by Arthur Kemp The South African government holds out its airline as a shining example of black empowerment, which carries the name and sym...
from The Sun Personally, I think these pieces of scum should be wiped from the face of the earth... THE heartless killers of tragic scho...
Please forward relevant information to Vanilla Ice at ILSA : Related Article: The Academic Wall of Shame If any of you are wonde...
It really isn’t worth commenting much on the absolute nonsense uttered by just another ANC thug. from Eye Witness News: Click on extr...
Thursday, 22 October 2009
The following article by Adriana Stuijt gives a lot of insight into the African mindset, especially those in political or other power positions. I’ve said it before – forget about the peanut-brain Malemas of this world. Those regarded as “educated” and “mild mannered” will be the ones leading the onslaught. “If you can’t see the writing on the wall, you had better wake up before you are the one with a handkerchief over the eyes facing the firing squad” – Frank of Queens.
Oct 21 2009 – Afrikaner minority-rights activists yesterday launched a determined verbal attack at the African Human Rights Day conference in Parktown yesterday - with Afrikaner intellectuals climbing into the draft report drawn up by ANC-officials for the UN Human Minority Rights Commission conference in Geneva on November 11.
This event was heavily-censored by the SABC-news TV however, which merely reported the following:
“South Africa does not need a special dispensation to cater for indigenous groups and minorities as its Constitution protects and guarantees the cultural, linguistic and religious rights of all her people,” the IEC president Pansy Tlakula told a meeting looking at minority rights :
However, the often very angry, heated debate between the small number of Afrikaners and the black majority at this meeting – and which had led to this statement by Tlakula -- was not reported by the SABC-TV at all. And even though they also interviewed Dr Dan Roodt, the Afrikaner intellectual who headed this highly-critical minority-delegation, the SABC-TV chose not to broadcast this interview thus far…
Yesterday’s African Human Rights Day conference was called by the SA human rights commission to gain the stamp of approval for their concept report – however the Afrikaner intellectual delegation – comprised of Dr Pieter Duvenage, Dan Roodt, Louis Smuts and André Alkema, sharply criticised the submitted draft, saying that the Afrikaner delegation did not agree to its wording -- and would be getting together with other Afrikaner groups to draw up their own ‘dissenting minority-opinion report’ in time for submission to the November 11 2009 UN conference in Geneva, Switzerland.
At the start of the morning-session, while Dr Dan Roodt – the businessman and author who founded the activist Pro-Afrikaans Action Group (PRAAG) was holding a press conference outside the SABC-radio and TV station about the issue, Dr Duvenage was inside engaged in hot debates with delegates.
“SA State does not recognise the presence of Afrikaner minority…”
Stating his held viewpoint -- as a leading member of the Afrikaner minority in the country -- Duvenage said the South African state ‘’ can no longer be viewed as having any legitimacy because it cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens any longer’.
Moreover, he said –-- amidst loud and often very angry protestations from the black delegates -- that ‘the presence of the Afrikaner minority was not even recognised by the SA State any longer’.
- This raised the ire of one featured black conference-speaker, Ms Colet Letlojane – who flew into Duvenhage ‘s claim with counter-accusations of ‘disloyalty towards the black majority which had forgiven him (Duvenage) for apartheid…’
Afrikaners laughed at by head of SA Human Rights commission:
After the morning session, the newly-appointed head of the SA Human Rights commission, adv. Tseliso Thipanyane, was standing around amidst a large crowd of admirers and bystanders, and was heard to joke in a demeaning way about the Afrikaner-minority delegates, repeatedly chanting; “I want my Afrikaans, I want my Afrikaans” – to the huge amusement of bystanders.
- “900 people killed in political violence during apartheid – but tens of thousands of Afrikaners have already been killed by the black majority after 1994…”
- During the morning session, when the few Afrikaner delegates such as Duvenage were enduring verbal attacks in highly-emotional language by many other delegates, Dr Roodt also responded by saying that “he was pleased that Duvenage was forgiven for apartheid.”
“However if one places this forgiveness towards Duvenage against the fact that 900 people were killed during political violence throughout the entire apartheid-period (1948-1994) in South Africa, while thus far some 750,000 people have already been murdered since 1994, amongst whom also were many tens of thousands of Afrikaners, Duvenhage should actually show forgiveness towards his accusers rather than the other way around, because “it’s the vast black majority who are committing this horrific crimes,” said Roodt.
This comment put the cat amongst the pigeons – with black delegates then attacking the very concept a ‘minority group’. One official of the Justice department even claimed that the concept ‘minority group’ was a ‘dynamic concept and that this doesn’t mean that South Africa was comprised of minorities…’
- During the afternoon-session, the chief editor of the Department of foreign affairs’ human-rights and humanitarian affairs, Pitso Montwedi, also vehemently denied Dr Roodt’s statistical submission that the official apartheid-era death-rate was 900 people, saying this was “a lie” . Dr Roodt then asked that ‘the true apartheid-era political death rates’ be published, since these he had quoted had come directly from the SA Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Many of the other black speakers also claimed that the concept of ‘minority rights’ was born during apartheid, that South Africa now was one homogenous nation without any minorities…
Another government official also said that ‘ if minority groups joined the ruling party (i.e. the ANC) they could participate in politics’.
- Minorities in SA have no rights to influence political power…
- Dr Roodt responded to this by asking whether this official thus was ‘lodging a plea for a one-party state’ with this invitation – to which this official responded that ‘minorities did not have any rights to influence political power nor have any political influence…’
The ANC-executives at the conference then tried to defuse the debate about Afrikaner-minority rights by changing the subject altogether – namely to that of the ‘rights of non-heterosexual people – submitting that this group should be viewed as a ‘minority group’ and that this should be reflected in the concept-draft to the UN meeting on November 11.
Dr Roodt however continued the Afrikaner-rights debate, pointing to the example of the voting-districts’ demarcation of the Pretoria municipality by Dr Michael Sutcluffe as a ‘prime example of discrimination and suppression of minority groups’ where primarily Afrikaner-suburbs were cut up and added to black-majority-voter suburbs to guarantee an ANC-majority vote in those new voting districts.
This raised the ire of Mrs Nkaro Mateto, senior manager of the Independent Electoral Commission – who said that she was a member of this demarcation commission for the Pretoria region – and that the purpose of the voting-district demarcations had not been to ‘discriminate’ against Afrikaners, but rather to ‘integrate’ them.
“Integration is just another word for forced assimilation and genocide…”
Dr Roodt replied to Mrs Mateto’s claim by noting that in his view, “integration was just an euphemism for forced assimilation”:
- “There are three ways to commit genocide,” he said: (1) “through ethnic cleansing, for instance by driving Afrikaners from the country through a variety of laws barring Afrikaners (from public life); (2) by forced assimilation and through violence.
- “And all of these elements already exist in South Africa (targeting the Afrikaner minority).’
Then the Human Rights Commission chairman angrily replied that, “as a Sotho whose ancestral lands were taken away before 1930 he, as a member of the black majority, was not prepared to make any kind of concessions to the civil rights of the Afrikaner minority.”
During the afternoon-session, the chief editor of the Department of foreign affairs’ human-rights and humanitarian affairs, Pitso Montwedi, also denied Dr Roodt’s claim that the official apartheid-era death-rate was 900 people, saying this was ‘a lie” . Dr Roodt then asked that ‘the true apartheid-era political death rates’ be published, since these he had quoted, came directly from the SA Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
“Hundreds of thousands of blacks were killed by Afrikaners during Apartheid…”
An Indian academic from the University of the Witwatersrand, Prof Ayesha Kajee and South African head of the International Human-rights exchange programme, then suffered an extraordinary anger-outburst, screaming that ‘hundreds of thousands of blacks were killed by Afrikaners during apartheid’, and that ‘Dr Roodt can’t establish fact from fiction.’
- Dr Roodt replied: “don’t believe your own propaganda.”
- Throughout the conference, all the Afrikaner delegates submitted point-by-point criticisms of the concept-report placed before the conference delegates for ‘final approval”. This document would then be tabled as representative of the entire SA population’s opinion at the 11 November UN Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva.
Roodt and Duvenage submitted to the meeting that they would be drawing up a minority-opinion report which would be tabled together with the official government version – and that they would be calling on all Afrikaner organisations to help draw up such a minority report – and which would be submitted to the 11 November meeting.
Dr Roodt concluded that “from this meeting it also becomes clear – judging from the recriminations and accusations flying amongst the delegates – that the issue of minority rights in South Africa is an explosive situation.”
Dr Roodt’s interviews – conducted in English and Afrikaans – about this conference, have thus far not been published by the SABC. http://www.praag.co.za/nuus-magazine-402/afrikaanse-nuus-magazine-401/6164-vonke-spat-by-minderheidskonferensie.html#
- SABC-TV minority rights meeting report: http://www.sabcnews.com/portal/site/SABCNews/menuitem.5c4f8fe7ee929f602ea12ea1674daeb9/?vgnextoid=f7a5c82c97774210VgnVCM10000077d4ea9bRCRD&vgnextfmt=default
Monday, 19 October 2009
I spoke to the author of this article (posted at Sarah’s Albion Blog) a few weeks ago. He made some interesting comments regarding the political situation in South Africa, including intimidation of people who dare to speak out against the ANC government. We must never be fooled into thinking that the worst we see is the hate-filled nonsense spewed by the peanut-brain Malemas of this world. It is the political intimidation behind the scenes, directed at those not in the public spotlight, that should scare us. Because if you think for one second that the Marxist ANC government will ever allow their power base diminished through democracy, you need to take the blindfold off before you face the firing squad yourself.
The ANC had everything when it came to power: It was gifted a fully functioning nation, which had a respectable income. It was carried on the shoulders of the world’s moral endorsement, with a surplus of extraordinary international good will. It was to be the “Rainbow Nation”, the trumpet triumphal of Black success and capability. It was to be the final eclipse of “white exploitation”, and the mould for the world of the future. It was set to justify the “racial integration” of all the nations of the world, and the symbolic success of “multiculturalism”. It proclaimed a final defeat of the stratification of unique societies, and had succeeded in destroying the boundaries of societal identity expressed by culture and race.
How could that be? The ANC had no track record, no hard evidence of capability or moral commitment. Indeed, without exception, all black governed precursor societies in Africa had failed as economic and social entities
A perception constructed.
The European construct of a future South Africa as a highly desirable and successful society was a perception created entirely by Europeans. It was created by those who wanted to believe. Europeans structured a delusion, fuelled by an intrinsic belief in the ultimate triumph of Black Africa. The assumption was that “Africans are suppressed peoples” who, once released from their oppressors could only blossom into a new spring.
How did it start, this belief that Black Africa would eventually grow, prosper and blossom?
A stage set by missionaries.
This expectation has been present for centuries, as shown by the zeal and extraordinary endeavours of the European missionaries. The missionaries’ belief had been that Africa was made up of nascent societies and all that was necessary to invigorate Africans was to feed the intrinsic capabilities, to teach counting, writing and language. They believed they could inculcate into their aspiring pupils (as they perceived them) those rich virtues which the Europeans had established over centuries to be the keystones of a workable, satisfying society.
The missionaries’ qualities reflected the source of their recruitment (Christian institutions). Although the overt theme may have been to convert to Christianity underlying this, and reflected by the establishment of thousands of schools, the aim was far broader. It was spoken aloud that the missionaries wanted to “civilise savages”. Read another way, they planned to replicate their own society,
Part of their motivation was probably to assure themselves that they too would be recognised as possessing Christian virtues.
The Parenting Imperative
What were the incentives that drove the missionaries (and colonialists) to attempt to convert alien people to become “like themselves”?
The answer requires taking a further step back, and to acknowledge one of the powerful imperatives which direct human behaviour - the parental commitment to the development of the child, that all-pervasive contribution to the societal structure of the succeeding generation.
Humans have a constant, unrelenting and at times unflinchingly need to have their offspring grow up to be “just like themselves” (or an improved version of themselves). Whatever the inadequacies of the child, and however far that child might fall short of its sought-for destination as a wholesome member of future society the optimism of the parents will prevail supremely.
There are other entrenched behaviours, of course, such as charity, compassion and “fairness”. However it is when these inherent (and distinct behavioural mechanisms) directives become muddled, one with the other, that the human “social psyche” fails its possessors.
Given this powerful and all-prevailing predetermination to parent, the strongest likelihood must be that when the Europeans were confronted with societies which they viewed as socially juvenile, those parental emotions surged to the forefront.
The Europeans therefore, and uniquely, set about the parenting those whom they regarded as inferior on the assumption and hope that if they could exercise “good parenting’” the subject societies would become “is just like theirs”.
Many will confidently interject in support of civic proselytising of “undeveloped and poor” societies, saying “That is expected” or “That is just natural” or the rhetorical “How can anyone think otherwise?” Becoming more aggressive the assertions will become “That is heartless” or “If you do not believe in this (or that) you are deviant, or a monster, or execrable”.
Those with a smug moral superiority soon discover that they have a powerful weapon to force their beliefs on others, via yet another powerful inherent directive - the need of people to evade criticism and sustain social acceptance.
The prodding and emotive phrases listed above are, however, merely word shifts, synonyms for instinctive or inherent or intrinsic or intuitive. Said another way these self-righteous people are demonstrating (perhaps without recognising it) that their behaviour is not governed by reason, but is a fixed, instinctive response. Since there is no rationale, the behaviour of the sententious cannot take account of context or probable outcomes. Because it is narrowly blinkered with much room for unintended consequences, such rigid self-assurance is therefore highly dangerous
For aspirations, motivation, and tenacity .to succeed, a favourable outcome must be assumed. It is the imagined outcome – when contradictory information is ignored, - which sustains most human affairs. Endeavours are wrapped in delusions. Humans cannot function without these delusions, be they delusions of immortality or the certainty that an intended outcome will be successful. If these are stripped away the psycho-personality collapses.
Politicisation of Missionary Zeal
The narrow aspirations of the missionaries broadened into the 20th and 21st centuries. and paternalism strengthened. In both metaphorically and literal senses as the cry went out “bring these alien people into our homes They need encouragement, understanding, maturing, compassion. They need to be protected from criticism and from any reference to their racial background.” It became necessary to begin suppressing those foundational human instincts of self-preservation, demarcation of domain and the fear of alien intrusion.
In what then seemed to be a self –congratulating confirmation of their delusions Europeans began to precipitously proffer awards to those Africans who seemed to bear out their faith of their own evangelism. Robert Mugabe, for example, was awarded The Africa Prize for Leadership for the Sustainable End of Hunger in 1988 with the comment that his agricultural programs "Pointed the way not only for Zimbabwe but for the entire African continent.”
Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and a plethora of other awards were made to Africans – often awarded so precipitously as to exsanguinate all value and status from what had previously been prestigious awards
The Politician Supreme.
Catastrophically, and simultaneous with what individuals were doing to “integrate” aliens into their own cultures by destroying sociological (and racial) barriers, European governments were gaining unparalleled, seemingly unlimited, power over their populations. From being gentlemen Civil Servants, politicians began to see themselves in a role of grandiosity. Those in governing authority began to evolve an autonomy of their own, which served their personal ambitions, and sustained their tenure. It became practice for governments to begin manipulating their society, and to progressively suppress human instincts when these interfered with their security of authority and economic status. These governments began to appease one another in what Solzhenitsyn described as “The United Governments of the World" They began to mutually gloat by displaying that they were non-racial, non-sectarian, and combined in reducing migration barriers.
The suppression of their populations increased too slowly for the people to realise how powerful was to be the strangling of their instinctive behaviours. The British government forced upon the population the cult of “non-racism” with a stronger propaganda than the Nazis would have dared to use with their cult of “non-Judaism”. To force the behaviour of their population into subservient complacency the British governments imposed a more severe and extensive legal infrastructure than the Nazis ever had. The British population was indoctrinated as to what it must think, and disciplined into what it could not say and how it must make value judgements. Expression of intuitive behaviour could be heavily and ruthlessly punished, notably where an instinctive response to the fear of an invading alien population spilled out.
When governments force onto people a behaviour which is contrary to their intuitive and highly sophisticated inherent patterns, that is tyranny. This may not the dictionary definition, but it is a more tangible and qualitative measure of tyranny.
Delusions and deluding.
Were the ambitions of the missionaries fulfilled, 15 years after the pomp and panoply of South African independence? Was the vision of the European exponents of “open house to all cultures” fulfilled? Were the arguments of those who advocated “give them a chance and they will melt into European culture seamlessly” justified? Has Black South Africa succeeded? Has Europe succeeded?
The European bitter-end protagonists of multi-culturism will say. “Yes. Some have” or “if not, this is just a matter of time, compassion, support, understanding” and advocate what is usually reserved for the mendicant or the child, further handouts of largesse. I have heard the same words spoken by parents whose wayward children are corrupt, manipulative, and extractive addicts. These failures of their children nevertheless still evoked in their parents that persisting, and instinctive delusion that all will come right eventually. They failed to see that the child was intrinsic flawed. They could not see their delusions. Instead those children not only eroded their parents’ lives but continued to gnaw destructively at a society which had not the reserves to continue to appease them indefinitely.
If we were to choose an “independent” South Africa as the design model for an ultra liberal society of the future, how should we measure the current moral strength of that nation? Surely the best we can do is to look for efficient and frugal governance and qualities of conscious care of society by those elected “democratically”? Surely me must assess the people who claim to be the most successful, the most evolved, those who believe that they are the most capable of demonstrating that black South Africa is successful. Are they?.
Rather than distribute critical analysis over a range of variables, let us look at a single aspect of the behaviour of a selection of ANC politicians. An array of travel and other benefits of office are available to South African Parliamentarians. It would be expected that the availing of these implied a prudence and selectivity, with discrimination based on honesty. Have these “leaders” fulfilled the same expectations of honesty that the missionaries had hoped to inculcate into their prodigies?
How did these politicians, given the potential to cheat and exploit, reveal their anticipated morality and virtue?
The Black Power Propaganda industry.
Should it be argued that politicians cannot be regarded as a representative, let us look instead at individuals who are or were expected to achieve their positions by merit and endeavour.
The National Police Commissioner should exemplify critical selection for dispassionate honesty and unswerving compliance with the law. The Western world acclaimed Jacob Selebi in this role, and as part of the mission to defer to the Black African capability, he was also appointed President of Interpol. In 1998 he received a Human Rights Award for International Service for Human Rights
Currently Selebi is now on trial charged with many offences, including corruption and defeating the ends of Justice. In evidence, it is claimed inter alia, that he had revealed secret UK correspondence to international criminals.
As much as the delusional expectations of the Europeans about Africa’s potential were formulated and executed by Europeans, so a parallel industry of Black Propaganda contrives to capitalise and exploit the European delusions. The aim seems to have been to demonstrate that Black Africans could compete on equal terms with the European in achievement and creativity. Sadly most of the claims promoted were fabrications , calculated to deceive.
If the above examples remain unacceptable examples, let us look at a contemporary example from sport, in which the Black Africans’ capability is unquestioned. Castor Semenya won the 800m at the world championship in Berlin in 2009. An earlier commentary aimed at putting the subsequent furore into objective context.
However ANC high-rankers, which include the infamous Winnie Mandela and Parliamentary Ministers, instead of recognising that errors, misjudgement, and deception had occurred and that it would be appropriately prudent to withdraw and apologise to the world at large, chose to go into combat against the world in an even more astonishing ranting against Europeans and their “racism”. A desperate attempt to create a delusion of African competence via Black Power propaganda.
Europe, at least in the form of political assertions, wants its successful and often overcrowded populations to dilute their creative capacity with counter-cultural immigrants from failed nations.
European, look now and carefully at Africa if you wish to know your future, should the politicians’ aims be allowed to succeed.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Henri leRiche asked me to post his essay for the plight of minorities in South Africa. It was also posted on Global Politician.
Brandon Huntley, a “white” South African, was recently granted asylum in Canada. It is a direct result of notable genocidal conditions that are steadily on the rise in South Africa. There is a common resistance by the majority of South Africans to Mr Huntley’s charges that he fears for his life - that he is being targeted by criminals, because he is a “white” minority. It is funny how the ANC-led South African government shouted “racist” when a white man from Africa applied for asylum due to persecution and failed to see the reverse racism they were guilty of. After all, this came from the same government that called Europe racist when athlete Caster Semenya had to go for a gender test. It turned out she is a hermaphrodite and the race card was just a ploy to cover a lie. In South Africa the race card is often used as a weapon by the government in order to silence its enemies and gain support for its racial policies. In Canada, the South African Civil Rights group Afriforum is going to put evidence on the table for the world to see. Evidence that is going to make the South African government very uncomfortable and dance to the tune of “Truth is the biggest enemy of any government”. The hope is that the ANC led South African government will be held accountable in an international court for the human desperation which now exists within some of the white communities in South Africa. We contend that the South African government has been actively concealing the truth, not only from the international community, but also from many of South Africa’s own citizens.
To date there seems to be an unwillingness from the media to advance the full extent of the current conditions in South Africa, relying almost exclusively upon statistics as provided by the South African government without independent verification. Victims of an under current of genocide, low scale war, deserve more than a “copy and paste” mentality from news editors. Our desire is to extend the boundaries of truth beyond the limited horizon of a small sphere of humanitarian efforts.
A part of the world’s confusion is understandable. Many “rich white” foreigners living in South Africa’s highly secured neighbourhoods, speak with wonderment about the virtues of South Africa. They have no historical or family ties to the country that binds them to heinous atrocities that are being committed against white minorities with a wide network of family. They do not have to share in the fear of racial discontent as directed at white minorities, specifically Afrikaners (descendants of mostly Dutch, French, German, British and smaller numbers from other European countries) whose heritage ties them to South Africa’s past. Afrikaners only have South African passports and these whites do not have European passports – which tie them solidly to African soil. Foreigners to South Africa do not get to see the day to day life that minorities in South Africa have to deal with. Even those of us forced to live outside our countries borders, are only a phone call away from the shared, feared reality of a racially fueled genocide. The fear is real as portrayed by the mass exodus of qualified and skilled citizens, of whom the majority is white.
Concerned people from all walks of life around the world have unified for the sole purpose of disseminating the truth. If these charges are a vilification of the truth, then truth shall prevail on the occasion of its justification. Thus we seek the truth to be told in an international court of law and that the world be told the truth. That apartheid is still very much alive in a nation where racial tension is still propagated by the government and tolerated by its media. People from all cultures, races and creed should not suffer the discontent that racism breeds, or fear those that use racism as a “weapon of silence”. The world is slowly starting to wake up to racial double standards. Where certain rules apply to one person, yet different rules to another. Brandon Huntley is that proof.
For minorities, wherever they find themselves in the world, have no say in their destiny as voted by a majority. They are either accepted as part of a society or have to share in the world’s charity. That is the price of being the minority – you are at the mercy of the perception of right and wrong as perceived by the majority. That is one of the reasons why Afrikaners became part of a larger family of minorities by joining the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO). Equality is only a perception shared by the majority and hope for by minorities. South African minorities are at the mercy of equality as perpetrated on them by criminals. We are at the mercy of racial equality as viewed by people who participate in crime. Yet we do not have the voting power to end acts of crime against all citizens of South Africa. The majority are the ones who tolerate crime, therefor we must judge the racial tolerance of criminals. At night we can only pray that we would not be murdered by somebody with a vindictive racial attitude. We do not get to vote on the attitude towards crime, yet we are told that it is not geared towards us. We have to take the word of majority that criminals do not use racial bias. In South Africa, racists are not criminals. This is what the statisticians will make us believe.
This is not a question of us against them, but about what is wrong and that is a government forcing its “denial of truth agenda” on the world. An agenda that now heightens racial discord by driving a wedge between people. That wedge is destroying the “Mandela dream”. In a nation of people that seeks peace, we are being polarised by government efforts. The ANC proffer a policy that generally states “never again will one benefit at the expense of another” in its own Freedom Charter. Whilst still at the same time practicing policies like Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment to virtually eliminate whites from participation in the work force. Does the government fear our commitment to building the future of South Africa? Are we always to be treated like we do not belong, therefore we are not allowed to equally participate? How long before our own people will accept us and not reject us. Maybe then the killing of innocent people will stop.
If we are to be truly living in a free society, the government should feel obligated to protect all its citizens against voilent crime. In order for us to build a better society, we need to be living in one first. There is no justification for crime, not even against minorities. If there is racial discord, it’s the leaders not there to discredit its legitimacy – are they there to raise or lower our fears?
Yet we are being labelled as being “racist” because we are raising our fears, as we see our government use racial slurs to raise political capital. The world should also be the judge of the legitimacy of our fears. History is littered with examples of people’s fears that were ignored. If our fears are just an attempt to diminish the South African government, then the truth should be told. They have already diminished their own image in the U.N. when it comes to voting on human rights issues as a member of the Human Rights Council.
“HRC members such as South Africa, Indonesia, India and Senegal, although themselves generally regarded as upholding human rights at home, frequently back human right-abusing countries, critics say. – CNSNews.com”
The media seems to believe that our allegations are all fabricated lies, so what harm would come of independent eyes to discern for themselves? If all we are trying to do is to create a larger schism between races, will those facts not also be revealed? We believe and trust that the truth shall set us free, rather than apart. These crimes have been continuing since 1994 and is ever on the increase, to such worrying statistics that Genocidewatch is very concerned about what is currently happening.
Here are three examples of hate crimes in the white community that were fueled by black on white racism, yet gone unnotticed like many more examples Afriforum will give as evidence.
David Jones of the Daily Mail describes the brutal assault of a white woman, Mrs. Ame Brown, in her Johannesburg home in the absence of her husband who was working a night shift. Mrs. Brown’s two young sons were bound at the wrists and forced at gunpoint to watch by the four-strong black gang which had broken into their flat as their mother was violated in turn by each of the gang members. Says Jones: “As the first man made way for the second, he spat out the hate-filled words Ame, an Afrikaner, will never forget: “For years you Boers always took from us. Now we’re taking from you”. In fact, Ame Brown worked as a care assistant looking after mainly black children at a Johannesburg home for youngsters. But her work on behalf of such an underprivileged, have-not section of the population obviously cut no ice with her assailants. Her race was all that mattered as far as they were concerned.
Lambert Theron, 20, Kempton Park Wimpy manager – CCTV filmed this young Afrikaner’s last moments: being hacked to death in a revenge-murder by two black co-workers – who accused him of “lying like all white men do”.
One of the most shocking recent examples of two anti-white racist hate-crimes involved the April 2009 torture-murders of Alice Lotter, 77, and her daughter Helen, 57, which caused a wave of abhorrence amongst the entire white community because of its incredible cruelty. The women, both frail, were tortured to death at their farm in Allenridge in the Free State on April 1, 2009. According to forensic evidence, the Lotter mother and daughter died excruciatingly painful deaths: First tortured by being stabbed with broken glass bottles into their vaginas; one of the women also had her breasts cut off while she was still alive – and then both women’s blood, police forensic experts found, had been used to paint the ANC’s anti-Afrikaner hate slogan “Kill the Boer Kill the Farmer” on the walls of their homestead.
The list of crimes against “white” minorities, victims of murder and torture goes on.
Take a moment and ask yourself the question: What if these minorities were from a different race, in another part of the world? Would there be an international outcry against these heinous crimes if they were not white? If the roles were reversed the world would trounce on the opportunity to vilify whites, acting in such a way against “black” minorities. Are we to believe that asylum seekers should also be racially profiled? In a truly democratic society the outcry that a member of minority has been brutalized like this should cause a reaction from their government. A full scale investigation into the causes and conditions, or at the very least a denouncement from the government should be launched. We should learn from the past that ignoring the pleas from minorities can have even full scale impact on the rest of the world. Lest we forget the lessons from our wars of the past. We can ill afford another devastating war on the face of the planet, seeing that we are already losing the battle on global climate change and the population growth is about to explode. The last world war was started by the world ignoring the plight of minorities as they felt that the abuse was justified.
On this point the South African government remains painfully misdirected, choosing to rouse its supporters into hatred against whites. The South African government knows if they stop using the racial issue, if whites become South Africans, rather than ‘Racist White’ South Africans, it would become increasingly more difficult to enforce racial bias, hypocritical policies and even lose support in the process. Is equality not the pursuit of all people?
As things are becoming more tense in South Africa, we see right wing extremists rise up from the ashes, for instance the AWB party of Eugene Terreblanche. Though these groups represent a very small minority of whites or Afrikaners, what is apparent and worrying, is that more whites will feel obliged to sympathise as hate crimes against them are on the increase.
Brandon Huntley might lose his case, but that is not the real issue. The question is whether the truth will be exposed, will all be fully revealed? If the South African government’s statistics and propaganda are accepted as ‘fact’, if the full spectrum of truth is discarded or ignored, the world will lose another opportunity to advance the cause of oppressed people – even oppressed white men like Brandon Huntley. If the world neglects to seek the truth, the South African government will not suddenly find its moral centre, rather, it will be assured that its efforts to beguile are more potent than truth. Even to those of us that believed they would bring peace and equality. That dream is still to be achieved.
I have no doubt that the perpetrators will be apprehended. But I again realised how absurd the BBC reporting was a while back when they wanted us to believe there is more violent crime in UK than in South Africa. The following news from The South African seems to contradict that notion. Even first world thugs seem more cultivated than their African brothers…
Monday, 5 October 2009
This is what we have been dealing with in Africa – a shocking article by Doberman, ILSA.
A Kenyan-based Animal Rights organisation has called on the South African government to ban the bare handed killing of a bull that takes place each December as part of the First Fruits Ceremony at Nongoma, KwaZulu-Natal.
25 cows to die for Zuma
The Ritual Slaughter of Animals - African Style - Content warning
The call, made by Josphat Ngonyo, Director of Africa Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW), comes hot on the heels of ANAW’s triumph in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi in December 2008 when a bullfighting event was prevented from taking place because of the cruelty involved.
Regarded as a traditional sport in Kenya, the bullfighting event was organised by Target Africa as a tourist drawcard to highlight ‘the Obama Circuit’ in Kenya’s Western Province and was due to take place on Saturday 13th December 2008.
However, ANAW appealed to the Press, government and police to stop the proposed fight on the grounds that:
- It would be inhumane and barbaric;
- It would discourage tourism;
- It would be a bad example for children and “mould them into becoming violent citizens”.
“Bullfighting is illegal, inhumane, unethical and retrogressive,” said Mr Ngonyo. “It is a violation of Kenya’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. We will not sit back and watch as some commercially-minded individuals promote inhumane treatment of our animals.”
Now ANAW has appealed to all African governments to stop acts of animal cruelty practiced in the name of ‘culture’.
“A case in point,” said Mr Ngonyo, “is the killing of the bull at the Zulu nation’s First Fruits Festival in South Africa. “The cruelty meted out to these animals is barbaric, inhumane and retrogressive. It is conducted in the name of ‘culture’ but culture of this nature needs to be abandoned as swiftly as the culture of female circumcision.
“The mind boggles at the brutality involved in ripping out the bull’s tongue, gouging out his eyes, suffocating him with soil, causing excruciating pain to his genitals, and kicking and trampling him to his eventual death.
“This is not the face of Africa that will see us contributing to global discourse as competent and dignified participants.”
Compassion in World Farming (SA) calls on Minister of Culture to state whether the killing of the bull will be allowed to take place again in December 2009.
Issued by Compassion in World Farming (South Africa) as a member of the ANAW Network, PO Box 825, Somerset West 7129 Tel. 021 852 8160, email: email@example.com Websites: www.animal-voice.org and www.ciwf.org.