Mediaboss Marketing

We have heard the tale for decades now. Africa is behind, economically, because of European colonisation in the 20th century. The continent gained independence decades ago but some believe the colonisation remains, in the form of neo-colonisation.

It is hard to argue against this neo-colonisation when it is defined as the further development of capitalism that enables capitalist powers (both nations and corporations) to dominate subject nations through the operations of international capitalism rather than by means of direct rule.

However, if this neo-colonisation is a problem for the whole continent then should it not affect all countries? Why then are some African countries doing much better despite not having that many natural resources to talk about?

Also, if we look outside Africa we find some former colonies doing better than others. There must be differences in how these countries are run. Singapore, for example, got its independence from Britain just 17 years before Zimbabwe got its and yet Zimbabwe feels like it is centuries behind.

Why is that? Magatte Wade, a director at Atlas Network, Center for African Prosperity has thoughts. In an interview with Jordan Peterson, she laid out her case for why we cant keep pointing to colonisation as the major reason for our struggles.

Africa may be the last region to be conquered but that was the way of life for millennia, she says. Recency bias makes it seem like what happened to Africa had never before been seen on this earth. In reality, many territories, including our colonisers homelands were all colonised at some point but they all had to build back better.

The Singapore example is especially relevant to talk about. The former British colony is now richer than its former coloniser. That is wild to think about. This means a country is not doomed to stay poor just because it was colonised during the industrialisation period.

Hong Kong is another good example of this. And back on the motherland, Rwanda, with all its flaws seems to be going in a better direction than some of us. As are Mauritius, Kenya and a few others.

Wade says, economic freedom is at the centre for prosperity building. Thats really the crux of the matter. You can easily guess how well an economy is doing by simply enquiring about how easy it is to do business in it.

Singapore became one of the most business-friendly economies in the world and lo and behold, businesses actually thrived in the country, even as foreigners flocked to operate in the little country.

Even the communist country of China is only where it is today because they created special economic zones which were freer than even the United States. China supported these zones and many multi-billionaire companies sprung from there, lifting China in the process.

Those that have succeeded have been the ones that are easy to conduct business in. Even our President Mnangagwa knows this, hence why he campaigned using the Zimbabwe is open for business motto.

So, if Zimbabwe was supposed to be open for business, how come we are no closer to becoming the Singapore of Africa?

Zimbabwe may have been or may be still is open for business on paper but the reality on the ground is much different.

Taxes are high, and policies and laws change overnight as we saw when banks were barred from lending for a little while. I know of at least two small companies that had to shelve their microfinance plans for good when that happened. They could not trust that their investment would be safe.

Currency challenges complicate business as do the transaction limits imposed to deal with said currency challenges. There are many other reasons why you really cant say Zimbabwe is business-friendly. Then there is the spit in the face that is the relatively complicated company formation process.

Credit where credit is due. The process has been somewhat simplified in the past decade but its still nowhere near as easy as it is in Rwanda for example. Over there you can register a business as a foreigner on arrival for free and be up and running within 24 hours.

Imagine! You cant open a company that fast in Zimbabwe as a local.

Wade says it is imperative that locals be able to join the party. It has to be easy for locals to set up their businesses if a country is to succeed. I wholeheartedly agree. It is one thing for foreigners to bring in their products and services and it is another for locals to create solutions for specific local challenges that no foreigner could ever fully understand.

Thats not to say you dont want the foreigners with their different ways of looking at things coming in. You want to support both locals and foreigners, get out of their way and let them create magic.

Then the other major game changer is the regulatory framework. Here again, Zimbabwe looks good on paper. English common law is praised the world over for being a good framework to support business. Here in Zimbabwe we mostly use Roman-Dutch law but many English common law tenets are infused in our laws.

So, its not really about what official documents say. Its about what is on the ground.

You can watch the YouTube video of the Jordan Peterson-Wade interview here.

What do you think about all this? Let us know in the comments below.

Breaking down the poverty info released by ZIMSTAT, Zim situation dire

RBZ on suspension of bank lending. Partly drawn loans are suspended too. What is the rationale behind these decisions?

View post:
Africa, Zim not poor because of colonisation, other former British colonies succeeding - Technology Zimbabwe

Every week I highlight three newsletters that are worth your time.

If you find value in this project, do two things for me: (1) hit the Like button, and (2) share this with someone.

Most of what we do in Bulwark+ is only for our members, but this email will always be open to everyone.

Sign up to get on the list for our free stuff, of which there is a lot.

Get The Bulwark

Or

Join Bulwark+

One of our recurring questions here is the nature of crazy: Do people go crazy? Or were they always crazy, but just passing as normal?

Over at the UnPopulist, Tom Palmer catches up with alt-right conservative / brave intellectual dark web truth teller Jordan Peterson, who has made the journey from side-show curiosity to Putin apologist. Heres Palmer:

It turns out that there are people who believe that Putin was forced to invade Ukraine because Russia is a part of the West and therefore has a stake in its culture war whose Ground Zero is somehow Ukraine. That is the view that University of Toronto psychology professor and popular lecturer Jordan Peterson expressed in a recent 51-minute video monologue. In fact, he believes that Russias invasion has something to do with the controversies about gender and gender identity in the West.

Tell me more!

Peterson rose to fame because of his unsparing slams on wokeness and its crusade over gender identity, pronouns and so on. But in this monologue, he focuses his ire on the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson. Peterson was particularly miffed that Brown dodged Tennessee Republican Senator Marsha Blackburns gotcha questionas Peterson himself puts itin which Brown was asked to provide a definition for the word woman. Jackson declined, noting that she was not a biologist. As far as Peterson is concerned, Jacksons refusal to answer Sen. Blackburns simple question is proof of a deranged, degenerate and insane West. . . .

Russia is a part of the West, he asserts, and Russians believe that they have the highest moral duty to oppose the degenerate ideas, philosophy, theology of the West. More strikingly, that belief, Peterson insists, is not wrong: And theres something about that, that is not wrong. And that is why the incursion of Russia into Ukraine is, more truly, a civil war in the West.

Now its all making sense. The nationalist-conservatives (a) love Putin and (b) are horny for civil war. Peterson has found a way to combine the two: The invasion of Ukraine is the new civil war. And the Russians are protecting their heritage and sovereignty?

I mean, in a way that all kind of scans, doesnt it? Especially when you understand that in this view, the Russians the Confederatesand thats why Peterson and some other conservatives are rooting for them.

Good times.

In Petersons case, I think the answer to our initial question has always been pretty obvious: The guy was crazy as a bag of cats from the get-go. Heres Palmer on the Peterson origin story:

Peterson has gained a huge internet following by sometimes sayingin very profound sounding tonesthings that seem pretty sensible, such as, If you want to change the world, you start with yourself and work outward because you build your competence that way. I dont know how you can go out and protest the structure of the entire economic system if you cant keep your room organized. That seems to me like reasonable advice to a young person. His books and his talks offer a lot more advice like that, such as pet a cat when you encounter one on the street. Im fond of cats so thats fine with mebut he lost me in his 12 Rules for Life book at step forward to take your place in the dominance hierarchy.

LPT: If you see a person in the public square who says some things that line up with your priors, but also seems maybe kind of crazy . . . theyre crazy. Or, as Neil McCauley (maybe) said, If theres any doubt, there is no doubt.

Read the whole thing and subscribe to the UnPopulist.

Share

John Ganz has some thoughts about the origins of what he calls the American Vlkisch.

The chapter of my book Im currently writing deals with the Ruby Ridge incident, where Randy Weaver, a survivalist, and his family, faced off against the federal government in a siege of his Idaho cabin. As you may remember, the result was tragedy: the Weaver clan killed a Federal marshal, and the feds killed Weavers wife and son. The stand off at Ruby Ridge was perhaps the key moment in the creation of the modern militia movement. But what interests me at the moment is what the Weavers believed and how they came to believe it. The Weavers were followers of a Christian Identity, which stipulates that White Anglo-Saxons are the true Israelites of the Bible and that those known as Jews today were actually Satans spawn. They thought the U.S. government was dominated by a Satanic conspiracy and were prepared to kill and die for their beliefs.

Ganz asks how the Weavers, a normal, Midwestern couple, got radicalized. His answer is that their story,

involves their getting deeper and deeper into apocalyptic and conspiratorial thought, but very roughly speaking Christian Identity, which was actually developed by American Nazis in the 1930s, easily plugged into the religious traditions the Weavers grew up in. It contained millennialism, the idea of an elect, Biblical prophecy, and it organized people into local congregations: it was not a far cry from evangelical, Reformed, and fundamentalist Protestantism they grew up with, so it did not appear all that alien. But it twisted one tenet of Calvinism: instead of believers thinking of themselves as metaphorical Israelites, a community of believers in covenant with God, it taught that they were the literal bloodline descendants of the tribes, which also were actually the Aryans of Europe, not the Semites of the Middle East. In short, it replaced the concept of community with that of race.

Brief aside: If any of that sounds familiar to you, heres a bit of background about Pennsylvanias Republican gubernatorial candidate, Doug Mastriano, from a piece in The Bulwark a while back:

Mastriano also has an increasingly familiar religious profile. He has described the Gulf War, in which he served in 1991, as a holy wara belief reflected in his bizarre 2002 graduate thesis, Nebuchadnezzars Sphinx. He has attended events of the Charismatic Christian dominionist movement known as the New Apostolic Reformation. He shares anti-Muslim memes, hangs out with militia members to guard Confederate statues at Gettysburg, and constantly hits all the main themes of Christian nationalist discourse in his speeches and other activities. In one particularly tasteless moment, he announced his gubernatorial candidacy while wearing a tallit and blowing a shofarsymbols that Christian nationalists have appropriated from the Jewish tradition and use to declare apocalyptic spiritual war.

You dont have to be the worlds greatest detective to see whats going on here. Anyway . . .

Back to Ganz:

Many of the doctrines cooked up by the extreme right do similar variations on fundamental American myths. Theres a consistent effort to appropriate Americana. For instance, Posse Comitatus, which I wrote about recently, is related to Christian Identity teaching and plays on Old West themes of sheriffs and vigilantes; The Militia Movement tries to appropriate the language of the Constitution . . .

It occurred to me one thing that might help us to understand this phenomenon was George L. Mosses work, namely his book The Crisis of German Ideology: The Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich. Mosses argument is basically that Nazism didnt come out of nowhere, but that there was a fertile cultural context that dated back to the 19th century: the vlkisch movement. Vlkisch is a bit difficult to translate, on the one hand it can be as anodyne as popular and populist, but in this context it is redolent of blood-and-soil nationalism and mysticism. Vlkisch ideology had its roots in a romantic revolt against modernity: its adherents took a deep interest in the natural, going back to the land, in old Germanic folklore, mythology, and traditions. It often had a racial and anti-semitic component, opposing the earthy, practical German people to the abstract, alien Jew. The Nazis both sprang out of this subculture and took advantage of its penetration into the national imagination. In Mosses telling, Nazism was an ingenious combination of vlkisch anti-modernism and modern mass political techniques. . . .

One way to conceive of this far right Americana as a kind of American vlkism: an ideological imaginary that is a reaction to the modern situation but presents itself as rooted in the soil, in the countrys oldest traditions and lore.

Look, its not a straight line from the Vlkisch movement to traditionalists like Jordan Peterson and the Nat Cons. But you can see from one point to the other.

You should read the entire post from Ganz.

Share The Triad

Its a YouTube channel and not a newsletter, but Regular Car Reviews is one of lifes pleasures.

In the middle of this weeks review of the Hyundai Ioniq 5, Mr. Regular has a little digression in which he comes up with some taglines for Motel 6 ads.

Motel 6: Look, were not happy about this either.

Motel 6: If they were going to leave, they would have left by now.

Motel 6: Drink 10 Miller Genuine Drafts and wait for this to blow over.

Motel 6: Did anybody really see you do it?

Everything about this channel is great. Enjoy.

If you find this newsletter valuable, please hit the like button and share it with a friend. And if you want to get the Newsletter of Newsletters every week, sign up below. Its free.

But if youd like to get everything from Bulwark+ and be part of the conversation, too, you can do the paid version.

ICYMI this week:

The Next Level - Tim Miller, Sarah Longwell and I tackle Herschel Walker and Dr. Oz.

Beg to Differ - Mona Charen leads a discussion with guests Prof. Steve Vladeck and Bill Kristol on how far the Supreme Court will go this term on matters of race and elections.

Across the Movie Aisle - Sonny Bunch, Alyssa Rosenberg, and Peter Suderman ask if its a controversy or a nontroversy that Billy Eichner blamed the straights for Bros bombing at the box office before reviewing Blonde.

The Focus Group - Sarah Longwell and Politicos Holly Otterbein listen to swing voters in the Pennsylvania governors race.

The Bulwark Podcast - Kara Swisher joins Charlie Sykes to talk about those billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel who dont care what they break.

Read the original here:
Remember When Jordan Peterson Was a Thing? - thetriad.thebulwark.com

(October 6, 2022 / JNS) Conservative superstars Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro lectured a standing-room only audience of approximately 3,000 at Jerusalems International Convention Center on Thursday.

In their speeches, the Daily Wire pundits addressed major challenges currently facing the Western world, the dynamics of power and totalitarianism, how the Torahs well-known stories and a core belief in God serve as pillars of morality for all of mankind and the role Israel can play as an emerging technological and moral superpower on the world stage.

Following the lectures, Peterson and Shapiro sat in conversation with former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who focused many of the questions on the centrality of Jerusalem to Israels historical and biblical narratives, and the role of Israel as a Jewish nation-state. He asked critical questions about whether the U.S. is on a downslope.

Friedman is widely credited as a major force behind moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, Americas recognition of Israels sovereignty in the Golan Heights and contributing to the signing of the historic Abraham Accords normalization agreements between Israel and four Muslim-majority nations.

Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro speaks at Jerusalems International Convention Center on Thursday. Credit: Alex Traiman.

The event was organized by Tikvah Fund Israel and emceed by its CEO Amiad Cohen, a rising star in Israels growing movement of conservative political thought.

Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicateby email and never missour top stories

Much of Shapiros remarks delved into the theological realm. His thesis was that G-d brought three ideas into the world on Mt. Sinai with the giving of the Torah: that God is one, that human beings would be held to a standard of morality and that Israel is the specific nation G-d chose to represent his values.

Shapiro explained that the Torah demands that [mankind] act morally, and that G-d lays out a choice for each individual between good and evil. And he noted that God connects the Jewish people to a certain parcel of land: Eretz Yisrael, in order to fulfill its national mission.

He concluded that Jews must act as great light shining forth from this city, and implored the Jewish people never to forget Jerusalem, quoting the famous verse from the Prophet Isaiah that From Zion, Torah will come forth Torah, and the word of G-d from Jerusalem.

During the question-and-answer portion, Shapiro called Jerusalem the centerstone of Western civilization.

Conservative pundit Jordan Peterson, with former Ambassador David Friedman in the background, speaks at Jerusalems International Convention Center on Thursday. Credit: Alex Traiman.

Peterson addressed the role of stories, unity and responsibility in shaping the narrative of mankind. He noted that everything is subject to an infinite number of interpretations, a concept being abused by those who historically have sought power over the greater good.

The narrative that we impose on the world is nothing but naked power, he explained.

Peterson then analyzed the biblical stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Abraham and Moses.

He called Israel the cardinal model of the nation state, and asked whether as Jews in Israel, are you telling the greatest story ever told?

He expressed his hope that Israel would one day make peace, starting first in your own houses. To make peace you have to confront the serpent in the garden.

Coming back to the concept of perception in storytelling, Peterson noted that meaningful existence is attainable. The ultimate reality is right there, he said, at hand right in front of you; made in the image of G-d.

Continue reading here:
Conservative stars Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro address sellout crowd in Jerusalem - JNS.org

Fans on Twitter went into a frenzy as Paul Heyman referenced Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, and Ben Shapiro during a face-off between Logan Paul and The Bloodline.

On this week's WWE SmackDown premiere, The Bloodline took to the ring to address the fans in attendance. However, before Roman Reigns could proceed with his promo, Logan Paul, Reigns' opponent at Crown Jewel, stepped up to the ring. Paul Heyman then cut a promo on Paul and the pop industry, referencing Tate, Peterson, and Shapiro in the process.

In reaction to Heyman namedropping Tate on live television, fans went wild on Twitter. The majority of them praised the veteran manager for taking shots at Tate, while some even questioned if Tate was going to face Roman Reigns down the road.

Check out the Twitter reactions below:

Throughout 2022, Tate gained massive popularity on social media. He is a former kickboxer whose comments in recent months have led to him getting banned on multiple social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook.

At the upcoming WWE Crown Jewel show in Saudi Arabia, Roman Reigns will defend his Undisputed WWE Universal Championship against Logan Paul. He will aim to get a big win for The Bloodline.

The Tribal Chief will put his title on the line against the YouTube megastar, who will be competing in only his third match with the promotion. Reigns and Paul previously sat down for an interview on the IMPAULSIVE podcast, which marked the beginning of their ongoing rivalry.

The Maverick almost caused a riff among The Bloodline on the latest episode of SmackDown when he followed Heyman's promo by asking who The Tribal Chief was, Roman Reigns or Jey Uso? The situation was handled by Sami Zayn, who reiterated that the faction needs to be on the same page.

Could Andrew Tate be the next social media influencer after Logan Paul to appear in WWE? Sound off in the comments section below.

Did a respected WWE Hall of Famer predict a major title switch at Extreme Rules right here?

' + pollData[option] + '

' + Math.round(optionPercentages[index]) + '%

Go here to read the rest:
"Might be the greatest promotion on Earth" - Twitter erupts after Bloodline member takes a shot at Andrew Tate on WWE SmackDown premiere -...

Megyn No-Stranger-to-Controversy Kelly has done it again this week. The firebrand TV and podcast host, in a bizarre blast from the past, bashed Latina superstars J-Lo and Shakira for their revealing outfits and sexy performance during the (wait for it) 2020 Super Bowl halftime show. And we thought only Trump was still fixated on 2020!

Some complained at the time that the Super Bowl show was inappropriate for the legions of children who no doubt had been watching the game. Never mind that this particular, long-ago Super Bowl featured several other disturbing sights, including Jason Momoa taking a bubble bath (in a commercial for Rocket Mortgage) and a horrifying ad for Planters peanuts in which the beloved Mr Peanut drops from a cliff to a fiery death. Not to mention the ultra-violent spectacle of pro football itself.

No, what seemed for Kelly and others as a bridge too far was the musical number featuring two beautiful, talented women of a certain age having a blast onstage (though Kelly insisted that their vag were visible, they were not). Oddly, Kelly also referred in the same segment to a recent Paulina Porizkova photoshoot, where the 57-year-old Czech model can be seen almost nude, as amazing. Guess it depends on whose bottom is showing.

Kelly also dipped a toe into the whirlpool of commentary surrounding Olivia Wildes new film Dont Worry Darling, with a full-throated defense of the Canadian pop psychologist Jordan Peterson. Peterson was the inspiration for the villainous character played by Chris Pine. Wilde called him a hero to the incel community, which she described as young men who feel they have been marginalized, and sexually deprived, by powerful, confident women.

Peterson thinks transgender rights somehow invalidate his own, denies the concept of white privilege, and says that men who do not intend to sexually harass women shouldnt be prosecuted for doing so. Megyn Kellys thoughts on the matter are: [Petersons] been one of the few people speaking to young men [about] whats been bothering them over the last few years, while she had this to say specifically of Wilde: Screw her!

Megyn Kelly is certainly entitled to her opinions, but some of those opinions need to be (and have been) called out. A few other examples of Kelly comments include: The Black community has a thug mentality and a culture of victimhood. Theres nothing wrong with white people dressing up in blackface. Santa and Jesus are white. (Note: while it did not save her career at NBC, Kelly did eventually offer apologies for the blackface remarks. Santa and Jesus are still waiting for theirs).

In a world where too many suffer from what could be called Selective Outrage Syndrome (Im only upset when my biases are called into question), we should hold Megyn Kelly and other prominent people to a higher standard. It has never been more important to consider the impact of our remarks and writings in this very polarized society.

But its unlikely that folks like Kelly will stop stoking controversy (which, after all, helps ratings). Its much likelier that well be hearing, and reading, even wilder pronouncements in the very near future.

If current events dont spark anything, Megyn what do you say about that Madonna-Britney Spears kiss at the 2003 VMA awards?

Go here to see the original:
Quiet, everyone! Megyn Kelly has thoughts about Jordan Peterson and Super Bowl vaginas! - The Independent