₦airaland Forum

dmainboss:
Well I am surprised that people like you come here post things like these. I have travelled many countries and Nigeria has one of the lowest cost of living. In these countries you mention, you have as high as 45 percent tax. In Nigeria,  most people pay 0 tax. fact. Nobody bothers you in Nigeria. fact. The major things we suffer in Nigeria are infrastructures like power and roads. As for cots of living, we do not have higher cost of living than all these countries you mention. My friends in UK are living from hand to mouth. They cant hardly buy anything for themselves. We go from here to UK and take them out.

londoner:
Why compare apples with oranges? The bolded part of what you wrote, answers why Nigeria can not afford to continue to subsidize for ALL.

In the UK, while those who are unemployed or can't pay for services etc dont pay, CRUCIALLY THOSE WHO ARE IN EMPLOYMENT, EVEN IF IT IS PART TIME OR STUDENTS DO PAY, THESE MAKE UP THE MAJORITY, AND THAT IS PRECISELY[b] HOW THE MINORITY CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR.[/b]

I really wish people would stop talking about Nigerians surviving on less than a dollar a day, at the same time, these same Nigerians spend much more than that daily, just on recharge cards.



The government needs to stem the unecessary spending on the population, including the political machine.

The next move is to develop a working system of taxation, where those who [b]truly cant afford [/b]are taken account of and those who can pay, are MADE TO PAY.

Katsumoto:
I want to reproduce a post I made recently with regards to the IMF. Any nation leaning towards the IMF/WB is already in trouble and it is simply naive to blame the woes of such nations on the IMF. Having said that, there have been nations such as the UK that have repaid their loans. And not all loans carry heavy interest rates; it all depends on the duration of the loans. There are facilities such as extended credit facility, standby credit facility, etc that carry zero rates if loans are repaid within 10 and 8 years respectively. The problem usually is that, most countries are so indebted that they will require loan facilities for longer periods, thereby triggering the IMFs SAP.

Now I am not about to absolve the IMF or world bank of any wrongdoing.

The IMF and World Bank are lenders of last resort. When a sovereign nation goes to the IMF, it is because it doesn't have a choice. The IMF and WB will come in and ask the nation to implement a series of programs that is supposed to make the nation leaner and meaner. Afterall, if there was good management in the first place, you wouldn't approach the IMF or WB. The perception of the IMF or WB in most countries where the IMF mandated these programs is usually bad because the citizenry will usually face austere measures. Unfortunately most of the countries that have faced these austere measures are third world countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia. But there are rich world examples as well.

You don't have to go far for rich world examples. Greece, Portugal and Ireland are all implementing IMF mandated Austere measures. The UK, one of the founders, of those institutions had to implement Austere measures in the 1970s. The top rate of tax in the UK was 83% because the Labour governments of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan were profligate. The IMF demanded cuts to public spending and a tax rise because the UK applied for a loan of $4 Billion. Even when Thatcher reduced the top rate to 60% in 1979, she introduced stealth taxes to plug the reduced revenue.

The citizens will feel the effect of IMF policies regardless of whether the policies are implemented correctly or not. The IMF or WB is similar to a loan shark. If you owe money to a loan shark, you can't be sending your kids to the choicest schools and buying fur coats for the wife. The loan shark will demand that you only keep enough to feed your family and put a roof over their heads. If you drive a BMW, he will demand that you sell it and buy a skoda.

Having said all these, I am not ruling out IMF complicity in political intrigues.

aribisala0:
let us assume it is IMF policy so what?
We once paid 20 kobo for petrol and it is now 65 naira. the skies have not fallen.
There really is no justification for subsidies. True there is a lot of corruption and government is unjustifiably large and those issues need to be dealt with  but they should not be conflated with subsidies.

Subsidies create a false sense of reality and encourages waste. People should pay the market value of what they use and the building of private refineries encouraged.
Nigeria DID NOT sign up to removing subsidies with anyone. The bulk of Nigeria's debt burden is owed to Nigerians NOT the IMF.
Nigeria is a member of the IMF like the UK, US and Greece and the IMF does give "advice" to these countries too. Also if they lend money to a country they are Well within their rights to attach conditions so that they get their money back which is normal. That is NOT the case right now anyhow. We must remember that Nigeria is one of the countries that contributes to the fund and they too,like others,expect the Fund to manage their money wisely.
Do we really need the IMF to tell us that it is foolish and unsustainable to subsidise petrol so that we sell it 3 times less than our neighbours.
w e may argue that it should be phased in gradually and that exchange rate should be stabilised  but it is just storing up problems for the future if we don't deal with it now. We may also argue that rather than diverting money from states to the sovereign wealth fund the oil subsidy should be used for that

efisher:
Can somebody tell me how fuel subsidy removal benefits IMF or USA.

[b]How The IMF-World Bank and Structural Adjustment Program Destroyed Africa
World Tuesday, September 7th, 2010
Africa Poverty Structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) have been implemented in many ‘developing’ countries since the 1980s. They were designed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank imposed as a condition for further loans. Below is a brief background of the events that led many countries to accept SAPs. It describes how SAPs are being implemented and what results they have produced over the past 20 years. This article also gives a short analysis of the roles of the World Bank, the IMF and the local political elites in this process.

Structural Adjustment and the Debt Crisis

SAPs were born as a result of a debt crisis that has hit especially developing countries since the 1980s.

This debt crisis has its origin in the early 1970s when oil-producing countries that had united in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) increased the oil price to gain additional revenue. Most of these profits were invested with banks in industrialised countries. These banks, in turn, were interested to lend this money to developing countries to finance the purchase of products from the industrialised countries. In this way, the loans given to ‘developing’ countries helped to stimulate production in the North (see Toussaint and Comanne 1995: 15). At that time. both private and public institutions encouraged the South to borrow. Even the World Bank ‘preached the doctrine of debt as the path towards accelerated development’. As a result, huge amounts were borrowed by the political elites, often wasted on luxuries, ‘white elephant’ projects or stolen by corrupt officials (Usually stooges, selected by the exiting colonial powers to lead these failed African states). Very little was invested productively with a view of achieving sustainable economic growth (see George 1995: 21).

During the 1970s loans were given freely at very low interest rates but this situation changed dramatically in the early 1980s. The USA pushed up interest rates drastically in an attempt to stop inflation. ‘Developing’ countries that had taken out loans with US banks now had to pay huge interests. The major lending banks in Europe followed suit and the debt crisis was born (see George 1995: 21). ‘Developing’ countries were unable to repay their loans and were forced to take up new loans to pay the interest.

In 1980 the total debt of developing countries stood at US$ 567 billion. Between 1980 and 1992 these countries paid back US$ 1662 billion. However, because of the high interest rates, the debt increased to US$ 1419 billion in 1992 – despite the repayments! The rising interest rates forced developing countries to take out new loans to avoid bankruptcy.

Debt repayments drain about US$ 160 billion each year from ‘developing’ countries. This is about 2.5 times the total development aid that these countries receive!

Since the 1980s, debt repayments are a major mechanism of transferring wealth from the South to the North. The former French President Francois Mitterand admitted this when he said in 1994:

‘Despite the considerable sums spent on bilateral and multilateral aid, the flow of capital from Africa toward the industrial countries is greater than the flow of capital from the industrial countries to the developing countries’ (see Touissaint and Comanne 1995: 10-12).

Despite the fact that ‘developing’ countries have long paid back their initial loans, they are still highly indebted and are dependent on new loans. This paved the way for the IMF and World Bank to come ‘to the rescue’. They were given the task to make sure that ‘developing’ countries will continue paying their debt by offering new loans – to countries who accept certain conditions: structural adjustment.

The role of the IMF and World Bank

Initially the idea behind the World Bank and IMF, also called the Bretton Woods institutions, was widely supported. The Bank was given the task to rebuild first Europe and then other countries after the Second World War. The IMF was supposed to facilitate trade and to make short-term loans available to countries with temporary balance of payment problems (see George 1995: 19).

Today the IMF and the World Bank are much more powerful than its founders could have imagined. Both have over 170 member countries whose power is determined by the amount they pay in subscriptions. This system of ‘one dollar – one vote’ has meant that the rich industrialised countries control these institutions today (see the description of the IMF and World Bank attached). The IMF and World Bank are far from democratic and their policies are shaped by their principal shareholders – the powerful industrialised countries.

The IMF and World Bank today have a strong influence over economic policies in many countries. The inability of many countries to repay their debt has made them dependent on new loans. The IMF has the power to declare countries credit worthy – or not. To get the seal of approval countries have to accept the conditions of structural adjustment programmes. They have to restructure their economies according to IMF/World Bank guidelines – otherwise they will have virtually no chance to get loans from private or public creditors anywhere (see George 1995:19-21).

The Implementation of Structural Adjustment Programmes

SAPs are built on the fundamental condition that debtor countries have to repay their debt in hard currency. This <!–[if !vml]–><!–[endif]–>leads to a policy of ‘exports at all costs’ because exports are the only way for ‘developing’ countries to obtain such currencies.

A first feature of SAPs is therefore a switch in production from what local people eat, wear or use towards goods that can be sold in the industrialised countries. Since the 1980s dozens of countries have followed these policies simultaneously. They often exported the same primary commodities, competed with each other and then suffered because of declining world market prices for their commodities. Between 1980 and 1992, ‘developing’ countries lost 52% of their export income due to deteriorating prices (see Touissant and Comanne 1995: 12; George 1995:22; Bournay 1995: 51).

SAPs have 4 fundamental objectives according to which they are shaped:

Liberalisation: promoting the free movement of capital; opening of national markets to international competition.

Privatisation of public services and companies.

De-regulations of labour relations and cutting social safety nets.

Improving competitiveness (see Toissant and Comanne 1995:14)

Based on these objectives, SAPs prescribe nearly always the same measures as a condition for new loans. These are:

reduction of government deficit through cuts in public spending (cost recovery programmes);

higher interest rates

liberalisation of foreign exchange rules and trade (deregulation);

rationalisation and privatisation of public and parastatal companies;

deregulation of the economy, for example:

- liberalisation of foreign investment regulations

- deregulation of the labour market, e.g. wage ‘flexibility’

- abolishing price controls and food subsidies

shift from import substitution to export production (see Isaacs 1997: 135)

These measures forced countries on a path of deregulated free market economies. The IMF/World bank basically determine countries’ macro-economic policies, they take control over central bank policies and over public expenditure through the so-called ‘Public Expenditure Review’. SAPs promote the principal of cost-recovery for social services and the gradual withdrawal of the state from basic health and educational services. Under its ‘Public Investment Programme’ the IMF even decides what type of infrastructure should be built while an imposed system of international tender ensures that public-works projects are carried out by international construction and engineering firms (see Chossudovsky 1995: 59).

Although several countries were skeptical about such neo-liberal policies (designed along the ideas of the Reagan and Thatcher administrations) they were forced to abandon socialist or even social democratic ideas. In this way, the debt crisis has provided the IMF and World Bank with a very effective instrument of disciplining rebellious countries. Debtor countries are kept in a ‘strait-jacket’ which prevents them from implementing their own economic policies (SEE George 1995:21; Chossudovsky 1995:57).

The Results of Structural Adjustment Programmes

Despite the IMF and World Bank claims of SAP successes, it is widely acknowledged that SAPs have failed to achieve their goals. They have not created wealth and economic development as unregulated markets did not benefit the poor and failed to protect the delivery of social services. The IMF/World Bank believe that the elimination of protective tariffs will make domestic industries more competitive. In reality, domestic manufacturing often collapsed and imported consumer goods replaced domestic production. Other results of SAPs were:

Privatisation allows international capital to buy state enterprises at very low costs.

Tax reforms under SAPs (like VAT) place a greater tax burden on middle and low-income groups while foreign capital receives generous tax holidays.

Deregulation of the banking system leads to very high interest rates which makes most goods unaffordable to the majority.

Elimination of subsidies and prize controls, covered with devaluation lead to price increases and reduce real earnings in the formal and informal sectors.

Free movement of foreign exchange allows foreign companies to repatriate their profits. It also allows the ‘laundering’ of ‘dirty money’ from offshore banking accounts.

Cost-recovery programmes in the health sector increased the inequality in health care delivery, reduced health coverage and increased the number of people without access to health care. Diseases like cholera, malaria and yellow fever are on the increase again.

Various NGOs funded by international aid agencies have gradually taken over government functions in the social sector.

Cuts in public sector employment (for example 300 000 civil servants were retrenched in Zaire – now DRC – in 1995), coupled with bankruptcies of local companies has led to large increases in unemployment.

Liberalisation of the labour market leads to the elimination of cost of living adjustment clauses in collective agreements and to the phasing out of minimum wage legislation.

Export orientation in agriculture is eliminating subsistence crops and accelerates the exodus of the unemployed towards the cities. (See Touissant and Comanne 1995: 9; Chossudovsky 1995:58-64)

Even in those countries that are singled out as success stories, SAPs imposed severe hardships on the poor. In Uganda, for example, the government obediently followed the World Bank/IMF policies and implemented far-reaching liberalisation such as:

Privatisation of government institutions

Reducing the size of the civil service and the army

Liberalisation of foreign exchange

Decentralisation of services to local authorities

Cuts in government spending on social services

Despite some (statistical) economic growth, these policies resulted in:

Drop in formal sector employment to less than 14% of the economically active population

Retrenchment of more than half the civil service (170 000)

Lack of equipment and medication in government health facilities

Collapse of small enterprises

Declining co-operative movement

Trade Unions lost 60% of their members since 1990

SAPs had a detrimental effect on social services. In the education sector, for example, they led to:

Increasing class size (student-teacher ratios)

Increasing school fees as part of cost-recovery programmes

Reduction in the number of teachers and/or wage freezes

Introduction of ‘double shifts’

Drop in the standard of public education due to deteriorating facilities

Increase in private schools for the wealthy

Increasing inequalities in the standard of education between poor and rich communities

Lower enrolment at schools as the poor have to choose between feeding their children and paying for school uniforms, stationery and school fees.

Finance-driven education reforms under SAPs often reversed the gains made by African countries after independence.

SAPs meant that most countries had to make major cuts in their education budgets and the world-wide rate of illiteracy began to grow again after a long period of decline (see Bournay 1995: 51). The poor and vulnerable groups in society are always the hardest hit by the SAP measures. SAPs have had a particularly negative effect on women because:

Privatisation of social services like health and education makes these services unaffordable for the poor. As a result, women are often forced to take on these responsibilities, for example tacking care of the sick.

Cuts in education services lead to an increase in illiteracy among women and girls. Under SAPs, the drop-out rate for girls is increasing.

Reduced spending on health leads to an increase in maternal deaths.

The elimination of food subsidies coupled with falling (real) wages reduces women’s buying power.

Unemployment is increasing as a result of public sector ‘restructuring’

‘Labour flexibility’ may result in more jobs for women at the expense of men. These jobs, however, are usually poorly paid and insecure.

The reduction of formal sector jobs drives women into the informal sector.

[/b]

[b]Again and again in Southern Africa and across the Third World the IMF’s free-market economic advice and conditions on loans have been disastrous. These disasters have led to a profound crisis of legitimacy for the Washington institution. Former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote in the April 2000 New Republic magazine that the IMF is populated by “third-rate economists.”

One reason for the IMF’s crisis of legitimacy is the control exercised by the US government. This power is based on ownership of 18% of the IMF’s shares, enough to veto anything the US disagrees with.

The IMF remains a profoundly undemocratic institution, whose economic policies have been roundly condemned for the misery caused throughout the Third World and especially in East Asia, Russia and Latin America when “emerging market crises” occurred during 1997-99.

The IMF’s fraternal institution, the World Bank, has had an especially obnoxious role in Johannesburg. Bank staff were responsible for a 1995 infrastructure policy which recommended low standards and high prices for household water and electricity, even though the Reconstruction and Development Programme mandated the opposite. Bank staff recommended that low-income households be not given flush toilets but instead use pit-latrines, without considering the public health risks of excrement leaking into Johannesburg’s water table through its dolomitic rock.

When a similar scheme was established in Winterveld in 1991, hundreds of people got cholera as a result.

The Bank also promoted privatisation of municipal services across the country. In Johannesburg, it took the lead on research to promote a one-sided, pro-corporate perspective on iGoli 2002. It is no wonder that the Johannesburg privatisation plan has been renamed “E.Coli 2002″.

For all these reasons, the visit of Horst Koehler and the ongoing role played by the World Bank in Johannesburg represent very serious dangers to poor and working-class people and the environment.
http://rainbowwarrior2005./2008/11/07/the-world-bank-and-imf-in-africa/

[/b]

[b]The World Bank and IMF in Africa
A little History
The World Bank and IMF in Africa
August 2008

The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are two of the most powerful international financial institutions in the world. They are the major sources of lending to African countries, and use the loans they provide as leverage to prescribe policies and dictate major changes in the economies of these countries. The World Bank is the largest public development institution in the world, lending over $24 billion in 2007 – of which over $5 billion (or 22 percent) went to Africa.

The World Bank and IMF are controlled by the world’s richest countries, particularly the U.S., which is the main shareholder in both institutions. The World Bank, headquartered in Washington, DC, follows a “one dollar, one vote” system whereby members with the greatest financial contributions have the greatest say in decision making. The U.S. holds roughly 17% of the vote in the World Bank and the 48 sub-Saharan African countries together have less than 9% of the votes. The Group of 7 rich countries (G-7) control 45% of World Bank votes. This system ensures that the World Bank and IMF act in the interest of the rich countries, promoting a model of economic growth (called neo-liberal) that benefits the richest countries and the international private sector.

Over the past two decades, the poorest countries in the world have had to turn increasingly to the World Bank and IMF for financial assistance, because their impoverishment has made it impossible for them to borrow elsewhere. The World Bank and IMF attach strict conditions to their loans, which give them great control over borrower governments. On average, low-income countries are subject to as many as 67 conditions per World Bank loan. African countries, in need of new loans, have had no choice but to accept these conditions.

The World Bank and IMF have forced African countries to adopt “structural adjustment programs” (SAP) and other measures which cut back government spending on basic services. They have required African governments to reduce trade barriers and open their markets, maintaining their economies as sources of cheap raw materials and cheap labor for multinational corporations.

As a result of World Bank and IMF policies, average incomes in Africa have declined, and the continent’s poverty has increased. Africa’s debt crisis has worsened over the past two decades, as the failure of World Bank and IMF intervention has left African countries more dependent than ever on new loans. These institutions have also undermined Africa’s health through the policies they have imposed. Forced cutbacks in spending on health care, and the privatization of basic services, have left Africa’s people more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS and other poverty-related diseases.

http://rainbowwarrior2005./2008/11/07/the-world-bank-and-imf-in-africa/
[/b]

[b]INDIAN BUFFER AND WHITES

Whiteness is an asset in South Africa, just browse through the adverts of people looking for work because if White is not an asset why do people say "I am a White, " , or "White couple looking for , " They do this because Whiteness has currency and is an unwritten entry card. 100% a White receptionist will be hired over a Zulu receptionist. Because of the racist value attached to White privilege.
 



Lets ask a question. An African man takes an Indian woman back to his village for marriage- how will she be treated? An Indian woman takes an African man back to her community for marriage how will he be treated. This highlights a fundamental difference between Africans and everyone else. Indians in South Africa are boasting about 150 Years of climbing the economic ladder to being now "Captains of industry" .How did they get this "success" at whose expense? And are they SA first? How many SA Indian women have you seen with African men? They have their own Indian channels, their Indian culture, a deep connection to everything India from films to food, so are we sure they are South African first? During Apartheid Indians were the social-economic buffer protecting White privilege. And in their defense, they were used by Whites but have profited from their preferential relationship with Whites. Now Indians in South Africa should stay Indian first, but they should then stop deceiving the people about their loyalties. An Indian film made by an Indian from Durban is triumphed by Black politicians from Durban, because the filmmaker is from Durban. The story is Indian, the cast and crew are Indian, the motives and profits are Indian but "White Gold" is a champion of the accomplishments of Durban. This is the mentality of Black politicians in South Africa, who put silly notions of nationality above race, while Whites and Indians continue to put race first without apology
[/b]

South Africa, the symbol of hope for Africa and the World. Proof that a righteous transition does not have to be a blood bath - At least this is what it says in the brochure. 

Pseudo-nationalities where created at the end of apartheid with every single action servicing the exiting apartheid elites. The 2% Africans who escaped into the hills of Santon would become the new buffers and protectors of white wealth.

[b]South Africa is home to the perfect, and unique, example of the Majority-minority phenomenon. Africans are a majority but an economic and culturally a minority: The subaltern in their own land of demographic dominance. And today the responsibility for this rest with the leadership and their failure to empower and sensitize the people via conscious self-awareness and agency. They have failed in understanding the dynamics of the problem. They are unconcerned with the energy it will take to repair this social-economic problem and primarily, worried about possible economic downtime if any sincere attempts are made.

Still you get Blacks shopping in expensive malls in the suburbs and feeling superior to other Africans because of these "wonders", didn't anyone tell them they don't own anything, they are just guest in someone else's house. Didn't someone tell them those malls weren't built for them? These are the perks of being a slave in a White man's house. So yes South Africa has many freedoms in areas non-effective at deeper liberation; so much freedom it gives people two free hands to hang themselves with. [/b]



One thing that is rarely debated is how South Africa, post 94, has implemented a policy of national brainwashing rhetoric; identical to that of the American dream that built USA national pride, a lie repeated by the poorest African-Americans who live on the breadline.  This South African rhetoric is the de facto language of every politician.The excuse for the so-called TRC was to prevent a "blood bath", people take it without question and vomit it back out. "We had to do what we did to prevent a blood bath." If repeated enough, it becomes fixed as fact. Who said that there would have been a blood bath had a revolutionary path taken? How can a blood bath come about if you seek justice against war criminals and create a strong African (Black) economy? What is the source of this study that says they prevented a blood bath? Was there a blood bath in Germany after the Nuremberg Trials? Was there a blood bath when Castro nationalized Cuba?
South Africa's economically active population (EAP) was 74% African, 11% colored, 3% Indian and 12% white. These proportions are clearly not replicated in top management structures across the country, in which only 20% are filled by Africans, 5% by colored people and 7% by Indians. 64% of top senior management positions are filled by whites. Most departments spit out these statics but have failed to deal with the root of the problem in a holistic way.

http://www.africanholocaust.net/articles/SOUTH%20AFRICA%2010%20DAYS.htm

morpheus24:
You must know since you left your 400 square foot flat on tour of Africa

What kind of s.t.u.p.i.d. question is that?
ehhhh?

Paniki, remember you are talking to someone who gets all his info from you tube videos and doesn't have enough money to leave his 400 squre foot flat in the center of Lewisham cause the British govt is taxing 40% of his income.

He's a cyber warrior.

paniki:
Here's a challenge: please quote any comment I made on nairaland where i stated that ALL OF THE CORPORATIONS, BANKS AND INDUSTRIES REMAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE WHITES

You are now trying to make yourselves lose credibility by misrepresenting my views. You becoming a classic nutcase that always misinterpret peoples comments just to fit his delusional worldview

The problem with Corporal is that he became quickly defensive and foolishly believed that every black person on this forum is against whites. It would've been wise for him to lay low and observe how we continually castigate racist idiots like you. Now Corporal has in a way made us stoop to your lousy level of looking at everything from a racial point of view

Corporal just so you know, there aren't that many racists on this forum. You made a silly assumption

paniki:
You missed the point as usual. Morpheus' pics showcase racial integration in South Africa to show Corporal that them whites aint going nowhere but choosing to live alongside blacks and therefore SA will not collapse as Corporal is wishing. My pics show that the place where Zolzlolz lives is not interested in integrating hence the city is known to be racist that's why Zolzlolz is so against whites although with a little bit less passion than you. If she lived in Langa or khayelitsha or the other black areas she would not be so against whites. But Rondebosch which is the area around UCT is just full of whites and so she feels excluded

paniki:
lol. What is the definition of the word INSANITY?

morpheus24:
Notice how scared the white people are. Oh SOUTH AFRICA. Botha, bring back the apatheid days!

paniki:
What I see now is a case of three people who have one thing in common - they all feel marginalised. Cap28 lives in white mans land who has the political power to regulate everyone including the minority same with Corporal who lives in black mans land who also has the political power to implement regulations that make him whine and then there is Zolzlolz who lives in a city that is politically controlled by whites who obviously implement local city regulations to suit them. Because those who have political power traditionally choose to look after their own first the atmosphere you live in will therefore be more pro-majority and anti-minority. You wouldn't feel so victimised and ostracised and filled with contempt and animosity if you didn't live in a place where you were in the minority.

So here's a suggestion: Cap28 LEAVE the UK and go to a place that has people who look and speak like you, you would not have been able to know that white man is racist if you were not there in the first place. Corporal you say that you are a English white which means that you will be able to get British citizenship by decent links so apply asap and then LEAVE for the UK or Australia. Zolzlolz, Cape Town is not a place for black people therefore LEAVE that place and move to any other city in South Africa.

corporal:
Morf you are so thick you never get the point, it doesnt matter how well its written. Its not that they are coming here and doing criminal things its the fact that they are coming here at all.
If you need to run away from your own country and apply for refugee status here then clearly there is a problem in your own, wake up and admit it you ignoramus. Millions running to South Africa the home of the white man you hate, I would never run to anywhere in Africa because its all stuffed.
Go home

Onlytruth:
Please can you conspiracy theorists tell me how these are responsible for Gideon Akaluka's beheading and the massacre that followed; how a cartoon in Denmark led to mass murder in Nigeria; and how innocent youth corpers died because Buhari lost an election?

In the videos you shared, it showed that people inside those countries stood up to the power brokers and kicked them out. Why haven't Nigerians been able to do the same?
Why did Nzeogwu's revolution fail and why did tens of thousands of innocent Igbos get massacred for it?
More importantly, why are there no remorse by the perpetrators of that genocide even today?

When you answer these questions and link them to America and Israel I will start to listen. 

During the 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon spoke out at least twice in support of more relief aid for Biafra, and his wife publicly appeared on the steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York to encourage donations. "This is not the time to stand on ceremony or go through channels or to observe the diplomatic niceties," Nixon said in a public statement. "While America is not the world's policeman, let us at least act as the world's conscience in this matter of life and death for millions, ''

The State Department's attitude remained fixed in support of the Nigerian government, at least partly because it was clear from the outset that the Biafrans had no chance of winning. Roger Morris had been frustrated in the Johnson White House at his inability to persuade the administration to increase its aid to Biafra, but there was reason to believe Nixon would change policy. Indeed, during the transition period after the election, Nixon asked Kissinger for a study paper on expanded relief to Biafra; and on January 24, 1969, four days after the inauguration, Biafra was the subject of one of the first National Security Study Memoranda Kissinger ordered. In the early months of his presidency, Morris recalls, Nixon repeatedly told Kissinger that he wanted formal recognition of Biafra, which would have provoked open opposition in the State Department. Yet the policy agreed upon at a February 1969 NSC meeting, at which Nixon presided, called for the United States to maintain official neutrality on the civil war, although continuing to supply relief for the Biafrans.

By late fall, Biafran leaders were bitter over the Nixon Administration's refusal to do more than express sympathy and support for their position. "We are especially resentful of the ambivalent pretenses the United States makes, that it is trying to help us," Sir Louis Mbanefo, Biafra's Chief Justice, told a Washington Post reporter. "If we are condemned to die, all right, we will die. But at least let the world, and the United States, be honest about it." White House interest in the Nigerian civil war was not renewed until January 10, 1970, when word came that the collapse of the Biafran forces and the secessionist movement was imminent. The Biafrans surrendered twenty-four hours later.

In his memoirs, Kissinger discussed the Nigerian civil war only briefly, dryly noting that "For some reason Biafra had become an issue in the American Presidential campaign of 1968." He and Nixon were aware of studies showing that more than a million Biafran lives were threatened with starvation, Kissinger said, and both supported Roger Morris in his efforts to get supplies directly to Biafra. But, he added, opposition from the British, who supported Nigeria, and "State Department procrastination soon made the issue moot. We never succeeded in establishing an independent relief program,  A curtain of silence descended."

igbo2011:
Only China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran can stop them now. I don't know who else has nuclear bombs. Brasil might have them (not sure). The west doesn't want to be second to anybody. If there is a 3rd world war then a lot of the world will be nuked. I think it is too late. The people who run the world are too greedy.

kingoflag:
Cap28, I hate to dwell in what some might call "Over-the-top" conspiracy theories. But can you please remind your dear friend above, the one that thinks Israel and the United States give a rats-as*s about his black-as*s that WHENEVER THERES A UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION AGAINST RACISM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ISRAEL ARE ALWAYS THE TWO COUNTRIES TO PROTEST AND TEAR RACE COMOT FOR CONFERENCE HALL!!! Tell me why!!!

Israel supported Apartheid in South Africa, na dem go come support Biafra?! ROFLMAO. Onlytruth, ol'boy, a beg pick up a book, na your only choice be that.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/24/israels_most_illicit_affair?hidecomments=yes

Onlytruth:
In the world of conspiracy theory, anything is possible, that is why I am more interested in HISTORY. What ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
From history, I know, that in the era of "modern" African state, African Muslims have killed more Africans than America, and Israel combined. An uneasy stalemate is holding in Dafur as we speak, where Arab Africans have attempted to ethnically cleanse black Africans in an o.r.gy of violence.

Northern Nigerian muslims have killed more Nigerians than any foreign country could ever attempt without provoking a military response from Nigeria.

So, I feel very insulted when Africans (black) come here to parrot conspiracy theories they hardly understand.

Why not simply tell your African Muslims to repent and toss the mass murdering Koran into the abyss in the interest of Africa's peace and unity. No, they won't! They would prefer the boogie man's story instead. SMDH!

EzeUche:
cap28 you are an anti-semetic.

You are no different from the Nazis, KKK, and Arabs in their hatred for the Jews.