Manfred Delport – praag.org

Yet more statistical dreck from AfricaCheck

Why are white women so much more likely to be murdered by ‘others’?

There is an Afrikaans word for faeces that is used rather less often than its more vulgar “kak“ equivalent: “drek.” I was extremely amused to read a piece issued by AfricaCheck, which is where my “drek” word comes in, because, you see, AfricaCheck should rather be called AfricaDrek, due to all the faeces emanating from the likes of the author of the piece in question, Ms Lisa Vetten. AfricaDrek is rather like the newspaper, Pravda (“Truth”), in the old Soviet Union; an organization, its name notwithstanding, not interested in publishing the truth at all, but rather dedicated to lies, obfuscation, and yes, pure, unadulterated bullshit or drek. (These days, of course, Pravda is a lot more readable in post-Soviet times.)

No piece I’ve read in 2014 has been more worthy of being described as drek than this masterpiece of desperate, attempted obfuscation by Ms Vetten. Congratulations, Ms Vetten! You can come and collect your plastic toilet seat award from me, for the most smelly turd of 2014.

Firstly, Ms Vetten describes herself as a researcher in the blurb below the article, and therefore presumably fancies herself to be some kind of academic, one given to objective analysis and the pursuit of the facts. Certainly most people would not think of an academic as one who would descend to name-calling and labelling. Yet name-calling is exactly what she cannot resist doing, describing her opponents variously as “prejudiced”, “amateur” and the “white right”.

Yes, of course. The usual suspects. Puke Watson would be proud of Ms Vetten’s stereotypes – thick-as-bricks Afrikaners, who wear khaki and down Klippies and Coke. Dumb Dutchmen.

Not quite the type of thing my professors would have approved of in a research paper, but nonetheless, at AfricaDrek, it seems to be acceptable to pretend to be an academic, but descend to name-calling when you know you’ve lost the argument, which is all the time. I was therefore tempted to use similar terms in the title to my piece, say “Feminazi causes a late-term statistical abortion”, but then I’m an amateur and not an AfricaDrek academic.

But let me, the mere dumb Dutchman, and yes, an amateur white right-winger, flush Ms Vetten’s drek down the toilet, as it were.

Firstly, uniquely among all races, the study quoted in Ms Vetten’s piece above says that many more white women are killed by others, i.e. not by their intimate partners. In fact, uniquely among races, white women were killed during the study period at a rate more than twice that of being killed by their intimate partners! Ms Vetten quotes in her column that 2.8 per 100 000 white women were killed by their intimate partners in the MRC study of 1999, but that a whopping 5.8 per 100 000 of white women were killed by “others”. So a white woman had a 32% chance of being killed by her partner, as opposed to a 68% chance of another person killing her – of being murdered by “others”.

However, this paper, also by the MRC, states that anywhere from 50% to 56% of all female homicides in South Africa generally are perpetrated by their intimate partners. Oops, now this presents somewhat of a dilemma to Ms Vetten. Why were “only” 32% of white homicide victims, as opposed to between 50% and 56% of the overall SA population, murdered by intimate partners? Why are white women so much more likely to be murdered by others?

Are white uncles, friends, cousins, parents and so on, really, seriously that much more violent than the “others” of other races, by a factor of between 30% and 40%? (68% divided by 50%.) No doubt Ms Vetten would agree with the above, and might even confidently state that indeed we whites are indeed 40% more violent towards our women. Perhaps she would hasten to add that white right-wingers are especially guilty of “other” feminine homicide.

What she doesn’t say is, however, more important than what she does write in her piece. Ms Vetten doesn’t even attempt to explain the above huge discrepancy. She wouldn’t dare to, because even an amateur like myself would understand that this would overwhelmingly support the contention that whites are being murdered more by “others”, than blacks, Indians and coloureds are. Who are these others?

Lisa Vetten doesn’t know. She has not the foggiest notion who they might be. As she herself writes:

But of course, given that we do not have racial breakdowns of perpetrators per category of women, it also possible that some white men may have killed some African women, that a few African men may have killed a small number of Indian women and that some coloured men killed white women.

Each of these permutations is possible when we are dealing only with percentages overall.

Exactly, Ms Vetten. As you yourself say, even the so-called amateur white right may be dead right, when they say that most white women are killed by black others. Again in your own words, “each of these permutations is possible”. You simply don’t know who kills white women, but if you consider how comparatively many white women are killed by others, and considering news reports and anecdotal evidence, all thinking people at least have their suspicions that it is NOT white grannies above 75 who are killing other white women.

And then, of course Ms Vetten, after having failed to explain why others kill white women at a far higher rate than what is true for other races, and having admitted to her total ignorance in the quotation above, she falls back on the tired old brain-dead excuse, which I will paraphrase as follows: “Everybody suffers from crime. White women aren’t special.” (Which makes white homicide and hate crimes committed by other races against whites OK, then?)

Another giant turd from AfricaDrek, indeed.

Presumed racist until proven guilty

By Manfred Delport.

The core principles in any justice system should be equality before the law and the impartiality of the justice system. As we have repeatedly seen in South Africa since 1994, this ideal of equality and impartiality is an absolute joke in the Mandelatopian justice system. If you are politically connected, you are much more equal than other mere mortals.

The most well-known example of this gross inequality in terms of justice is Schabir Shaik. Having been found guilty of fraud and corruption involving the president, JZ783, Shaik spent only a few months in jail, and most of these in hospital. He was then released on so-called medical parole, only to be photographed while enjoying his “terminal disease” on the golf course. On the other hand, people like Clive Derby-Lewis still languish in jail, years after he should have been released on medical parole, given that Derby-Lewis really actually has cancer. Unlike Derby-Lewis, the merry golfer is simply suffering from the terminal disease called life.

There is however a much more egregious set of double standards that exist in the Mandelatopian “justice” system. These double standards pertain to the grossly unequal treatment of whites and blacks whenever there is any incident of an interracial nature, and the prejudice that whites suffer.

Example 1: Two white students allegedly run over a black pedestrian in Bloemfontein. Predictably, the mainstream media immediately descend into an orgy of rabid, self-righteous rage, and waste no time whatsoever in hysterically labelling this as a so-called racist incident. Within days, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) announces that it too will investigate this incident.

Note the immediate assumption and prejudice, which is repeated time and again whenever blacks and whites are involved in an incident where the alleged wrongdoer is white: Racism is immediately the presumed motive of the white, no matter if there is any proof whatsoever to support this assumption.

Example 2: A black lawyer shoots a white motorcyclist in a road rage incident in Randburg. The lawyer claims the shooting was in self-defence, but this is patently absurd, given that the cowardly Randburg Backshooter shot his victim in the back, as his victim was walking away. Being a so-called lawyer, the Randburg Backshooter should surely realize that no impartial judge would ever accept self-defence as a justification for his crime in these circumstances. However, no news report labels this as a racist incident. The HRC’s silence is deafening, and there is no hint of any HRC investigation.

In contrast to the automatic assumption of a racist motive when whites are involved, there is clearly no automatic assumption of a racist motive on behalf of the Randburg Backshooter, even though he shot his victim in the back and clearly committed murder, and a cowardly murder at that. He is not prejudiced by the automatic assumption of a racist motive on his behalf, but alleged white perpetrators do suffer this prejudice.

I can, of course, quote hundreds if not thousands of cases in which black attackers viciously target whites during brutal farm invasions, hijackings, rapes and tortures, including incidents during home invasions in the suburbs. It is very, very seldom that the mainstream media would call these incidents racist, even though it is difficult to see why the brutal torture and murder of elderly whites by violent black farm attackers can be anything but the most shocking incidents of racist hate crimes.

Why is this? Why are whites involved in interracial incidents prejudiced in the media and the courts by automatically labelled as racists, and even investigated for so-called racism, while the same very seldom happens to blacks involved in crimes or attacks against whites?

It seems to me that whites are being treated unequally by both the justice system and the mainstream media. Any misstep on behalf of a white towards a black is automatically assumed to have racism as an aggravating factor or indeed its motive, whereas the reverse is not true. Because of this automatic assumption, the white perpetrator, if found guilty, would have his sentence aggravated because of the assumption, as well as the hysterical accusations of racism by the loony-left media, whereas black attackers of whites do not suffer the same fate.

The hysterical accusations of racism by the mainstream media, as well as the involvement of organizations such as the HRC, make a mockery of any fairness and impartiality towards alleged white perpetrators. Whites are subject to double jeopardy in the Mandelatopian justice system, because of the immediate additional of charges of racism in any incident involving somebody from another racial group.

Professional victimhood: South Africa’s growth industry

by Manfred Delport

[followbutton username=’ManfredDelport’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Follow Manfred on Facebook.

Rape is a serious problem in South Africa. South Africa is known as the rape capital of the world. At least 55,000 rapes occur annually, including shockingly brutal incidents like the rape and disembowelment of Anene Booysen in 2013. Most rapes however go unreported, due to the stigma and humiliation involved in the legal process.

According to the South African Medical Research Council, rape may be under-reported by a factor of 25:1 in South Africa, meaning that the real number of rapes committed in the country is probably as high as 1,3 million! Even in countries at war, rape does not occur as frequently as it does in South Africa.

But, of course, this being the professional victimhood capital of the world, there are those that make a living by pretending they’ve been wronged or raped too. I call them professional victims, because they cynically make a living from others’ pain and suffering. They don’t build, invent, work hard or innovate. They especially do not take personal responsibility for their own actions. Instead, they externalize blame. It’s never their own fault, but always somebody else’s. Often they tend to be self-styled activists, and of course, journalist hacks desperately seeking some kind of inspiration.

Let’s take a case study. One of these professional victims gets involved with the ex-boyfriend of an acquaintance. She admits he’s got a reputation for being a known womanizer, but like a moth drawn to a candle, she can’t stay away from him. One night, by her own admission, she gets horrendously drunk in his company and invites him to her home, to “meet her dogs”. (No, really, this is her own story. )The inevitable happens. They have sex. Four years later, on social media, she alleges the sex was, in fact, rape, after reading some random piece of feminazi propaganda. “Strangely”, however, she did not report the alleged rape to the authorities, and her alleged rapist departed the next morning without incident. She remembers her vagina and thighs hurting the next morning (as did her head from her hangover, I would hazard). How convenient. No DNA tests, no possible defence or rebuttal from the alleged assailant, just her wild allegations, four years after the fact. The allegations predictably contain no whiff of personal responsibility for her own actions.

A lack of evidence or proof has, however, never interested the professional victims, feminazis and libtards. The alleged rapist, who has had no opportunity to defend himself, is declared guilty by the Feminazi Inquisition. Immediately a whole industry of professional victims and seventeenth-rate journalist hags, mostly feminazis and professional gay victims in the employ of News24, springs to life. They sniff blood in the water. David Bullard, a semi-retired newspaper columnist, aids her cause immensely by making the mistake of calling the professional victim’s version of the events into question. Voila! A dream situation for a ragged assortment of News24 hacks, feminazis and libtards, who vent their hysterical anger by screaming on Twitter.

Bullard is roundly condemned for daring to question the professional victim’s behaviour. Feminazis waste no time in screaming hysterical abuse at Bullard and all men who dare to question the activist’s version of events. Acres of trashy condemnation, cheap sensationalism and generalizations of all men being potential rapists appear in the already-nauseating pages of Women24. The professional victim, obviously and cynically not missing out on a commercial opportunity, publishes absurd stories on her blog, like this one, in which another so-called victim is convinced by a so-called therapist that she is also a rape victim. Again this happens three days after the event, after voluntarily sharing a bed with a man in a hotel room, and admitting to experiencing an orgasm in his car the next day, after the alleged rape. Again no charges are laid.

But what have these professional victims and feminazis really achieved? They’ve made it more difficult for real victims to come forward. They have done huge damage to real rape victims by crying wolf, because their unlikely stories and cynical exploitation of public sympathy have led many to wonder how many other alleged rapes are really what they purport to be.

Of course, professional victimhood, the externalization of blame for one’s own lack of initiative, a lack of a work ethic and a lack of morals, is endemic to South Africa, and not limited to feminazi hacks. Julius Malema is another professional victim, forever whingeing about how whites “stole” blacks’ land. To a professional victim like Malema, the facts, such as that the land was mostly obtained in a perfectly legal fashion by means of treaties and agreements, don’t matter at all. Malema doesn’t want to hear that Botswana, an entire country, as well as Lesotho and Swaziland, were given to blacks as part of a land settlement. No, it is a lot easier to pretend to be a victim, and to blame external parties for your own backwardness.

I can carry on quoting examples of professional victimhood. Affirmative-action beneficiaries are prime examples of professional victims. Jan van Riebeeck didn’t find schools, platinum mines, the wheel or commercial enterprises in South Africa in 1652, so it is impossible to logically blame colonizers for the lack of jobs, education or commercial opportunities among the then indigenous population. However, today all blacks are viewed as victims, and therefore Patrice Motsepe’s children will enjoy preference over poor white kids from a white squatter camp when both apply for a job. Another example of professional victims are those who loot and burn down the shops of Somali or Pakistani shopkeepers in townships. It never occurs to the looters that there is nothing preventing them from establishing the same kind of shops that the Somalis do. It is much easier to pretend to be a victim and to allege that the Somalis are stealing their livelihoods.

It’s easy to offend professional victims. It is easy to bring down a torrent of abuse and screams of “male chauvinism” or “racism” on your own head. All you have to do is to use terms like the following against these professional victims:

Take personal responsibility for your actions.
Work hard.
Stop blaming others.

All yours, professional victims. I look forward to the stream of filthy invective, outrage, abuse and hate that will now inevitably issue forth from your insignificant little poison pens.

Objecting to hate crime: now also racist

by Manfred Delport

[followbutton username=’ManfredDelport’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Follow Manfred on Facebook.

In yet another shocking incident of racist hate crime, a timber harvester, Mr Dan Knight, was brutally murdered in KZN by black suspects. His partner, Ms Beth Butcher, recounted her horror at being forced to watch the attack. By “forced”, I mean that her head was held and turned towards the victim by force, and her eyes were forced open by one of the attackers, so that she could witness for herself the sheer horror of Mr Knight’s head literally being beaten to a pulp by his attackers. According to Ms Butcher, during a radio interview, they deliberately pulverized Mr Knight’s skull with a hammer and a plumber’s wrench, while she was forced to looked on.

The “motive?” Mr Knight had made the mistake of appointing a company, for which the perpetrators worked, to harvest timber, and the contracting company had failed to pay the perpetrators. Note that this was an arms-length relationship. They were not employed by Mr Knight himself, but by a third party. They nevertheless then took it upon themselves to smash Mr Knight’s head to a pulp, perhaps as an act of retaliation somehow aimed at their employer. For the purposes of this column, I must emphasize that the victims were white and the attackers, which were known to the victims, were black.

Multiply the above horrific, barbaric act of racist hate crime by 4000 dead and often-tortured farmers who have died during farm attacks, multiply this by countless white victims who have been raped, attacked, robbed, hijacked, murdered and tortured by hate-filled criminals from other groups, and you start to get the idea of what is going on in South Africa. It can surely only be described as widespread, endemic anti-white hate crime, if not the beginnings of a genocide.

Of course, we will now be told by the usual suspects, the likes of Sipho Singwisa and Gillian Schutte of the Media for Justice (sic) movement, that this is all “ordinary crime”. To them, being forced to watch while somebody crushes your partner’s skull with a plumbing wrench, is run-of-the-mill, everyday stuff, barely worth a mention. They will also, no doubt, attempt to offer the utterly moronic excuse that “everybody in South Africa suffers from crime”. While the latter may be true, it is whites who bear the brunt of hate crimes, for whites represent the vast majority of the victims of violent, interracial hate crime in South Africa. One just has to read the papers or watch the news to become aware of this undisputable fact, even though the media take great pains not to mention the race of the attackers. The surnames of the victims and court appearances of the perpetrators, however, almost always give the secret away.

White-on-black hate crime, on the other hand, is exceedingly rare. It is well-nigh impossible, for example, to find a single media report detailing a white-on-black sexual assault, whereas white women are often, and almost routinely, raped during anti-white hate crimes known as house invasions, and this even includes elderly women. To which the ever-more-desperate loony lefties will attempt to offer the feeble excuse that there are “more blacks than whites in South Africa”. Also true, but even controlling for population numbers, the rate per capita of anti-white racist crime still completely dwarfs the rate of whites committing hate crimes against others.

What is really guaranteed, however, to get these insane leftists berserk with froth-at-the-mouth fury, would be if anybody should dare to object to the violent, racist, anti-white crime endemic in South Africa in an organized fashion. This happened recently, during the Red October campaign, during which people like Sunette Bridges and Steve Hofmeyr (both singers), dared to protest against shockingly racist murders and other racism-inspired hate violence aimed at whites.

For her trouble, Ms Bridges, who I emphasize is a female entertainer who is almost certainly not dangerous or violent, for having the gall to object to the violent, racist attacks aimed at her people, has even been compared to Adolf Hitler in a diatribe penned in the Daily Maverick by a little-known Wits academic, no doubt wishing to burnish her PC credentials. And, of course, loony-lefties like Ms Schutte have wasted no time in being reduced to hysterically screaming the little magic word so beloved of the frothing-at-the-mouth left: “racist!” Not only do the likes of Ms Schutte hysterically scream racism when whites dare to object to the hate crime aimed at us, but they actually want those of us who dare to protest, silenced by the government, as in this execrable piece of bilge perpetrated by Ms Schutte’s husband, Sipho Singiswa. Those who dare to write about racist hate crimes, are themselves branded as “hate groups.” In the above-mentioned piece of addled nonsense, Singwisa even frets about Ms Bridges (once again: a female singer) and her ilk taking to the streets and murdering blacks. I quote:

Perhaps they are waiting for the moment when these supremacists, drunk from the racist hatred they have been concocting and imbibing, and emboldened by the government’s lack of action against them, take to the streets and butcher a couple of innocent black people.

I would challenge the author of this incoherent nonsense to bring me a single example of any participant in the Red October protests who has ever committed a hate crime against any black person. Of course, this would imply that he would be amenable to a rational argument, which I would seriously doubt. However, following the “logic” in the tirade delivered by Singwisa, the surviving victim of the horrific attack mentioned at the start of this column, Ms Beth Butcher, would also be remiss in objecting to this clear hate crime which cost her her life partner. The likes of Singwisa and Schutte would, no doubt, prefer that Ms Butcher keep the details of this horrific, racist hate crime to herself and accept it as “ordinary crime”, or tell herself that “blacks suffer from crime too, so it must be OK”.

Should Ms Butcher dare to object to this hate crime, she, like Sunette Bridges and Steve Hofmeyr, no doubt runs the risk of being branded a racist by the likes of Schutte and Singwisa. They will also, as demanded in Singwisa’s incoherent ranting, insist that the government silences Ms Butcher, and perhaps even that the government prevents Ms Butcher from speaking to the media. Perhaps Schutte and Singiswa (is it only me who finds the acronym for their combined surnames – SS – ironic?) would even like to see the likes of Ms Butcher jailed, should she speak out.

Because, you see, in the insane world of the la-la-leftie loony, objecting to hate crime, even if you are a victim or related to a victim is, in itself, “racist.”

‘Racism’: South Africa’s biggest industry

by Manfred Delport

There is an email joke currently doing the rounds, which contains more than just a grain of truth. A black boy asks his mom: “Mommy, what is democracy?” His mother answers that democracy is something that allows the black majority to elect a government which will use the money provided by the mostly white tax base for all kinds of goodies to black people, including housing, expensive cars for black officials and child grants. The boy then asks his mother whether the mostly white taxpayers don’t complain about this. His mom answers: “Yes, they do, and that’s what we call racism.”

The often-imaginary concept known as racism can mean almost anything. For example, Makaziwe Mandela complains that the extensive media interest in her father’s feared passing away is somehow “racist.” Nobody knows how she arrived at that particular conclusion, but apparently it is racist for Agence France Presse to set up its cameras outside the Pretoria Heart Hospital.

While some may accept that a media frenzy indeed somehow equals racism, it is notable how well Mkaziwe Mandela and the rest of the Mandela gang have done financially by being victims of racism. Were it not for their imaginary victimhood, they would merely have been a bunch of below-average nonentities. And I would certainly include Nelson Mandela in the latter group of mediocrities.

People such as US president Obama continuously refer to the so-called “Madiba legacy”. However, nobody can supply a good definition of exactly what this so-called legacy is supposed to entail. Mandela was jailed for a failed terrorist conspiracy, although it was thought up mostly by white communists. Mandela is nobody’s intellectual, clearly, and did not have much in the way of strategic thinking to contribute to the failed terror plot. He stayed in jail longer than necessary because of his hard-line refusal to renounce violence. Cyril Ramaphosa and Joe Slovo were more important ANC negotiators at Codesa than Mandela was. After only one mediocre term as president, during which Thabo Mbeki was the real power behind the scenes, and during which the country exploded into an orgy of criminal violence, Mandela retired to enjoy his wealth.

(Funny thing that, incidentally. How does a person who’s been in jail for 27 years get to be so filthy rich so quickly? A South African president only earned approximately 200,000 US dollars per annum at the time.)

Let me then repeat my question: What, exactly, is meant by Mandela’s legacy? What did he actually do, except to participate in a failed terrorist plot? The answer is simple. Mandela, once described as somebody of only average intelligence by a black American writer, is really a professional victim of imaginary racism, and this has proven extremely lucrative for both Mandela and the rest of the Mandela gang.

It would not be far-fetched to say that South Africa’s biggest industry is not mining, financial services or agriculture. It is rather extorting money in the name of imaginary white racism, by posing as professional black victims of racism. This, then, is Mandela’s true and only legacy. He is the most famous professional victim of imaginary white racism in the world, a poster boy for white guilt, as another writer put it. He was jailed for plotting to commit violent acts of terror against innocent civilians, white and black, but somehow he has managed to transform himself into the victim of his own conspiracy to commit terror. Perhaps Osama Bin Laden should have taken a cue from Mandela and transformed himself into the actual victim of 9/11, so that he too could be feted by liberal whites, instead of being deservedly eliminated by Seal Team 6.

One sees this phenomenon in all walks of South African life. The entire ANC; all its elected officials and its supporters who have been appointed to the public service after whites, as well as competence, were ethnically cleansed from the civil service, are really making a living by being professional victims of so-called racism. The logic, if that is the right term, is that they may not be competent to run a government or a municipality (or even a brothel), but that the world owes them because they are victims. The civil service and municipalities are, predictably, collapsing because of this mentality.

Exploiting misplaced white guilt is also a highly profitable pursuit. Prior to 1994 Scandinavian donors were lining up to hand over money to fraudsters like the Reverend Allan Boesak, who promptly abused their donations to buy luxury cars and a large home. His black victimhood, incidentally, didn’t prevent him from marrying a white journalist. He clearly didn’t think that one through – he could have doubled the household income if both he and his spouse were both to become professional black victims.

The private sector is by no means immune to this. Black Economic Empowerment of BEE is nothing but a huge and racially-based extortion racket aimed at blackmailing companies into handing over chunks of their equity to connected ANC cadres. Should they resist, they are threatened with being exposed as “racists”, which is the worst crime imaginable these days, worse even than raping and murdering babies.

When one realizes that professional victimhood – of imaginary racism perpetrated by those evil whites – is the biggest growth industry in South Africa, if not also in loony-left universities in the USA, you gain an entirely new perspective on many issues.

For example: the Affirmative-Action rector of the University of the Free State, Jonathan Jansen, is wont to vociferously condemn imaginary white racism, by writing acres of column space shrilly condemning such iniquity, but says nary a word about the endemicm, murderous violence and drug culture amongst his own ethnic group. Perhaps Jansen feels it’s better to be shot to death during a drive-by shooting at a crack house, than it is to suffer an imaginary racial slur. What Jansen is really doing, however, is affirming his credentials as a victim because of the post he currently occupies to the powers that be, because he knows his appointment was political, and not based on academic or managerial merit.

When Makaziwe Mandela draws the ridiculous conclusion that media interest equals racism, it’s not about racism at all. It is really a marketing ploy. She is affirming her status as a professional victim to the world, and naïve white liberals are falling over themselves to further enrich her and the rest of the Mandela gang.

This industry is so pervasive that it even extends into the field of religion. The same Boesak fraudster mentioned above was involved in drawing up a document known as the Confession of Belhar, which is nothing but a sorry political tract pointing the finger at whites, posing as a serious theological document. This document is being forced down the throats of whites belonging to the largest white church grouping in South Africa, the Dutch Reformed Church. In addition to confessing to sinning against God, whites are also now apparently expected to confess to the mortal sin of racism during their Sunday sermons.

It is an open question for how long whites will continue to entertain and endure this absurd situation.

Oh, wait, silly me! Yes, of course!

It would be racist to resist.

This column was first published in Afrikaans earlier today.