praag.co.uk

South Africa's premier news site

Friday
Aug 17th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Opinion

The Cuban occupation of South Africa

The announcement last week that Cuban military personnel would be sent to South Africa to train the ANC's army has caused grave concern among the Afrikaner minority in South Africa. Not only have Afrikaners been placed in category six by the international Genocide Watch group, but many of them previously fought against Cuban military adventurism in Africa, killing and wounding a substantial number of Cubans. They are at risk of Cuban revenge and victimisation.

Amid increasing ethnic tension within South Africa, exemplified by suspended ANC Youth leader Julius Malema's incitement to genocide against Afrikaners and Boers, as well as ongoing controversies relating to race and language in South Africa, the Cuban military presence could only exacerbate such tension.

The former SADF entered Angola to fight Cuba on behalf of the USA and what was then known as the "free world". The disastrously inept Afrikaner leadership is largely at fault for allowing a complete takeover of South Africa by radical and communist elements, leading to the planned Cuban occupation of South Africa. However, Western support for the ANC in the 1980's, including the financial backing of Sweden and Britain's Anglican Church, also ensured the radical, leftwing revolution that has swept over South Africa since the early 1990's.

The only reason why the current ethnic atrocities such as so-called farm murders being committed against the Afrikaner minority have not deteriorated into fullscale genocide, is because of state incompetence and incapacity. The infusion of Cuban military personnel into the current SADF, which is nothing but an ANC militia like Umkhonto we Sizwe, could provide the ANC with the means and capacity to wage an intrastate war against the Afrikaner minority whom it hates so much.

Afrikaners have a right to be protected from the ANC and Cuba by the United States, their former Cold-War ally. Conservatives in the USA should note that the Cuban army will henceforth be stationed within the borders of a former friend of America.

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 17 January 2012 04:56 )

The English-Afrikaans thing in the SADF – another view

This is a blog, not a scholarly paper. I hope that its title is not too misleading. I have written a narrative, rather than a “balanced” article of pros and cons leading to an academic conclusion. But as an Italian South African who grew to maturity between the mid-fifties and the mid-seventies, my experience of the English-Afrikaans thing has been so markedly different from that of many others that I feel compelled to offer mine as a corrective view. I do not have a drop of either Afrikaner of English blood in my veins, and therefore no prior allegiance to either group. What I have done, is simply to tell the story of my relationship with both.

But first, I must declare an interest. I regard myself today as an Afrikaans-speaking South African. I made the transition during the course of my army days as a direct consequence of my personal experiences. I was once told that I am “very pro-Afrikaans”, as though there is something wrong with this. The underlying presumption is that to be “pro-English” is to be objective, whereas to be “pro-Afrikaans” is to be biased. This is both untrue and untenable. I made a choice for Afrikaans as principal language of communication. In terms of the “popular” prejudice, I made the unpopular choice. But “pro-” or even “anti-” is in this case beside the point, since most of my experiences pre-date that choice. It is the experiences that determined the choice, not vice versa. Interest declared. Now for my story.

Early childhood

I was born in Cape Town, the son of Italian immigrants, on 4 July 1955. My dad was a professional barber. He owned the Ritz Barber Shop and Hairdressers at the old Ritz Hotel in Sea Point. I spent my early childhood in this Italian-Jewish suburb. It was an easy-going community. Right from the start I imbibed strong values from my dad. During WW2 my grandfather, who then owned the barber shop, was interned in Koffiefontein, though he was an anarchist, not a fascist. As a result, my dad had to leave school a month before his Matric finals to re-open the shop. Before this, with the shop closed, often the only breakfast he had before going to school was black, sugarless coffee. But my dad was neither vengeful nor prejudiced. He never wanted his children to suffer the poverty he did, nor the fate of being treated as a foreigner in the land of his birth. During our early years he was reluctant to speak Italian with my sister and me. He taught us to be pro-South African and bilingual. He drilled us on our Afrikaans. By the time my sister and I were adolescents, we spoke Afrikaans as a good second language, like my dad.

To Durban

When I was five years old, my parents decided to move to Durban. Mum, whose only official language is English, was quite happy to do so. For my sister, who has my mom’s fair skin, straight, chestnut hair and green eyes, this was also fine. She fitted in easily among the largely blonde, blue-eyed, fair-haired Durban English-speaking children of the time. For me, on the other hand, a swarthy little boy with black, tightly-curled hair and dark brown, almost black eyes, the very image of my Neapolitan grandfather, the move was to generate a tsunami of woes.

Durban was in those days a stronghold of English-speaking liberalism. They referred to an Afrikaner as “Dutchman!”, “Hairyback!”, “Rockspider!”, “Crunchie!”, “Kydaar!”, etc. One popular joke was: “If English-speaking children go to a nursery, where do Afrikaans children go?” Answer: “To a rockery.” My friends’ parents spoke all the time of England. They seemed to prefer it to their native South Africa. They weren’t going to be guilty of racism or discrimination or apartheid. The reality was significantly different.

A good number of my friends’ parents supported the Progressive Party, others the United Party. This is how I experienced their liberalism, their tolerance for other races:

They used the term “touch of the tar brush” to refer to me. Only much later did I realise that this phrase actually impugned my mother’s virtue. I would probably “go to Mansfield High” where most of the other “darkies” like Greeks, Lebanese and Portuguese went, as well as people of questionable racial origins (i.e. classified white but with presumed "coloured" antecedents). I was seldom asked to the birthday parties of my peers, though there were one or two who invited me home after school. I mostly was sent home quite early.

My nickname amongst my fellow pupils was “kaffir” – no joke! “Don’t use his pencils, they stink!”, “Don’t swap sandwiches with him, his mother puts s-h-i-t on them!” are the sorts of things they used to say. Did they think up these attitudes all by themselves, these Grade 1 to 4 children? I very much doubt it.

I remember that in English we once had to compose a description of a fellow pupil and see if the rest of the class could recognise whom we were describing. Ashley Forrest’s description was: “He smells like a kaffir and eats like a kaffir and looks like a kaffir …”, at which point the whole class had identified me raucously. The teacher’s response? “Ashley, dear, it isn’t nice to say things like that.” Nothing more – in a liberal English-medium school.

I think that had I been of the race classification “coloured”, they might have been kinder. But a darker-skinned person classified as “white” was definitely persona non grata in that particular community – too close for comfort, perhaps? This suggests something of their real, underlying attitudes towards other races.

I raise these issues not to engender hostility so much as to show how Natal English-speaking liberals reacted when confronted with “other races” so close to home. They had some other choice circumlocutions, too. For example: “We don’t need the Group Areas Act. They could never afford to live in our area.” It was not difficult to work out who “they” were. As a young outsider, this was my first experience of Natal English-speaking liberalism. I was very much on the receiving end. I had never encountered racism like this before, and it shook me, even though I was still only a small boy.

At the same time, I was constantly hearing about the stupidity, the mental inferiority, of the (verkrampte) “Dutchman” and his hateful prejudices against the blacks. Another “joke”: “What do you call an English-speaker if you take out half his brains? Answer: A moron. And if you take out all his brains? Answer: An Afrikaner.” You can imagine a little kid taking all this at face value. This experience formed my background to the whole English-Afrikaans thing. My first encounter with it was with the Natal English-speakers and their practical racism as compared with their theoretically liberal politics.

But as yet I had not met a single identifiable Afrikaner – nor, in all likelihood, had most of my peers and their parents.

Secondary school

My first two years of high school were spent at Kearsney College, a boarding school at Botha’s Hill (pronounced Boh-tha’s Hill), which was run on the British model. At Kearsney I got to know several Afrikaans-speaking teachers, all of whom taught me … well, Afrikaans. Meneer Zaayman, Jannie Storm and Gerrit Burger they were. They were all pretty okay guys, very much like all the other teachers. No notable prejudices, all three highly intelligent and interesting. Jannie Storm was my housemaster, and as a bit of a tearaway, I did get caned by him with fair frequency. But that had nothing to do with his being Afrikaans as such.

Then my folks moved to Pinetown and they wanted me at home. I was enrolled at Pinetown High School (PHS), a massive bilingual state school. As was the practice in Natal, it was parallel rather than dual medium; that is, the English- and Afrikaans-medium streams were separate rather than mixed in the same class, as in the Cape Province. It was here that I got to know Afrikaners on a day-to-day basis for the first time. The familiar prejudices of my English-speaking peers remained the same, but the Afrikaans kids were just like any other kids to me. There was no evidence justifying the sneering hostility the English-speaking kids showed towards them. The Afrikaans teachers were very much like the other teachers; perhaps a little tougher and more direct in their mode of expression. That was okay with me; in fact, I thrived under them. One of them, old Meneer Stemmet, was a bit cane-happy, but so were a couple of the English-speaking teachers. I was a lazy little sod, but my std. 8 class teacher, Meneer A.L. Venter, got me up from about 20th to the top three with, amongst other things, his firm but kindly discipline, his excellent teaching skills and his thin cane. He gave me, I think, my very first taste of vasbyt.

The other memory of the English-Afrikaans thing also comes from std. 8, my first year at PHS. Of the fifteen prefects, one was from the Afrikaans stream; a big, tough guy named André Nel (ironically, one “l” short of a later army buddy). The general opinion amongst my classmates in the English-medium stream was that he was there solely because he played in the first XV. One first break, quite near the beginning of the year, as I was walking towards the field, a number of guys walked past, making kissing noises at me. I was then felled by a smashing kick to my behind by one of the bigger Matrics. A crowd quickly formed. I was totally confused, not to say intimidated.

Then the crowd parted. A booming voice cried out: “Los hom uit!” It was André Nel. He helped me up and removed from my back a sign saying “Kiss me or kick me.” “Is jy oukei, boet?” he asked. When I nodded, he turned to the others. “Julle los hom uit!” he warned, turning away. The others left me one by one, not without comments such as “Your stupid rockspider chum!” I wasn’t too concerned by them at this point. I was gawping after André, who had rejoined his fellow Afrikaans-speaking Matrics. He saw me looking at him and winked. I turned away, embarrassed at having been caught staring.

From that day I rather hero-worshipped him, and from time to time found the odd excuse to talk with him. He was always very kind and spoke excellent English with me. I had not yet reached the point of realising that I probably owed it to him to try and speak a little Afrikaans. If I was seen talking to him, the usual remarks were made later, in class.

This, then, was the extent of my experience of the English-Afrikaans thing as I finished Matric, and prepared myself for the ordeal of military service.

5 SAI Ladysmith

My first major exposure to a largely Afrikaans environment was in 5 SAI, Ladysmith. My Afrikaans comrades here were not neutral background characters, as were most of the Afrikaans pupils at my school. They accepted me as one of them, and stood by me during the early days of my diensplig, when I was a weakling who barely survived the (as it was to me then) agony of army PT.

Once again I was astounded by the sheer degree of prejudice from the Durban English-speakers. Nowhere in the country was there a group more hostile to Afrikaans and Afrikaners, who hated the very sound of the language. They referred to it as “forced down our throats”. Most of them had no doubt never heard about how brutally English was forced down the throats of Boer children.

One story illuminate the general attitude of Natallers rather well. In one, a visiting American academic had been invited to a wealthy home in Kloof (pronounced "kloef"). At the dinner table, he tried a line of poor, heavily-accented Afrikaans. In the ensuing silence, the hostess said to him, “Professor, you can be forgiven, as a visitor, for not understanding these matters. But please, never again speak that crude patois in this house.”

A few excerpts from one of my other blog entries on this site, “An SADF ou man looks at conscription in the ’70s – Part 1”, contain the main gist of my experiences of the English-Afrikaans thing in the army. I was a G5 who asked to stay on, and managed to persuade the Medics to reclassify me as G1K1. This first excerpt takes up the ensuing story (the full account is in the blog):

“I am taken back to bungalow C3 … (the) Corporal looks at the relevant page (in my groenboekie), whistles and shakes his head. But he’s decent enough to say, ‘Mooi so, troep! Welkom terug! Gaan neem weer jou ou plek in!’

“The others are amazed to see me. ‘What’re you doing back here? We thought you were going home!’

“ ‘I was; but they changed their minds.’

“ ‘They made you G4K3?’

“ ‘G1K1.’

“ ‘You mean you changed their minds and got yourself made G1K1, you stupid fucking arsehole?’ says Ritchie-Robinson, a G2K2 from Durban who clearly doesn’t want to be here. ‘What are you, some kind of kop-toe hairyback?’

“ ‘Boet.’ A very tall, soft-spoken Afrikaner in the corner ... ‘Kom sit by ons. Ék’s bly jy’s terug. Ek dink jy’s baie dapper.’ So simply but kindly put. He stands up, walks across and shakes my hand. I barely reach his chest. He must be at least 1,9 m tall.

“ ‘Ek’s Jaarsie. Jaarsie van Jaarsveld.’

“ ‘Ek’s Phillip Vietri,’ I say in my heavily acented Afrikaans. ‘Julle ouens sal moet my hulp Afrikaans leer om te goed kan praat.’ Or some such monstrosity of grammar.

“ ‘Toe maar, boet, hier sal jy baie gou leer. Dis mos die army, dié.’ The other Afrikaans guys laugh.”

Not much need for comment here. The next is taken from the account of my first 05:00 PT session. I was a 56 kg weakling at the time:

“I hold out for 35 (of the 45) minutes. Then I fall out, hurk, bowed over, lungs burning, desperately gasping for breath. The PTI brings the squad to a halt.

“ ‘En jy, jou miserabele klein fokken bliksem?’ he asks. ‘Staan op, troep! Staan op, sê ek!’ He walks up to me, places his foot in my lower back and shoves. I go sprawling. In a flash, Jaarsie is out of the squad, standing to attention in front of the PTI.

“ ‘Korporaal, gee hierdie man asseblief ’n blaaskans. Hy was gister nog G5.’

“ ‘Troep, dis hý wat gevra het om G1 te word. Nou moet hy homself soos een gedra. Gaan terug en staan op jou fokken plek … Jy,’ the PTI continues, addressing me, ‘Gaan sit ’n rukkie langs die veld. Sodra ek met hierdie ander klaar is, gaan ek vir jou ’n opfok gee.’ Ten minutes later, the others have finished. They are told to sit in their squads at the side of the field.

“ ‘Troep, kom hier!’ the korporaal calls to me. I stand up, jog miserably towards him. I’m never going to survive this opfok, I know it … Suddenly I become aware that it’s not just me standing in front of the PTI. My eight buddies are right behind me.

“ ‘Korporaal,’ says one of them, ‘as u hierdie man nou ’n opfok gee, wil ons dit saam met hom doen. Hy’s ons maat, en ons wil hom ondersteun.’ The PTI pauses for a moment.

“ ‘Okei. As julle regtig so fokken mal is. Val in.’ It’s only our first day of basics, so the opfok isn’t more than about 30 minutes. How I got through it I don’t know to this day, except that there are seven other guys doing it with me, encouraging and supporting, keeping me going. We run back, looppas, singing ‘We ain’t gonna run no more.’ Fat chance! My arms are looped around the shoulders of two of the guys who have done the opfok with me. God, the bungalow is a welcome sight! The shower water is hot today. And I have survived my first opfok!”

The third short extract shows how my Afrikaans buddies regarded me. It was one of the most heartening moments in what was for me, wuss as I was then, a crucifying six weeks:

“Friday (afternoon) of the first week was a bad session for me. As we tree uit following the PT session, myself as usual strung about two of my mates, one of the English-speaking ouens shouts, ‘Why do you guys even bother with him? He’s such a weakling,’ indicating me with a jerk of his head.

“ ‘Sure he’s a weakling,’ replies one of the ouens helping me – it is Jaarsie. ‘But he’s a tough little guy – he never whines, and he never gives up.’ ”

These are three truncated excerpts from a much longer narrative, but they get the point across. The anti-Afrikaans prejudice continued as before. But here, during the intensity of SADF basic training, the Afrikaans guys were not merely like other ouens. They actually showed a self-sacrificing comradeship towards me – even to doing an opfok they didn’t earn, just to show support.

There was absolutely no reason for them to help me like this. I was everything they were not: a weakling, English-speaking, a Catholic. But they did. They were kindness itself, and never anything else. Why? I suppose it was in their nature to be so. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that, by my staying on and voluntarily becoming G1K1, they recognised some vasbyt in me, as well as a love of my country that I shared with them.

I was not a National Party supporter, but I cared deeply about South Africa, and really did see National Service as a way of serving my country. And certainly, because of the values I had learned from my father, who by then had been dead for two years, I approached them with no bias as to their language or culture. Those seven boertjies were the greatest, and we spent twelve of the best (if agonizing) weeks of my life together.

There were many Afrikaans-speaking instructors who gave us hell during our army days, not the least those monstrous individuals known as PTIs. They would use anything at their disposal to break you down, and for your later survival it was vital that they did. So their rondfok was part of the process. At the times, rondfok could be painful and even humiliating; but if you had the guts to go through with it, it worked. “Vetseun Engelsman”, “Rooinek”, “Soutie/Soutpiel” or “Engelse hondekak” were no worse than some of the epithets “my” PTI used on me: “G5G1, jy gaan bloed pis!”; “Fokken Italiaanse hondekak”; “Mammie se klein G-eentjie”; “Onnosele klein fokkertjie”. And these were amongst the milder ones. With my glasses, my weakness and my voluntary change from G5 to G1K1, I came in for more than my fair share of rondfok.

Some of the English-speaking guys liked to think they were being tough by resisting the “Dutchmen” who were training them. They weren’t. In fact, they were working against their own best interests. Co-operating with the guy who is breaking you down in order to rebuild you as a soldier is damned hard work, and you need to be mentally strong to accept the training and to go through with it. If you did, you’d certainly be extremely fit and tough at the end. The instructors had to do it, and chances were you had a bigger chance of cracking if you resisted.

SADF basics certainly toughened me up, permanently. “My” PTI was a consummate bastard who hammered me unrelentingly for the first six weeks. Few people can have been as victimised as I was by him. And yet, at the end of it, I ran the 8 km with three minutes to spare, and as I staggered in, totally buggered (sorry, it’s the only word to describe how I felt), he gave me the thumbs-up! His monstrous harshness had actually made me tough enough to survive that run.

Never once did I feel I was being singled out for being an Engelsman (linguistically) or even an Italianer (ethnically); it was army business, mostly about toughening up this soft little WOP into becoming a strong, fit SADF soldier. I will not deny that there were sadists, fellows who messed one around because they could, rather than because they needed to. But these were sadists, not necessarily Afrikaners. In fact, the biggest sadist in Charlie Coy was a Lieuty called Hitchings. Now there was a swine! But he was a swine because he was a sadist, not because he was an Engelsman.

What is the answer?

What can account for the very different way in which I have experienced Afrikaners throughout my life, then? Why should I, who for my first eighteen years grew up in the same way as my then fellow English-speakers, have had such a colossally different experience of Afrikaners?

I can only really speak for Durbanites. I have gone back and back to this question for years, without finding any satisfactory answers.

I have often asked Durban English-speakers why they do not learn to speak Afrikaans properly. The most common answer is that Afrikaans is not an “international language” like English. But it was then an official language, and even today it is one of the biggest of the eleven official languages. Italians, Hungarians, Finns and Romanians do not refuse to speak their language simply because it is not “international”. What does English being an “international” language have to do with it one way or another?

Another is that it is more useful to learn an “African language”. How many people I heard say, back then, that they would rather learn Zulu than Afrikaans. Today, when Zulu is an available option in KZN schools, they are giving preference to Afrikaans, though they still don’t really bother to learn it. Natal English-speakers appear to be as unilingual as ever. For the record, I, the friend of “Dutchmen” and “hairybacks”, speak English, Afrikaans and Zulu, as do many Natal Afrikaners. Some Natal English-speakers know Zulu, though not many. But the real oddity is that Afrikaans is as much an African language as Zulu, Xhosa or Sotho. It was spoken by Malay slaves in the Cape for at least a century before it was adopted by the white Afrikaner.

Which leads to another “reason” for not speaking Afrikaans: it is claimed to be the “oppressor’s language”. For 45 years, while the National Party ruled South Africa, there might be something of a case for this view. But this must be seen against the background of English as a mandatory imperial language for 300 years, the language of a nation that, amongst other events, is guilty of brutal oppression against the Native American, the Indian, the Australian Aborigine, the Maori and the Kikuyu, not even to mention the Boer Republics. If ever there were a case for an oppressor’s language between English and Afrikaans, English wins hands down every time.

But this is not an argument that achieves anything – most languages have been an oppressor’s language at one time or another in their history, including many African languages. It is dangerous to single out any one particular language for this exclusive role.

Another reason I have heard expressed with a certain frequency is that Afrikaans is a “dying language” not worth bothering about. This is without doubt wishful thinking, based on the idea that the “oppressor’s language” would be rejected holus-bolus in a new and democratic South Africa, with the resultant conclusive triumph of English. But has this been the case? With the de-politicisation of Afrikaans since 1994, it has flourished as a language. When I moved to Oudtshoorn in 1992, the Cape Times was the newspaper of choice amongst bruin Afrikaners. When I left in 2002, it stood in stacks in the tea rooms. The newspaper of preference had become universally Die Burger: Landelik.

All the great Afrikaans cultural festivals are post-apartheid phenomena. Afrikaans literature is written by a diversity of people, including black ANC member Matthews Phosa, former Mpumalanga Premier, who has read his poetry at the Klein Karoo Nasionale Kunstefees. Afrikaans has broken out of its ideological straitjacket and become the language of a universal South African culture; white, black, coloured, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist (Breyten Breytenbach). In the film Tsotsi, the characters speak in flaaitaal, the characteristic Soweto dialect of Afrikaans. Authors such as Deon Meyer made Afrikaans the language of excellent detective thrillers, set very much in the new South Africa. Dying language? If anything, it is Afrikaans that is enjoying an unparalleled “African Renaissance”.

So in the end, what is one to say about the old English-Afrikaans thing? I am no wiser as to its origins or meaning now than when I first encountered it. As I read SADF accounts of the ’70s and ’80s, I see a few Afrikaners who were surprised by the hostility towards them. I see many English-speakers who reckoned that Afrikaners were hostile towards them. And I see a few fellows who reckon that the SADF training threw them all together until the differences became meaningless. I seem to be quite a rarity, in that I experienced intense prejudice from the English-speaking side of the divide and nothing but kindness and openness from Afrikaners. But what I experienced is fact, and it has shaped and affected my life ever since. I can only attribute it to the good work of my Italian late father; bilingualism and broad patriotism. I think it shaped my attitudes, and that shaping might very well have made the difference in my experience and my life.

Today, the anti-Afrikaans prejudice still exists in pockets. But today, fortunately, it is an isolated and marginal phenomenon. Most of us have grown up and moved on. Or emigrated.

Last Updated ( Thursday, 06 October 2011 03:45 )

The denialism of the ANC's National Democratic Revolution

RW Johnson on why ANC alliance members remain so attached to an outmoded Soviet concept

 

In the mid-1990s the SACP, with Joe Slovo much to the fore, became enamoured of the Human Development Index (HDI) pioneered by the UN Development Programme because instead of ranking countries by GDP per capita the UNDP was interested in a broader measure of welfare which would include the quality of life in that country, life expectancy, child and maternal mortality rates, social equality, achievements in education and health, gender equality and so on.

The UNDP measure had two immensely appealing features for the SACP. First, it promised to rank countries like Cuba a lot higher than usual because they enjoyed equal poverty, a goodish health system and more gender equality. So this would be a better measure for what the SACP was planning to achieve in South Africa. Accordingly, the SACP paid enormous and positive attention to each successive Human Development Report (HDR) of the UNDP and emphasized that what the government was most keenly interested in was human development.

Thus in 1997 Jay Naidoo, then heading the RDP secretariat, declared that "The challenge is to meet the basic needs of our people and at the same time strengthen economic growth. These challenges are vital but the real issue that needs attention most is human development." (Emphasis added.)

Secondly, the UNDP was a very weak agency, highly dependent on local buy-in from the client's end - which meant, in practise, that it would be easy for the SACP to take over the local operation in South Africa. This duly occurred. I remember attending one UNDP report presentation in Pretoria where those thanked included a long list of SACP figures and where the speech given was a standard Party rant. It was somewhat weird to imagine that these fiery declarations denouncing Gear and "the 1996 class project" were somehow meant to emanate from the UNDP.

The intention was clearly that the SACP, leading the Alliance, would be able to show the effect of the RDP in gradually transforming South Africa for the better with a rising HDI number which would reward all the ideological initiatives of greater empowerment, gender equality, better preventative health care and so on. Helpfully, the UNDP had calculated its indices retrospectively and these showed South Africa improving from a score of 0.66 in1975 to a score of 0.741 in 1995. If improvement like that could be achieved in the last twenty years of National Party rule, surely the figure would race ahead under ANC rule?

Well, no actually. The 2001 UNDP Report showed that South Africa had slumped to 0.604 due its high Aids rate and lower per capita income due to the (then) weak Rand. The fact that South Africa under ANC rule had slumped even behind its 1975 figure was so much the opposite of what the SACP (and ANC) wanted to hear that they promptly lost all interest in the HDR. After 2001 each successive new HDR was largely ignored.

In fact they were objective measurements all right and by 2010 the HDR showed that South Africa's score had fallen again to 0.597, placing the country 110th out of 172 countries surveyed. (Zimbabwe was in 172nd place.) Had South Africa maintained its 1995 score it would have been 59th. That is, under ANC rule South Africa has fallen 51 places, a fair measure of the catastrophic failures this period has seen.

And this is not just due to Aids. Poverty, inequality, unemployment the health services and education have all got worse and even the Aids figures would have been a lot better but for Mbeki's Aids denialism which the ANC did not in any way counter or contradict. The straightforward fact is that ANC rule has been an awful failure not just in terms of this measure, the HDI index, which the ANC previously embraced, but when judged on any objective terms at all.

Yet this is not acknowledged by the ANC. Instead the standard line is that the ANC has achieved an enormous amount but that much remains to be done. To the extent that things are not as they should be, this is due to the inheritance of apartheid. Yet the HDI figures mock this view for they show beyond dispute that South Africa's HDI figure was far higher in 1995, after nearly 50 years of apartheid, than it was in 2010 after 16 years of ANC rule. Moreover, the trend continues to be downward. Yet few members of the black ANC elite are willing to face this fact.

This is an extract from RW Johnson's latest column. Read the entire article here.

Van Niekerk incident the result of Naspers monopoly

The recent incident during which a fistfight between Mr. Abel Malan and Prof. Anton van Niekerk of Stellenbosch University ensued, can be directly attributed to the division and intolerance which the Naspers monopoly has sown among Afrikaners.

The immediate cause of the incident was an article by Van Niekerk in which he heaped historical moral guilt and calumny on Afrikaners and whites. Moreover, in the article Van Niekerk is guilty of revisionism as to the totalitarian system of communism that existed in Eastern Europe and which has been condemned as a "stain" by the world community, as well as several recent Russian presidents.

Also because of its betrayal of the Afrikaans language community, the University of Stellenbosch and its lecturers have become a symbol of the moral and intellectual decay of a certain Afrikaner elite, opportunistically siding with the current rulers. The school of journalism at this university produces the type of ideologically blinded, anti-Afrikaner hacks who afterwards abuse their positions of power at the Naspers monopoly to attack and libel ordinary Afrikaners in the name of their neo-Marxist ideology.

Both the University of Stellenbosch and Naspers have again and again demonstrated their intolerance towards views deviating from their nonsensical dogmas. Van Niekerk's article was a piece of propaganda unworthy of any true intellectual or academic and the uncritical publication thereof in Beeld and Die Burger suggested that the umpteenth orgy of white guilt and a "psychological operation" against the long-suffering Afrikaner population was underway.

Although Mr. Abel Malan's lack of self-control cannot be justified, it exemplifies the general frustration felt by Afrikaners in relation to the media and academic Gauleiters of a sadistic regime. And here, for the edification of the half-literate word processors streaming out of Stellenbosch's mind factory, we mean "sadistic" in a psychopathological sense.

There is a real possibility that violence between Afrikaners could escalate further than mere fistfights, as long as the pernicious media monopoly in Afrikaans persists. The most profitable newspaper in Britain has just been closed due to the unethical behaviour of its editorial staff.

Neither Naspers's profitability nor the life-long appointments of Stellenbosch's radical professors provide them with carte blanche to continue with their provocation and libellous attacks upon Afrikaners.

The real truth about the 'previously disadvantaged'

This article has been circulating on the internet, via e-mail and also posted on various discussion forums. It is imputed to J. Theron of Brisbane and we are publishing it here under that name.

Kindly make special reference to the following:

1. Who "disadvantaged" the 'black' people of the interior Southern Africa before the (supposed) belligerent 'white' settlers moved inland in the mid19th century..? As certainly, what the 'settlers' f ound was not a hugely advanced infrastructure-, deep mines-, airports-, vast libraries of written
works-, grandiose institutions of learning-, etc. No, as little as 170 years ago they found masses of black people (indigenous to the Southern tip of Africa) living on the fringes of the stone age. Beings in skins, wielding sticks, living primitive dwellings, dragging- and carrying things around, who had not even invented the wheel yet.

2. Ethiopia - a country that was NEVER colonised. Today one of the most desolate places on the planet - who "disadvantaged" the people of Ethiopia..?

3. Put Zimbabwe and Germany next to each other and please explain the differences. In 1945 Germany was (for all intents and purposes) flattened to ground and torn in half. Fifteen years later, West Germany was described as an "Economic Wonder". Around the same time as the end of Apartheid, Germany was re-unified. It yanked the (unified) Germany back four centuries in time.

Yet, in (around) fifteen years (for the second time a few decades) it built an 'economic wonder' - today, fast becoming a global leader in almost every aspect. Reminder: a lineage very strongly associated with... WHITE AFRIKAANS SPEAKING people... One the the 'flip side' - Zimbabwe - was handed one of the wealthiest countries in the WORLD (eg a currency that was worth more than the USA Dollar, etc) - what is it today..? Competing with Ethiopia to be the most desolate hell-hole on the planet..? Please explain...

I can carry on for days - but enough for now. Just one more request: please.., pretty please.., kindly respect the intellect of our audience and refrain from cheap (ANC-like) red herrings - eg calling people "racists" - and kindly just answer the questions- directly and with tangible substance.

In parting, I would suggest the following, - The term "Previously Disadvantaged' is as much a fantasy, as is the delusional lunacy that threatens voters with the revenge of the ancestors (a bit like the "rapture" we are all eagerly awaiting, for the 4 017.75th time since 2000 alone...), the same delusional inanity that claims the words "KILL THE BOER" really, actually means - "come over to my mansion for tea and cookies"...

- You cannot take something from somebody WHO NEVER HAD IT..! In fact, what is it that white people, specifically white men, supposed to "give back" to black people..? Can someone PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE explain to me what it is that white men took from blacks?

- - - LAND..? Blacks NEVER owned any land. Any form of formal ownership is a Western concept. The 'black' tribes of the mid 19th century haphazardly SETTLED in an ad hoc manner - effectively governed by tribal savagery - iow the most savage ruled the land (a bit like Hillbrow today). They simply ran away until they could not run anymore - not having ANY grasp of the concept of a horizon or for that matter any measure of finite land mass - eg the boundaries - that is the fundamental concept of ownership.

- - - MINERALS..? More hallucinations aside - eg ancient gold mines... - a little bit like the Zimbabwe Ruins (the Pyramids, etc) - next to the magnificent structure, the indigenous people build stone-age dwellings out of dirt and sticks (at best emulating the birds). Minerals beneficiation is an entirely Imperialist/Western concept - in fact, in many ways it saw some of the most tangible advances, by WHITE SOUTH AFRICAN MEN - just peruse some of the academic paper at Wits' Engineering Library.

- - - WEALTH..? Money-, Capital- and the pivotal mechanisms of the wealth that allows you to breath, eat, have children, live a rather healthy productive and fulfilling live, but also allowed the cognitive development that leads you to make your daft comments here - it is ALL of Western origins. In fact, the key advancements in modern finance- and economics were made by the.. DUTCH. Why do you think it is called 'Wall Street'..? It was initially 'Wal Straat' - yes my dear, the Dutch took their cognitive substance there as well... The same Dutch that were the most direct decedents of the people that landed at the Cape in 1650 - in fact, the modern 'WEALTH system' was originated by the Dutch and it funded the explorations around the tip of Africa.

- - - Perhaps we took their aeroplanes-, their Breitling watches, their Italian Suits, or their German luxury limousines, their 'Blue Light Brigades ' or perhaps their Space Shuttles..? Mmmm... I just hate the implicit assumption that 'whitea' stole from 'blacks'...

Last Updated ( Friday, 08 July 2011 04:35 )

 

Was the American Declaration of Independence inspired by the Dutch?

Today in America it is July 4th. Here in the U.S. we celebrate the anniversary of the United State's Declaration of Independence.

That declaration is often depicted as the spark of one man's - Thomas Jefferson's - creation. But the fact of the matter is that Jefferson leeched heavily from precedent. More than a decade ago, this article appeared.

by Barbara Wolff

When he wrote the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson penned words that would live forever in history. But was he the first to write them?

A UW-Madison expert says that Jefferson may have modeled the Declaration after a 16th-century Dutch document.

Stephen Lucas, professor of communication arts, has spent the last 15 years studying the origins of the Declaration, "arguably the most masterful state paper in Western civilization," he says. He has concluded that Jefferson and his colleagues in the Continental Congress based the Declaration in part on the Dutch Plakkaat (plah-KAT) van Verlatinge (vur-LAT-ing-uh), issued in 1581 to justify the Netherlands' revolt against Spanish rule.

While very little is known about the Declaration's true genesis, scholars generally agree that the document was influenced by several British state papers, especially the 1689 Declaration of Rights, which deposed King James II and brought to power William and Mary of Orange. Lucas, however, is the first to point to the Plakkaat, one of the earliest statements of the rights of citizens to combat a tyrannical ruler.

"Of all the models available to Jefferson and the Continental Congress, none provided as precise a template for the Declaration as did the Plakkaat," says Lucas, an expert on historical rhetoric. "When you look at the two documents side by side, you cannot avoid noticing that the American Declaration more closely resembles its Dutch predecessor than any other possible model."

Both documents, for example, begin with a preamble that justifies, in remarkably similar fashion, the right of citizens to revolt against tyrannical authority, Lucas notes. British state documents, he says, say nothing about the natural rights of citizens to remove a tyrannical leader.

It is merely the first of many parallels, Lucas says, between the Declaration and the Plakkaat, written to justify the actions of a long-suffering Dutch people to shake off colonial domination and establish a sovereign nation. Further comparison illustrates more similarities:

Both present a lengthy catalog of grievances as evidence of their king's tyranny;

Both document repeated attempts by the authors to seek redress of their complaints through existing legal and civic channels;

Both conclude that, having repeatedly been rebuffed by despotic authority, the plaintiffs have no alternative but to invoke the right of revolution.

 

Lucas says it is feasible that Jefferson turned to the Plakkaat in pondering the Declaration. Jefferson used inspirational models in virtually every sphere of his artistic activity, including his design for his home Monticello, which he consciously derived from the great Italian architect Andrea Palladio.

But Lucas stresses that the resemblance between the two papers should not diminish our appreciation of the Declaration.

"Unlike our own age, which prizes originality, the 18th century gave its greatest accolades to those able to master the art of imitation," Lucas says. If done well, the imitation should surpass the model, and Lucas says our Declaration has served as the gold standard of such documents since 1776.

"The Declaration is a work of consummate artistry that sustains a perfect synthesis of style, form and content," Lucas says. "There could be no greater literary or rhetorical achievement."

http://www.news.wisc.edu/3049

In short, Thomas Jefferson borrowed heavily and freely from the Plakkaat. A logical next question might be, "who authored the Plakkaat?"

The rebellious States-General decided on 14 June 1581 to officially declare the throne vacant[3], because of Philip's behavior, hence the Dutch name for the Act of Abjuration: "Plakkaat van Verlatinghe", which may be translated as "Placard[4] of Desertion." This referred not to desertion of Philip by his subjects, but rather, on a suggested desertion of the Dutch "flock" by their malevolent "shepherd," Philip [II].

A committee of four members – Andries Hessels, greffier (secretary) of the States of Brabant; Jacques Tayaert, pensionary of the city of Ghent; Jacob Valcke, pensionary of the city of Ter Goes (now Goes); and Pieter van Dieven (also known as Petrus Divaeus), pensionary of the city of Mechelen – was charged with drafting what was to become the Act of Abjuration.[3] The Act prohibited the use of the name and seal of Philip in all legal matters, and of his name or arms in minting coins. It gave authority to the Councils of the provinces to henceforth issue the commissions of magistrates. The Act relieved all magistrates of their previous oaths of allegiance to Philip, and prescribed a new oath of allegiance to the States of the province in which they served, according to a form prescribed by the States-General.[5] The actual draft seems to have been written by the audiencier.[6] of the States-General, Jan van Asseliers[7]

The Act was remarkable for of its extensive Preamble, which took the form of an ideological justification, phrased as an indictment (a detailed list of grievances) of King Philip. This form, which is strikingly similar to that of the American Declaration of Independence, has often given rise to speculations that Thomas Jefferson, when he was writing the latter, was at least inspired by the Act of Abjuration.[8][9]

The Preamble was based on Vindiciae contra tyrannos by Philippe de Mornay, and other works of monarchomachs may have been sources of inspiration also.[10] The rebels, in their appeal to public opinion, may have thought it more important to quote "authoritative" sources and refer to "ancient rights" they wished to defend. By deposing a ruler for having violated the Social Contract with his subjects, they were the first to apply the theoretical ideas that two hundred years later would ultimately form the basis for the American Declaration of Independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Abjuration

These authors too borrowed from the past. What were their sources?

Like Jefferson himself, these authors looked to precedent and history to justify what in effect was revolutionary. Permit me to quote at some length from a Belgian constitutional history study.

Excerpt from Introduction to Belgian Law, by Hubert Bocken & Walter de Bondt (Kluwer 2000)

p. 20 IV. Belgium’s contribution to law

“The idea of the rule of law was already present in Flemish cities in the twelfth century….When count William Clito came to power in Flanders in 1127, he guaranteed the inhabitants of his cities a right judgement of the cities’ aldermen against every man and against himself [the count]. The prince is already [at this time then] subject to the laws. The 1127 city charters were not mere words. On 16 February 1128, Ivan (Iwein), Lord of Aalst, acted as the spokesman of the city of Ghent before the count. Ivan rebuked the court [sic] for not respecting the privileges he had given the burghers of Ghent and other cities. To settle the matter, he proposed [that] a special court should convene, in which the Peers of Flanders and representatives of the clergy and the people would sit to judge over the count. If this court should find the count unworthy of the countship, he would have to give it up. The count did not agree to this and Ivan and Ghent rose in revolt.

William was killed in the civil war that ensued and a new count came to power. The background of the conflict was the opinion of Ghent and other cities that there was a contractual relationship between the count and the citizens. They recognized him as their lord and he, in turn, recognized their privileges. If the count no longer respected his part of the deal by acting against the rights of citizens, they had a right to break their contract and to fight him. This contractual conception of the relationship between ruler and subjects returns in the city charters granted by William’s successor. Thereafter the counts managed to suppress it, but it reappeared at regular times in Flemish history. In 1191 the first article of a charter for the city of Ghent stated that the citizens were only subject to the count as long as he wanted to treat them justly and reasonably….The 1581 Act of Abjuration is reminiscent of Ivan of Aalst. By his failure to respect the rights of his subjects, Philip II of Spain had lost his right to rule the Netherlands.

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 05 July 2011 09:37 )

Racial violence has not made it into the conversation about race

If we're going to have a conversation about race, we should include violent black mobs in the list of conversation topics.  After all, recent mob violence is the closest our nation has come to widespread racial strife in over 50 years.

If mobs of white youths were going about chanting the phrase "white boys," beating mostly on blacks and attacking black-owned businesses, then the nation would pay attention.  Academic, media, political, and legal elites would be calling for symposia, expanded reporting, legislation, and lawsuits.

In fact, a mob of black youths in Philadelphia went about chanting the phrase "black boys," beating mostly on whites, and attacking businesses.  The same kind of racial mob violence has occurred in Las Vegas, and just last week in New York City.  Few are paying attention, and liberal elites are largely silent.

Of course, liberal elites are quick to associate white violence with right-wing politics or white supremacy.  But what happens when mob violence is carried out by favored minority groups or liberal constituents?

Time and again over the last few years, mobs of black youths attacked mostly white victims in Philadelphia.  There were at least 6 such mob scenes in Philadelphia during 2009 and 2010.[1] These black mob attacks, euphemistically named "flash mobs," have not received anything close to the attention they deserve.  In one attack, a mob of blacks beat a young white woman senseless -- a mob that had chanted "black boys" and "burn the city," according to the New York Times.[2] The 27-year-old woman, Anna Taylor, was attacked viciously last March.  According to local news reports, "a large group of male and female juveniles ganged up on her, kicking and punching her until she fell to the ground, where they continued to kick her in the face and head."[3] Someone in the mob punched her so hard, the punch "split her upper lip so severely that much of it was hanging from her face and she was unable to speak."  Some reporting has, amazingly, made the simple observation about the racial make-up of these mobs: that they are "mostly African American."

These horrible mob attacks must be viewed in the larger context of interracial violence in America.  Department of Justice statistics show that 33% of white murder victims are killed by a non-white while only 8% of black murder victims are killed by a non-black.[4] Even greater disparities exist in violent crime and robbery.[5] The disparity in interracial crime is certainly indicative of some form of extremism, racial hostility, or selective targeting.  The mobs reflect something worse: organized and widespread anti-white ethnic violence.

Read the rest of the article here.

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 28 June 2011 17:01 )

The WaBenzi

The WaBenzi

A new tribe is ruling the many countries of Africa. Comfortable, well-heeled, self-satisfied; secure in their positions of power. And proudly they tout the symbol of their superiority. It’s a symbol they have even adopted as their name; an elegant, star-shaped, silver symbol - the international sign of the WaBenzi. Julian Champkin reports.

THE coup which brought the WaBenzi to power was not immediately recognised. But it established them, firmly and immovably, in control of almost every African country from Algeria to Zimbabwe, espousing philosophies from Marxist through middle-of-the-road socialist to stout capitalist.

Certain characteristics distinguish members of the WaBenzi, They are usually educated; most have studied abroad; they wear well-cut three-piece suits; their homelands are the air-conditioned offices in capital cities throughout the continent. It is rare to find them in the countryside, save possibly at election time. If describing them as fat is caricature it is also often the literal truth, for African tradition requires status to be displayed in the frequent feasting of dependents. They are known by many names; but the one most often used describes their common aspiration; WaBenzi like to ride in motorcars made by the firm of Mercedes-Benz.

WaBenzi are those who have made it to the top. If you gain their confidence they will tell you much about the people of their country, the subsistence farmers or nomads. They may say they are lazy or backward, and describe the mistakes they make. People talk a lot about peasants but no-one actually wants to be one. This is wise; a peasant’s life is one of relentless work, poverty and stupefying boredom.

Nowhere on earth is the gulf between governors and governed, capital and countryside, so great as in Africa. This is not a matter of wealth, nor of corruption, though the continent has more than its share of both. There are honest leaders in Africa; but even they cannot get close to their people. How has this gulf come about?

A leader in modern Africa has made a sacrifice not required of his western counterpart, He has sacrificed his roots. The process begins early. At school he is taught arcane facts in an arcane language. Not one of these facts will bear on the life of a peasant farmer. If he reaches secondary school he may learn mathematics, English or French and the constituent parts of the atom; he will learn nothing of the right way to plant millet or to conserve the soil. His parents may have struggled hard for his school fees, remembering the glittering prizes that fell upon the educated few at independence. It follows that to return to subsistence farming after school is to admit failure.

The semi-literacy produced in most African schools may not qualify students for high office but it certainly disqualifies them from being peasants. Their learning guarantees their unemployment. Many decline to touch a hoe again and drop out to the urban slums. The exceptional few with influence and ability get to study abroad and then drop out to urban riches. The schooling of both has given them a language not spoken by their parents and a contempt for the life they led. The wealth that paid for their expensive learning came from the countryside but precious little of it returns there.

So Africa’s elite are cut off from their roots. That is no easy life. Born into one world, trying to embrace another, they only half-succeed. Caught in between, they are pulled both ways. A doctor’s self-esteem or a politician’s power-base requires that wealth be displayed in the traditional manner. He is duty hound to support an ever-widening circle of family and dependents, pay their school fees, find them jobs (not on the land), feast the whole village when he returns there. A man is only as great as he is seen to he. So a District Officer must open a cattle-dip with pomp; a motorcade and a day of speeches. It may be that this will cost more than the cattle-dip but there is no escape.

His prestige is uncertain in the other world as well. The things that visiting Europeans take for granted represent the height of achievement in Africa. There is insecurity, the continuing need to impress; above all the fear that his new friends may find him ‘backward’. This is why governments sometimes deny the existence of famine and disease in their country. Nor is it unknown for the white WaBenzi of the international agencies to connive at the denial - politicians’ susceptibilities are more immediate than distant deaths of the nameless.


Photo: Maggie Black

Governments, both Western and Eastern, can do business with WaBenzi. They speak the same language. Five-year plans, co-operation, industrialisation, economic growth; modernized agriculture and huge irrigation schemes; this is the vocabulary of UN-speak, the words of International Man the world over. FAO meetings in Rome; OAU conferences in Addis Ababa: discussions everywhere with the multinational company pushing yet another agri-business scheme; Africa’s elite gets from one to the other and spouts the jargon with the rest. But frequenters of the endless round of cocktail parties in diplomatic suburbs do not refer to those who scratch at dust bowls with a hoe.

Most of the elite can ignore the existence of the real world encircling their dream island of a city. That portion of it that governs cannot. Its overriding preoccupation must be to remain in power. So civil servants and party officials descend on the countryside to control it. In theory these people serve their community. In practice the community serves them.

WaBenzi are good bureaucrats. And bureaucrats love uniformity. Running their countries from the top and seduced by the elegant neatness of overall plans, they ignore all diversity of climate and culture to make their subjects conform. That everyone should grow what he pleases is a policy that horrifies civil servants the world over. Agriculture, like everything else, must be brought into line with the central directives. If it has been decided that maize is needed for the towns and cotton for export. then maize and cotton shall be grown - everywhere. The whole of northern Zambia is unsuitable for maize; the agricultural authorities encourage it none the less and completely ignore millet and sorghum, the traditional crops that do well. The urge to standardize can be bizarre. It has been decreed, also in Zambia, that primary schools throughout the country shall be altered to conform to the same architectural design. There is no money to pay for pencils in the schools.

The WaBenzi of Tanzania favour uniformity too. And that means plenty of top-down control. ‘Ujamaa villages will be created by village people themselves and maintained by them’. So said President Nyerere and gave as his example a cooperative at Ruvuma that had done just that. A national body was set up to establish more Ujamaa villages. Its first action was to abolish the Ruvuma co-operative on the grounds that, having been created by village people, it must have been plotting against the party. You get more uniform villages by using the army.

Tanzania’s actions are no worse than its neighbours’, but its words sound better. Other elites - the Nguemas of Equatorial Guinea - grind their peasants without so much as by your leave. The rhetoric is in any case irrelevant. Guinea-Bissau is a country that contains no industry, no roads - only farmers and an elite which loudly proclaims its dedication to the needs of the poor. To achieve this its national plan is to build a single huge factory to centralise rice processing. The grotesquely unworkable scheme will feed the WaBenzi who run it and will spawn bureaucracy. What it will eliminate is the farmers - through bankruptcy if not starvation.

No government can do business with a peasant because even with the best will in the world, neither can understand the other. Where one sees an inefficient unit of production. the other sees a cow. To make the misunderstanding worse the government’s view is generally mistaken. A cow and the traditional community that lives off it have evolved over centuries for survival. It is unlikely to be bettered by any scheme dreamed up in an air-conditioned office. A peasant life involves feelings, traditions, neighbours. social aspirations. surroundings, ambitions and the future of the soil and of the firewood. Experts can deal only with the mere technics of seeds. But the dreamers’s urge to modernise. to improve. to practice social engineering on the grand scale, will not leave well alone a system that has evolved so complex a balance. The party instructions go out. The half-baked theories are put into action. Chaos and degradation of people and soil result. And ordered, traditional communities are reduced to a condition where only an alienated elite can govern them.

Julian Champkin is a freelance journalist who has worked for aid agencies in Kenya and Uganda and travelled throughout Africa.

This article was originally published in The New Internationalist on September 5, 1984.

 

Last Updated ( Saturday, 04 June 2011 15:50 )

South Africa and United States: Bound by fate

Truth rarely participates in the formation of resentments; this is particularly true as regards the peculiar white-hating-white animosities that readily flow across the Atlantic.

Some Americans harshly judge white South Africans. These attitudes appear to be firmly and tragically entrenched. White American attitudes have been formed after years of being inundated with propaganda that continues to smear the character of white South Africans in the mud of white supremacy and racism. White Americans who accept this premise lack the insight to understand that it isn’t the South African that is hated – it’s the ‘white’.

White South Africans hold similar resentments towards American whites. Many white South Africans feel the United States abandoned them during their hour of need. Their arguments are multi-pronged and generally relate to South Africa’s sacrifices on behalf of the United States during the Angolan War and the United States’ subsequent refusal to support the Apartheid government prior to the 1994 election.

South Africans who condemn white Americans for failing to come to their aid are equally blind to the liability attending any implication that ‘white’ Americans should have or could have interfered with the destiny of millions of black South Africans.

In fact, white Americans were then, as now, hostage to Black Nationalists groups whose intense hatred for white South Africans is matched only by their hatred for whites everywhere.

Frankly, white South Africans were sacrificed in the name of racial harmony.

The United States is about to be hit by a cultural mega tsunami. The forces that created the wave originated years ago; now they will cross the nation from one shoreline to another, a pulsing wave of human madness.

American history is doused in the fuel of discontent. Now and then that discontent is alighted. Fortunately, until now, the results have been inconsequential – A few burned cities; work stoppages; clashes between opposing forces. In the history of history these events are little more than footnotes in the chapter titled, “Madness”. When this next wave comes, however, it may deserve a chapter title of its own.

The tragedy in this upcoming tale of woe is that Americans have a perfect visage of their future in the troubled nation of South Africa. They’ve missed an historical opportunity to avoid the casualty-laden processes that have reduced South Africa to an unrated serfdom.

The character and history of the United States and South Africa are remarkably similar. Both nations were carved out of raw nothingness. Megalopolises rose out of dustbowls and medical miracles, such as the world’s first heart transplant and a cure for polio, poured out of scientific brain trusts. The values that defined the character of one nation were identical to those that guided the other. For all intents, South Africa and the United States were mirror images of one another.

America’s warning arrived the same moment Obama was sworn in as president of the United States. White Americans were oblivious to Obama’s declarations that his ideology is modeled after Nelson Mandela, W.E.B. DuBois, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King.

It isn’t by mistake that Obama melds Malcolm X and Martin Luther King: They are the core of Black Liberation Theology (BLT), a quasi-religion designed by Dr. James Cone, a white-hating, America-hating psychopath. The church Obama attended for twenty years advocates BLT –

Obama’s admiration for the African National Congress (ANC), South Africa’s Communist party, flows through his book. Obama considers Mandela nothing less than an historical icon to be admired and emulated.

The most dangerous aspect of Obama’s ‘admiration list’ is, of course, Malcolm X – A devout, white-hating, America-hating, radical Black Nationalist whose mentor, Elijah Mohammad, advocated ‘death to all white devils’. Malcolm X shares a number of characteristics with Obama, including loyalty to the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party – both white-hating, Jew-hating, Black Nationalist groups.

Obama’s arrival might have been less noble had white Americans understood, even remotely, that Obama intended to use the power of the presidency to affect the promise of a nation modeled after the ‘great successes’ that have occurred in South Africa since the ANC took over. Let’s examine the similarities.

· Mandela promoted a vast expansion and empowerment of unions – Obama, ditto.

· Obama has divided the nation by administering loyalty to his Black Nationalist friends through programs that appeal to ‘universal fairness’ - South Africa, ditto.

· Obama has significantly shifted the direction of all federal law enforcement agencies: Their lone goal is to find and destroy any white who remotely resembles a ‘racist’: Attorney General Eric Holder, an unwavering, dangerous Black Nationalist, recently told congress that the continued pursuit of the New Black Panthers who threatened white voters was a disgrace to ‘his people’. Holder refused to prosecute the racist, pig-dog panthers – South Africa, double ditto.

· The ANC is corrupt, inept and channeling stolen white resources to inept, incompetent, loyal black – Obama, triple ditto.

Until recently, white appeasement tempered the rage of America’s Black Nationalists. The arrival of Barack Obama and his selection of other Black Nationalists to head the most vital administrative positions in government have roused the quieted intensity of Black Nationalists.

The energy of Black Nationalist ideology is conceptually derived from the creation and manifestation of the ‘oppressed-oppressor’ relationship. Without an oppressor blacks cannot be oppressed and without oppression blacks would be forced to face the consequences of self-imposed misery.

Black Nationalist identity feeds on blame and blame validates virtually every ill that afflicts black culture. America’s blacks demand a unique identity - but not without an element of ‘white’ to blame for continued cultural afflictions. The paradox is that blacks continue to be dependent upon whites to rationalize their behavior. The concept of personal responsibility, it seems, is conveniently absent from Black Nationalist identity.

As South Africa continues its downward slide to infamy all the ills afflicting blacks and the nation are blamed on the lingering presence of Apartheid. Black Americans, whose centuries old struggle for identity, continue to blame their plight on slavery. This ‘casting of blame’ is signature Black Nationalist as it removes blacks from being responsible for their behavior. The consequences to whites for these poisoned attitudes is an impressive, expanding onslaught on whites.

A dangerous reality is changing the dynamics of America’s race relations. Black Nationalists have joined hands with other minority groups – Latin Americans and American Indians – to form a triumvirate that draws its energy from mutual disdain for ‘white’.

The ‘oppressed-oppressor’ relationship has bound groups with competing interests for centuries. The concept has been assimilated by members of the triumvirate and, to nobody’s surprise, virtually every other element of American society that stands to benefit from that shameful ideology. Unions, social justice groups and other Progressive organizations, with membership numbering in the tens of millions, claim they, too, share a common misery derived from a common oppressor. South Africa – ditto.

Black Nationalists formerly referred to whites as ‘oppressors’ or ‘captors’ or ‘slave masters’ – Regardless of the moniker the concept is the same. To avoid alienating unions and white Progressive groups, Black Nationalist’s abandoned this tongue. Whites are now ‘colonialists’ or ‘capitalists’ or ‘rich’ – Colonists colonize their victims; capitalist exploit their victims; the rich rob their victims - without losing an ounce of manipulative context the oppressed-oppressor theme remains intact. These labels preserve the theme and, even, favorably expand on the negative connotations without alienating naïve white supporters.

The United States is much closer to economic annihilation than South Africa. Even if America’s whites wanted to appease their detractors the ability to do so has faded - along with the value of the dollar. The economic status of either nation is irrelevant, however. The oppressed masses are far less interested in the accumulation of wealth than driving the colonialist-capitalist into destitute, economic enslavement.

If, per chance, whites suffer misery and privation, well, that’s the price tag for ‘social justice’ and ‘economic justice’. As Obama notes in his book, Dreams from My Father, “the consequences to whites don’t mean squat”. (Paraphrased for effect.) The ANC has demonstrated the same lack of concern, especially towards Boer farmers who are being slaughtered like nuisance flies by blacks.

This past week Louis Farrakhan, the spiritual leader of America’s Black Nationalist movement, remarked that America is about to experience a ‘hell storm’ (Again I paraphrase). This warning comes on the heels of union marches all over the country.

Obama’s insistence that the leaders whose countries are under siege by raging mobs avoid using force to quell the disturbances sent a message to the oppressed masses: It is open hunting season on the United States.

The Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, and even the American Revolution, drew their energy from the oppressed-oppressor relationship. In the last two hundred-plus years the game has become far more sophisticated, the players wiser and more cunning. Obama’s affinity for mob rule forebodes eventualities that will bring oppressor and oppressed in the United States past the brink of war. It was mob rule, after all, that forced a premature transfer of power in South Africa.

Since the ANC gained power, South Africa’s government has become a playground for corruption, deceit and, most importantly, the disenfranchisement of ‘white’. Obama has pursued these same ends with remarkable acumen and concealment. Fortunately, white South Africans and white Americans are no longer dosed into a coma by opiates like political correctness and the need to ‘appease to please’. This awakening is stressing the efforts of Black Nationalist groups and their ‘friends’ who hoped that with Obama in office the downfall of America would be swift, bloodless and certain.

Obama will gladly lower America’s flag and surrender her constitution if, in the end, his insane vision of a de-racialized world is achieved, and his ‘brothers and sisters’ are endowed with unearned, unappreciated wealth - And he, of course, is crowned emperor or savior for life.

In 1994 South Africa, once the jewel of capitalism and creative energy underwent a ‘soft revolution’. With the distorted icon of Mandela’s sage image serving as black South African’s moral essence, blacks had no choice but to show patient regard for the transitional process. Whites were hostage to the suicidal elixirs of political correctness.

Moralists choose to believe that decency rather than prudence has restrained the ANC from disenfranchising South African whites. With Julius Malema begging the ANC to guillotine whites, when the moral insulation provided by America’s international influence comes to an end, it seems likely the ANC and Malema will construct guillotines on every street corner.

The ANC has pursued a vision of total black empowerment even when doing so has collapsed infrastructure, nurtured crime and, especially, fed animosity towards whites.

America’s Black Nationalists don’t care how they achieve the redistribution of wealth so long as the diminution of the ‘colonizer-capitalist’ is part of the bargain. With the help of unions, Progressive groups and Obama, the triumvirate will draw blood – there is no gentler way to put it.

This summer when unions, the triumvirate, and Progressives fuel the flames of discontent; when America’s capital is held hostage by a mob; when the pent-up rage in urban areas devours suburbs and rural areas alike; when Obama refuses to unleash government troops to prevent the collapse of the federal government – What will happen in South Africa? The United States is perfectly primed for a madness that will rapidly spread to nations all over the world – including and especially South Africa.

With the United States fighting for its moral existence, raging opportunists will rape the world with guiltless disregard for the consequences to anyone but themselves. ‘Madness’, after all, is contagious.

In these decisive moments South African whites and American whitews will be bound by fate – mirror images of one another. If the power of lingering resentments is sufficient to keep the wedge that separates them in-place, the consequences will taint the heavens as one oppressor soul after another becomes a wasted casualty.

The detractors of colonialist-capitalist-oppressors will be fighting for wealth and power and the squaring-up of history’s long-deceased wrongs. Rest assured, there will not be an iota of moral rightness in the wrongs they pursue or pity for those upon whom they exact their rage.

The world cannot be left to suffer the misguided ambitions of maniacal madmen who will drive humankind into the darkest of dark ages. The ugly history our forefathers created then left is not our burden. Vicarious liability for another man’s sins is sin; it nurtures an endless spiral of blame. This is the lesson we have painfully learned; a lesson too precious to perish - What is done cannot be undone.

Oppressors were born into a duty they did not earn; a duty bound by fate. But it is upon us and if we hope to salvage mankind from the wreckage of the present we must loose ourselves from the folly of the feud that, after all, was contrived for us not by us. That wedge was meticulously fabricated by the very madmen who now intend to finish the job they started. Black Nationalists have known for decades that the only way to destroy the oppressor is to bankrupt his governments AND put wedges between whites: It was Black Nationalists who urged white South Africans to resent white Americans, and vice versa –

If tragedy there be, it is that we were so easily drawn to blame one another, so readily fooled. It seems odd that during these times, when we share a nearly identical fate, we would allow the connivances of our detractors to shred our bonds. Still, wiser men and greater cultures have made similar mistakes - but not without a descent into oblivion. With this knowledge, it would seem, we would drop our wedges, if only long enough to prevent our mutual extinction.

The UN - genocidal onlooker or human rights champion?

On 7 and 8 April 2010 the United Nations at their head office in New York observed the 16th annual commemoration of the Rwanda Genocide during which an estimated one million innocent people were slaughtered.

In his commemoration address secretary-general Ban Ki-moon stated:

"Today, we observe the sixteenth commemoration of the genocide in Rwanda. We cherish the memory of more than 800 000 innocent people who lost their lives. Our thoughts are also with the survivors, whose haunting testimony woke us to the reality of a tragedy that was all too preventable."

In September 2005, world leaders came together at a United Nations Summit to review progress since the Millennium Declaration and to address key issues related to UN Reform. The then secretary-general Kofi Annan reported on the implementation of the Millennium Goals. His report, In Larger Freedom, proposed a bold agenda of “highest priorities” for the September Summit.

Significantly, it urged heads of state and governmens to embrace the *'responsibility to protect” as a basis for collective action against genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

The killing of 6 million Jewish people during the Jewish Holocaust is still regarded as one of the world's most horrible crimes against humanity and a crime never to be repeated.

Not even Hitler and his gas chambers could match the efficacy of the Rwandan genocidal killing machine. On average, they killed 7 people per minute, 24 hours per day over a period of one 100 days. It is estimated that they raped between 285 000 and 400 000 women. One person was murdered every 8,5 seconds and one woman raped every 20 seconds 24 hours per day for 100 days. Nothing in recent history has yet matched that brutal Rwandan extermination machine with a killing rate 25 times as fast as that of Hitler. In contrast to this extremely effective Rwandan killing machine, the South African ANC Communist revolutionary killing machine opted to use crime as their cover and means to clandestinely murder South Africa's white farmers who have been slaughtered, raped, tortured and executed in the most inhumane manner. Not even the life of the recently executed Willemientjie Potgieter (2) was saved by this brutal killing machine.

Although the ANC genocidal regime has been executing its genocide in low-intensity form, with “crime” providing an alibi for the brutal murder of 3 700 white farrmers, we cannot underestimate the efficacy of its genocidal campaign. More than one million white South Africans have already emigrated to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other Western countries. Unlike Rwanda, the ANC brutal regime has signed most if not all international treaties for the prevention of genocide and other inhumane atrocities. The ANC leadership has opted for a clandestine crime-based genocide because they fear international legal prosecution.

During the United Nations' high-level plenary meeting of the 60th session of the UN General Assembly of 14 -16 September 2005, a working document on the Prevention of Genocide was adopted by all state parties, including South Africa.

The report's central theme was "The Responsibility to Protect", the idea being that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe, but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states. When sovereign states deliberately fail to protect their citizens such as in the case of South African farmers and the broader white community now suffering from the worst pandemic of violent crimes ever committed against them as an ethnic group, The UN Responsibility to Prevent and Intervention becomes a life-saving priority.

For the last sixteen years since 1994 many ANC political revolutionaries and radicals have been calling for the killing of the Boer and the farmer. When interpreted in the widest sense, it represents a call for the murder of all white people living in South Africa.

The UN report “The Responsibility to Protect” emphasizes that resources must be devoted to early warning and analysis of genocide.

The report states:

“Preventive action is founded upon and proceeds from accurate prediction, but too often preventive analysis, to the extent that it happens at all, fails to take key factors into account, misses key warning signs (and hence misses opportunities for early action), or misreads the problem (thereby resulting in application of the wrong tools). A number of distinct problems weaken analytic capacities to predict violent conflict: the multiplicity of variables associated with root causes of conflict and the complexities of their interactions; the associated absence of reliable models for predicting conflict; and simply the perennial problem of securing accurate information on which to base analyses and action.”

The above analysis does not apply to the South African situation where the element of the crime of “incitement to commit genocide” are found in Julius Malema's cries. Public incitement by genocidal murderers the likes of Julius Malema reverberates through the electronic media (nationally and internationally) as if it were legal to call for the murder of a specific ethnic group in South Africa. Yet the UN and the International community refrain from any intervention or protective action.

The vision of the office of the The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide is very clear and can be summarized in one word: PREVENT.

The warning signs for Genocide are stipulated as:

  • the country has a totalitarian or authoritarian government where only one group controls power;
  • the country is at war “or there is a lawless environment in which massacres can take place without being quickly noticed or easily documented”.

In South Africa during the last 16 years, the ANC government has deliberately created a lawless society for the purpose of performing a genocide of the white farmers and all whites in South Africa, under the clandestine and covert cover of extremely high crime rates.

The Rome Statute, which is international law and law in South Africa by virtue of the “Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002, 18 July 2002”, is ignored by the SA government and nobody in SA ever mentions the act.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and which was ratified and signed by the SA Government clearly defines the crime of “Incitement to commit Genocide”, yet the SA Government despite International Conventions, the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court appointed Mr. Gilbert Marcus, S.C. to make the case for inciting genociding. On 29 November 2010 in the Southern Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, in an attempt to legalize one of the most hated and most heinous international crimes of all – genocide – Marcus argued that singing songs encouraging the shooting or killing of whites and Boers was “part of ANC history and culture”.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide unambiguously states:

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article 4

Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Yet, Julius Malema and his followers were never charged.

During the last 16 years more than 3 600 commercial farmers have been murdered, but the UN is as quiet as before the Rwandan massacre, without teeth, without political will or the conviction to protect.

Shall we in future commemorate, in New York at the UN Head Quarters, the UN International day of reflection on the Afrikaner Genocide and shall we have another UN Plenary session where the nations of the world discuss a document on the Prevention, Intervention and Protection of innocent citizens murdered in the South African Afrikaner Genocide?

Shall the secretary-general state: “Our thoughts are also with the survivors, whose haunting testimony woke us to the reality of a tragedy that was all too preventable."

Yes, without a doubt we will!

The UN has no teeth. The UN at best must be regarded as a talk shop on international affairs and the largest paper tiger on planet earth.

The UN has always been an excellent onlooker and bystander at evil genocides committed by various nations and states.

For the UN does not protect, the UN commemorates.

Last Updated ( Saturday, 18 December 2010 09:31 )

The bondage of emancipation

By Johann Swift

The author of the article casually titled, “South Africa to Become America’s 51st State”, or something to that ill-effect, gave little regard to the substance of his argument or the undue misery it would inflict upon untold masses of victims. I must proffer a sane retort as doing otherwise only serves to heighten the ambitions of those lowly sots who show little regard for the majority population defecating in that once beautiful nation.

Contrary to the author’s assertions, South Africa is a glowing beacon of hope for the downtrodden masses of Africa who yet suffer under the lingering ravages of colonialism. When, in 1994, freedom was achieved, the scheming arguments of detractors opposed to South Africa’s freedom were illuminated by the revealing necklaces embracing Mandela’s brilliance. In those few moments of history, the world was provided another vision of man’s ability to create impossibilities from possibilitie; as one vacuous prospect after another unfolded, the null set of South Africa’s rebirth offered but a glimpse of South Africa’s unbridled, future effluvium!

South Africa’s tenantless decency affirms no arguments save those daily presented within the homes of Boer possessors whose dedication to disquieted praise for South Africa can only be tempered by machete or gun. These are the new lungs of South Africa - lungs filled with the life-blood of souls freed from worldly concerns - Anyone seeking denunciation of South Africa’s dolor need go elsewhere than Boer communities to garner affirmation; the Boer population, above all others, is particularly blessed by the limitless feculence bestowed upon them by a grateful, sanguinary nation.

The United States does not yet deserve, nor has it earned, the internecine culture promulgated by South Africa’s ruling majority. Even a casual view of South Africa’s extirpated terrain reveals a nation and a culture nearly at peace with itself – The realized vision of imperceptive visionaries!

Yes, South Africa is not a perfect nation. It has been adversely affected by the ecological calamities caused by global warming; yet, the natural promulgation and enhancement of brutishness caused by global warming is minutia when measured against the ANC nurtured injection of unrestrained effluent into South African communities. Any author who suggests South Africa is anything other than a bastion of opprobrium only affirms the insufficiency of his evidence. That South Africa is destined to become America’s fifty-first state is folly: The United States is not yet prepared to castigate itself to the extent necessary to receive such a gracious denouncement!

As this new nation-state describes the concourse of its unwavering dedication to self erasure there can be no doubt that until South Africa is completely extirpated it will seek neither marriage nor union with any nation that would halt its successful progression towards full abasement. Let no man - or no nation - doubt the promise of South Africa’s extrication from the oppression of emancipation.

Last Updated ( Sunday, 14 November 2010 16:49 )

Attacks upon Afrikaner children must cease

The recent attack by two young black men upon a one-year old Afrikaner baby, Marzaan Kruger, leaving her in a critical condition with severe skull fractures, has highlighted the viciousness of the current genocidal campaign waged against the defenseless Afrikaner and Boer population of South Africa.

The previous ANC minister of police, Charles Nqakula, cynically stated that if "you want to whinge about crime and violence, you are free to emigrate". This was a coded message in which the six million members of the ANC Youth League were given carte blanche to expel all whites from South Africa, just like Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe.

The current ANC Youth League leader, Julius Malema, notwithstanding a court judgement for hate speech against him, has continued to sing the song "Dubula ibhunu! Dubula! Dubula!", or "Shoot the Afrikaners! Shoot! Shoot!" and must be held responsible for the current wave of anti-white and anti-Afrikaner violence shaking the country.

Every day the media report on atrocities committed against rural and urban Afrikaners, with houses being attacked by death squads of up to twenty men, often armed with automatic weapons that mysteriously find themselves leaked from government stockpiles. They attack mostly the elderly, women and children. Torture, rape and the mutilation of victims are not the exception but the rule.

Often children are shot at point blank range in their mothers' arms, as happened to a pretty, blonde, blue-eyed girl of five, Danielle Esterhuysen, in the town of Randfontein.

We call upon all decent, civilised people worldwide to join us in putting an end to the civil war waged against us, ignited by the state-controlled mass media with its constant hate speech and propaganda, including the broadcast of Julius Malema's exhortations to "shoot Boers".

Given the collapse of state hospitals under the corrupt administration of the ANC and the prohibitive cost of private hospitals, we need to set up community and field hospitals to treat survivors of genocidal attacks. We need to pay for medical supplies and organise to evacuate people from areas in which racial and ethnic attacks are taking place.

We also need volunteers to write to governments and human rights organisations world-wide, including the United Nations. Send your details to [email protected] and click here: Letter to our American and other friends.

Our Protestant forebears came to South Africa to escape religious persecution in Europe. They built the greatest country in Africa. Now we are being exterminated by radical black nationalists in our own country, while the world is looking the other way.

One hundred years ago Britain killed half of our child population in her military concentration camps on our soil.

Do we deserve to be persecuted for the third time in our history?

Last Updated ( Monday, 26 April 2010 09:20 )

South Africa self-sodomizing its reputation

The circus since last Saturday when the print media in South Africa started publishing sodomy rumors about the murdered Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB) leader Eugene Terre'Blanche, now appears to be orchestrated by the country's intelligence services, according to a statement released yesterday by the AWB to the South African Press Association.

In comment on the Mail & Guardian's website an English-speaking white writes under the pseudonym Mao Brac:

"These previously disadvantaged cops, previously disadvantaged journos, and previously disadvantaged lawyers and their corrupt masters are busy sodomising the SA justice system, at levels which make the Boere's machinations in the 80's look like child's play. I've already told people abroad that I'm ashamed to be South African. I'm no AWB sympathizer, by the way. Have always despised them anyway." Mao Brac on April 12, 2010, 7:32 pm

It is as if the country's government and the media houses had been taken over by a bunch of thirteen-year olds from a boys' boarding school. The spurious allegations and invented stories about sodomy and condoms found on the murder scene, repeated without any verification by police officers, investigators and the press, are not only hard to believe, but completely infantile.

South Africa is rapidly taking the theatre of the absurd that pertained in Uganda under Idi Amin or Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe to new heights.

The state, the country and its media are self-sodomizing their reputations!

Together with the anonymous English-speaking white above who is "ashamed to be a South African", every right-thinking Afrikaner should realise today that we must abandon the South African identity, the ugly striped flag, the ANC's anthem Nkosi Sikelel'i Afrika and everything else that was imposed on us in 1994.

In a few weeks' time, it will be 100 years since our forebears first united the four provinces of this land to form the Union of South Africa on 31 May 1910. We built it up into the most successful country in Africa, images of which will soon be broadcast to the whole planet during the 2010 Soccer World Cup, if civil war does not break out within the two months separating us from that event. In 1961 when Britain had started putting pressure on us to succumb to the notion of black majority rule, Verwoerd took us out of the Commonwealth and we became a republic. However, the founding fathers of this state would never have dreamt that one day it would end as a corrupt, violent circus under people like ANC Youth League President Julius Malema.

The Afrikaner should get his own republic, a volkstaat or ethnic nation state where we could practise our own culture and pursue our own goals, without being dragged into the mud by puerile black potentates. They have shiny black cars and pockets full of money looted from our state coffers; their prattle of sodomy over a dead man's body they deem "clever political propaganda" against the so-called "white right-wing".

Let us extricate ourselves from this vulgar, violent mess.

Let our orange, white and blue flag fly again over a country we would be proud to call our own. And quickly, too!

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 13 April 2010 16:20 )

Integration has Failed in the United States

Integration has Failed in the United StatesMeredith Brace of San Diego, California, believes in integration. She lived in a largely white area, but the neighborhood school, Harding Elementary, was 90 percent Hispanic. She was convinced whites should go to Harding rather than escape to a white school. Even before her son was old enough to enroll, she joined the PTA, raised money for Harding, and went door-to-door to promote it to white neighbors. She became president of the PTA and held neighborhood meetings to encourage whites to attend. After her son started going, she set up after-school art and theater classes to bring whites and Hispanics together. They failed because not enough people signed up.

Last Updated ( Saturday, 14 February 2009 23:27 )

Read more...

Is black culture the problem with US education?

(Article courtesy of American Renaissance, http://www.amren.com)

Interview with Luke Visconti, Diversity, Inc., Dec. 19, 2008.

Q: Why should public schools receive equal funding? If some communities choose to pay higher property taxes, why shouldn’t they be entitled to a more well-funded education if they so choose? Why must the state ENFORCE a faux equality? We all know the D.C. public schools and the California public schools receive some of the highest funding in the country, yet perform miserably. Yet when you look at the states that succeed the most academically, you’ll note that while Wisconsin and Minnesota pour money into their public schools, Wyoming and Montana don’t. Yet all four states perform in the top 10 in the country. The one common denominator? They all have predominantly white populations.

Last Updated ( Saturday, 14 February 2009 23:28 )

Read more...

The Day of the Covenant

"Therefore know that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps Covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments." Deuteronomy 7:9

For over a century and a half, throughout South Africa, 16 December has been observed as The Day of the Covenant.  Marking the decisive Battle of Blood River, the Day of the Covenant has been recognised by many, not only as a victory for the Voortrekkers, but as a triumph for Western civilization and Christianity in Africa.

Last Updated ( Saturday, 14 February 2009 23:32 )

Read more...
Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Google Bookmarks RSS Feed 
Banner