A brilliant article from the classics archive of South Africa Sucks In 2004, South Africans could only gawk in stunned amazement at the...
By Alex Eliseev Prominent businessman Derek Roux, due to be married on Wednesday, was shot dead the night before he could take his vows. R...
FW de Klerk, who sold out his own people to communist terrorists in 1994, suddenly seems worried about the state of the “Rainbow Nation”. N...
from SAS blog, quite shocking indeed The past year has seen a chilling new phenomenon rear its head in Azania - secret para...
From I Luv SA: (source: IOL) Such is the sheer volume of criminals roaming our streets, the squeeze for new sources of income is pushing...
Monday, 10 March 2014
What we have indicated is that if you look at crime statistics in terms of specific demographics, white people and specifically farmers, are more targeted per capita than any other group. Farm murders and attacks also tend to be more violent than other crimes.
We have even exposed the flawed logic and statistics of the South African Institute of Race Relations here:
Don’t you think it is time the world takes as much notice as it did with Apartheid?
Kill The Boer Kill The Farmer from Marek Ranis on Vimeo.
Friday, 21 June 2013
Dear President Jacob Zuma...
I'm writing this because I've never been more disappointed with the ANC you lead. I was once your fervent supporter, I attended some of those night vigils during your trials, and, like many, I believed you would be the force for change the youth and the poor desperately need in our country. Like many others, I donated to your cause when I was called on, and allowed my facilities to be used for ANC and Youth League meetings, sometimes for unusual meetings where your political comeback was planned.
You may wonder what qualifies me to make any kind of political comment. As everyone knows, I'm just a socialite and a businessman, but it's also no secret I am a hobbyhorse for politicians to ride whenever they want to criticise "crass materialism" and the decay of morals. It's true, I like to spend, and I'm not an angel, but unlike politicians I'm not spending taxpayers' money. My real point is that, as a socialite and a businessman, I meet many people, including politicians. When they speak to your face, Mr President, they tell you your imperial clothes are very stylish. When they talk to me, and feel they are safe from your army of spies, most of them admit that you, the emperor, have no clothes.
The Gupta issue alone should be the last straw for many South Africans. But the extent of how much the Gupta family controls you, and by implication this country, has not even begun to be understood. It's amazing how terrified most people in the ANC are to speak about this reality, because they truly fear you. Even if you're not in government, tenders are used to inspire fear among people of influence. Thank God my livelihood is not dependent on tenders. I'll save you the trouble of trying to find out if I have any tenders so you can cut me out of them. I don't have any.
You show no loyalty even to those who kept you out of prison. After the Shaiks and Julius Malema, the Guptas must know that you can drop them faster than they could drop your name. In your quest for self-preservation, you have become heartless.
The reason I supported you and your campaign is because you were marketed to us as someone who would unify us and get rid of the politics of fear, but today there's more fear and more division in the ANC than ever before. In public you smile and laugh, but in truth you behave like a monster, a tyrant who will target perceived enemies ruthlessly, and because of that fear few dare to speak openly. We'd have had yet another Cabinet reshuffle if your wings had not been clipped a little in Mangaung.
Of course, I am not so naive as to blame everything regrettable that happens in the ANC on you. But in my home province, the Free State, the premier, Ace Magushule, imitates your behaviour and even seems to be trying to outdo you in being entangled with the Guptas. He learnt it from you. He thinks its okay to blow R40-million (or R140-million, others say) on a website. It's not a great website either, by the way. When even your Kenny Kunenes start thinking a guy is wasting money shamelessly, you should know how bad it is. Of course, we'd all like to know where that money really went.
This is not what the ANC is or should be. We thought it was bad enough with the Shaiks - but who could have predicted your, and therefore our, wholesale nationalisation by the Guptas?
Even your immediate community, your neighbours in Nkandla, have to walk past your ridiculously overpriced palace donated to you by a once-unsuspecting public, knowing how you have your own private clinic they cannot use and their children must play in the dusty streets among the stones, while your compound has an astroturf sports field that cost the taxpayer R3.5-million and costs R100 000 a month to maintain. How is fake grass a part of security upgrades?
Everyone knows the Public Protector's report will find damning evidence of what went on there - but something must be said now already, in case you find a way to shut her up too.
It's no wonder the ANC lost the vote in Nkandla. If the people who know you best, the place you are from and where you occupy tribal land, do not trust you enough to vote for you, why should the rest of us?
This ANC is no longer the ANC of John Langa Dube, Oliver Tambo and other illustrious names. I'm also getting tired of hearing about how the ANC is bigger than any individual.
There are those who are stubbornly loyal to the ANC, as if it's some kind of marriage, who keep the faith that some day the party will return to its roots. But even if they're my friends, I can't enthusiastically join in with the declarations of those who say they will die in coffins wrapped in ANC colours, no matter what, as my former business partner Gayton McKenzie once said to me.
Mr President, I don't want to be one of those who tell you in fear that you have clothes on, when it's obvious you are completely exposed. I know the dogs will be set on me for saying this, but you have been naked for longer than most of us were willing to admit. And you're now stripping the ANC of the last shred of its integrity. The world laughs at us.
I love the ANC, or what it's supposed to be, but I don't love your ANC. For those of us who care, the question now is, as Vladimir Lenin asked: "What is to be done?" - The Star
* Kenny Kunene is a South African businessman. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Newspapers.
Monday, 17 June 2013
Wednesday, 22 May 2013
HumanAction used to blog on economic freedom and state tyranny. Sadly, they don’t blog anymore, but you can still find some gems over at their site. I am reposting the following from their site, which will hopefully remain active for future reference.
In the first of their blog posts referenced here, they refer to News24 columnist Peet van Aardt and his article where he proclaims that all whites benefited from Apartheid. He seems to be one of those arrogant twats who thinks he has been given some right to make statements on behalf of other people and that his views are the correct ones. You know, the typical liberal leftist lackey mentality.
It is unfortunately for him and other socialist and Marxist-inspired revisionists of history not true that all whites benefited from the minority white government. Not all whites supported the National Party and certainly not all whites agreed with the specific laws and application of Apartheid. Some stood against what could possibly come into play when looking at the history of Africa. I am not going to debate the merits of which tribe was entitled to which land in what is South Africa today. There is enough information available for any person caring to look further than revisionist history and claims by groups of people who do little more than just claim entitlements in some form. You will certainly not find an accurate version of events in MSM publications.
As a simple starting point of the history of South Africa from the conception of the union in 1910, you will find that many laws intended to protect the interests of elite powers abroad, for instance in the mining industry. To this day, a significant part of the mining industry is controlled from outside the borders of South Africa. You can choose to believe a muppet like George Galloway that the majority of mines are owned by “Boers”. Or you can do some research and draw your own conclusions.
Blaming it on apartheid
By JGalt, on August 15th, 2011
The more the present regime blames absolutely everything on apartheid, the more people they are actually getting to believe them.
Peet van Aardt has written an article for news24 wherein he makes the case that because he benefitted from apartheid, that all white people should pay more taxes as per Desmond Tutu’s wish.
To argue on your superficial and topical level: How much did our sport stars, who weren’t able to get any exposure on an international level and hence not earn an internationally competitive salary, benefit?
In your proposed social engineering-restitution experiment should our past sport stars such as Danie Gerber not maybe also be compensated for this loss during apartheid? Are they not also “previously disadvantaged?”
If you benefited, while a guy like Danie Gerber didn’t, why don’t you pay a portion of your salary over to him every month? Why should all whites pay a redistributive flat-tax?
Also, why does no-one seem to ask the question of why the government should manage the great white-black redistribution? Why can’t the admitted guilty white apartheid benefactors such as Peet not manage the process. Wouldn’t this at least be a little more efficient?
Once, again, people keep overlooking the fact that apartheid was not a white vs black issue, but rather that it was the government vs all. Nothing has changed.
Forcing whites to pay higher taxes and redistribute to “previously disadvantaged” will only make our problems worse.
Apartheid didn't benefit whites
By freeman, on June 24th, 2011
It is a pervasive and entrenched narrative (accepted with the same confidence that we accept that summer follows spring and spring follows winter, and winter autumn) that white South Africans benefitted from Apartheid while black South Africans suffered under Apartheid.
This myth needs to be squashed and refuted for the nonsense that it is once and for all. I doubt a little story on Human Action will change the collective belief in the lie (yet), but at least let’s get the conversation going.
Firstly, let’s get all the necessary caveats out the way and pay homage to the reality of Apartheid so that some reactionary readers don’t have a fit on the spot. Yes, blacks suffered painfully under Apartheid. Yes, Apartheid was evil. Yes, whites were inordinately privileged compared to blacks. Yes, whites lived better lives than blacks. Yes, whites had infinitely better economic opportunities available to them than blacks. Yes, whites were 1st class citizens and blacks were 2nd class citizens.
We all get this and we don’t need to deny it or overemphasise it. It happened. It sucked. Period.
But the central question we are posing here is: did whites benefit under apartheid? That is to ask in another way: were whites better off under Apartheid and the White Supremist Fascist Nationalist State than whites otherwise would have been under a (imperfect) constitutional democracy as has prevailed since 1994?
To this the answer is emphatically NO!
How on earth can we argue that whites benefitted from forced autarky, trade sanctions, industrial subsidies, central economic planning, capital controls, restricted association, lack of freedom of expression, monetary debasement, group areas act, forced ‘morality’, a police state, excessive military spending, international travel restrictions, and goods rationing?
The Apartheid state, to maintain the grossly unstable status quo of oppressing the vast majority of the population, had to destroy the basic freedoms of whites as well.
It is true that whites, as the owners of businesses, may have ‘benefitted’ from being able to hire black labour at below market prices, enabling more profitable businesses and cheaper production of goods for white consumption. But even here the assumption we are making is that by coercing blacks into forced settlement in the homelands wastelands, whites destroyed black living standards and economic opportunities to such a degree that they were able to offer very poor marginal labour opportunities to blacks that were readily accepted. But it could also be argued that by shunting blacks off to the wastelands, whites actually limited their available labour pool and therefore paid more not less for labour.
But even if the dubious proposition that labour was cheaper under Apartheid is indeed true, vastly countering this is the myriad of ways in which black subjugation created far more economic hardship than benefits for whites. The list is almost endless, but would include the following few:
- Disallowing blacks from gaining skills kept those skills more scarce than they would otherwise have been, making goods and services produced by those skills more expensive, thereby excluding more whites from consuming those goods and services and/or forcing more income to be diverted to those goods and services, thereby diverting income away from other goods and services, limiting those business opportunities.
- No blacks producing goods and services and running their own business meant competition was weak, allowing oligopolies to easily form and high prices to become entrenched, reducing real wealth and spending power.
- Forcing blacks to accept horrible economic opportunities and denying them education and the ability to up-skill, create value and earn good incomes, not only kept the pie from growing and all benefitting (after all blacks and whites would have freely traded), but kept the size of the consumer market small, meaning that white producers had limited selling opportunities compared to what they otherwise would have had. That they were then subject to international sanctions meant that exports were limited in addition to a limited local market, a double blow for white entrepreneurs.
- Whites could not legally take on black business partners and allow black ownership of their businesses, losing out on executive skills that blacks would have been able to offer.
- White employers, due to the Group Areas Act, had to jump through numerous red tape hoops to legally allow a black person to live permanently on their property for the purpose of work. In fact, the Apartheid state had to enact a pot of alphabet soup of regulations pertaining to interracial business and economic relationships that made life unambiguously harder for white business owners.
- Whites who spoke out against the government were jailed or killed.
- White anti-state associations were banned.
- Whites did not have legal or easy access to certain overseas products, books, movies etc. Choice for whites was limited under Apartheid.
- Commercial trade between black and white (barring the employment-labour trade) was usually banned or greatly curtailed by law and by spacial aspects of the Group Areas Act. Few opportunities for trade definitely made whites worse off than they otherwise would have been, because, by definition, more free and mutually agreed trade is utility-enhancing for everyone, while less or restricted trade detracts from welfare and wealth.
- Whites (especially Afrikaners) who were employed by the large Apartheid state, were generally employed in inefficient sectors, gained poor skills, and leached off the other white taxpayers. These folk may have appeared to ‘benefit’ under Apartheid, but when equal opportunity arrived, or technologies made their jobs redundant, these formerly state-employed protected folk were left destitute with little capacity to function successfully in a modern economy. Apartheid had benefitted them falsely.
There are certainly many other ways in which black racial subjugation by law, and the coercive statist rule that accompanied it, made whites’ lives worse than they otherwise would have been. We must understand that whites adopted Apartheid out of fear for what they PERCEIVED incorrectly as a potentially worse situation, that of black majority rule. But just because whites in South Africa were as economically illiterate as all other people anywhere in the world, and therefore derived a fallacial psychic benefit from black oppression, does not mean they ACTUALLY benefitted from it in an economic sense.
Blacks, or indeed anyone, who complain that whites are only in the prosperous economic standing they are because of Apartheid are completely wrong. Whites are where they are DESPITE Apartheid. Despite the bans and central planning. Despite the debauched currency and limited trading opportunities with blacks.
Since 1994, whites have been incredibly prosperous and are immeasurably better off than they were before (as indeed are blacks!), able to find better access to offshore markets, able to trade freely with blacks, partner with blacks in business, marry blacks, work for blacks, sell products to blacks, build houses for blacks, get good ideas from blacks, and generally live freely with people of all races (albeit an imperfect freedom).
The reality is that white South Africans’ living standards had fallen embarrassingly behind those of Americans and Europeans by the end of the 1980’s. White South Africans had become international country bumpkins, walking around offshore destinations wide-eyed as they gawked incredulously the living standards, choice, technologies, freedom, variety, colour and dynamism of overseas economies and societies. In short, Apartheid saw white South Africa stagnate and even begin to regress.
No my friends, Apartheid did not benefit whites any more than one would ‘benefit’ from never driving a car for fear of dying in a car accident: never dying in a car accident, but never driving anywhere either. In the same way, whites avoided black rule, but achieved nothing of true benefit. Apartheid stifled whites, yes to a wholly different degree to blacks, but stifled them nonetheless, and therefore it nonetheless was an economically irrational policy for whites to follow and retarded white development.
So the next time you’re sitting around a braai and someone pipes up that whites benefitted from Apartheid while blacks suffered, ask them to explain how then whites have done so well in the post-Apartheid world, and show them how whites too were disadvantaged by Apartheid and the evil system it was.
Maybe with this understanding, we’ll be able to think more clearly about our present and our future as well.
An Inconvenient Apartheid Truth
By freeman, on July 6th, 2011
This is a short follow-up post to our June 24th post “Apartheid didn’t benefit whites“, which has got under the skin of a few people.
As readers will have noticed by the general lack of reader comments on this site, HA is not the most widely read blog on this planet, but our Apartheid post certainly seems to have generated a little ripple in the Twittersphere (definitely not a wave yet:)).
Now it appears that for some black South Africans in particular (and possibly some folk in Oranje) the truth that whites didn’t benefit from Apartheid is a rather uncomfortable one. It seems to shatter their sense of injustice and sense of blame. It needn’t do this. White supremist nationalists perpetrated Apartheid and blacks got the raw deal of raw deals because of it. Period.
But it does remove from blacks their monopoly on Apartheid victimhood, which blacks have clung to rabidly for 17 years and more. The brutal truth is that ALL South Africans were victims under Apartheid, and our post simply showed that whites, the most privileged of unfree classes by far, were also victims of the Fascist-Socialist state. In fact, whites were peculiar victims, because they for the most part didn’t even know it at the time, such was their brainwashed, darkened stupor.
So we mustn’t conflate separate issues. It is two completely different things to talk about who was worse off under Apartheid and who actually benefitted. As far as I can tell, the genuine beneficiaries of Apartheid, as under any dictatorship, were a narrow state-centric elite, and even those of this clique who lived to see the democratic revolution in 1994 have had to live their days out in the greatest of shame, which must have rendered a fairly considerable psychic loss for all but the most callous bittereinders.
One Tweeter indignantly tried to argue…”it still doesn't mean that whites didn’t benefit in comparison to blacks.” By this we take this Tweeter to be arguing that somehow being relatively better off than someone else confers an absolute benefit. By that sloppy logic Indians and Coloureds also ‘benefitted’ from Apartheid right?
Our post was actually less about Apartheid and race, and more about economics, which is what this blog is about. It was about showing people that if you apply sound economics to our history you can start to draw different and interesting conclusions that can change your perspective to a truer one. Having a clearer and more accurate perspective of our history means we can live more constructively in the present and make better decisions about our future.
It’s high time we de-racialise and de-ethnicise economics and economic policy. Racio-ethic groups are always blabbering on about how they don’t want x, y, or z culture’s economics foisted upon them but want to forge their ‘own’ economy. So we hear about a uniquely ‘Latin economy’ suited to the ’specific culture’ of the Latinos, or we hear about a uniquely ‘African economy’ for African’s (which 9 times out of 10 you can take to mean “for blacks”), or about how unique and special ‘Chinese economics’ is. Usually this is nothing but a cheap front for adopting get-rich-quick-rape-your-capital-base economic policy.
This is nothing short of nonsense, pure nationalistic and cultural pride and, quite frankly, arrogance. Good and bad economics transcends race, culture and nation. Doesn’t matter if you’re white, black, pink or purple, saving more than consuming is still a good idea, free trade is still a good idea, individual liberty is still a good idea, freedom from state oppression is still a good idea.
If you want to disagree with our Apartheid post, prove with good economic argument that whites benefitted from Apartheid. We doubt you will be able to though with any credibility, because whites most certainly didn’t benefit.
In fact, in a great and tragic irony, many blacks, by arguing that whites benefitted from Apartheid, are actually doing the freedom they fought for such a great and debilitating disservice. They are arguing that state subjugation of certain identity groups benefits to the broad identity group of the state perpetrating the subjugation. It might not be a far step to use this logic to enact a ‘reverse Apartheid’ (some would say already well under way in a ‘lite’ form), in the hope of redressing the injustices of the prior Apartheid. All this would do, and indeed is doing, is keep blacks mired in their own mud puddle of poverty.
To the dissenters among the Twitterati, please stop conflating your retro-anger over Apartheid, with blacks getting the worst deal by far, with relative suffering between races, with sound economic reason. These are distinct issues and confusing them is getting in the way of your better judgement on these matters.
Cheers, and here’s to a better present and future where hopefully all race groups in SA can be allowed to steward their own property freely without interference, reap the full fruits of their own labour, take advantage of and create economic opportunities freely, live free of state oppression, trade feely, associate freely, and ALL BENEFIT from the fruits of genuine liberty.
Monday, 20 May 2013
Today marks exactly 30 years since the Church Street bomb in Pretoria, on 20th May 1983.
You can read more about the terrorist attack here:
Sunday, 19 May 2013
The Europe Business Assembly seems to be another organisation which doesn’t have a clue what is going on in South Africa. I suggest taxpayers from any country which sends municipal entries to it, should enquire with their local councils or municipalities on the validity of entrants and the value of spending their tax funds on rewarding corruption.
from Sunette Bridges:
South African Municipalities that are completely bankrupt and facing charges of fraud, maladministration and theft of municipal funds, are invited by this organisation to partake in Award Ceremonies at the expense of taxpayers.
Not only do taxpayers have to foot the bill for their entry fee, but end up paying for the travel, accommodation and meals of delegations that travel abroad to receive these nonsensical awards from people who have NO idea how badly these municipalities are actually governed!
There are numerous articles regarding the maladministration of the very municipalities being "rewarded". Some of the articles can be found at the following links:
This has been uncovered in an article in "Rapport" today. It is unfortunately in Afrikaans, but notes that awards have gone to Madibeng and Ehlanzeni municipalities – the same municipalities involved in corruption mentioned above.
Saturday, 18 May 2013
from: The Scottish Sun
A RACIST churchman who told a shocked mother her kids “would be shot and hung” in his country walked free from court yesterday.
South African pastor Solomon Makhathoela branded neighbour Catherine Kerr “white scum” after learning the mum-of-two was unwed.
And the crazed bigot told her fiancé Alan Brown it was a “f****** disgrace” they had kids.
But Makhathoela escaped with a telling off at Stirling Sheriff Court despite being found guilty of racially aggravated abuse.
Last night Alan, 28, fumed: “I’m sure the courts would have dealt with me more harshly if it had been the other way round.
“The guy is worse than the devil. It’s a living hell having him above us and he gets off with not even a slap on the wrist.”
Just a month before launching his hate rant in April 2012, jobless Makhatholela was fined for trying to hit Alan with a golf brolly.
But the dad said his family welcomed Makhathoela, 49, when he moved into the flat above theirs in Raploch, Stirling, with his wife and two kids in 2011. He said: “At the beginning he was fine. I even helped him move his stuff in.
“He kept calling Catherine ‘my wife’ until eventually I told him we weren’t married.
“Ever since then, he’s been a nightmare. He said it was a f****** disgrace we had kids outside of wedlock.”
The animosity escalated until his racist outburst. Alan said: “Catherine went outside and he shouted she was ‘white scum’.
“Then he said if our kids had been born in his country they would have been hung and shot.”
But Sheriff William Gilchrist simply admonished Makhathoela, telling him: “You have to ensure there are no further incidents.”
Last night Tory Chief Whip John Lamont said the ruling appeared “too lenient”.
He added: “Sending Makhathoela away without punishment sends a bad message.”
Thursday, 16 May 2013
‘Cops supplied Boeremag explosives’.
February 25 2013 at 08:09pm
Pretoria - A former crime intelligence officer on Monday testified in the High Court in Pretoria that the police supplied explosives used to train rightwingers to plant bombs.
Retired Captain Deon Loots told the court he had kept on handling police spy JC Smit after deciding to leave the police in 2000, because Smit trusted him.
He gradually introduced Smit to a new handler, Col Louis Pretorius, who used to meet Smit at Loots' home.
Loots testified that during one meeting Pretorius suggested people had to be trained to manufacture explosives.
Loots was testifying in an application for a special entry on the court record, which could eventually be used on appeal in an application to set aside the treason convictions of the 20 Boeremag members.
Pretorius undertook to provide Smit with explosives “that would not be dangerous” so he could train people without causing damage.
Loots said Pretorius told them he had people in Bela-Bela who could be trained how to use explosives and sabotage power lines.
“I objected. I said it was unethical. You could not train people to commit crimes and then wash your hands of it... Col Pretorius said he could get explosives at a depot in the Potchefstroom area. Later he brought a person from the explosives factory with him to my house to train Smit how to work with explosives.
“I withdrew completely because I did not want to be associated with it,” Loots said.
“About two weeks later JC (Smit) phoned me one evening and said he had received explosives from Col Pretorius to train the people in Warmbaths (Bela-Bela) how to use explosives.
“I said he should not do it, but he said it was part of his instructions as an informer... I personally phoned Col Pretorius and confronted him for putting JC in a situation where he would make himself an accused by training people in handling explosives and making bombs.
“We had words to such an extent that JC feared Pretorius would have him arrested while he was on his way to Warmbaths with explosives in his car,” he said.
Loots helped Smit by taking the explosives in his own car to Bela-Bela, where Smit unloaded them, before going to where the training took place.
“Before we left I phoned Col Pretorius to express my discomfort. When we returned I told JC it was wrong. I said even if he had authorisation, how would he justify it if he trained people to plant bombs and someone died,” Loots said.
The trial continues. - Sapa.
Click for link to report.
Monday, 13 May 2013
The following incident is described by the cyclist involved and posted here unedited. The video was captured by a school pupil.
On Wednesday, the 8th of May, while out on a training ride (bicycle) I was nearly hit by a Black Mercedes Benz on the corner of Roper (road leading out of University of Pretoria) an brooks, the vehicle drove down Roper street and didn’t attempt to slow down or stop at the stop street, and preceded to cut in front of me, traveling North on Roper with me having right of way. In my attempt to get the drivers attention by cycling next to the driver sides door/window repeatedly shouting and in a final attempt to get his attention, hitting down twice on his side wing mirror (which was completely un damaged), the vehicle deliberately tried to run me over by swerving into me right outside Pretoria Boys High and the 3 way stop street on the c/o Roper and Anderson, in a manner that also nearly caused a traffic accident as the vehicle nearly collided with another vehicle travelling south on Roper. It then became evident by registration of the car that it is a DIPLOMATIC vehicle. [key to note here is that a short while later the Driver 1. Admitted that he saw me at the previous intersection and felt he didn’t have to stop and that I will have to take evasive action to counter act his driving decisions, 2. The driver also stated that the second incident of deliberately trying to run me down was by instruction of the Diplomat sitting in the car, he also told this to the police officer who was on scene, when the police officer asked him why he broke protocol by not driving to the embassy.]
After an exchange of words/ heated argument, where I told the driver after him asking me why I was throwing such a scene was that I wanted him to apologies as it is drivers like him that hit and seriously injure cyclists using our public roads (mostly captured on video) the driver of the car (who broke diplomatic protocol by instruction of the Diplomat in the car) threatened to brake my neck (this has been admitted by the driver to witness and there is a recording of him saying that he himself did say it) , along with this the driver tried to prove that he will act out his threat as in the process of stating it, he removed his jacket and tie in an attempt to intimidate me. He tried to tempt me to hit him by telling me t o, but I refused as I knew everything was being taped, and that I have not done anything wrong and wanted to keep my side of the story clean.
I repeatedly tried to obtain the nationality of the diplomat;
1stly tried to ask the driver, and the diplomats B1 body guard who had by know gotten out of the passage side of the vehicle, but they refused, and I then proceeded to take photos of the vehicle, license plate, car license, the body guard and the driver (during this process the driver/body guard told me take photos, it will get you nowhere).
2ndly I attempted to ask the diplomat directly through the drivers open window where the diplomat himself directly threatened me and told me I was going to go to jail and that he will see to it, the driver then pulled up the window.
The situation went calm as we where waiting for the police to arrive, the driver/diplomat had called them. Minutes before the police arrived the diplomat turned down the window opposite to him, I used this opportunity to take a photo of him as no one wanted to tell me the nationality of the diplomat. The body guard saw this, and the driver the preceded to hit my phone out of my hand cracking the glass of the phone, and took the phone after the body guard openly assaulted me while I was screaming for help (captured on tape by n school boy who's details I have and will receive the video).
After practically being rescued by passers by and parents of student, the police (Diplomatic police) arrived, I told them what happened, that I wanted to press charges, and required their assistance. They where rude (the police) and arrogant, took down only my info, address, cell etc. and got into their car and everybody drove off as of nothing happened.
I then went to the Brooklyn police station to press charges and open a docket where they told me "they cannot open a case and that I have to go to some headquarters in troy street. As it involves diplomatic police and foreign diplomats”