Category: Opinion

Weaponizing Migrants

Europeans ought to be demanding Uncle Sam’s head on a silver platter, and those of their own leaders on pikes.

Thanks to 25 years of lunatic U.S. foreign policy initiatives and relentless military aggressions, the steady drip of illegal immigration into Europe from Africa and the Middle East has become a crisis of refugees.

Not only has the U.S. killed and maimed at least a million people and displaced millions more, it has destroyed the property – water, sanitation and transport systems – that support the networks of trade and commerce essential to the survival of developed human communities.

The U.S. has salted great swaths of the Middle East with the desiccated and irradiated debris of war. Disease and contagions lurk in shadows while the agents of violence march in the noonday sun.

On Thursday last, Nicolas Bonnal, writing for the French website Boulevard Voltaire, reported on an Austrian magazine’s scoop – courtesy of leaks from military intelligence stationed in Vienna – that the U.S. government is paying guides and middlemen who bring migrants to Europe across the Mediterranean Sea. The original Info-Direkt article reported that the guides are well-equipped with technology, and are old hands at working Facebook, Twitter and Skype, as were the agents who instigated the Arab Spring.

With the targets of “color revolutions” having caught on to the CIA’s game of sedition, has inducing mass migrations meant to re-jigger the world so as to better serve their global purposes become the very latest weapon in the U.S. neo-cons’ arsenal?

It’s hard to credit the idea that Hillary Clinton, then the U.S. Secretary of State, didn’t understand the consequences of the “responsibility to protect” attack on Libya she and her foreign policy gal pals cooked up around the boiling cauldron that is U.S. foreign policy.

Muammar Gaddafi himself loudly warned both Italy and France, who so unwisely joined in the U.S.-instigated Libyan melee, of the flood of refugees that would come from toppling his gatekeeper government.

But why would a flood of refugees into Europe interest U.S. policymakers?

Possibly because the U.S.’s many attempts to bait Russia into attacking Ukrainian armed forces and thereby scare up increased Nato funding from the alliance’s membership have proved a risible failure. Flooding Europe with “swarms” of refugees just might convince Europeans that there is a useful purpose an expanding Nato presence could fulfill immediately.

Those same U.S. policymakers are actively working to inundate the U.S. with millions of migrants from Mexico and Central America, another imperial playground, on the flimsy basis of a Barack Obama Executive Order. Eager for a youthful, docile, dependent and cheap population of worker bees, the U.S. federal government is now engaged in draining the last wealth of the American middle class for use in settling and supporting many millions of immigrants, whose children will become the future taxpayers and voters the grotesquely obese federal government requires for its own future survival.

At last then, the long-sought weapons of mass destruction have been located. We can see them clearly now: They are Africa’s and the Middle East’s desperate and dispossessed migrants, and Central America’s young and unwitting illegals, of “the free world’s” creation, and they are on the move.

Source: Anne Williamson lewrockwell.com

Rachel Dolezal is right: White self-hate is only logical, says US ‘academic’

Writing in the Huffington Post, a US author and “Director of P-12 Consulting and Professional Development at the Center for the Study of Race Equity in Education at the University of Pennsylvania”, Ali Michael, argues that she dan identify with Rachel Dolezal’s attempt to disguise herself as a black and renounce her white identity. Below, Michael says:

“I definitely experienced this. There was a time in my 20s when everything I learned about the history of racism made me hate myself, my Whiteness, my ancestors… and my descendants. I remember deciding that I couldn’t have biological children because I didn’t want to propagate my privilege biologically.”

Here is a slightly shortened version of Ali Michael’s column, originally entitled, I sometimes don’t want to be white either.

Rachel Dolezal is a fascinating case study in White racial identity development.* She is stuck in the immersion/emersion stage, in which White people, having learned extensively about the realities of racism, and the ugly history of White supremacy in the U.S., “immerse” themselves in trying to figure out how to be White in our society, and “emerge” with a new relationship to Whiteness. Only in the case of Dolezal, her way of dealing with the pain of the reality of racism, was to deny her own Whiteness and to become Black.

She is an extreme example of a common phenomenon. The “immersion” stage is typified by White people taking more responsibility for racism and privilege and often experiencing high levels of anger and embarrassment for racism and privilege, which they sometimes direct towards other Whites. They sometimes try to immerse themselves in communities of color, as Dolezal did. She’s not alone.

I definitely experienced this. There was a time in my 20s when everything I learned about the history of racism made me hate myself, my Whiteness, my ancestors… and my descendants. I remember deciding that I couldn’t have biological children because I didn’t want to propagate my privilege biologically.

If I was going to pass on my privilege, I wanted to pass it on to someone who doesn’t have racial privilege; so I planned to adopt. I disliked my Whiteness, but I disliked the Whiteness of other White people more. I felt like the way to really end racism was to feel guilty for it, and to make other White people feel guilty for it too. And then, like Dolezal, I wanted to take on Africanness. Living in South Africa during my junior year abroad, I lived with a Black family, wore my hair in head wraps, shaved my head. I didn’t want to be White, but if I had to be, I wanted to be White in a way that was different from other White people I knew. I wanted to be a special, different White person. The one and only. How very White of me…

Beverly Daniel Tatum has written that White people don’t choose to identify as White because the categories to choose from are loaded from the start. Traditionally, one can identify as a colorblind White person, a racist White person or an ignorant White person: those are the three ways White people get talked about as White. If those are the options, who would choose to identify as White? And so White people identify as “normal” and “Irish” and “just American” and do not self-identify racially. And that leaves us with a society in which only people of color have a race, where only people of color seem to be responsible for racialized problems. It makes it hard for all of us to know and tell our racial stories — because White people think we don’t have any. And it makes it hard for us to own our history, because we don’t see it as ours.

Many White people also feel like we don’t have culture, and this isn’t a coincidence.

Throughout the 20th century, countless immigrant groups abandoned the artifacts of cultures that racialized them as immigrants (language, religion, food, styles of speaking, gesticulations, family structures, traditions, etc.) in order to become White. And this was not just a matter of fitting in; it was about accessing rights that were reserved for White people: citizenship, land ownership, police protection, legal rights, etc.

The more one could cast off the markers of otherness, the more likely it was that one could become White. And so while the desire to become White is really the opposite of what Rachel Dolezal had, the process of becoming White that her ancestors undoubtedly went through in the great American star-off machine, may be connected to her desire to un-become White, to lose that feeling of being cultureless, of being part of an unidentified group, and to leave behind that identity that has no positive way to be. And lots of White people — myself included — do this in thousands of tiny ways as we appropriate the cultures of others (from Africa, India, Compton, Guatemala, Harlem, Mexico…) to fill in the blanks in our own.

Daniel Tatum said we need to change this. We need to give White people new ways to identify as White. Because at the end of the day, we need White people to see that we are White. When we recognize and own our Whiteness, we can account for our own portion, our one 1/billionth of responsibility for what White people have done throughout history. We can work with other White people to begin to challenge bias, ignorance and colorblindness. We can use our privilege to confront the sources of that unfair favoring.

I was lucky. The Black family I embedded myself in during my “Rachel Dolezal phase” insisted on my inherent goodness, and that of my family and even — I thought this was a stretch — of my ancestors. They helped me focus on my capacity to make change as a White person. They appreciated my desire to be Black, they teased me, they let me know in no uncertain terms that I would never be Black. I read James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Steve Biko. I swore off White authors. But the Black authors I read saw the immersion stage coming, and they reminded me that Black people don’t need White people to help them pursue liberation, that the job of White people lies with teaching other White people, seeing ourselves clearly, owning our role in oppression.

I’m not sure what happened with Rachel Dolezal. Maybe it was mental illness. Maybe it was a desire to connect to her adopted brothers. Maybe she felt safer and more loved in Black communities. Maybe it felt good to distance herself from the overwhelming oppressiveness of Whiteness — her own and that of her country and of her ancestors. But the lesson for me is remembering how deep the pain is, the pain of realizing I’m White, and that I and my ancestors are responsible for the incredible racialized mess we find ourselves in today. The pain of facing that honestly is blinding. It’s not worse than being on the receiving end of that oppression. – Ali Michael

 

*White racial identity development was first theorized and written about by Dr. Janet Helms.

 

Letter: Why call me a ‘white bitch’ when I also love Mandela?

I am a white born-free. I was born in the year 1995 into a post-apartheid, democratic South Africa – the “Rainbow Nation” as Archbishop Tutu affectionately named us.

I am a “Millennial” or “Generation Y” as Time magazine likes to call me – free from the categorical narrow-minded stereotype my parents (“Generation X”) and their parents are neatly packed into.

A millennial is ideally a free- thinker, an open-minded spirit ready to take risks, as well as accepting of all races, and religions however diverse they are from their own. This is me.

This, supposedly, is also the girl who infringed my human right to dignity, as well as my right to feel safe in any given situation.

The boy and girl in the car that practised racism, violence, hate speech and assault against my friend and me in Stamford Hill Road outside Live – The Venue on a Saturday night in January could not have been older than 22.

While technically they may not be “born-frees” strictly speaking, these two people were born long after the apartheid regime had come to an end and democracy was a leading force in South Africa.

They have no excuse to harbour hate, vengeance, bitterness or any other negative feelings towards white people. The “race card” is being pulled out far too often in this country when nine times out of 10 race has absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand.

All my friend did was cry out “a*******!” in frustration at the occupants of a speeding car that nearly ran us over as we crossed the road to get to our own car that night. But things escalated quickly.

Before I knew it, the speeding car had stopped and a drunk couple alighted, tumblers in hand, cussing at us.

The phrase “white bitches” were among others thrown at us as the girl screamed in my friend’s face, threatening to assault her.

We removed ourselves from the situation and as we walked away, we felt liquid on our backs as a glass sailed past, narrowly missing my head and shattering on the pavement in front of us.

One of the main things which set our Generation Y apart is that we are classified as “tolerant”.

Our generation is supposedly tolerant of other races, cultures, points of view, political standpoints.

I could fill this letter with a long list of examples of our tolerance, but the fact is many of us in South Africa are not tolerant and it sends a surging pang of guilt to my very core when I think of what dear Madiba would say of these attitudes.

This is the country he spent his entire life moulding into something he could finally be proud of.

But I do not think Madiba would be proud. He would look down on these backward, destructive, unproductive, entitled Millennials.

You don’t even deserve to be associated with the term since Millennials are meant to be forward-thinking go-getters. We are supposed to be a generation that makes its own future. But you sit back and wait for your futures to make you.

Well, guess what? You’re going to be waiting a long time and your frustration will cause you to riot and fight and scream and tear down statues unnecessarily.

You are your worst enemies and that will eventually destroy you. I can wash off the alcohol you throw at me, but you cannot wash away the hate that is inside of you.

All Millennials need to read this and consider which category they fall into for the good of their future – and more importantly, the good of our beautiful country’s future.

– Meghan Deonn Oberholzer, Vredehoek

Letter: Why Niël Barnard was both right and wrong

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union without it waging a nuclear war, the United States of America became the world’s sole hyperpower.

During the 1990s a powerless Russia was ruled by US-serving oligarchs, denying Russia the opportunity to ever accumulate sufficient domestic capital to rise again.

Former US enemies, Japan and Germany, had already become occupied American vassal states after World War II.

Chinese trade was totally controlled by the US, as mainland China itself was like an island in the Pacific, completely surrounded by the US and its subordinate states at sea and on land.

On the Sub-Saharan African subcontinent, an industrialised nuclear-armed superpower capable of sovereign political and economic policies, had completely given up its vast regional power by implementing UN Security Council Resolution 436. The Western-backed ANC that subsequently took power in South Africa, was denied the uranium enrichment, nuclear-weapon as well as ballistic-missile technology of the preceding Afrikaner state. The ANC-controlled South African state was set to fully cooperate with the unipolar world hegemon, the likewise multicultural USA.

By the turn of the millennium in the year 2000 after Christ, the USA was set to rule the world in a new American Century. The old American century was the 20th century in which it won World War II against Germany and Japan, but only with the help of the USSR as its good ally. The USSR though as a Eurasian power, automatically filled the vacuum left by the destruction of Germany, and as such prevented the US from ruling the world. The new American Century, the 21st century, was without the USSR or sovereign Russia. This time the new American Century would last a thousand years, meaning forever.

Considering pre-enlightenment Western Judeo-Christian religious traditions, as well as modern evangelical Judeo-American millennialism, factually in the year 2000 the exceptional reign of God had settled on American soil. This was to be the end of total global wars due to no opposing state competition, and thus the end of political-state history as the Western-European culture had known it.

Against this global backdrop, with the USA as the exceptional and sole ruler of planet Earth and its moon, intelligent Afrikaners like Niël Barnard, FW de Klerk and also the late PW Botha were vindicated in their clever strategy to trade totalitarian military South African regional domination amidst American sanctions, for a peaceful, American-approved permanent domestic political settlement under the eternal protection of said Western hyperpower as the sole ruler of the global post-WWII world order.

The year 2000 marked the appropriate commencement date of a visible New Age and the rational Project for a New American Century.

In the year 2000, no person could have predicted the Twin Tower collapse in New York, inside the USA of all places on this planet.

Bombs could explode over Lockerbie on a Pan-American plane en route to New York where the New York Accord between South Africa, Cuba, the USA and USSR was signed in 1988, but by 2001 there was no state power that could pull off an immense New York Twin Tower collapse operation within the territory of the hyperpowerful United States, except the US itself. The US Government would never ever commit a 9/11 against itself. There was no conspiracy. The fact that 9/11 did occur in 2001, points to something exceptional in world history: the US is a non-sovereign hyperstate.

In the year 2000 no political analyst would have predicted the deliberate destruction of the artificially created Iraqi state and its associated global power balance in 2003. It was inconceivable that a rational USA would utterly destroy its own strategic vassal state, and thereby its own global power balance by providing Iran, Russia and China with the opportunity to gain power and sovereignty, which in turn destroyed global US hedemony and its exceptional unipolar world order.

Was the US irrational when destroying its important geopolitical tool, the Iraqi state? Were US decision makers stupid? Or was the US intelligence service plain dumb as proposed by Niël Barnard? None of these course.

The fact that the Iraqi state was destroyed by the US, and the fact that this power vacuum automatically favoured Iran, as well as presented both Russia and China with the opportunity to coordinate their gain of sovereign power and thus end the ultra-short-lived unipolar world order that was supposed to last for a thousand years, points to something exceptional in world history: the US is a non-sovereign hyperpower.

Both the unlikely Twin Tower collapse in New York, as well as the subsequent destruction of the US-strategic Iraqi state during the start of the 21st century, when the USA was the world’s sole hyperpower and almighty ruler of the total globe, point to one and the same political principle, which has nothing to do with conspiracy, but is called non-sovereignty by academics and political scientists.

Non-sovereign is a state that conducts a war in which it reduces its power, which is the same as conducting a war against a friend, instead of against a true enemy of that state.

Stupid the non-sovereign USA was and is definitely not. The US government knew in 2003 that it could not destroy the Iraqi state, and let Iran gain power by stepping into the power vacuum, which Iran would certainly do and did.

Shortly after the Twin Tower collapse in New York, David Frum shocked the political world, by inserting into the US President’s speech the state of Iran as part of the evil axis. For the US to destroy Iraq in favour of the state of Israel, it was absolutely necessary to simultaneously destroy the state of Iran.

Instead of bunker-buster bombing and thereafter invading to destroy the sovereign state of Iran, the US government after proper investigation and scientific risk-analysis, decided to do the most sensible thing, and as during the 20th century, opted to rather engineer regime change in Iran.

During 2005 Ariel Sharon warned against this covert US approach to conquering Iran, as he was certain that it would fail, with dire consequences for the unipolar world order. An unfortunate stroke put Sharon in a vegetative state, thus ending his attempts to save the exceptional Judeo-Christian ruled world order.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei saw the US-sponsored colour revolution coming, and had engineer Mahmoud Ahmedinejad elected as Iranian state president to resist and foil US-engineered regime change.

Had South Africa had a Supreme Leader or sovereign Ayatollah, to engineer the rise of a State President other than FW de Klerk, South Africa would not necessarily have taken a vastly different path than before.

As mentioned, by 1990, South Africa had already implemented Resolution 436, thereby giving up on its 21st-century imperative for regional integration via proxy power in Southwest Africa, Angola, the DRC, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Tanzania.

Also in the early 1990s it became evident that the USA was by then the world’s sole ruling hyperpower, and most of the Afrikaner ruling elite if not all, including Dr Nieël Barnard who cooperated closely with the US since his nuclear state power studies there in 1979, did not believe the USA to be non-sovereign, unlike the assassinated Dr Verwoerd.

– Madelein Louw

Letter: Verwoerd deserves respect and recognition at Stellenbosch

Professor Wim de Villiers
Rector
University of Stellenbosch
Private Bag X1
Matieland
7602

Dear Dr de Villiers

I am an old Matie who was taught by your father Sakereg (Law of Property) and Romeinse reg (Roman Law) in the late 1960s. I am writing to you in order to express my displeasure at your recent decision to remove a plaque commemorating a former graduate and professor of Sociology and Social Work at the university, Dr Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd.

During his term of office as prime minister, the South African economy grew at an average rate of 6% per annum compared to the current rate of 1.3%. Inflation was 2% per annum and black unemployment was 5% compare to the official figure of 26.4%, Cosatu’s figure of 36% and a fairly recent study of UNISA which gave an estimate of 40%. During the era of Verwoerd the Gini co-efficient which measures the distribution of each country’s national income, a measurement established in 1912 and recognised by the United Nations and other international organisations, the ratio was at the average of .45. To-day as a result of the corruption, incompetence, mismanagement and greed of the ANC, South Africa has the worst ratio in the world at .70.

During Dr Verwoerd’s premiership the average number of murders was 60 per annum and that figure includes the Sharpeville deaths of 69. According to the United Nations Statistical Year Book since 1994 an average of 20,000 persons have been murdered annually. Dr Verwoerd had an unblemished character and an impeccable record of public service, which may be compared to the current president who has over 700 criminal charges outstanding against him.

Dr Verwoerd was a devout conservationist and innate lover of nature. When the Transvaal Roads Department wanted to remove a giant harpephyllum tree which lay in the path of the proposed national road near Zoutpansberg, he instructed the department to build the road around the tree. When some shady businessmen tried to privatise the western half of the Kruger National Park for cattle ranching, he intervened immediately and forbad any changes to the boundaries of the park.

Dr Verwoerd was not the architect of apartheid, which was also known as separate development. That honour falls to Sir Harry Smith, governor of the Cape Colony, who created the first Bantustan of British Kaffraria on 23 December 1847. 80% of the so called apartheid laws were enacted by the Dutch and British colonial governments, such as the Cape Dutch laws of 1685 and 1743 which prohibited miscegenation amongst the different races. A further 10% of these apartheid laws were promulgated by the Botha/Smuts administrations, such as the Natives Land Act of 1913. The National Party was responsible for less than 10% of these laws, most of which made de jure what were already de facto customary laws. All these laws were drafted not with malice, but as a means for protecting the vital interests of the indigenous population, for the maintenance of their tribal hierarchies and to shield them from the depredations of the international bankers.

By tampering with our heritage nothing positive will be achieved. Pandering to the politically correct dictates of the liberal left is a soulless exercise which will only make matters worse in the long run, when demands may well be made to abolish Afrikaans as a language of tuition. Dr Verwoerd made a notable contribution to the development of our country. All the people of South Africa experienced an unparalleled period of peace and prosperity, and for that singular accomplishment he deserves recognition.

Did the alumni have any input in your decision? If not, why were they not consulted? It is our university just as much as it is yours; or is it simply a case of that we may make donations, but may not have any say in the philosophy and traditions of the university.

Yours sincerely

S M GOODSON

The writer of this letter is a graduate and member of the Convocation of the University of Stellenbosch. The original version of the letter was posted to Professor de Villiers on 6 May 2015. To date neither an acknowledgement nor a response has been received.

Charlize and a Newer World Order

A new world order of warrior earth-mothers?

Imperator Furiosa, Charlize Theron is the “strong woman” figure in the latest Mad Max reboot. Mad Max, Fury Road opened to a box office success, and is undeniably a feat of technical and choreographic brilliance, but there are also deeper messages being conveyed that should be elucidated, especially the notions of the commodification and control of resources.

All aspects of life are portrayed as a controlled resource market. Even sex, which is more recreational in our day, is here presented as a crucial means for the furtherance of bloodlines. Breeding and eugenics are key, as those in control understand a chemically lobotomized populace with no access to necessary resources are unable to continue into the future.

Fury Road is therefore a representation of a nominally Christian redemptive history, yet the outcome is inverted. Instead of a divine Savior who rescues man as the Promised Seed of the Woman (Gen. 3), Max is a purely human savior as Thunderdome portrayed. The seeds of life that will continue into the future do not rest on the “lie of hope,” but on fixing the present world through technology.

In essence, Fury Road is an alchemical presentation of the royal deception, rather than the royal art, where more often than not, in history we do find the polis co-opting religion for the purposes of human control.

The ultimate form of control is that of breeding, and determining whose seed will continue into the future, and through the new Max revolution with his feminine counterpart Furiosa, the implication is that by opposing the older patriarchal forms of power with their dialectical opposite, the “clans of the mothers,” hope can return.

Let’s be realistic here – if the older patriarchal forms of religion are lies, as the film’s narrative suggests, then we are to believe the introduction of a feminine, Gaia-based egalitarian communist order is somehow workable and real?

Is erecting a feminine-based order with the dismissal of Joe’s Golgotha plausible? Nothing is more absurd, nonsensical and mad.

Source: Jay’s analysis

‘Cultural Marxism has ruined the UK and South Africa’ (Part 2): interview with Jack Sen, suspended UKIP candidate

What is the real reason you were suddenly suspended from UKIP?

I was suspended from UKIP simply because I refused to toe the party line when it came to discussing the genocide of the Western European people and minority South Africans, and the Marxist imposed double standards Westerners face on a daily basis.

The moment one has the audacity to discuss the deliberate displacement of indigenous people in Western Europe, or murder of Western White people in general, the epithet “racist” is shouted.

Considering I myself have some non-white ancestry (I have an Indian grandparent), I found the “white supremacist” tag used to describe me a tad ironic. I say this as I myself have been abused on occasion for being “swarthy”.

For me the criticism had less to do with race and more to do with the divide-and-conquer ideology being used to tear our societies apart – something you see quite a bit of in South Africa.

Still, I felt something needed to be said.

My wife, English mum, and most importantly my 100% phenotypically white daughter, need someone to stand up for their interests and well-being, and I’ve believed for some time now that I should be that person. That’s what dads are for after all.

The white Western male is quite sadly apathetic – one can say they’ve been emasculated beyond belief by Cultural Marxism, evidenced by the tens of thousands of grooming gang rapes and not one instance of revenge. They don’t have the same fighting spirit one sees in South Africa, or in non-white nations.

After what transpired in Rotherham, where white children were singled out for rape, and the white Leftist establishment did nothing to prevent it, I felt I needed to take a stand, not against the perpetrators of the rape, but the Leftist fiends facilitating it.

If I am the only man in Britain that does so, I’ve done my part.

What was specifically said?

A few weeks before I was suspended I gave an interview to the European Knights Project.

The interviewer asked me about commonalities that existed between the Marxists that wrecked your homeland, and the ones currently destroying mine.

So I rattled off a few names: Ed Miliband, Joe Slovo, Nadine Gordimer and Barbara Spectre. These names are all quite conspicuously Jewish, so I decided to throw a few gentiles in the mix so I wouldn’t appear anti-Semitic, as that was not the plan.

It didn’t work.

Although I never actually came out and said that in places like in South Africa, Sweden and England, where the displacement is at its most intense, Marxist Ashkenazi-Jewish radicals from former Eastern bloc nations are overrepresented in a movement calling for our annihilation, the implication was there, and I was doomed.

Within days of giving the interview – and I still don’t know who reported me – I was being disciplined. Not for anti-Semitism – as there was nothing overly anti-Semitic about my statements – but because I’d dared call the deity, Madiba, a terrorist. Thankfully, the chaps at UKIP HQ had no idea who Slovo and Gordimer were so I was safe… for the moment.

Then, this amateur junior reporter at the Mail on Sunday, named Alisha Rouse, sent me an email asking to urgently speak to me, due to the fact that I had given an interview to a “white supremacist site”. That’s how she worded the email, as well.

Me, someone with an Indian granddad who on occasion had been verbally abused in Britain because of his ethnicity, being accused of white supremacism! The idiotic woman really had no clue what she was talking about, however I entertained her out of fear she would misreport my beliefs.

Rouse then proceeded to waste my time over the phone grilling me about my beliefs that there’s an effort to destroy our culture and her belief that I was again; anti-Semitic. She asked me if I was a racist, I said no, and that was that. The story, although UKIP were petrified of its release, never even made the paper. The reporter was really just trying to make a name for herself by having a go at a well-known UKIP parliamentary candidate. She failed, and I moved on.

Once UKIP heard I’d spoken to her, I was shouted at, threatened and told that I’d better distance myself from all things South African, due to the fact that fact that South Africans were blind to just how racist they were.

Believe it or not, that’s what our Head of Candidates wrote me.

The man didn’t give a damn about the murders, racism and hatred, nor that a few hundred thousand Saffas live in Britain! One would think a party looking for votes would care about the single most important issue Saffa expats care about.

They just told me to keep my mouth shut and never ever speak to a national reporter again.

I agreed and moved on.

Although I understood why I’d gotten in trouble, I was still under the misguided impression that UKIP prided itself on encouraging people to speak their minds, as long as their opinions weren’t based on hatred – which mine were certainly not.

I didn’t see what was wrong with discussing what amounted to ethnic genocide and naming the people behind it. Nor was there anything wrong in giving my opinion to a very widely read website, especially as the initial conversation took place well before my campaigning had started.

I can understand if I’d said that there was war between Jews and gentiles (that’s not my opinion), why that might have been seen as offensive, but simply to point out that what amounts to genocide was taking place in SA and Europe? It made no sense.

In fact, tell an objective Black or Asian who’s not attended a Marxist indoctrination camp, also known as a university, that this is happening, and provide them with a little evidence that Europeans are being replaced. Then go through the names of the people behind the move to displace us, telling them that most of these people are progeny of Eastern European immigrants with Marxist backgrounds. I can almost guarantee that he won’t see racism at all. He reflects, and either agrees or disagrees.

Most of the Asian people I know – especially members of Britain’s Hindu and Sikh communities – actually agree with me. Muslims themselves recognize that one of the most efficient ways to spread and increase the percentage of people subscribing to Islam is through mass immigration and outbreeding. I mean it doesn’t take a genius to recognize what’s happening, nor should we be prevented from discussing it nor be prevented from naming the people behind it.

Then there were the aforementioned tweets sent to Luciana Berger, accusing her of being more concerned with Israel than she was with her constituency in Liverpool. Berger, who just prior to being parachuted into Liverpool from London, chaired the Labour Friends Of Israel organisation, has been criticised by a lot of people for her foreign allegiance and dodgy dealing – so again there wasn’t really anything that controversial in my words.

In fact a Wikipedia article was quoted in the criticism.

Still, Berger, who has made a bit of a career out of feigning moral outrage when confronted with her treachery, and crying anti-Semitism whenever she is criticized for her shoddy politics, phony Labour credentials, and dual allegiance, saw an opportunity… and jumped.

I say this as this is not the first time the repugnant Berger has gotten people into problem over their opinions.

Not being able to openly criticise politicians that have sold our local people out for their internationalist interests is one of the worst things about this nation.

And the woman knows why I called her a traitor. She was angered that I just had the balls to do so, right before an election and in a party that is well-known for pandering to special-interest groups.

How do you respond to charges that your tweet to Luciana Berger was anti-Semitic?

Disseminating truth, when one’s intention was to expose injustice, has nothing to do with racism. Her being Jewish is of no concern of mine. Her being a traitor to this country is.

The right to point out that a morally bankrupt politician with a dual allegiance, who’s paid to serve us, has been corrupted, has to be protected. It’s far less incendiary than drawing a cartoon of Mohammed, something I am certain this vile Berger woman would don a Je Suis Hebdo T-shirt for, yet it was deemed anti-Semitic by the press, and most distressingly the party I’d dedicated the last 6 months of my life to.

In the first tweet I sent Berger, where I claimed she had dual allegiance (she actually has a single allegiance if I am being perfectly honest), and would prefer to send child benefit ear-marked for the poor to Israel and Poland, the evidence is there to back up the allegation.

If she’d been a white gentile and a member of a neo-Nazi organisation that she’d lobbied on behalf of, I would have been equally aggressive. If Berger was Muslim, and say in some sort of Pakistani friends association as its leader, I would have made the same allegation.

That’s what honest men and good public servants do.

With that said, in neither case I doubt anyone would have taken any notice. Although Muslims are protected in Britain, we are still allowed to criticise them. It’s only Jews that are totally off-limits, and this is why anti-Semitism is on the rise again. Knowing you can’t criticise someone breeds resentment.

If I wasn’t anti-Semitic before this event, can you imagine how I feel now?

It’s actions like these that make people angry. I’m smart enough to know there are distinct differences between Jewish people, but knowing that the only reporter at the local Liverpool Echo I ever had a problem with was Jewish, and this politician was, as well, will make some appreciate why people think as they do.

I would like to add my interpretation of UKIP’s actions and mind-set if possible.

Although I first thought UKIP rushed to judgment due to the fact that they were petrified of being branded racist, I am now starting to think that it goes much deeper. The Daily Express just gave more than one million pounds to Mr Farage, leader of UKIP. Knowing what I know about politics and Richard Desmond’s motivation for backing UKIP, I’m no longer certain that what happened wasn’t orchestrated and I was made an example of. I mean Nigel Farage taking time out of his busy schedule to call me an embarrassment on national television? Shameful.

Prior to this incident, many people saw UKIP as a conservative, pro-British and pro-Western party. Do we have reason to doubt that?

I thought so myself when I first joined as the vast majority of the people that are on the ground – the members, volunteers, council and parliamentary candidates – are all very pro-British, Western, and as patriotic as you could envision.

Sadly, the suits at the top prey upon the genuine love of country we grunts at the bottom of the totem pole feel. The fact that UKIP supports fracking Britain to death, cares little for the environment and would allow millions of third-world immigrants in to replace the migrant workers from Eastern Europe, not simply shit the borders most UKIP supporters would prefer, is cause for concern.

Although there’s merit to the idea of civic nationalism, I have a funny feeling that the longer UKIP stays relevant, the more it will gravitate towards the sort of pseudo-nationalism we see in groups like the EDL and Britain First. To be honest, UKIP is starting to remind me a lot of the American Republican Party, and that is certainly grounds for worry as well. I wonder if we’ll be importing Ari Fleischer to run our MI5 next.

What attracted you to the plight of white South Africans, an unpopular cause in Britain if ever there was one?

My Afrikaner grandmother, my love for justice, and the fact that it pains me to see good people dying while the world and people like Ms Berger watch in amusement. I’d have loved to move to South Africa with my family at some point, but it’s simply not possible under the current government. Knowing I can’t even bring my daughter to see where her grandma was born because people are being killed, made me take a step back and think, hold on, you’re unable to move back to SA, but these people are literally trapped and have to live in fear for their lives? I just wanted to make a difference and am happy I have been given the chance.

You say you read some Afrikaans? Did you just pick it up or do you know another Germanic language such as German or Dutch?

I only do as my grandma would sing a few songs to us as children in her native tongue and put Malva puddings on our table at Christmas time. My knowledge of the South African people is more cultural than linguistic, but basically I enjoy the language and want to see it live on in perpetuity. I’d love to see South Africa return to its former greatness. Although change was necessary, what we’ve witnessed is the wholesale destruction of a nation. Handing over the nation to people that don’t have the capacity to run it, is a recipe for disaster.

The poverty, Aids, murder, rapes and societal degradation are evidence that majority rule in Africa doesn’t and can’t work.

Do you consider yourself to be a victim of political correctness?

Yes, definitely but in a slightly different manner than the sort of political correctness we typically see infecting our society. UKIP gave me a lot of rope to criticise grooming gangs on my site, as well as attacking paedophiles, forced sexual education programmes, gay lifestyle indoctrination, but when I directed my fighting spirit at Berger and the people behind South Africa’s demise, I was done. That’s what’s so disturbing about this whole incident. It reeks of being conspiratorial.

UKIP reps have made some truly racist statements over the past few months. From candidates threatening to shoot “peasants”, calling gays “disgusting” and “pooftahs”, to Farage himself making some pretty racially charged statements about Muslims, we’ve seen our fair share of scandals. One common denominator in the abuses was the fact no-one ever criticised Jews or mentioned the word white. Until now that is…

It appears that if you mention Jews – even if it’s fair criticism, or talk about white genocide and Ashkenazi involvement in Marxism, you’re done.

I spent a fortune on my campaign, could have secured 20% of the vote and a possible second place if it weren’t for UKIP damaging me on the telly, as they did, so I am angry and at this point feel I have an obligation to myself, my family and the victims of genocide to speak openly.

What saddens me most is how political correctness has ruined some of the friendships I forged in UKIP.

The fact that not a solitary soul at head office would even speak to me after my suspension tells me all I need to know about how they see candidates that dare tell the truth.

I would like to add that although I was made to feel quite unwelcome by top officials in UKIP, many of my fellow UKIP parliamentary candidates, also perturbed by the direction the party has headed, did in fact reach out. The support from people on the ground in my constituency was overwhelming.

Also, several members of the British National Party (BNP) contacted me via Twitter since the suspension, commending me for my decision to say and do the right thing. One of them put me in touch with BNP party Chairman Adam Walker, who’d heard about how I had been treated by UKIP, and wanted to show support. After speaking to Adam a fair bit this past week I can say without any reservation that I’m genuinely impressed with the manner in which he wants to take the BNP forward and was pleased to see that all our ideals and vision of a better Britain lined up. It’s nice to know authentic nationalism is alive and well!

How did being suspended so close to the election impact you on a personal and professional level?

Imagine seeing your idol, Nigel Farage, calling you an embarrassment, seeing the people that you dined with, who held your daughter in their arms, men that you shared pints of ale with betraying you, as they did me.

Then imagine watching your chances slip away over a few innocuous Tweets, it was quite painful.

Being done with the frauds has taken a great weight off my shoulders. Although they were better than the Lib/Lab/Con regime, they are still a part of the establishment and, in my estimation, controlled opposition that puts up with a bit of abuse as long as they can continue to play the game. The fact that media mogul, Richard Desmond, handed UKIP over a million quid only a week before they suspended me for anti-Semitism tells me that UKIP is done and are no longer worth supporting.

In a way – and although I do feel guilty for feeling this way – I’m glad UKIP had a shambolic result at the election. Hopefully, my ability to demonstrate to the world that UKIP are not part of the solution, with the help of people like you, made some sort of impact. The impact my words have had on the tens of thousands of South African expats that decided to make their voices heard on election day, also makes me quite proud.

How does one fight against political correctness if it so well-entrenched in the mainstream media, universities and parliaments throughout the Western world?

In a perfect world we’d be able to deal with contemporary adherents of the Frankfurt school, as other nations have, but that’s not going to happen in my lifetime.

So one has to use the best weapon we have today – the internet. People have to speak up, defend the right to free speech, accept they will be vilified, but push on as we do. Problem is, not adhering to political correctness can have catastrophic impact on a person’s career as I discovered. It’s a tough call, but all I can say is I can sleep at night because I know I did the right thing.

I have not won the election as Berger did, and might never be as well-off as she is, due to the fact that I am honest, but I can at least live with myself knowing I have done a small part to expose vermin like her and make a difference.

People can also join true natioanlsit parties like the BNP – not to be confused with racist parties.

Other people are going to need to start thinking in the same way, otherwise our civilisation will truly be lost.

Although this all ended quite tragically for me, I think I brought a little exposure to the worst genocide of the 21st century and I am quite proud of that: that of white South Africans. If I can now continue this moving forward, I am satisfied. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to speak.

‘Cultural Marxism has ruined the UK and South Africa’: interview with Jack Sen, suspended UKIP candidate

In this interview conducted with Jack Sen, the suspended UKIP candidate for West Lancashire, he speaks freely of his opposition to third-world immigration to Britain, the disastrous effects of cultural Marxism on the West and his sympathy for white or “minority South Africans”.

Please tell us about yourself, and why you have an interest in South Africa and specifically Afrikaners, and other minorities?

I was born in Britain, but have an ancestral link to South Africa on my paternal side. My grandmother who hailed from the Western Cape was of Afrikaans origin. She immigrated to Britain with my granddad, who was a South African of Anglo-Indian origin, in the years leading up to World War II. My granddad worked as a medic in the British Army, later as a chemist on a sugar plantation in Natal, and upon their move to England they made a life for themselves in West Lancashire – where I am currently standing for Parliament.

South Africa will always hold a special place in my heart for me – not solely due to my ancestral ties, the family braais and holiday malva puddings – but also because it is a place that has been deserted, vilified and condemned to misery by the western Marxist powers. It is unfairly seen as the last vestige of colonialism, and for that reviled by Western Liberals.

As a champion of truth and someone that genuinely cares about humanity, and in particular children, I can think of no better place to spend one’s efforts on than assisting the people of South Africa. My contempt for hypocritical Western Liberals – the actual people responsible for the rape of tens of thousands of girls in your nation – has a lot to do with it as well.

Can you please tell our readers what UKIP is, and how they can help with the current situation in South Africa?

UKIP stands for the United Kingdom Independence Party. I’m UKIP’s prospective Member of Parliament for West Lancashire.

Most of your readers will know of our charismatic leader, Nigel Farage, who up until yesterday when he vilified me in the press, I supported with every fibre of my being.

I had seriously high hopes for UKIP on so many levels. From the direction UKIP planned on taking the nation, to my party’s refusal to fall victim to political correctness: UKIP had so much genuine promise. That’s why it pains me not to be able to tell you more about UKIP’s policies. I no longer know if I even believe in the party. They, like every other mainstream party, are in the back pockets of special and corporate interest.

Besides, the message they sent South Africa, by suspending me for my comments on minority genocide in your nation, and the internationalists in your nation behind your downfall, suggests UKIP are no different than the Lib/Lab/Con regime ruining our nation.

If not through UKIP, how would you suggest these affected minorities in South Africa, and their British allies in modern Britain help each other?

I believe Britain can assist minority South Africans with ties to our country in two ways: firstly by completely overhauling our immigration policy and implementing an Australian-styled points-based immigration system, which gives preference to culturally and ethnically (when possible) compatible people of the Commonwealth that speak our language. Britain will benefit from good immigration that fills skills voids, and South Africans will be able to move to a country that’s relatively safe.

Sadly, currently we reject the vast majority of minority South Africans applying for entry into Britain, in spite of the fact they speak our language, have the means to take care of themselves upon their arrival, and have the skills we need. Why? Because we have no room left in our country due to the fact that we have uncontrolled immigration from the new EU nations of the former Soviet Union and are being literally invaded by African and Asian migrants that don’t believe they should have to apply for a visa to enter our lands.

Leaving the EU and telling Brussels to sod off will help us sort that. But I also believe we have a moral obligation to help our brothers and sisters in South Africa – people that are facing what amounts to genocide. We do in fact share some of the blame for the current situation in SA. It was in fact the meddling of our government and media that allowed the Marxist ANC regime to seize control of the nation. Britain is also sadly responsible for the debacle in Zimbabwe and Uganda, where thousands of white and Indian British subjects were left to rot when we decided we no longer wanted to play empire.

Where do you see Britain and South Africa heading in the next 10 years if there is no change away from cultural Marxism sweeping most Western countries?

For complete ruin. South Africa is the template for what will happen to the West if we allow Western European nations to be overrun by people from non-Western nations. And before people shout racism, I can quite confidently say that this for me is not a race issue, as the people of the former Soviet Union, whom I strongly object to migrating here, are often phenotypically lighter-skinned than I am. This is also a cultural issue.

The Left are bent on our destruction, and the quote “Conservative Right” are fine with it as long as they stay rich during our descent. From embracing the anti-Western ideals of Islam, to promoting the teaching and normalisation of sexual deviance at the expense of our children and families, to deliberately pitting ethnicity against ethnicity, women against men, the ideological Left and internationalists on both sides of the political spectrum, ruining our nations, have all but succeeded in destroying us from the inside.

The media have a lot to answer for in biased reporting, in order to keep their leftwing status quo in power. Do you think this will last, and are people waking up to how they are being duped?

Sadly, that’s the nature of the people behind the media. As I am sure you and your readers are well aware, the media controlling how we view the world and our own societies, are typically controlled by people with an innate hatred for the countries in which they live. They are driven by their contempt for Western civilisation, as well as a lust for power, control and money. It’s a pretty diabolical cocktail of hate we are being forced to drink.

People are slowly waking up, however it is only because of alternative media sources like yours, the Occidental Observer, even hardliners like the European Knights Project, that they have discovered we are being led off a cliff.

Would you say we really won the “Cold War” against Communism, or is there a resurgence as these sidelined Marxist, Socialist groups are combining efforts to be a worldwide power once again?

We have most certainly lost the war against Marxism. The fact that we see our laws penned in Brussels (European Union) by men and women with ties to Marxist movements, and men like Ed Miliband – who, quite frighteningly, is literally one week away from possibly running our country – tells me we most certainly have lost.

Although economic Marxism failed miserably in western nations, Marxism translated into cultural terms – commonly referred to as Cultural Marxism, something devised by the miscreants at Frankfurt am Main in pre-WWII Germany – have achieved more success than Max Horkeimer, Lukács, Gramsci and Adorno could have ever envisioned. The fact we cannot criticise these people without being called anti-Semitic should tell you how under their thumbs we really are.

How would you compare the current state of South Africa, with that of Great Britain? And what needs to be done to change this?

There is actually a scary parallel when one looks at Britain’s and South Africa’s decline. Look at the epidemic of grooming gangs in Britain and the rape epidemic we currently see in SA.

Both sets of perpetrators are part of a protected class of people that one cannot criticise for fear of being racist.

So-called civil rights activists, feminists and liberals ruining our lands, claim one of their primary objectives is combating violence against women, rape and misogyny.

Yet, in spite of the tens of thousands of young girls that have been sexually molested by grooming gangs in Britain and across Western Europe, and the millions of rapes perpetrated against women and children in South Africa, nary a peep has come from feminists or any faction on the Liberal Left in your country or mine.

No condemnation, outrage, not one drop of concern for the innocent lives that were sacrificed for political correctness.

Leftists have been mute on Rotherham, as they have been in South Africa, as exposing rape perpetrated by “members of society’s oppressed”, doesn’t quite fit their Marxist narrative.

Until we deal with the ideologues facilitating our downfall, nothing can change.

The only difference is ethnically Western European people are still in the majority in Britain, whereas they are in the minority in South Africa.

What can be done to change this?

Apart from stringing them all up, not much, sadly.

English-speaker wants an Afrikaner volkstaat too

Dear Dan Roodt,

I am a Canadian who married a Boere Meisie. I have three Afrikaans-speaking children. I read your Volkstaat article from 2010: “Volkstaat is inevitable (sorry to the naysayers)”.

The gap that the White South Africans live in where they can still live a decent life and get employment and enjoy their culture and walk safely down the road is narrowing every year. I was working at a company that employed nearly 1000 staff and I was in HR department when we received a notification of the new increased BEE quotas. The new quota meant we would have to lay off a couple of hundred white workers. A great way to go out of business – get rid of your loyal and experienced staff members (and yes – we went out of business a year later). I did a stint at Eskom and that was BEE+++++. You felt like an alien working there if you are White. They were not allowed to give me a full-time job due to the colour of my skin even though my managers endorsed me highly! So where do all these laid-off whites go?

Then the government tries to step by step erode the Afrikaans culture. I will never forget Thabo Mbeki’s speech a few years ago where he said the Afrikaner White is no different to an English White. As if a culture of 350 years had no significance. Increasingly there is more pressure for Afrikaans schools to move to English.

Place names change, statues removed, disarming decent citizens, increasingly racist politicians and openly racist Black citizens, massive crime, etc. I am a foreigner who had nothing to do with Apartheid and yet when I shop, or eat at my canteen I see Black workers being friendly to Black customers and then they serve a White and then become unfriendly. At my work canteen I often get given a small serving and see all the Blacks in the same line getting large servings. I get treated poorly by most Black service industry workers. My municipality charged me R120,000 for one month’s electricity and I was told by the meter reader that my municipality will never fix a White man’s account.

When the gap gets too narrow then the Whites will have to form a Volkstaat. The sad thing is that this may end up happening amid total chaos and civil war. Five million persecuted people can do a lot of damage. I remember the World War II footage where they noted how the Europeans pulled together in times of extreme hardship. We don’t just die or jump into the ocean as seems to be the expectation.

It was interesting to see the amount of support that Steve Hofmeyr received recently. Couple of hundred thousand supporters. Its not 5 million supporters yet for White figureheads. But the 200 thousand will grow as things get worse. Obviously it’s easy to pretend there isn’t a problem while you have your decent house, drive down your safe highway to your reasonable job. Its easy to criticise people like Steve and yourself while people still live in the gap. In the last 2 years, I have had two attempted car jackings, my brother-in-law and his wife and toddler were tied up and were lucky not to be shot by military-weapon=toting criminals (got interrupted when about to shoot), my wife was robbed at an ATM, our Church Pastor’s son was stabbed, etc.

Slow erosion of culture is a clever tactic. Let the old school ex-army/police die of old age. Change things slowly so the change creeps up on people. But I am seeing new Black political and union forces getting impatient. Afrikaner culture just won’t die quick enough for them. It must really upset them to see the growth of the Afrikaans music culture and the persistence of the White-dominated Springbok rugby team and the support structures amongst families and friends that prevent Whites from sinking into poverty when BEE’ed out of the employment market and the large number of Whites returning from overseas now that the global economy is in trouble, etc. Malema’s call for taking all White-owned farms just won’t go away. They seem to be more and more in a rush to grab their share regardless of the cost to the economy.

I can’t wait to see the change in the Whites’ attitude when one of these big changes hits them hard and fast. When the gap gets too narrow too quick.

I agree with you that a Volkstaat should be centered on an Afrikaner culture. I would gladly shift to your language. I have travelled the world and have a love for the Afrikaner culture since for me it stood out as being vibrant and strong and non-Americanised.

See you at the border of the Volkstaat.

Regards,

Tim Edmundson

J. Smith: The media try to make us whites feel guilty

I am honestly just a little bit tired of being told day after day and week after week how to think and act as a white person (or Afrikaner) – especially by white liberal journalists. Almost every article being churned out in the media lately has been an attack on whites or Afrikaners and this reached a climax during that period when some who call themselves “revolutionaries” were damaging and defacing statues and symbols of our past (and openly inciting it without any legal consequences) – even if a statue was dedicated to animals which suffered during the Anglo-Boer war.

During this period, the xenophobic attacks were starting (probably also to be blamed on us nasty whiteys and Afrikaners somehow), yet journalists were spending all their energy on writing column after column battering us about how bad we are and how our symbols and heritage have to go. Spending more time on this than on the barbaric xenophobic attacks, murders and general lawlessness.

I am old enough to remember the “grensoorlog dae” – I was drafted – not through choice. And I am also old enough to know people change their views. I have done all I can to integrate into the new South Africa. I treat black people with respect and develop friendships. In fact, the reality is that most white people do, but it is the media who keep portraying us as if we do not.

The media plays on our conscience and attempts to make us feel guilty over things we should not need to feel guilty. It is a form of psychological battering – day after day and week after week. It blatantly attacks our dignity – and our dignity is supposedly protected by the Constitution.

I also pay taxes. My taxes are a form of guilt money. Those taxes should be applied to help and uplift those who suffered under Apartheid. What the hell else do you want me to do? Give away my property? Pack up and leave? I did not kill anybody even when in the army. I did not shoot or abuse any black people. I grew up over “here” and black people lived over “there”. That was it. Never did I hate or disrespect them – we only lived in different worlds and went to different schools or restaurants etc. (Ironically I was probably more tolerant then than I am today – exactly because of all this current finger pointing and telling me how bad I apparently am.)

I was not part of the security forces who did the actual killing or destabilizing – now why should I feel responsible for their actions? I did not vote for them either and during the referendum I voted “yes” for the liberation of black people even when the ANC was busy bombing civilians and I lost a friend in the Church Street bombing.

In your article you generalise against whites and Afrikaners as most journalists do. You point out a handful of stereotypes who do not represent the majority of whites or Afrikaners whatsoever. The reality is different from what you suggest.

I wish this would just end now. Most of us do our best to integrate and we have to take this constant abuse on top of having to give up many of our rights such as the right to equality in the work place after all this BEE legislation.

We have a Constitution which states we are equal and nobody may be discriminated against based on their race or gender – yet if you are a white male you are now forced out of the workplace or not allowed into others – no matter whether you are a new generation white male who had nothing to do with Apartheid and weren’t born under Apartheid – you just have to now carry the consequences of those before you and be discriminated against just as black people were discriminated against before you.

We have to take all this crap whilst at the same time being constantly attacked, abused and having our dignity dragged through the mud. And it helps nothing towards reconciliation – instead it festers hatred and anger and polarizes us as a nation.

I have had enough of being told what to do and how to think. I am sick of constantly hearing how “racist” white people are. I carry no guilt for being white (like some opinionistas who even deny being Afrikaners even when that is something impossible to escape). I pay my taxes and the ANC government must use those taxes to build houses, create jobs, infrastructure and uplift their people. If they steal that tax money or abuse it, then it is none of my doing. And at the same time I respect my fellow South Africans and wish they could respect me as a fellow South African.

The majority of us are simply getting on with our lives. We work, we create jobs and we live in peace. We do not run around torching things we do not like or killing foreigners or farmers we do not like or looting shops or destroying statues of those who happen to have a different heritage or history.

So stop pointing fingers at us and acting as if you are all so high and bloody mighty (nobody appointed you as the moral police). If you have a guilty conscience for being in the previous intelligence services then it is your problem. Don’t make your conscience mine. It is about what we are doing now – today – and what we will do in the future – not all about what we have done in the past. We should not forget the past, but we cannot forever continue living in it. Learn from the mistakes so we do not ever repeat it.

Lastly – people naturally gravitate towards their own culture no matter where in the world they are from. New York is the most cosmopolitan of all cities, yet when you go to Brooklyn you will find distinct Irish, Italian, African-American, Polish, Indian or Jewish areas. It is the way people are. They associate with their culture and ways of life.

– J. Smith

Also read: Dan Roodt: On two ex-spies’ tirade against ‘the white Afrikaner’

Top Gear too white, too male

Has Danny Cohen finally got his man? BBC television chief Cohen appears determined to go down in history as The Man Who Sacked Jeremy Clarkson.

If he succeeds he’ll be the toast of fashionable Shoreditch salons, a folk hero to the Guardianistas and all those who despise Top Gear for being too white, too male and, frankly, too damned British.

The Lilliputian Lefties who infest the BBC see Clarkson as an embarrassment — a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic caveman, who shouldn’t be given house room by a publicly funded broadcaster.

Certainly, Cohen has made no secret of his contempt for Clarkson and this week seized his chance to suspend him over a ‘fracas’ on location, during which the presenter is alleged to have punched producer Oisin Tymon.

Cohen has also pulled the remaining three episodes of the programme while an ‘investigation’ is carried out by the BBC’s human resources department.

What’s to investigate? My understanding is that the facts are not in dispute and Tymon hasn’t made an official complaint. Clarkson denies punching him, but admits there was ‘contact’ and has apologised profusely.

The incident inevitably came to Cohen’s attention, presenting him with an irresistible opportunity to dispose of his bête noire once and for all.

Clarkson was already on a ‘final warning’ following a series of so-called ‘gaffes’, most of them confected.

He was forced by Cohen to make a grovelling public apology after being accused of using the N-word while reciting the nursery rhyme Eeny Meeny Miny Moe to compare two indistinguishable cars.

At best the “offending” clip was inconclusive. Halfway through the second line, he deliberately avoids dropping the N-bomb. More to the point, on Clarkson’s own instructions, it was never broadcast — precisely to avoid another bout of artificial outrage.

That didn’t stop someone at the BBC retrieving the footage from the cutting room floor and passing it to the Daily Mirror in an attempt to discredit him.

Instead of supporting Clarkson, Cohen deliberately humiliated him.

When the rest of the Top Gear presenters jumped ship to Channel 5 fifteen years ago, Clarkson stayed put. His main concern was securing for his producer and old schoolfriend Andy Wilman a proper salary and a piece of the action.

Together, they reinvented the format, turning the show into a global phenomenon bringing in around £50 million a year for the BBC.

And make no mistake, this is Clarkson and Wilman’s triumph. BBC executives simply bask in the reflected glory. So you’d expect the show and its star presenter to be handled with more respect.

Clarkson is fiercely loyal to his Top Gear team, who travel the world together. The reason he complied with Cohen’s order to apologise over the ridiculous N-word furore was because he felt an obligation towards his staff to keep the show going and them in work.

So it’s no surprise that he was appalled at the lack of backing from Cohen when the Top Gear crew were viciously attacked in Argentina recently and had to flee for their lives.

The only thing that seemed to bother the BBC bigwigs was whether Clarkson had set out to provoke the Argentinians by driving a car with a number-plate intended deliberately to remind them of Britain’s victory in the Falklands War.

Funny how the Lefties at the BBC were quick to proclaim ‘Je Suis Charlie’ after a French magazine offended Muslims, but never declare themselves ‘Je Suis Jeremy’ whenever he upsets someone.

Cohen’s decision to pull the remaining Top Gear episodes will mean wasting hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of pounds of licence-payers’ money already spent on filmed sequences. It will also incur massive compensation claims from foreign broadcasters.

He couldn’t get away with that if he was a director of a commercial organisation, answerable to shareholders. And what about the millions of viewers being deprived of their favourite Sunday night show?

Cohen cares more about pandering to the political prejudices and petty jealousies of his Left-wing peer group in those Shoreditch salons. And that means securing his place in history as The Man Who Sacked Jeremy Clarkson.

By Richard Littlejohn

US headed for a collision with Israel

Patrick J. Buchanan says the US is headed for a collision with Israel as serious as Suez ’56, and they are about to see what Barack Obama is made of.

In November 1956, President Eisenhower, enraged he had not been forewarned of their invasion of Egypt, ordered the British, French and Israelis to get out of Suez and Sinai. They did as told.

How far we have fallen from the America of Ike and John Foster Dulles has been on painful display this March.

An Israeli leader told a joint session of Congress that President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is stupid and dangerous and must be rejected. Congress gave him 40 ovations.

Bibi Netanyahu then went home and told the world there will be no Palestinian state, and was re-elected in a smashing victory.

“Perhaps it’s time for Americans, especially those in the White House, to recognize this new reality of Israeli politics,” says The Wall Street Journal. We should restore “Israeli confidence in U.S. support.”

Excuse me? Who is the senior partner here? Who needs whom more?

Israel is entitled to choose its own leaders, who are entitled to make their own policy. But that goes for us as well.

We are today headed for a collision with Israel as serious as Suez ’56, and we are about to see what Barack Obama is made of.

The days of self-delusion are over. For was there ever a doubt where Bibi stood? In 1994, he denounced the Oslo Accords in a speech interrupted by chants that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was a “traitor.”

Did anyone think Bibi, who opposed Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza, was going to withdraw tens of thousands of Jewish settlers from Judea and Samaria, share Jerusalem with a Palestinian state, or allow the return of Arab refugees to what Bibi says is the “Jewish state”?

“Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls. Left-wing organizations are busing them out,” said Bibi on his Facebook page in Hebrew, according to a translation by Haaretz.

That’s the real Bibi. We have clarity now.

What should Obama do?

Drop the petulance, call and congratulate Bibi on his election and tell him we are proceeding with the Iran deal — if we conclude it accords with our interests. And if he attempts to sabotage or scuttle the deal, he should expect political and economic retaliation.

Bibi is looking out for Israel first. America needs a president like Ike who will start looking out for America first.

It appears we are at a moment of truth worldwide.

[…]

The Chinese are launching an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank as a rival to the U.S.-dominated World Bank. Despite our pleas, Britain, France, Italy and Germany are rushing to sign on as charter members. South Korea and Australia may follow.

Our allies are looking to pick up contracts for the construction projects for the new Chinese “silk road” from Asia to Europe.

The AIIB will have $50 billion in startup cash, a pittance to a China sitting on a hoard of $3 to $4 trillion in cash reserves, from decades of huge trade surpluses run at the expense of the United States.

Virtually all our Asian allies do a larger share of their trade with China than with us. They want to buy from and sell to China, and stay in Beijing’s good graces. But if menaced by China, they want the United States obligated by treaty to come and fight for them.

One understands why this is in their interests. But why is it in ours?

Nor is the Middle East any different.

SA’s first coloniser was a coloured

If President Zuma wants to blame the first Dutch “settler” he must look at Simon van der Stel, says T Kleyn

After President Jacob Zuma’s idiotic statement that all the problems in South Africa started with the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck in 1652, we have been noticing quite a number of Jan van Riebeeck profile pictures, cartoons and T-shirts on sale.

As could be expected, I would personally consider doing anything civilised to annoy Zuma as well.

But I think one should have one last word about this and then we can focus on the future again, instead of doing the ANC thing of dwelling in the past forever.

Van Riebeeck was sent to the Cape to establish a halfway station for the trade ships of the Dutch East India Company. There never was an intention to colonise or settle.

We know that all too well, because he sent out only a few expeditions to trade cattle with the Khoi-groups in the Peninsula and allowed the first free citizens to measure out small farms only after a lengthy correspondence with Amsterdam. Van Riebeeck left the Cape after a decade, never to return.

No, if Zuma wants to blame the first Dutch “settler” we must look at the arrival of the last commander of the Cape who also became the first governor in 1679.

On November 3, 1679, he arrived at a lovely spot nestled in the mountains by a river and decided to establish a “colony” of people there in a new town.

This was a clear indication that the man, Simon van der Stel, who named the new town, Stellenbosch, after himself, intended to stay.

After his retirement he never left the Cape but went to live on his farm, Groot Constantia, despite the fact that his children all returned to the Netherlands.

He lived for another 14 years before dying, respected and known as “Father Simon” by the people of the Cape – black and white alike. Van der Stel was the first colonialist.

We have no reliable portrait of him, only a description which tells us that he was short and stocky with very dark hair, oriental eyes, a small flat nose and a yellowish complexion. In the records of the Dutch East India Company, Van der Stel is described as “mestizo” – non-white. His mother was the daughter of captain Hendrick Lievens and a Batavian slave woman Mai Monica da Costa van Java.

Zuma, your first “European coloniser” wasn’t even a white man. In today’s South Africa he would be regarded as a coloured person.

T Kleyn

War does not love British PM back

UK Prime Minister David Cameron certainly loves war.

But events in Iran, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, show that war does not love Cameron back, making him look rather like a dull schoolyard bully, oblivious to how he has actively contributed to global chaos.

Cameron actively supported the 2011 military operation in Libya. Back in 2011, Cameron visited Tripoli with France’s then-President Nicolas Sarkozy to declare victory over Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in what turned out to be premature celebrations with the “rebels”, now known as ISIS.

In a recent interview however, he declared that Libya shouldn’t become a “safe haven for terrorists”, something that Libya clearly has now achieved with Britain’s meddling.

Cameron was left rather red-faced after ISIS attacks killed Coptic Christians in Libya last week.

In Syria, Cameron also supported arming “rebels” in order to attempt to oust President Bashar Assad.

Cameron, while advocating British attacks against the Syrian government, admitted he was not “100 percent certain” that Assad was behind a recent chemical attack, but that it was “highly likely.”

“This is not like Iraq, what we are seeing in Syria is fundamentally different … We are not invading a country,” he insisted. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq.

Cameron had been calling for an international rubberstamp from the UN to aid the Syrian “rebels” – aka ISIS – from the early stages of the conflict.

“Every effort should be made to secure a [UN] Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken,” Cameron said in the speech to the House of Commons in 2013.

But his attempts proved futile, as British MPs effectively ruled out direct involvement in a military campaign in Syria. The Libyan fiasco was apparently still fresh in everyone’s mind.

“Throughout this coalition government, the Conservatives have adopted a less forthright approach to the Middle East conflict, in a way which I believe risks decreasing British influence in the region,” Liberal-Dem coalition partner Nick Clegg then lamented.

Back in 2010, Cameron stated that Iran has a “nuclear weapon,” when asked about why he was backing Turkey’s bid to join the EU. The Mossad, no less, has publicly denied intelligence proving the existence of such a weapon.

Cameron then attempted to pressure the American Congress over sanctions on Iran right ahead of his visit to the US, but Republicans called it an unproductive move.

He responded that Turkey’s accession could “help solve the world’s problems, like the Middle East peace process, like the fact that Iran has got a nuclear weapon.” Perhaps no one had sent him the memo.

With an ugly conflict brewing in Ukraine, Cameron has announced that UK troops will support Kiev with tactical intelligence, training and logistics. The UK will also “be developing infantry program with Ukraine to improve the pure ability of the forces.”

The PM’s most recent warmongering comments come after the Minsk peace talks, in which a ceasefire was agreed upon by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine.

On top of that, Cameron hawkishly called for more sanctions against Russia, in addition to those implemented during the past year.

He is said to be upset by French and German leaders Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel, who are trying to push for a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the conflict.

“We should keep up the pressure [on Russia],” Cameron said, noting that “in this respect the interests of the United Kingdom and democracy do go together.” Vladimir Putin, the most popular president Russia has had in more than a century, was democratically elected, but perhaps Cameron believes “democracy” has several meanings not included in most dictionaries.