I've always had a soft spot for Southern Sudan, whose mind-boggling vote to secede from Sudan has just been announced. (This BBC report
has an excellent interactive map). By the time I got to college in the U.K. in the late 1960s, Britain's African colonies were all pretty well independant, with the result that the MSM had lost interest in them, much as it has now in the gathering catastrophe
in South Africa. But the First Sudanese Civil War was well underway, with the result that I was able to disturb the campus leftists' white-bad non-white-good narrative with the inconvenient fact that these liberated paragons had just killed—how many? 1 million? I see Wipedia (January 30, 12:05 pm) says
500,000—of each other, mostly women and children.
Of course, unemphasized in most of the current reporting is the Sudanese conflict is ultimately racial—Arab North vs. black South. Once again, it proves that race is destiny in politics,
But for some reason, the kind of people who staff foreign affairs bureaucracies and international agencies are instinctively opposed to recognizing racial reality and hate secession, often its political expression. (Remember George I's Chicken Kiev speech?) Of course, they are all members of the tax-eating New Class and like complexity, giving them excuses to push people around —which is why they are also eager to import immigrants.
At VDARE.com, in contrast, we tend to think secession is a simple solution to problems abroad—and at home.