Αγορά Πολιτών

Τρόπος Συμμετοχής

Χορηγίες

Πολίτες στην Αγορά

Έχουμε 1138 επισκέπτες συνδεδεμένους

Επικοινωνία

Γερμανία 004917667046073

The Absolute Evil

 

Gang-stalking Greeks

 

Byzantine Atrocities

 

European Dissidents ALARM

 

Human Rights' Court

 

The used up men

 

Dissidents - USG RICO crimes

 

Open Letter to Theresa May

 

Open Letter to António Guterres UN's SG

 

Triangulation - Zersetzen

 

Open Letter to Andrew Parker, MI5

  

Πράξεις ποταπές - Despicable choices

 

 

My father's death

 

Cavitation damage

 

Burglary and vandalism

 

Dry mini submarine

 

Message to Bundeswehr 2

 

Message to Bundeswehr 1

 

“Tough” guys and TOUGH guys

 

Μοναδική λύση, το Χόλιγουντ

 

Charlatans

 

Zeppelin: Beyond Gravity

 

Foreign intervention in Greece?

 

Η ανελεύθερη Ελλάδα

 

Η Ελλάδα καταγώγιο;

 

Αν.Επ. Π. Παυλόπουλο

  

Intangible prisons

 

Plausible deniability

 

Images of German w & s

 

Crimes against Humanity

 

"Chimera" - "Bellerophon"

 

pr. Donald Trump

 

  

Legal Notice 87

 

Βδέλλες, αποικιοκρατικές

 

Being a German

 

Legal Notice 84

 

Dirty colonial methods

 

Georgi Markov, BG - KGB

 

Samples of Barbarity

 

Ελλάδα - αποκόλληση

 

Έλληνες, στο έλεος...

 

Harvester's log 16/3/17

 

 

Legal Notice 66

 

Execrable

 

Legal Notice 62

 

  

My story

 

  

Aggression?

 

  

Η Εστία μου

 

  

Why so untidy?

 

  

Αποικιοκρατία

 

  

Εξόντωση Ελλήνων αντιφρονούντων;

 

  

Ζήτημα εμπιστοσύνης

 

  

Μεθοδικότητα

 

  

Ανοικτή Επιστολή πρέσβη ΗΠΑ

Αφορμή, U2RIT vs Ελλάδα;

Βιοηθική

A request to U2RIT

Colonial aggression - 2

Open Letter to UN S.G.

Open Letter to p.C. & p. O.

Δήλωση πρόθεσης επαναπατρισμού

 

Ο "εφιάλτης" της Νυρεμβέργης

Συλλογή Φωτογραφιών

Αίτημα προστασίας, προς Ιταλία

Chroma key, background removal

Science and Ethics

Να συμβάλει και η U2RIT

Θα ξαναφτιάξουν πολλές φορές Άουσβιτς και Zyclon B

 

Split-Screen effect

Η Ζωή είναι Ωραία.

Βόρεια Κορέα

Λευτεριά στους Έλληνες, εξανα- γκαστικά "Εξαφανισμένους"

 

Μυστικές δίκες;

Trustworthiness

Πολιτισμό, ή, απληστία;

Ακραία Στυγνότητα

Η Τέχνη της Επιβίωσης

Political Asylum 3

Επιστροφή στις ρίζες

The Human Cost of Torture

An urgent appeal for solidarity

More obvious than the Sun

Western "culture"

Political Asylum

Έννομη Προστασία

Μια μήνυση που εγείρει ερωτηματικά

 

 

 

Honor your father...

Noise

Creative Greeks

A pair of Dictatorships

Κοινή Λογική και Εθνική Επιβίωση PDF Εκτύπωση E-mail
Αξιολόγηση Χρήστη: / 0
ΧείριστοΆριστο 
Συνεννόηση για Δράση - Απόψεις
Συντάχθηκε απο τον/την Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης (Christos Boumpoulis)   
Κυριακή, 26 Αύγουστος 2018 18:27
christosboumpoulis_090.JPG

 

Κοινή Λογική και Εθνική Επιβίωση

 

Κάθε φυσιολογικός άνθρωπος επιθυμεί:

- Να ζήσει μέχρι και τα βαθιά γεράματά του, υγιής, ευτυχισμένος και αρτιμελής.

- Να ζήσει ελεύθερος.

- Να μην τον βασανίζουν αυθαίρετα.

- Να μην του αφαιρούν ιστούς και οργανά του, αυθαίρετα.

- Να μην του ελέγχουν και να μην προσβάλλουν την ιδιωτικότητα της σκέψης, αυθαίρετα.

- Να μην τον εξορίζουν, περιθωριοποιούν κοινωνικά, επαγγελματικά και πολιτικά, αυθαίρετα.

- Να μην τον εμποδίζουν να αναπτυχθεί κοινωνικά και οικογενειακά, αυθαίρετα.

- Να μην του προσβάλλουν την τιμή και την υπόλειψη, αυθαίρετα.

- Να μην του αφαιρούν την υλική περιουσία, αυθαίρετα.

 

δηλαδή, επιθυμούν, τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματά τους να παραμένουν σεβαστά.

Οι σημερινοί, φυσιολογικοί άνθρωποι επιθυμούν όσα αναφέρω παραπάνω ενώ υπάρχουν χώρες οι κάτοικοι των οποίων ενσωματώνουν μια μακραίωνη παράδοση τρόπου ζωής ο οποίος χαρακτηρίζεται από καταναλωτικές συνήθειες οι οποίες υπερβαίνουν κατά πολύ τις δυνατότητες παραγωγής νέου πλούτου, αυτών των χωρών. Έτσι, οι αποικιοκρατικές αυτές χώρες, για την επιβίωσή τους είναι αναγκασμένες, από τις παραδόσεις τις οποίες ενσωματώνουν, να υπεξαιρούν πλούτο από άλλες, αδύναμες χώρες, αφού προηγουμένως στερήσουν αυθαίρετα, τα Αθρώπινα Δικαιώματα των πολιτών τους και τους υποδουλώσουν.

Παραδοσιακά, η αποικιοποίηση χωρών ξεκινά από την, άμεση είτε έμμεση, εξόντωση των μελών των φυσικών ηγεσιών, τα οποία οι συμπολίτες τους δύνανται να τους αναγνωρίζουν, των υποψήφιων αποικιών. Και στη συνέχεια ακολουθεί η απαλοιφή, μέσω της χρήσης παραδοσιακών μέσων και μεθόδων, της ευθυκρισίας όλων των μελών των αποικιών.

Τελικά, οι πολίτες των αποικιοποιημένων χωρών, δίχως ευθυκρισία και φυσική ηγεσία, υποδουλώνονται και στερούνται μόνιμα την δυνατότητα απελευθέρωσής τους.

Η σύγχρονη αποικιοκρατία, την οποία πραγματοποιούν, το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο, οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες της Αμερικής, η Ρωσική Ομοσπονδία, το Ισραήλ και η Τουρκία, διαθέτει αφάνταστες και ασύλληπτες, από τον κοινό νου, τεχνικές δυνατότητες, επιχειρησιακές μεθόδους, επιμελιτεία, και οικονομικές δυνατότητες, τα οποία χρησιμοποιεί προκειμένου, να κατασυκοφαντήσει, τραυματίσει, περιθωριοποιήσει, είτε, βιολογικά εξοντώσει, τα μέλη των φυσικών ηγεσιών των χωρών τις οποίες στοχοποιεί προκειμένου να τα αποικιοποιήσει.

Οι φυσιολογικοί άνθρωποι των Έθνών που απολαμβάνουν την Ελευθερία και την Εθνική τους ανεξαρτησία, διαθέτουν ευθυκρισία. Αυτό σημαίνει, μεταξύ πολλών άλλων, ότι δύνανται να διακρίνουν, από τους συμπατριώτες τους, ποιοι είναι μέλη της φυσικής ηγεσίας του Έθνους τους.

Διακρίνοντας τα μέλη της φυσικής τους ηγεσίας παρέχουν σε αυτά κάθε εύλογη υποστήριξη και τα προστατεύουν από κάθε περιβαλλοντική συνθήκη η οποία, δυνητικά, θα μπορούσε να είναι απειλητική για αυτά. Και παρέχουν αυτή τη φροντίδα, στις φυσικές τους ηγεσίες, ακριβώς επειδή επιθυμούν όσα ανέφερα στην αρχή του παρόντος άρθρου.

Και τι σχέση έχουν αυτές οι στοιχειώδεις επιθυμίες με τις φυσικές ηγεσίες;

Αν η φυσική ηγεσία, ενός Ελεύθερου Έθνους καταστραφεί, τότε, τα μέλη αυτού του Έθνους δεν θα λάβουν έγκαιρα προειδοποιήσεις σχετικά με κάποια, δυνητική, απόπειρα εκ μέρους της σύγχρονης αποικιοκρατίας, υποβάθμισης της συλλογικής ευθυκρισίας του Έθνους αυτού, με αποτέλεσμα την βέβαιη στέρηση αυτής της ευθυκρισίας και με απώτερο αποτέλεσμα, την μόνιμη υποδούλωση του Έθνους αυτού.

Συμπερασματικά, θεωρώ ότι, οι βασικοί λόγοι για τους οποίους, όλα τα μέλη, δίχως εξαίρεση, ενός Ελεύθερου Έθνους, παρέχουν έγκαιρη και αμέριστη, υποστήριξη, προστασία και συμπαράσταση, στα μέλη των φυσικών ηγεσιών τους είναι επειδή, θέλουν να ζήσουν και να μακροημερεύσουν· επειδή θέλουν να ζήσουν ελεύθερα· επειδή θέλουν να ζήσουν πολιτισμένα· και επειδή θέλουν να ζήσουν ευτυχισμένα.

 

Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης

οικονομολόγος

 

Παράρτημα

  

Tasmanian Genocide - Truganini

For 10,000 years the population of the island of Tasmania lived in complete isolation from the rest of humanity. In 1803 the government of Britain began to settle Australia with criminals. 73 years later the last Tasmanian died. This completed the total annihilation of the residents of Tasmania 6,000 in total, by the Australian settlers.

After a visit to Australia, Charles Darwin, 19th century British biologist and geologist, said, “Death pursues the native in every place where the European sets foot.” On the visit, he met the European settlers that had settled on the hunting and gathering lands, and sacred places of the indigenous peoples. The European settlers expelled the indigenous people from their lands and in the process many aboriginals were killed by disease, as they had no immunity to the diseases the Europeans brought with them, starvation, and intentional killing in a hopeless power struggle. The most extreme part of this story took place on a small island near Australia called Tasmania.

The mountainous island of Tasmania lies 320 kilometers off the coast of Australia. Europeans discovered it in 1642, when they found around 6,000 habitants who lived as hunter-gatherers, who were of similar origin to the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. They used more primitive technology than any other people in the modern era and manufactured only a few simple tools from wood and stone. They had no contact with the outside world until the arrival of Europeans.

At the end of the 18th century, the British began to settle the island. Mainly, they sent criminals who had to be removed from mainland Australian colonies due to severe crimes, as well as a number of seal hunters. This encounter between two extremely different populations was murderous from the very beginning. The European settlers kidnapped Tasmanian children for servants and women for concubines; they killed or mutilated the men and conquered their hunting land in an attempt to expel them from their territory. A lone shepherd killed nineteen Tasmanians with a nail rifle. Four other shepherds ambushed a group of natives, killed thirty of them and dumped their bodies off a cliff known today as Victory Hill.

The Extermination:

The Tasmanians attempted retaliation, and as part of the effort to prevent the escalation of a war, in April of 1828 Governor Arthur ordered that all Tasmanians must leave the part of the island settled by Europeans. To enforce the order, government-sponsored “patrol teams” composed of prisoners led by policemen were established. The “patrol teams” chased and killed Tasmanians as the soldiers had the authority to immediately kill any Tasman they found in the settled areas. Afterwards, a price was set for native heads: five British pounds for an adult, two pounds for a child caught alive. This pursuit was known as “catching blacks”. It became a business venture for both private and official patrols teams. A commission was established to recommend an official policy on the native issue. The commission considered options such as catching the natives and selling them into slavery, poisoning them, and catching them in traps or hunting them with dogs. Ultimately, the commission decided to continue the price system and to use mounted policemen in the hunt.

In 1830 a missionary by the name of George Augustus Robinson was appointed the task of collecting all remaining Tasman natives and bringing them to Flinders Island, 50 kilometers from Tasmania. Robinson was certain he acted in the best interests of the Tasmanians. With the help of a native Tasmanian woman named Truganini, he managed to gather the remaining natives, first by persuasion that their fate would be worse if they did not surrender, and afterwards by threatening them violently. Many of his captives died on the way to Flinders; some two hundred arrived alive, the remaining survivors were a population of 6,000.

In Flinders, Robinson sought to convert and “civilize” the survivors. The island was run in a prison-like fashion. Conditions were difficult with constant exposure to strong winds and almost no fresh water. Children were separated from their parents in order to facilitate their “civilization” process. Scarcity of food led to malnutrition and also diseases spread killing many natives. The governor saved on expenditures in the hopes that more natives would die out. By 1869 only Truganini, one more man and one more woman remained alive.

The fate of other Aboriginal tribes:

Hundreds of Aboriginal tribes who lived in Australia were destroyed when the British colonists arrived. They lived a very different life to the thousands of the British who settled there in the 19th century. The settlers established large farms on what was once their collective agricultural land, challenging and eventually destroying their largely nomadic society. Mounting tensions led to mutual violence, however the settlers prevailed and expelled them to less fertile lands. The British saw the Aboriginals as inferior and treated them brutally. During the 19th century, the dozens of recorded massacres resulted in the deaths of at least 10,000 Aboriginals, including women and children. Indigenous Australians found themselves living on reserves and rapidly losing their culture, language and native land. It wasn’t until the second half of the 20th century that they began to revive their lost customs and traditions.

After the genocide:

The last three Tasmanians interested scientists, who believed that Tasmanians were the missing link between men and monkeys. After the last Tasman man died, competing teams of doctors fought over his body. They dug up his corpse from its grave and re-buried it after removing organs; they also stole the organs from one another. The last woman, Truganini, feared similar treatment of her body and requested before her death in 1876 to be buried at sea, but to no avail. Her fears were justified; the British Royal Company exhumed her skeleton and displayed it in the Tasmanian Museum. It remained on display there until 1947, when the Museum gave in to complaints of poor taste and removed the skeleton to a special room that only authorized scientists were allowed to enter. This move also gave rise to criticism and in 1976, the 100th anniversary of Truganini’s death, her skeleton was cremated against the wishes of the Museum and her ashes scattered at sea as per her wishes.

In Tasmania the Australian colony “solved” its native problem, by reaching a nearly final solution. It supposedly succeeded in getting rid of all its natives; in actuality a few children born to Tasmanian women and white male seal hunters remained alive. Many whites envied the termination of the Tasmanian problem and sought to replicate it. Today the opinions of white Australians on their murderous history vary. Government policy and personal opinions of many whites show an increasing appreciation for native peoples, but other whites deny responsibility for the genocide. In 1982, a leading Australian newspaper published a letter written by a woman who denied the occurrence of genocide. The letter claimed that the settlers had been peaceful, moral people, while the Tasmanians were, “treacherous, murderous, war mongering, filthy, covetous, parasite-infested and disturbed.” She wrote, “It was pure coincidence that they had died when the Europeans arrived, due to disease prior to European settlement.” She claimed that the settlers were armed only for the purposes of self-defense and never killed more than 41 natives at a time.

The absolute obliteration of the Tasmanian tribes is a ‘Mark of Cain’ to humanity; annunciation on the start of a new age: ‘Age of Genocide’.

Source: http://combatgenocide.org/?page_id=146

 

Turning Gurkhas into a new 'Victim Race'
The bizarre Battle of the Excluded Gurkha, led by Joanna Lumley, sheds light on the crisis of meaning in today's Tory and Labour parties.
First things first: all Gurkhas and their families should be free to settle in Britain. They should benefit fully from Britain's social services, healthcare and education system. All discrepancies in pay and pensions between British-born soldiers and foreign-born Gurkhas should be ironed out (1). If Britain is going to employ non-British citizens in its military forces, then it must guarantee them equal treatment and pay, instead of keeping the Gurkhas as a pet caste of money-saving, second-class military men.
However, the current Battle of the Excluded Gurkha, the campaign led by the clipped-toned actress Joanna Lumley to secure right of residence in the UK for retired Gurkhas, has become about something more than equal treatment. It has become bound up with contemporary politics – in particular with the development of a shallow brand of 'New Conservatism' and with the utter collapse of the New Labour government's moral and popular authority.
The Gurkha campaign shows the extent to which the traditional wing of the elite – the Telegraph-reading, Tory-supporting officer classes, for whom the Gurkhas have always been 'loyal friends' – has embraced the politics of victimology over old-fashioned ideals of militarism and superiority. And it shows the extent to which the current ruling section of the elite – the non-officer-classes of New Labour – is now so bereft of purpose and direction that it can be rattled by the so-called 'forces of conservatism' it claimed to have defeated in the late 1990s.
Not for the first time, the Gurkhas are being used as a proxy army – only this time not to defend the interests of British imperialism, but rather to try to uncover some idea of 'British values' here at home, and to shift the pieces on the depressing chessboard that is contemporary British politics.
Reading about the current pro-Gurkha campaign – led by Lumley, daughter of Major James Rutherford Lumley, who served with the 6th Gurkha Rifles in the British Indian Army, and backed by virtually the entire media – you could be forgiven for thinking that the Gurkhas have only recently been treated badly. That in Major Lumley's days in India, or 'Inja', they had a lovely life and it is only under the tyranny of uncaring, bureaucratic New Labourites that they have been turned into second-class soldiers.
Not so. The Gurkhas have always been treated as second class, as loyal but peculiar, as a race apart, as less intelligent than the white leaders of the British Army but a bit more trustworthy than the everyday wogs of Nepal, Burma and India. Indeed, the Gurkhas have long been an institutional expression of inequality: they were made and sustained, not by British decency, but by British racism.
The Gurkhas are a creation of Britain's old colonial policy of 'divide and rule'. Hailing from Nepal, and named after the eighth-century Hindu warrior saint Guru Gorakhnath, they were first recruited into the British Army following the Anglo-Nepalese war of 1814 to 1816, when British forces defeated Gurkha forces yet were impressed by their courage and tenacity. The Gurkhas were named a 'Martial Race' – that is, a race of people who were naturally brave, loyal and bloodthirsty. In the subcontinent under British rule from the early 1800s to the mid-twentieth century, the British tended to divide local peoples into two camps: 'Martial Races', those considered well-built for fighting, and 'Non-Martial Races', those judged to have 'sedentary lifestyles' and thus to be unsuited to serving in colonial armies: too slothful, inactive, uncreative, lazy (2).
This discovery of 'Martial Races' occurred across the British Empire. Sikhs in India were also judged to be a 'Warrior Race' who could be trusted to join colonial armies in order to crush uprisings amongst the 'unruly' sections of Indian society; the Masai in Kenya were also judged a 'Warrior Race' when they were considered useful for shoring up British rule in Kenya (3). Not surprisingly, the distinction between Martial Races and Non-Martial Races corresponded neatly with those who generally supported British colonialism, or who benefited from it, and those who did not: in other words, behind the separation of Third World peoples into 'brave' camps and 'sedentary' camps, there lurked the low politics of divide and rule. The Gurkhas became more institutionalised into the British military than any other 'Martial Race', forming their own brigade and fighting in the First World War, the Second World War, the colonial wars, the Falklands, Kosovo and Iraq. They became the colonial people employed to put down other colonial peoples.
The Gurkhas were discussed in explicitly racial terms. For nineteenth-century British colonialists, the inhabitants of south Asia were, for the most part, a disgusting and unthinking mass, lacking the intelligence or humanitarian instincts of the white race. In the 1860s, one British officer said 'Asiatic soldiers' do not have 'the same pluck or moral courage as the European... unless drugged and maddened by opiates beforehand' (4). One British observer said Indians and other south Asians 'live in a different stage of civilisation and intellectual development... their only courage is apathy and their valour consists in animal ferocity. A native soldier, of whatever rank, has no heroism, and he is ignorant of honour in every acceptation of the word.' (5) Gurkhas, by contrast, were considered not to be 'fully Asiatic', since they were brave and more loyal than other, non-heroic, dishonourable Asiatic peoples (6).
However, even when the Gurkhas were championed, it tended to be on the basis that their non-European racial features – their status as a Martial Race – made them perfect fighting machines. In the Victorian era, one writer said the great thing about the Gurkhas is that they do not have 'a very high estimate of the value of life'; they are 'less encumbered by the mental doubts or humanitarian sentiment [of Europeans], and thus not so moved by slaughter and mutilation' (7). This image of Gurkhas as peculiarly fearless and emotionless has been exploited by the British military and military historians right up to the modern period – and it has, as one critical author said in 1990, tended to 'deny the humanity of these soldiers' (8).
That Gurkhas are now being treated as second-class citizens, different even from those non-British, Commonwealth members of the military who are granted full residential rights in the UK, is not all that surprising: their origin is as a band of fighters more trustworthy than your average Asian but 'less equal' than your average Westerner. It is not merely New Labour thoughtlessness that has made these men second-class soldiers, but rather the long history of their cultivation as 'good wogs' whose lack of humanitarianism could be harnessed for British imperialist ends. As late as last year, three Gurkhas lost a High Court case in which they sought to challenge their payment of pensions that were around '24 per cent to 36 per cent' of normal military pensions (9). Such treatment is an ugly historical hangover from the fact that the Gurkhas have long been seen, effectively, as 24 to 36 per cent human.
The history of the Gurkhas explains the curious divide over their predicament today. The conservative wing of British society, those descended from the officer classes who look upon Gurkhas as their honourable servants, have enthusiastically embraced the new Gurkha cause. New Labour, meanwhile, which may be as militaristic as ever, but which lacks any institutional link to the old colonial practices of the past, seems completely desensitised to the 'Gurkha issue'. Now a middle-class party that draws its MPs from think-tanks rather than from actual tanks, it seems blasé about the Gurkhas. The televised stand-off between Joanna Lumley, that well-spoken daughter of colonialism, and Phil Woolas, the bumbling, bureaucratic, northern-voiced minister for immigration, captured well the divide on the Gurkha issue.
However, it would be wrong to see this as some profound class clash, as some no doubt fantasise that it is. Rather, the Gurkha campaign exposes the hollowing out of both big-C Conservatism and New Labour.

Source: http://spiked-online.com/newsite/article/6648#.W3nVm6vQDs0

 

Crushed Testicles: Mau Mau and The Barbaric Face of The British Empire
The British were supposed to be refined in the handling of their "overseas possessions and subjects". Nothing could be farther from the truth as a case filed in London by former Mau Mau fighters and contents of secret papers carted out of Kenya a week before independence(1963) show. The forces of the British state crushed testicles and breasts with pliers. It was part of a deliberate policy of breaking a civilian population who we regarded as "baboons," "barbarians" and "terrorists." They murdered, raped and ran Nazi-style detention camps
Ben McIntyre.
12 April 2011
One horrific day in September 1957, Ndiku Mutwiwa Mutua claims, he was castrated by the British Government.
Last week the elderly Kenyan appeared in the High Court in London, along with three others to accuse Britain of being liable for what was done to him 54 years ago, and to demand compensation.
The case of Mutua and others versus the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) relates to events that took place at the height of the Mau Mau emergency — the uprising against colonial rule in Kenya between 1952 and 1960.
The Mau Mau rebellion was one of the nastiest chapters in British colonial history. Appalling atrocities were perpetrated by both sides, but few stories of cruelty are worse than that of Mr Ndiku Mutwiwa Mutua.
In 1956 Mr Mutua was a 24-year-old herdsman working for Mr Louvaine Dunman, a white settler in Kenya's Eastern Province. Mr Dunman, a police officer in the district force, was known as "Luvai" among the Kamba people who couldn't pronounce the name Louvaine properly.
While working on Mr Dunman's farm, Mr Mutua began supplying food to the Mau Mau rebels hiding out in the nearby forest. On or before September 17, 1957, he was arrested by Mr Dunman and five other African police officers.
According to a court document, he was repeatedly beaten by European and African officers alike and then taken, blindfolded, to a tent.
Inside, he was allegedly handcuffed and pinned to the ground, with his legs pulled apart and tied or strapped down.
"Having been rendered completely powerless and vulnerable," according to the document, Mr Mutua claims that he was "castrated by one or more of the officers present."
For two days he was allegedly left without medical attention and then liberated from the camp by Mau Mau rebels. He remained in the forest for three-and-a-half years before the rebellion ended and he returned home.
Mr Mutua claims that he suffered depression, anguish, mental stress, and "intense flashbacks to the episodes of assault, including castration (and) mourned the fact that he will never have children of his own and never be with a woman."
Like his fellow claimants, Mr Mutua holds the British Government responsible for his suffering. Another of the plaintiffs also claims to have been castrated, while a third was allegedly beaten and left for dead during the infamous Hola Camp massacre of 1959 in which 11 detainees were clubbed to death.
The only woman claimant said that she was subjected to sexual torture in which she was violated using bottles filled with hot water.
The alleged mistreatment of another claimant, Mr Wambugu wa Nyingi, carries echoes of waterboarding. Mr Nyingi claims that he was "suspended by his feet from the hut roof. He was then subjected to a severe beating over a period of about 30 minutes, while cold water was poured on to his face and into his mouth so he could not breathe."
The claimants' case rests on the argument that these acts of brutality were not isolated or random, the spontaneous cruelty of a few sadists, but a systematic policy organised and condoned by the British authorities, "part of a system of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment applied by police, home guards, and other members of the security services with the knowledge of the colonial administration.
"Many detainees were subjected to gross abuse and torture," say the claimants.

"Such abuse included whippings, beating, castration, and sexual abuse of men and women... in many cases the abuse and torture were so brutal and dangerous that the detainee died."
Lawyers representing the British Government argue that the case should be dismissed because the alleged abuse was carried out by the colonial government, which passed all rights and responsibilities to the independent Kenyan Government in 1963.
When Kenya assumed national sovereignty, government lawyers will argue, this included an implicit acceptance of liability for any outstanding claims against the national administration.
The Kenya Government flatly denies any liability. A letter was sent to British Foreign Secretary William Hague on March 31 stating:
"The Republic of Kenya fully supports the claimants' case and has publicly denied any notion that responsibility for any acts and atrocities committed by the British colonial administration during the Kenya 'Emergency' was inherited by the Republic of Kenya."
Among those rounded up in the run-up to Mau Mau was Hussein Onyango Obama, Barak Obama's paternal grandfather, who became involved in the Kenyan independence movement while working as a cook for a British Army officer after the war.
He was arrested and jailed for two years in a high security prison where, according to his family, he was subjected to horrific violence to extract information about the growing insurgency.
Further light will be shed by the newly discovered Foreign Office files relating to Mau Mau, which were deliberately removed from Kenya.
On December 3, 1963, nine days before Kenya formally declared independence, three wooden crates containing 1,500 highly sensitive government files were loaded on to a British United Airways flight bound for Gatwick.
A memo written by one Foreign Office official noted that the removal of the documents had been carried out in "meticulous fashion," with files selected on the specific grounds that their contents "might embarrass Her Majesty's Government, members of the police, military forces, public servants, or others."
In a memo marked "Most Secret," the Foreign Office noted that "the vast majority of the files concern the Emergency: eg, intelligence reports and summaries, African associations, activities of Africans, unrest in the districts etc . . . collective punishments, detainees and detention camps."
In 1967, the Kenyan Foreign Ministry asked the British Government to return the missing files. The FCO refused.
A confidential FCO memo written on November 2, 1967, warned that if the documents were sent back to Kenya, it could "set a precedent and encourage other governments to follow suit" and demand "the documents of other former Dependent Territories which are now held here."
A letter on the same subject from the Commonwealth Office clearly shows that the decision to remove the Kenyan documents was not an isolated incident:
"The fact that it has always been British policy to withdraw or destroy certain sensitive records prior to independence has never been advertised or generally admitted," the letter states.
"The reply we give to Kenya could affect the treatment of records and files withdrawn from other former Colonial Territories."
After 1967, the files removed from Kenya apparently vanished into the Foreign Office archives. There has long been speculation among historians about what happened to them, including the rumour that they had been loaded into a Lancaster bomber and dropped into the Indian Ocean.
When the four Kenyans filed suit last year, the High Court was informed that some of the most critical evidence relating to the case was still missing. The FO duly launched a search for the documents and in January the missing files were finally located.
The reparations claim is regarded in Kenya as nationally divisive since the Mau Mau was in large part an ethnic rebellion by the Kikuyu rather than a national uprising. Most of the alleged torture and abuse was carried out by Africans of other tribes, albeit under British supervision, adding a potentially toxic tribal element to the mixture.
The claimants are demanding a welfare fund and a statement of regret.
Mr David Miliband, the Labour Foreign Secretary, is believed to have favoured this approach, but a resolution was blocked by FCO officials.
The implications go far beyond the individual accusations levelled by four Kenyans. Hundreds more former Mau Mau detainees could file suit and countless other former colonial subjects may be able to claim mistreatment at the hands of the British Government.
Leigh Day, the lawyers representing the Kenyans, say they do not believe that the case will establish a precedent.
"The systematic torture which went on in pre-independence Kenya was exceptional in its scale and barbarity," a spokesman for Leigh Day said. "This case is about victims who are alive and are seeking redress. People who suffered similar ill treatment in other colonies who are still alive are very few in number."
In a speech at SOAS, the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, last month, David Anderson, professor of African history at the University of Oxford, who is advising the claimants, said that the files discovered in the FCO archives may be the tip of a huge legal iceberg.
"In other instances — Malaya, Cyprus, Nigeria, to name just three possible examples — there might also be missing documents 'retrieved' to London, with much to tell us about the actions of colonial administrations.
"The Mau Mau claim is not the only claim the British Government may have to worry about," he added. "Claims may arise from, for example, Palestine, and there is a fear that a successful claim could set a precedent."
The files were spirited out of Kenya in 1963 because they "might embarrass Her Majesty's Government." Some 48 years later, they have at last come to light, with their capacity to embarrass the government intact.
Kenyan nationals Wambugu wa Nyingi, (R) Ndiku Mutua, (2nd R) Paulo Nzili (2nd L) and Jane Muthoni Mara, (L) outside the High Court in central London, on April 7, 2011. They are hoping their cases, which include castration, torture, sexual abuse, forced labour and beatings, will secure a statement of regret over Britain's role in the Kenya Emergency, and a victims' welfare fund.
Kenyan nationals Wambugu wa Nyingi, (R) Ndiku Mutua, (2nd R) Paulo Nzili (2nd L) and Jane Muthoni Mara, (L) outside the High Court in central London, on April 7, 2011. They are hoping their cases, which include castration, torture, sexual abuse, forced labour and beatings, will secure a statement of regret over Britain's role in the Kenya Emergency, and a victims' welfare fund.
In a few weeks, a group of quiet, dignified elderly men and women will arrive in London to explain how the forces of the British state crushed their testicles or breasts with plyers. It was part of a deliberate policy of breaking a civillian population who we regarded as "baboons", "barbarians" and "terrorists." They will come bearing the story of how Britain invaded a country, stole its land, and imprisoned an entire civillian population in detention camps – and they ask only for justice, after all this time.
As a small symbol of how we as a country have not come to terms with our history, compare the bemused reaction to the arrival of these Kenyan survivors of Britain's gulags to the recent campaign supporting the Gurkhas. We have all waxed lyrical over the Nepalese mercenaries who were, for two centuries, hired by the British Empire to fight its least savoury battles. Sometimes they were used in great causes, like the defeat of Nazism. Sometimes they were used to viciously crush democratic movements in India or Malaya or Pakistan. But they obediently did the bidding of the Empire – so they are a rare bunch of foreigners who the right will turn moist over and welcome to our island.
I too strongly supported their rights to reside in Britain, out of simple humanity – if they're good enough to die for us, they're good enough to live with us. But isn't it revealing that even in 2009, we can cheer the servants of Empire but blank the people mutilated and murdered by it? There will be no press campaigns or celebrity endorsements for the surivors of the Kenyan supression when they issue a reperations claim in London next month. They will be met with a bemused shrug. Yet their story tells us far more.
The British arrived in Kenya in the 1880s, at a time when our economic dominance was waning and new colonies were needed. The Colonial Office sent in waves of white settlers to seize the land from the local "apes" and mark it with the Union Jack. Francis Hall was the officer of the East India Company tasked with mounting armed raids against the Kikuyu – the most populous local tribe – to break their resistance. He said: "There is only one way of improving the [Kikuyu] and that is to wipe them out; I would only be too delighted to do so but we have to depend on them for food supplies."
The British troops stole over sixty thousand acres from the Kikuyu, and renamed the area "the White Highlands." But the white settlers were artistocratic dillettantes with little experience of farming, and they were soon outraged to discover that the "primitives" were growing food far more efficiently on the reserves they had been driven into. So they forced the local black population to work "their" land, and passed a law banning the local Africans from independently growing the most profitable cash crops – tea, coffee, and sisal.
The people of Kenya objected, and tried to repel the invaders. They called for "ithaka na wiyathi" – land and freedom. After peaceful protests were met with violence, they formed a group, dubbed the Mau Mau, to stop the supression any way they could. They started killing the leaders appointed by the British, and some of the settlers too. As a result, the London press described them as "evil savages" and "terrorists" motivated by hatred of Christianity and civilisation. They had been "brainwashed" by "Mau Mau cult leaders", the reports shrieked.
The 1.5 million Kikuya overwhelmingly supported the Mau Mau and independence – so the British declared war on them all. A State of Emergency was announced, and it began with forced removals of all Kikuyu. Anybody living outside the reserves – in any of the cities, for example – was rounded up at gunpoint, packed into lorries, and sent to "transit camps". There, they were "screened" to see if they were Mau Mau supporters. One of the people locked up this way for months was Barack Obama's grandfather.
Professor Caroline Elkins, who studied the detention camps for five years for her remarkable book 'Britain's Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya', explains the tactics adopted by the British to snuffle out Mau Mau. "Electric shock was widely used, as well as cigarettes and fire," she writes. "Bottles (often broken), gun barrels, knives, snakes, vermin and hot eggs were thrust up men's rectums and women's vaginas. The screening teams whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated Mau Mau suspects."
The people judged to be guilty of Mau Mau sympathies were transferred to torture camps. There, each detainee was given a number which they had to wear on a band on their wrist. They were then stripped naked and sent through a cattle dip, before the torture would begin again. "Detainees were frog-marched around the compound and beaten until blood ran from their ears," Elkins writes.
The Kikuyu survivor Pascasio Macharia describes some of the tortures he witnessed: "The askaris [guards[ brought in fire buckets full of water, and the detainees were called on by one, [my friend] Peterson first. The asakaris then put his head in the bucket of water and lifted his legs high in the air so he was upside down. That's when [one of the camp commandants] started cramming sand in Peterson's anus and stuffed it in with a stick. The other askari would put water in, and then more sand. They kept doing this back and forth... Eventually they finished with Peterson and carried him off, only to start on the next detainee in the compound."
Another favoured torment was to roll a man in barbed wire and kick him around until he bled to death. Typhoid, dissentry and lice sycthed through the population. Castration was common. At least 80,000 people were locked away and tortured like this. When I reported from Kenya earlier this year, I met elderly people who still shake with fear as they talk about the gulags. William Baldwin, a British member of the Kenya Police Reserve, wrote a memoir in which he cheerfuly admits to murdering Kikuya "baboons" in cold blood. He bragged about how he gutted them with knives while other suspects watched. Another British officer, Tony Cross, proudly called their tactics "Gestapo stuff."
For the civilians outside, life was only slightly better. Women and children were trapped in eight hundred "sealed villages" throughout the countryside. They were surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards, and forced at gunpoint to dig trenches that sealed them off from the world.
There was always another, honourable Britain who fought against these crimes. The Labour left – especially Barbra Castle and Nye Bevan – fought for the camps to be exposed and shut. They didn't succeed until the British imperialists were finally forced to scuttle away from the country entirely. We will never know how many people they murdered, because the colonial administration built a bonfire of all the paperwork on their way out the door. Elkins calculates it is far more than the 11,000 claimed by the British government, and could be as many as 300,000.
Yet in Britain today, there is a blood-encrusted blank spot about Empire. On the reality show The Apprentice, the contestants recently had to pick a name for their team, and they said they weanted "something that represented the best of British" – so they settled on "Empire." Nobody objected. Imagine young Germans blithely naming a team "Reich": it's unthinkable, because they have had to study what their fathers and grandfathers did, and expunge these barbarous instincts from their national DNA.
This failure to absorb the lessons of Empire is not only unjust to the victims; it leads us to repeat horrifying mistakes. Today, we are – with the Americans – using unmanned drones to bomb the Pakistan-Afghan borderland, as we did a few years ago in Iraq. Nobody here seems to remember that the British invented aerial counter-insurgency in this very spot – with disastrous consequences. In 1924, Arthur 'Bomber' Harris bragged that all rebellion could be stopped with this tactic. We have shown them "what real bombing means, in casualties and damage: they know that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed," he said. Yet instead of "pacifying" them, it radically alienated the population and lead to an uprising. If we knew our history, we would not be running the same script and expecting a different ending.
Gordon Brown said last year (in India, of all places) that "the days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial history are over." The survivors of England's blanked-out torture camps are entitled to ask: when did we start?

Source: http://msmitty-matters.blogspot.com/2011/04/crushed-testicles-mau-mau-and-barbaric.html

   

Τελευταία Ενημέρωση στις Κυριακή, 26 Αύγουστος 2018 19:12