continues unabated in many provinces. The demand is that more homes and utilities to be "provided". Few, if any, of these rioters contribute to the tax base, and appear to believe that they should be provided this manna, seemingly from heaven.

In other areas those who do pay their local and national taxes, are now withholding payments until there is some noticeable benefit.

Working days lost in labour disputes in 2009 were 200% higher than the previous year.

As more examples continue to be reported in the media, interested readers should add these into interpreting this dangerous evolution.

The implication of this all-pervading arrogance is ominous. It foretells fracturing of South Africa into anarchistic fragments. It foretells disruption of all sense of order, and multidimensional civil strife.

The prediction is that the ANC will then, in an attempt to show power and authority, push dramatic political manoeuvres, with the aim of demonstrating their “valour” in defeating the White-Africans again, by nationalising land, mines and businesses.

There can be little doubt that the economy will collapse should that happen.

Robin Hind

---

[i] A revelation of extraordinary happenings at SAA, including the loss of R6.0 billion by 30 June 2004 when SAA tried to play the foreign exchange market. http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/SAA-flights/SAA-flights.php5

[ii] She had an entirely academic background. To illustrate her naïveté she would use phrases such as “Counsel, approach the bench”. She could only have learned these terms from American legal soap opera, since they are not used by and are unintelligible in the context of South African Courts.

[iii] The standing committee on public accounts is mandated to monitor the expenditure of tax revenues and the results achieved. The ministers are primarily responsible for these outcomes.

[iv] It was this very conflict, and the resulting civil war, between the Xhosa dominated ANC and the Zulu dominated IFP which cost many thousands of lives, after South African “independence”.

A Different Way of Thinking.

By Robin Hind

A foundation for political strategy in South Africa is the "redistribution of land ". This is a racist tactic intending that land ownership be moved to Black-Africans from White-Africans.[i] This clearly has enormous implications to the national economy and internationally, with grotesque precedents in countries such as Zimbabwe.

Revelations about the failure of land distribution which has already occurred. The key politician in the "redistributed” is the Minister Of Rural Development and Land, Gugile Nkwinti whose confession about these “repossessions” was reported in the (Johannesburg) Times, 3 March 2010.

He said: "The Department has purchased going concerns and because they were going concerns, there was always that hope that they would continue to produce. The reality is that that has not happened.

"We have not talked about the revenue that the state has lost because farms totalling 5.9 million hectare, which were active in accruing revenue for the state, were handed over to the people. And more than 90% of those farms are now not functional. They are not productive and the state loses revenue. We cannot afford to go on like that"

Said another way, government simply had not thought of, or provided for that contingency.

This is a confession of the total absence of financial planning and control, and is a culpable defect, only revealed because the Minister does not have the insight to realise that he is exposing this gross incompetence.

He says “these farms were handed over to “the people” “– This reveals another entrenched Black-African delusionary political stance that “anyone” can run a successful farm, if given land.

A Tragic Loss. Lipton, the largest tea producer in the world, invested in a tea estates in South Africa[ii]. Four million tea bushes were exquisitely cultivated, a delight to see[iii] and a monument to White-African creative endeavour.[iv] When the threats to “repossess” the land were made Lipton simple walked away, abandoning their investment: They were not going to attempt discussion with people who appeared incapable of reason.[v]

Today the estates are entirely overgrown with bug weed, and do not produced one cup of tea. Six thousand four hundred workers lost employment, with a far larger loss of seasonal workers and secondary impoverishment.

On one occasion, after the transfer of the land to government, when it was derelict as a producer, a band appeared, dresses in Communist Red. A short-lived attempt at work on a tiny portion of the estate was soon abandoned.

Shortly after these Black-Africans held a placard demonstration saying that they had “Not Been Paid” and demanded income. They have not been seen since.

Europe, give us money, now! In much the same style, having ousted White-Africans from the productive economy of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, President, recently visited Britain in order to "encourage trade and investment with South Africa". In almost the same breath he said that he was "Worried about foreign purchases of land, and that the government would need to step in to stop these foreign purchases".

Is he unable to recognise that these foreign purchases of land are effectively the very "trade and investment" which he is seeking?

No foreign purchaser of productive farmland is going to do so unless assured of a return on investment and the security of ownership. That is what trade and investment is all about.

So the circle turns back again to the “redistribution of land” charade.

For some the penny might have finally dropped. In an ironic parallel many Black nations (but not South Africa) are now inviting skilled White-African farming professionals to re-colonise their lands, and once more take over the responsibility of productive agriculture.[vi] What are the probabilities that these, now productive, lands will be expropriated once they are “going (and profitable) concerns”?

Forcing black squares into round holes. South African Airways had, at one stage, a capable and experienced CEO in the form of the White-American, Colman Andrews. His management and long-term planning for the airline was very successful. However he was subject to a campaign of vilification (all the pointers are that this was because he was White), and eventually he decided that it was not worth the candle, and resigned

South African Airways, in its determination to have a "Black" head of the airline, then appointed Khaya Ngqula as "chief executive officer", a Black -African who had failed several times previously to run other businesses. The result was financial and operational catastrophe for the Airline. His personal assistant resigned saying that she "could not work for somebody who only worked eight hours a month". One reason was that Ngqula spent his time earning directors fees on numerous other "Boards of Directors". Since he showed no capacity for, commitment to, or conscientiousness towards managing South African Airways one can only speculate on his useful contribution to these other businesses.

Khaya Ngqula was ultimately accused of mismanagement and given “Special Leave” in February 2009. After Ngqula’s very costly dismissal Chris Smyth, a White-African, was appointed as "acting” chief executive officer. He had been CFO with Virgin Nigeria, and assisted the financial turn-around of Kenya Airways. The airline improved dramatically, successful financially and operationally. He could easily have been left in place, but once again the obsession with replacing him by a Black-African prevailed.

Smyth was replaced in March 2010 by Siza Mzimela a black woman with some experience in the small SA Airlink. She had significantly less experience than

Smyth and had inferior formal qualifications.

I want a Magic Porridge-Pot. These shenanigans reveals an attitude, seemingly general, if not universal, amongst black Africans politicians, which holds that a "going concern" it will continue to run, as if by magic, whoever owns it, or whoever is CEO. All that is necessary is to wrest it away from the previous owner/ CEO, and the benefits will continue to flow into the new owner’s coffers.

Such is the naive blindness to understanding and a lack of appreciation that "going concerns" operate successfully only because of the sustained endeavour of extraordinary capable people.

Where is responsibility? A variation of the above viewpoint is that these innocents believe that Black-Africans only have to be given a “title”, and parody the role, to summarily become capable of fulfilling that role. These puerile politicians imagine that very ordinary Black-Africans have only to be slotted into office, after which they will receive a supernatural gift, allowing them to instantly emulate the pioneering creative successes of the past, the product of highly selected and extra-ordinarily capable White-Africans.

A bleak outlook for the future. Fort Hare University was created by White-Africans in 1916, and paid for by White-Africans, in their attempt to educate Black-Africans. Graduates who owe gratitude to those White-Africans include Nelson Mandela (expelled but completed his degree at Witwatersrand) and Robert Mugabe.

Research has subsequently been conducted at Fort Hare seeking to clarify the reasons for Black-African students entering tertiary education, and the way they intended structuring their future careers.

The overwhelming attitude of the undergraduates was that by having gained admission to university they needed to do nothing further. Their perception was that, having crossed the barrier of Matriculation from school, all that was now required from them was to act and behave like "students".

Arising from this (perhaps inevitably) have been the demands of "pass one pass all". The students believed that every student should be passed automatically. The next level of demand was for free tertiary education, universal to all. To emphasise the fine points of their arguments this week, on many campuses in South Africa, the South African Student Congress went on “strike” throwing rocks and burning objects.

The National President, Mbulelo Mandlana declared that the funding must come from a new tax on companies.

Simply, they do not know that they do not know.


Robin Hind


[i] This is not the occasion to counter the over-laboured and monotonously repeated fallacy that “White- Africans stole these lands and must now return them to the ‘original owner’”. It will be addressed in later posts.

[ii] Further information:
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=566&fArticleId=5055231

[iii] http://www.panoramio.com/photo/15223067

[iv] The land was rented at a nominal cost from the government, because of the high costs of developing the difficult terrain the very large investment in equipment and ongoing inputs. The great benefit was primarily to the nation, by saving import costs, and (mainly) as an employer of the local Black-Africans.

[v] Other reasons included the low productivity of Black-African workers, such that the wage bill was 85% of turnover (!), and the South Africa cost per unit tea produced was eight times higher than in Sri Lanka.

[vi] Mozambique, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Nigeria,

Poor little Janey

A conversation by Robin Hind

"I am worried, Marge. I don't know what it is. Worried, really worried. Perhaps more than that even. Yes, frightened -- it's frightening; I feel really frightened."

"How is that?"

"It's Elizabeth. That's why am worried and frightened and both of them together. All mixed up in me."

"How old is she now?"

"Just six, but it's the girls that she is mixing with. She gets invited out, you know. I am worried about some of these girls, or perhaps I should say I am worried about where they go. The girls in her class, and that's why it's so difficult. I just can't say "no", because I get such backtalk from her. Perhaps I'm unreasonable. I don't know any more. I suppose she could have friends with the other people that she meets. Victoria's mother was telling how she went to this party, which she thought was just an ordinary children's party, but they were lots of these older boys. They all seem to have money and smoked, and heaven knows what else. I just do not know these people. They're not my kind of people. I feel I can't make any decisions any more. I didn't grow up with people like this. I don't want to be unfair to them, but they’re so different. So different. I don't how to relate to them. This is all really my fault? Things keep changing. But I suppose the worst is that I can't talk to anybody about it -- at least anybody other than you. But one doesn't feel safe any more, talking about these things. You never know what could happen with talking. Oh my goodness, I don't know what to do."

"What don't you like?

"She is mixing with girls from families which seem to have a bad omen about them. But her friends are invited to parties, and I noticed that her friends go to parties where there are lots of older boys. There is drink.

The sleepovers are a problem too -- there are girls that I don't like with behaviours that frightened me, and which are quite contrary to the way I would like to bring up my girl. I just don't like it. But I have to invite them, I'm afraid not to. I'm afraid to not let her go to the parties that she's been invited to. She puts pressure on me."

"You have an obligation to be selective about the children that come to your daughter sleepovers, for that matter you have an obligation to highly select all your daughter's friends. It is your responsibility to protect her from people outside the domain of your approval. You have a responsibility to stamp your authority on her now, to make her understand that your family has a pattern of selection, and that her mother is acting as her protector and in her best interests. Although she is only five -- no, it's six isn't it? -- these patterns must be established now. This business begins now. It begins with the selection of her friends at this early age. You must simply determine, forthwith, which stream of friends are appropriate. If you don't do it now then in five or so years those improper associations will still be there, but amplified and by then well beyond your influence and control. Leading to who knows where."

"Look what happened to poor little Janey, poor little mite. We always think it'll be someone else, but when it's someone you know so well... O heavens!"

"It is the unimaginable. That this could have been done to her. But you can trace it back. We should have said something at the time. We always think that things will work out. Actually, I suppose this is happening to all of us. Without us really realising it."

"There are people in the community that I don't like, and I feel bad about it. You know, I feel as though I should get to like them. I should like them, shouldn't I? I'm supposed to like them, aren't I? I'm also frightened to talk about it. In fact I don't talk about it."

"What are you going to do then? Be hypocritically friendly to everyone? You can't do that nowadays, it's too complicated. In the early days you could, but then the neighbours were people like you, who understood you, and that you understood. Are you going to lie down and let them tramp all over? If you become a doormat people walk all over you."

“I suppose so. I suppose I do. What else can I do? You can’t talk to anybody about it now in England. I'm afraid. I don't even know what I'm afraid of."

"Are you supporting people in your community who you don't like, for reasons of your own convenience?"

"What you mean by that?"

"Do they have businesses?"

"Oh yes, there is the shop, and of course the bistro and the Post Office"

"If you are supporting these people economically you are indicating that their presence is needed. You are condoning them. Do not see how distastefully hypocritical you are being? Do you not see how dishonest you are being towards yourself and your community generally?"

"Well what do I do?"

"If there are people in your community that you choose not to deal with, just don't deal with them. Go somewhere else, even if it is out of the way."

"I suppose you are right. It would be awkward of course. Wouldn't people start to ask about it? Am I allowed to do it? In law that is? I don't understand all these laws. It seems people get into trouble all the time about all these things."

"You have the most powerful vote of all. It is a silent and anonymous vote. It is a vote that is supremely democratic. It is the vote of your purchasing power. You can't have it both ways, you can't say on one hand that you do not want some people in your community and yet on the other hand depend on them and bless them with your custom. You get what you buy. If you pay people that you don’t like, of course they will continue to be there.

You don’t have much time. Elizabeth will get into a pattern. She is probably in it or almost in it already. You can think of it like railway tracks. If the children get on the wrong tracks even so young, if it is the wrong track it can lead into heaven knows where as they get older. Once they get towards the teens there won't be any switch points which you will be able to control. You'll find that you're standing there, hating it all, knowing this will be catastrophic and yet not being able to do anything. We have to set up our children early. Much earlier than you think. They must be set in the right way and with the right people, and with the right values. The time is now."

"You know, you're right about voting with your purchases. Me old mum used to tell me about it. During the war they had something called "Buy British". It was written on all the things that were made in England. "Buy British". My mum said it saved Britain. She said it saved the Empire. Supporting those who are like you. Giving them the work. Buying their products, perhaps straight off of the farm. Was it during the war? Perhaps it was after the war? I don't know really. I just remember me old mum talking about it. She said it saved the peace. Whatever that meant. Sometimes I am glad she is not here. It would be awful for her to see what these politicians have done. Lining their egos, that’s them.

But what about being a Christian, I'm supposed to help people. I'm supposed to turn the other cheek, they always say. What does the Bible say?"

"I don’t suggest, not for one second, that you behave in any way that is not totally the Christian way. Consideration, charity and compassion are all so important in our society. More so, as we begin building a better society. I don’t know the Scriptures all that well. But I am sure that Christianity approves of supporting fellow Christians"

_______

Robin Hind

A Continent of Incompetence.

By Robin Hind

Surely it is not possible, you will be entitled to say, to make assumptions and generalisations about anything as large as a continent, let alone a nation, or even a group of people?

Well, it is possible to generalise in some ways, and it can be said that most who live in France speak French. The arguments against generalisations will always be that there is a wide spectrum of capabilities and behaviour in any group, and that it is improper to try to match the best against the worst.

However, there may be sets of circumstances by which, using a limited number of parameters which are carefully defined and reproducible, to shown that one group can have entirely different capabilities from others.

An example is the airline safety. The aim of the endeavour, safety, is an absolute, and will not be debated. The training and maintenance protocols used in operating aircraft are close to universal, and are therefore applicable across large domains, even domains as large as a continent. The number of flights is large and highly statistically significant.

Therefore, given the limited number of variables permitted, aircraft safety should be equivalent throughout the world. Is this the case?

In fact it is far from the case as is demonstrated by the accident statistics for 2009, recently released by The Flight Safety Foundation, which listed 757 airline fatalities. The overall number of fatalities was below average, although the number of accidents was on average. Five out of 30 airliners involved in fatalities were on the European Union “Black List”

However, what is of concern is that the accidents in Africa reflected a condemnable and ongoing adverse trend. About three percent of all world aircraft departures occur in Africa, but thirty percent of all (worldwide!) airline fatalities occurred in Africa.

Naturally, there are airlines flying in Africa with excellent service and safety records, such as Ethiopian and South African. However what is of concern is that

airlines are not independent of the countries over which and into which they fly. Some, such as Nigeria, have demonstrated appalling air traffic control and other lapses of safety on the ground.

One can therefore say, with statistical assurance, that one's chances of being killed whilst flying by airline in Africa are 10 times those of the other parts of the world. Light aircraft, unscheduled flights, and "occasional airlines" have demonstrated deficient safety far worse, even, that the statistics recorded above.

Robin Hind.

A fatuous “parallel persuader”.

By Robin Hind

Arguments promoting the purported benefits of accepting immigrants into Europe have taken many forms. One of the most ludicrous is that “Immigration creates a richer culture”. Anyone who lived in Bangladesh, Somalia, or the Central African Republic, would recognize that these lands have cultures in as much as there is a pattern of living conducive to relative social stability, but not “rich” cultures.

By far the richest culture in existence is that which the Europeans have evolved. Each of the European nations recognises the distinctiveness and attractiveness of the cultures of their neighbors (and for centuries travel keepsakes have been brought back home to prove it). The British will travel to Poland, Italy or Scandinavia searching for distinct cultures, and others will reciprocate, visiting Britain for the same reason.

The extreme irony and incredible stupidity of attempting to “make the country more colourful by importing immigrant cultures” is that any inflows and ingresses of competing cultures into Europe can only dilute the supreme cultural richness and diversity which already exists.

Imported culture might have passing interest because it is superficially unusual with a curiosity appeal. However these “introductions” rapidly becomes mundane, and then universalize, to displace the variety which existed before. Think Tandori chicken.

The biological analogy is the introduction of an exotic species which begins to dominate and destroy the variety of species which existed before, ultimately destroying the entire ecosystem.

Therefore this cynical disinformation, engineered by governments to dupe their populations into believing that immigrants are desirable “to make your culture more colourful” will, instead, suffocate the cultures of every nation in Europe, replacing them with the homogenous, non-culture which is now insinuating itself into every corner of the continent, and obliterating the unique identities of each land.

Universal mediocrity and mundane sameness will become the hell of future societies, much like the Hell of the Sunday Fisherman who is compelled to fish without ceasing into eternity.

Don’t expect to bring back interesting keepsakes or mementos from your travels in Europe in the future.

Johan Nel - "White malice" or another victim?

By Robin Hind

Last year in South Africa Johan Nel was imprisoned for 169 years to chants of "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,” for the racially motivated shooting of four people when he was 18. No approval is warranted, but he, also, was a victim.

My guess is that he was aware of the immense threat to his culture, and had reason to imagine that his family could be at risk by an outnumbering alien culture.

In 2003, when a child, he is said to have been attacked by a black man with a sickle. Seven years previous to the shooting his brother was attacked by blacks on their farm. A few days before the shooting he had heard about black burglars who had apparently pumped gas into a friend's wife and baby’s room. He then heard of another farm attack in the area of his family’s farm.

He will have known of the thousands of white farmer victims of black assassins.

He seemed less mature than his years, and probably reacted on inherent primeval imperatives to protect his group. Yes, he had a bizarre mis-perception and, yes, his behaviour was unforgivably aberrant and abhorrent. But misguided as he may have been, he was another victim of an unstable society

He and his family were flamboyantly pilloried in the press (particularly the British press) as symbolizing "White Evil".

What is of concern is that in Europe communities which were culturally homogeneous, which had offered their populations the security of predictable social patterns, will have individuals prompted into similar reactions once their society is stressed and perturbed by alien cultural influx.

When these events occur the interpretation will also be that this is "white malice", and these emotive weapons will be used to create further disarray of the white civilisation by guilt. The reality is that those societies themselves have become victims.

________________________________________

Note: Johan Nel committed a terrible and unforgivable crime and, as Robin points out no approval is warranted. However, there were certainly mitigating factors such as his mental capacity, his emotional state at the time of the killing, and his background, which were ignored by the South African courts and also the international media, for obvious political reasons. The media's easy and politically expedient explanation that Nel was an evil racist, ignores the reality which many whites in South Africa are facing, and it is legitimate to ask whether this young man's terrible crime was a case of good against evil, or one of cause and effect. Sarah

Zimbabwe - a model of cause and effect

ZIMBABWE, A MODEL OF CAUSE AND EFFECT

By Robin Hind

It is now frequently asked from corners of the Western world “When does Zimbabwe return to normal?”

Zimbabwe has returned to normal. From time immemorial Zimbabwe was a Stone Age culture, without a written language, without wheel or shoe. Social order was by primitive law, a melange of practicality, mystic, pragmatism and witchcraft. Maternal mortality was 1:6.

The sole factor, which changed Zimbabwe, was the arrival of white colonists. These colonists alone created a culture which allowed an agricultural and creative productivity supremely beneficial to all the inhabitants. That productivity increased progressively as the number of white colonists increased.

Many who claim knowledge ability respond with “But Zimbabwe is a modern country – look at the high-rise cities, look at the sophisticated population which dresses well, drives expensive vehicles, travel internationally, have their children in top schools”. What these “authorities” fail to comprehend is that what they see now is no more than a relic of a lost past. If an earthquake destroyed the built environment there would be no possibility of the natives rebuilding it. Zimbabweans would return to seeking shelter in grass and mud huts, surviving with a primitive agriculture. The natives cannot even maintain the current infrastructure which decays progressively month by month. The foundation of all past civilisations, which is the provision of clean water and sanitation, has proved beyond the capability of the Zimbabwean government, which has caused thousands upon thousands of deaths from cholera, enteritis and many other water borne epidemics. Not only do the obvious material constructs like roads and railways decay, but so also are the less obvious technical constructs like the aviation and health infrastructures are in downward decay - mostly there is no air-traffic control over Zimbabwe. Almost all hospitals have closed. Law is varied to suit the whim of the headmen.

What about the grand who flaunt their wealth? These are no more than the asset strippers temporarily preening the residua of a failed civilisation. There is not the productivity to support this charade indefinitely and the facade continues to abrade away. Like the teen who steals father’s Lamborghini to impress a girl, so these people continue to try to seduce the West into giving aid and making investment on the basis of claiming ownership of a “civilisation”. But there is no prospect of re-building this nation, unless a form of colonisation returns, of course.

These claims will be difficult to get into the intellects of those who wish not to hear. Some will continue to deny this failure of a race, denying both cause and effect.

One technique of establishing cause and effect phenomena is to remove the hypothetical causative agent and measure response.

In Zimbabwe the colonists were forced to leave and as their numbers lessened so the constructive capability of the nation degraded in parallel. There was an absolute cause and effect relationship. Once a critical threshold of whites had left, agricultural production plummeted and mining in many arenas ceased. In 2008 the school year was “closed”, i.e. literacy ceased being taught. The hospitals closed one after the other and maternal mortality is returning to one death in every six pregnancies. Malaria, polio, typhoid, typhus, plague, meningitis and measles are all returning to pre-colonial levels. Starvation is endemic. Life expectancy is returning to 37 years for males, 34 for females. The statistics of the Stone Age have returned.

For any logician, the cause and effect relationship between the presence of the colonists and the productivity of the country should be indisputable. There are sufficient grounds to reach that conclusion.

However, analytical science requires that any hypothesis of cause and effect be reproducible. How can we reproduce this model? It is fairly simple.

David Bullard was a popular columnist with the Johannesburg Sunday Times, who had been praised by the editor for his objective insight. However, he made the mistake of speculating, in print, what South Africa would have been like had the colonists not arrived. He believed that it would have remained a hunter-gatherer Stone Age society. Needless to say he was dismissed from the Johannesburg Sunday Times. The reasons were not that his logic was at fault but that the black editor denied this logic, denied history and denied reality.

Was Bullard correct? What if there were areas of Africa which had never been colonized? This was exactly the case in parts of Northern Nigeria. These areas had never been colonised and remained as they had been since time immemorial: thick bush, malaria, insufferable temperatures and no productivity. The only trace of the 21st century was the extermination of many wild animals by fire-armed native poachers.

Let us take the experimental model further. What would happen if you put colonists into this Stone Age environment? Exactly that occurred when individuals of white colonist stock, who had been expelled from their farms in Zimbabwe, were invited to begin “developing” this wild bush land. Effectively they had been asked to “colonize”.

What was the outcome? In five years these white farming colonists had turned wild, impenetrable, unpleasant and dangerous bush into productive farms. Sorghum and many other products were now produced in large quantities. Water had been obtained for irrigation, mechanical infrastructure had been introduced and malaria and other diseases were being controlled.

This example, together with the invitation to whites to re-colonise Moçambique and Sudan (and the recent invitation to whites to re-colonize by the Congolese) proves that the white colonists were a sufficient ingredient to create productive civilizations and were the necessary component in sustaining agriculture in these areas. Without them productive civilisation fails.

That Bullard may well have been correct is illustrated by these sequences of events which substantiate the hypothesis that white colonists are necessary if Africa is to thrive. If the country is to return to its past achievements the only practical way is to invite a re-colonization by the erstwhile white Zimbabweans. However they will require a return of the foundations of Western civilisation, such as an enforceable and fair system if justice, reinstatement of their Zimbabwean nationality, and security of ownership.

The cynics will now say that once these colonists have created an infrastructure in any of these black-governed lands the native asset strippers will get active again, destroying exactly as they did in Zimbabwe. Will black Africa again reap without sowing?

Time will execute this experiment also…

Political mightiness in the “creation” of Zimbabwe.

By guest contributor Robin Hind

David Owen arrived as a boy politician in Rhodesia in 1977, oozing self confident smugness. He was the man to solve the problems of a distant and socially complex nation, or so he thought. It was immediately apparent to those Rhodesians, who had given their lives working to create a civilisation, that this man simply did not have the insight, maturity or capabilities to interfere with the intricate social structures which the Colonists had created. Much the same applied to the British government.

At that date the creators of Rhodesia hoped and planned that every inhabitant would and should receive a better, safer, healthier life if the nation were allowed to continue its remarkable creative prosperity. Those astonishingly capable pioneers had already demonstrated that by achieving the lowest infantile death rate in Africa and the highest literacy rate in Africa. The wisdom and experience of the colonists was paramount, and was there for the asking.

However David Owen and, later, Peter Carrington (and the British government) "knew better". What astonishing self-opinionated arrogance.

Peter Carrington was asked, after the collapse of Zimbabwe, what he thought of the outcome of that “independence”. “No one could have anticipated this outcome” was his way of excusing his failure.

The reality is that many wise and profound people did know it would end this way, but their soundly based views were brushed aside by "know-alls", flexing muscle which was politically vested, but not justified by any other capabilities.

To demonstrate the inevitable failure of this meddlesomeness by uninformed (and misinformed) busy-bodies, swinging lanterns of righteousness and moral rectitude, the attached (copyright) cartoon was commissioned. It was not published in 1977 because of a sycophantic deferentially of the press to the British politicians. However its message of the dangers of political bumptiousness remains valid today.

---------------------------------------------

David Owen, born 1938, qualified as a medical practitioner in 1962, but tried politics in 1964, losing the election. He was Foreign Secretary, 1977 to 1979, responsible for setting the stage for the transfer of power in Zimbabwe. His opportunistic changing of political party allegiance caused him to be regarded as a “serial resigner”.

Owen’s appointment in the British House of Commons greeted by Jack Cunningham who said the choice "was regarded as somewhat eccentric. Owen is known for many qualities, but not as a mediator. Indeed he has balkanised a few political parties himself" [adapted from Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia [2001] Brendan Simms p137]

When the European Parliament voted for Owen’s dismissal the perception in America was that Owen was "not fulfilling his function as an impartial negotiator...” [Unfinest Hour, p167].

Edward Mortimer in the Financial Times said "Owen’s departure may have surprised some who did not realise he was still in the job." [Unfinest Hour, p 171-2]

Owen's versions of events in books which he authored books are said to differ considerably from most other sources. Owen's version of his time in the Balkans was derided by academics and reviewers as 'depend(ent) on factual error, false logic and sheer omission.'

He was one of the authors of the failed Vance-Owen and Owen-Stoltenberg peace plans offered during the Bosnian War

He testified in the trial of former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milošević, and caused some controversy by asserting that Milošević was the only leader in the Bosnian war who had consistently supported peace, and that any form of racism was personally "anathema" to him. Bosnians gave him the nick name "Lord of the Dead”. Many Zimbabweans would concord..

Honored by life peerage in 1992 as Baron Owen of Plymouth

Peter Carrington ascended to the Baronetcy in 1938 as 6th Baron, and entered the House of Lords on his 21st birthday.

As British Foreign Secretary he chaired the Lancaster House agreement on the transfer of power away from the Rhodesian Colonists in 1979.

In his decisions he chose to ignore the opinions of those who had first hand knowledge of the country, and lifelong contact with the country and its people.

He was Foreign Secretary in 1982 when the Falkland Islands were invaded by Argentina. He took full responsibility for the complacency and failures in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to foresee this development and resigned.