Opinion – Page 3 – praag.org

Anglo-Saxons win a losing battle

Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense says that in the latest mobilization, only 20% of those called up for service reported for duty. The Ukranians are not ready for the Neocon war effort, it seems.

But in the last 15 years Anglo-American foreign policy experts and think tank fellows have made compelling cases for armed conflict, called “humanitarian interventions” in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and about a half dozen other defenseless nations desperately in need of drone strikes or some other form of Western aid to turn them all into failed states.

More than one million Ukrainian men of military age are now refugees in Russia. Dying in a pointless war against an enemy that doesn’t exist is not popular with many it seems, except with those same Anglo-Saxon policy experts and think tank fellows.

Since the dawn of the internet, the idea that the privileged few urges everyone else to perish for nothing is becoming seriously outdated, but the British are having none of it.

Tradition is still important in the United Kingdom. Well-placed sources tell us that sadism at Eton College is as alive and well as it was 100 years ago when innocent Afrikaner women an children died in British concentration camps.

Writing in the rabidly-leftwing Guardian, Oxford historian Timothy Garton Ash has demanded more weapons for Ukraine, and more hostile, draconian measures levied against Russia. Why? Because “Saddam” Putin is a maniac.

“Russian aggression” is the BBC’s meme, devoted entirely to the “Russian problem”. The theme is drummed in relentlessly.

The idea is that Russia presents a huge a growing threat to world peace and stability. Russian bombers are threatening the ‘English’ Channel, albeit in international airspace.

The BBC’s dismal performance on “Russian aggression” reminds one of the run up to the Iraq war, when the BBC was similarly gung-ho in its depictions of Saddam Hussein as a real and present danger to us all, whose ambitions had to be countered by military force.

Britain now also boasts a “famous” sniper to ward off all evil. The Telegraph heaped romantic praise on their best assassin of the dark races recently:

A Royal Marine has been revealed as the world’s most lethal military sniper.

The Briton is understood to have recorded most of his 173 confirmed kills during tours of Afghanistan in 2006/7 and has also served in Iraq.

Most of his killings took place during a six-month tour of Afghanistan and he is said to have hit more than 90 Taliban fighters in a single day, according to The Sun.

His reported death toll puts the corporal, said to be married and from southern England, ahead of US Navy SEAL commando Chris Kyle, who had 160 confirmed kills to make him the most lethal US sniper.

However, sources told the newspaper the British marine’s figure of 173 is “conservative”, with unconfirmed killings believed to take his total even higher

And these are the folks fighting racism… and fascists daily, no less.

The current pro-Anglo-American government in Kiev boasts too many neo-Nazi extremists to ignore. Glamorising violence, racism and war, while denouncing those who are opposed to it, surely has limited appeal, but not to the English and their Neocon brethern.

Gen. Philip M. Breedlove is another one of the advocates of the move to heighten conflict. Breedlove, NATO’s American military commander, is now reportedly leading the crusade to provide lethal military assistance to Kiev to battle the anti-government forces.

Crimea belonged to Russia for over 200 years. “We can’t allow Russia to keep Crimea,” goes the favorite neocon mantra. Why not? Hardly any American can find Crimea on a map.

With Ash loudly cheering for further violence and hostilities in the world, one is reminded of Mark Twain:

As Mark Twain warned long ago:

The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for the war. The pulpit will–warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, ‘It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.’ Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as earlier–but do not dare say so. And now the whole nation–pulpit and all–will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

A quarter of a century ago the Berlin Wall came down and the West “won the Cold War”. But a quarter of a century later, it’s really hard to see what it won.

By Egon Mess

Gaye Derby-Lewis protests the non-release of Clive

We have noted Minister of Correctional Services (DCS) minister Masutha’s latest remarks in the press and on television that there is the “possibility” of Clive Derby-Lewis committing fraud and “if any fraud is found, Derby-Lewis will be charged”, declared the minister.

Any old red herring will do to deflect from the fact that Clive Derby-Lewis has terminal cancer, that his lung condition is “inoperable” and that his cancer has spread to his adrenal gland. He should have been granted medical parole, and if there is any fraud in existence, perhaps some people should look in the mirror.

The three reasons given by the Minister for not granting medical parole are spurious.

Firstly, remorse is not a criteria for the granting of medical parole. But for the record, and for the Minister’s edification, Clive expressed remorse publicly during the TRC hearings at the end of the nineties, and this is on public record. Clive asked to speak to Mrs. Hani on more than one occasion and Adv. George Bizos, acting for the Hani family, refused.

Secondly, as far as the so-called fraud is concerned, when Clive entered hospital in 2010 with a gangrenous leg, he was admitted by the Department of Correctional Services under an assumed name! This DCS declared was for security reasons. The name chosen by DCS was either Gerhard or Philippe du Plessis, we can’t remember which.

When Clive was stabbed in March 2013, he was again admitted to hospital and again the assumed name was used under instructions from DCS as journalists were trying to find him by walking around the wards. So this ”fraud” that Clive is supposed to have committed is untrue, and if this current minister had taken the trouble to check with his own department, he would have discovered why the nom de plume was used. He must be very careful what he says – we have sent his remarks to our legal team for further discussion. Calling Clive a fraud is bad, and coming from a minister makes it even worse. We will see what our attorneys say.

In addition, seventeen doctors who are members of the Medical Parole Advisory Board recommended parole for Clive. They take into account everything about his medical history and condition, not only his lung cancer. He has other ailments. The minister is not a doctor, yet he has overruled his own Advisory Board, clearly for political reasons.. These seventeen doctors know the parole legislation perhaps better than the minister and they wouldn’t recommend parole outside these regulations. A P.E.T. scan was ordered by DCS and was carried out by DCS doctors,. two of whom were oncology and lung specialists. The PET scan showed the cancer had spread to the adrenal gland.

It is interesting that none of these doctors questioned the hospital records (some of which were in the name of du Plessis).They were happy with the affidavits signed by the various hospital specialists!

The minister says there are no supporting affidavits relating to this identity question. He said he only received Clive’s affidavit in this regard. Yet I sat in the hospital room with Clive, DCS warders and Dr. N. Ndamase of the DCS Area Commissioner’s Office on 16 January 2015 when she collected the affidavits from the two specialists re the identity question, and purportedly took these affidavits to the Minister’s office via the Area Commissioner’s office. WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE TWO AFFIDAVITS which the non-appearance of which the minister is using as an excuse not to grant medical parole?

It is also significant that Clive applied for normal parole in November 2013 at the same time as Eugene de Kock. De Kock is out and Clive has heard nothing. The application is probably in File 13!

– Gaye Derby-Lewis

Even if you don’t see race, you’re still racist – Guardian columnist

People love to tell me that they often forget that I’m black. They say this with a sort of “a-ha!” look on their faces, as if their dawning ability to see my blackness was a gift to us both.

When I point out that their eyesight had never left them, that my skin has never changed colors, and that they probably did not really forget that I am black, they inevitably get defensive. First, they try to argue that it was a compliment; the smart ones quickly realize that complimenting someone on not being black is actually pretty racist, so they switch gears.

I don’t see race! is usually their next tactic, followed by I am colorblind, though they never give credit to Stephen Colbert. By “colorblind” they don’t actually mean that they can’t see green or red; rather, they are suggesting that they can’t ever be racist, because they don’t register skin color at all.

This ideology is very popular – like a racial utopic version of the Golden Rule – but it’s actually quite racist. “Colorblindness” doesn’t acknowledge the very real ways in which racism has existed and continues to exist, both in individuals and systemically. By professing not to see race, you’re just ignoring racism, not solving it.

Still, the idea of “colorblindness” is incredibly popular, especially with young people who believe racism is a problem for the older generation and will soon die out. According to a 2014 study done in partnership with MTV and David Binder Research, almost three-fourths of millennials believe that we should not see the color of someone’s skin, as though it’s a choice. Nearly 70% believe they have achieved this and are now actually colorblind; and the same percentage shockingly believe that we make society better by not seeing race or ethnicity.

But that ideology does present a very interesting question: If you were truly unable to see people’s skin color, could you still be racist?

Dr Osagie Obasogie, a professor at the University of California’s Hasting College of Law and the author of Blinded by Sight: Seeing Race Through the Eyes of the Blind, wondered the same thing after seeing the biopic “Ray,” about legendary blind musician Ray Charles. While watching the film, he found that Ray Charles seemed acutely aware of race, despite not having sight. He left the theater thinking about blindness and racism, and then spent the next eight years exploring it in his research.

What he found is that even people who have never had sight still use visual representations of people – including a person’s perceived racial or ethnic identity – as a major marker for how they interact with them.

In Obasogie’s interviews, he found that blind people use non-visual cues to determine race when meeting a new person. They combine evidence from their other senses – hair texture, accent and other markers (with varying degrees of reliability) – to create an understanding of someone’s racial identity. And once a blind person figured out a new acquaintance’s race, they would treat that person accordingly.

In one interview, Obasogie told me, a woman told a story from her childhood in which she walked in on her mother aggressively cleaning the kitchen. When she asked why, her mother responded that her black babysitter had been in the kitchen and black people had a smell, which she needed to wash away. The next day, the woman remembers going to smell her babysitter, finding she did have a smell and from then on always associated that smell with black people, despite never having noticed it before.

Racism – both the personal kind and the systemic kind– isn’t necessarily triggered by the visual cue of another person’s skin color. Racism is about the social value we assign to people and their actions based on their physical attributes, and neither blind nor colorblind people avoid that acculturation just because they lack the visual cues.

According to Obasogie, there’s not much other research on the relationship of blindness and racism. But one important modern scholar has investigated the question: Dave Chappelle. His “Blind Supremacy” skit from 2003 – a year before Ray premiered in theaters – comes to the same conclusions as Obasogie’s research. – Zach Stafford, The Guardian

Open letter from Gaye Derby-Lewis to the S. African Communist Party and Mrs. L. Hani

In the matter between Clive Derby-Lewis and Minister of Justice and Correctional Services/Mrs. L. Hani/the SA Communist Party concerning Derby-Lewis’s application for prison release on medical grounds (Case No. 78689/2014), the Gauteng High Court ordered, inter alia, that the second and third respondents make a submission to the court no later than January 9, 2015.

Since the TRC hearings in the late nineties, the SA Communist Party, its officials, spokespersons and other sundry commentators such as Tokyo Sexwale, Bantu Holomisa and others have taken it upon themselves to issue regular statements about a so-called “wider conspiracy” and that Clive Derby-Lewis has not “told all” about the Hani assassination in 1993.

The Derby-Lewis family has regularly called upon the SACP to produce the proof of a ”wider conspiracy” and nothing has ever been forthcoming.

Now that Clive Derby-Lewis is terminally ill, the SACP and Mrs. Hani have inserted themselves into a medical-parole application and will make submissions to the court.

On 3 December, Mrs. Hani is reported as saying that Derby-Lewis “did not tell the truth” about her husband’s murder. How does she know this? Her lawyer explained that the crux of his client’s submission is that “this belief (of Derby-Lewis not telling the truth) comes from the trial, the TRC and subsequent proceedings that were brought by Derby-Lewis in seeking parole”. We would like to advise this lawyer that he speaks nonsense. The original trial judgment mentioned nothing about a wider conspiracy. Subsequently, three confidential investigations by none other than the ANC and the SACP (and another agency) came to our attention, and all came to the same conclusion – that there was no wider conspiracy.

The TRC was declared “not a court of law” by none other than its head Bishop Desmond Tutu. On the contrary, it was considered by many to be a biased political witch hunt.

There is no proof whatsoever that there was a wider conspiracy and that Derby-Lewis didn’t tell the truth. We wish to caution the second and third correspondents that if their submission contains assertions of wider conspiracies and no proof is provided, then they are guilty of defeating the ends of justice, and we will lay charges on that basis against them.

This is one time that this fairy story will be challenged in court.

Gaye Derby-Lewis

17 December 2014

Throwing Republicans under the bus for torture?

The United States committed war crimes when they tortured prisoners of war and Iraqi civilian internees.

Although it is common knowledge around the world and in America, it was President Obama who admitted at a press conference that America tortured detainees after 9/11.

The President’s remarks came ahead of a soon-to-be-declassified Senate report about the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation program”, a nicer way of saying “torture”.

In speaking about the CIA, the President said, “We tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. A lot of those folks were working hard and under enormous pressure, and are real patriots. But having said all that, we did some things that were wrong.”

Why are these torturers not being prosecuted? Torture is a war crime; it does not matter if people were patriotic, afraid, angry, or following orders, torture remains a criminal offence.

Former vice-president and convicted war criminal Dick Cheney’s daughter does not think torture is a violation of international law, and is furious at President Obama.

Ms. Cheney has asserted that President Obama’s statement about the Bush-Cheney torture program “was an amazing and stunning display of a president, a leader, a Commander in Chief who seems to take no responsibility for anything that’s happened on his watch.”

Cheney is angry because her father’s culpability in ordering torture will be officially exposed in the upcoming Senate report. For the record, George W. Bush was president from 2001-2009. In 2002 Barack Obama served as an Illinois State Senator until 2005 when he was elected to the US Senate.

President Obama included his own administration when he told a press conference a while ago that “we” tortured detainees.

According to Liz Cheney, “This president is an utter disgrace. He’s expending more time, more energy, more passion, more aggressive activity in targeting and going after patriots, heroes. CIA officers and others who kept is safe after 9/11. He’s lying about what they did, he’s slandering them, he went to Cairo and did it in 2009. Today he did it from the podium of the Oval Office. It’s a disgrace. It’s despicable.”

Another report, incidentally, concluded the Bush/Cheney authorization of so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ of detainees in the wake of the 9/11 attacks was ineffective and yielded no critical intelligence. It might actually be the best indication yet that these detainees had nothing to do with 9/11.

President Obama admitted indirectly that America tortured detainees in 2011 when he told reporters that despite Republican presidential candidates praising war criminals who tortured prisoners, he believed, like international humanitarian agencies and the world court, that water boarding is torture.

In 2010 Dick Cheney admitted to authorizing torture, and just last March he told a sold-out crowd at American University he had no regrets and bragged that “If I would have to do it all over again, I would. The results speak for themselves.”

Cheney was lying, of course, and the Senate report will indeed say that the CIA torture was “ineffective and yielded no credible intelligence.”

Liz Cheney, a proud lesbian, nevertheless insists on calling her father a “hero”.

Cheney also said that despite being convicted of war crimes with Bush, Rumsfeld, and company, “the accusations he’s a war criminal for using torture are not true.”

The Obama administration has failed to prosecute anyone associated with the torture program, even though war crimes were prosecuted with extreme prejudice after World War II by the United States.

During war crime tribunals after World War II at The Hague, it was established that following orders was not a justification for torture.

America lost whatever standing it had in the world after Bush launched a regime-changing war against Iraq which left the country in ruins.

By throwing Bush, Cheney, and company under the bus, Obama and Democrats possibly hope to gain some of their lost moral standing and popularity after the Iraq disaster.

A large body of Democrats believe that while the Bush-Cheney cabal have already been convicted of war crimes in absentia, and they need to be arrested, sent to The Hague, and prosecuted for war crimes.

Diatribe on white privilege is racist

The idea of white privilege is so simplistic it’s frightening. Ignoring the past for a moment, let me share some viewpoints on the present.

With the distortions created through BEE, white males sit right at the very bottom of the food chain. Nature as is its wont, responds to anomalies.

I see white kids striving, trying harder and embarking on risky entrepreneurial ventures (and succeeding) in that would have appalled their fathers.

I see talented black kids being shoe-horned into positions for which they are ill-qualified or too inexperienced for, as institutions battle to meet targets.

These same white kids are prepared to work for a pittance or nothing at all to get experience whilst banks and the like bid up the cost of black graduates.

As the these black grads gain experience, so does their value and the bidding cycle persists, resulting in ultimately self-defeating job hopping.

Perversely, like all evolutionary pressures, adversity in an uneven landscape is forcing white kids to be more industrious and resourceful, whilst young black talent is being wasted in a world where real economic value and remuneration has gone cuckoo.

I know of so many dynamic (white) start-ups where business owners complain that they cannot afford black grads because they are being vacuumed up by not so dynamic big firms.

Where blacks are brought in, it is as shareholders not actually adding any value but rather perverse legitimacy.

So many people are used to being parasites that they have forgotten that the host eventually dies when it gives too much.

Please reflect on how much white South Africans have actually contributed to this economy for very little in return over the last 20 years.

Africans should focus on getting productive and creating wealth, not taking it away. Diatribes about white privilege are unequivocally racist.

Alisdair Sinclair

White liberals are just racists

It is typical of the so-called white “liberals” in South Africa to pretend they “understand” white privilege, when in fact they strive to maintain it.

They always sugar coat the truth and feel uneasy when the black victims of apartheid start to tell it like it is.

When this happens, they use their money to sponsor conferences on “Social Cohesion” and studies on “National Reconciliation”, the objective being to continue to suffocate the voices of those who are still left out of the system.

White people in SA today are the beneficiaries of apartheid and the “white privileges” they enjoy today are as a result of apartheid.

The irritating thing about this is when they want to preserve these ill-gotten white privileges by opposing the redress measures aimed at the current imbalances caused by apartheid, and labeling them “racist”.

To me as a black person, those who still sponsor organisations like the The SA Institute of Race Relations,the Helen Suzman Foundation,the FW De Klerk Foundation and the Free Market Foundation, are no different to Pick and Pay and Land Rover sponsoring Hofmeyer.

These organisations still fight in a sophisticated manner to preserve their ill-gotten privileges.

The outcomes are the same, with some trying to package the same claptrap better.

S. Moloko

Deficit spending and money printing: A German point of view

The leading macroeconomic Nobel-laureates, the central bankers as well as most politicians have reduced their economic judgment on how to get the economies in Europe and Japan back to sustainable growth on just two recipes: public investments in infrastructure to be financed by additional public debt and, second, an expansive money market policy based on printing more money and reducing interest rates to zero or even beyond zero to negative rates!

And if the capital markets don’t swallow additional public debt, then the Central Banks will step in eagerly as investors – regardless if this is in line with their statutes!

The expected results, backed by the leading macroeconomic wisdom, should be to kick-start economic growth, to induce private industry to invest and banks to lend to private investors, and thereby to reduce unemployment, and get deflationary tendencies back to an inflation rate that is now officially regarded as ideal if it oscillates around 2 % p.a. When and why this “two-percent” benchmark was introduced for the first time I can’t remember, but everybody today takes it for granted and repeats it like as an undisputed target of Central Bank’s money market policy. Included in this assumption is ever more public debt as the guarantor for lasting GDP-growth!

I never understood why macroeconomics should be regarded as an academic discipline if it is in practice reduced to these rather simple theories of how to handle a recession or even deflation! Maybe Alfred Nobel was just as clear-sighted as I am, and consequently never introduced a Nobel-prize for economics. That was done after his death by the Central Bank of Norway, which also contributed the required funds. It still does so, and not the Nobel foundation!

My personal advice is to stop handing out any more Nobel-prizes for economics to any more American professors on any new theory how to steer economic development and sustainable economic growth, because none of them has ever worked.

There is a lot of blame offloaded onto Maynard Keynes by critics of the present ruling opinion of more deficit spending by governments. But I don’t believe that Keynes would approve any of today’s Nobel-Laureates who saw no other way out of recession than by money printing in unlimited amounts and years of deficit spending by already over-indebted economies. According to Keynes public investment on deficit could be regarded as an “ultima ratio” to re-kick-start a slow economy, but he would never have advised any government that is already highly indebted to increase this debt even more!

In his theory, deficit-spending should be a limited action in time and amounts, and directly afterwards this debt should be repaid by the additional tax income from the stronger revenues of industry and private individuals who have profited from the intervention of the State.

But what our economists and central bankers are recommending nowadays is completely different from “short-term-kick-starts” – our systems are so full of the sweet drug of government deficit spending that (like a drug-addict) it constantly needs heavier doses of the same drug!

It was not long ago that the American Treasury Secretary publicly blamed Germany for not using its remaining credit standing for another round of deficit-spending in order to help Italy, France and other Southern European countries. As if more public debt and burning straw in Germany would have any impact on the southern countries’ economies without any serious political and economic reforms in those countries themselves to fight the weakness at its real source!

As long as our “economy doctors” don’t know anything better than to prescribe more drugs instead of getting the patient off the needle and help him to abandon the ever increasing drug doses, we will never get our economies “back to normal”!

We should never forget that at least the European economies had no real problem as long as the public debt to Gross National Product ratio remained within the Maastricht limits of 60% and before liquidity in the banking sector was multiplied without limit, thereby creating big bubbles in the financial assets of the banks which finally led to the financial crisis of 2008.

Japan is the very best example to prove that the therapy of deficit spending and money printing is dangerously wrong: it is now 25 years since Japan has adopted this cure. If anybody needs proof that the prescription was unprofessional and ineffective, he should look at the results to the Japanese economy and its public debt. Although hundreds of billions of Dollars have been spent during this period on programs to stimulate the Japanese economy the effect was that Japan fell from one recession into the next depression and the public debt ratio to GNP has meanwhile reached the astronomic bench mark of 230% (!!), which is double that of Greece and four times higher than the Maastricht criterion!

I am certain that Maynard Keynes would turn in his grave if he knew to what extent his theory was misinterpreted and misused! Of course it’s a big temptation for every politician to utilize the sweet but toxic medicine of deficit spending and more public debt rather than to introduce hard reforms on public budgets, on social spending and other benefits to their voters.

It’s also a big mistake that European governments have disregarded the traditional role of the European Central Bank as the watch-dog against inflation. In creating the ECB, Germany never consented that it should have more responsibilities and more authority than the Deutsche Bundesbank ever had.

It’s just like with deficit spending Keynes had recommended under certain conditions: it may be acceptable if the Central Bank acts as “Lender of last resort” in case of actual liquidity crisis. But this should be strictly on short-term basis. What we experience today is completely contrary to the German (maybe not the U.S.) understanding of the role of the Central Bank. The ECB has now assumed a role not only to protect the value of our common currency against inflation but also to take action as if it is responsible to create economic growth and full employment with instruments like money printing, zero interest rates and unlimited investments in bonds which the free market is rejecting.

We pay a high price for the chimera that we need constant economic growth and that it is a stigma if our GDP-growth is only 1.5% p.a. Can’t we accept that after 50 years of undisturbed peace and continuous prosperity we have reached a certain degree of personal satisfaction where we don’t need a new car every year, another cell-phone, additional furniture, more TV-sets, more laptops etc, etc. Why do we insist upon economic growth, if we don’t actually need the products which are additionally produced every year?

Is it really worth it to increase the already heavy burden of public debt, which our children must service someday, by accepting even more debt in a vain effort to increase public demand? Let’s instead be happy with zero GDP growth, zero inflation and zero growth of public debt! That could be a more rational solution. Why don’t we consider it?

By Dr. Ulrich Salzer, German economist and banker, Munich

The geopolitics of South Africa’s puppet scandals

To say that popular singer Steve Hofmeyr and author Dan Roodt are targeted by the South African media monopoly, is putting it mildly. They are hounded and smeared daily by paid employees on social media.

With senior staff now openly revolting against Media24, most journalists are searching for new horizons in a job market reeling from the internet.

The only other paying jobs that are not in newsprint are websites flush with Soros money. It thus pays to be a basher of anything sane and conservative.

So sharing deep thoughts with local neo-cons whose articles, full of wishful thinking, are just as short-lived as the latest “racist scandal” editors dream up in an effort to cover up the inevitable decline.

The current malaise is linked to BRICS of which South Africa is a member. Neo-cons tell their stooges in the media giant that America and China will reshape the world order, but only last week China picked Russia and officially recognized the Crimean referendum.

Media24’s official Russia-basher Leopold Scholtz, reporting from the EU, was again refuted by developments in Germany just days ago. He keeps pretending not to notice the earth moving beneath his feet.

So the Steve-and-Dan smear campaign has gained momentum in order not to tackle the large elephant in the room.

A pock-faced jester was even hauled out to spout libel and vile insults, taunting the two Afrikaners in the latest desperate attempt to incite racial animosity or whatever it is that will not dig the printed news hole deeper.

As readers also found out last week, Merkel’s Brisbane speech may actually bring in a major shift in German politics. Afrikaners adore Germans, even though they hate Nazis. A shift from a long phase of Merkel’s undisputed leadership to one where she gets increasingly challenged by furious industrialists, is afoot.

Scholtz – his father was historian to the architect of Apartheid Verwoerd, ironically – has become accustomed to framing Afrikaners as Nazis in tendentious articles, a distinctly anti-German and Atlanticist pastime. But failing to find actual evidence, he has had to invent it with the help of a devious editor from one dwindling sheet called Beeld.

A recent Der Spiegel cover on the G20 read “Summit of Failure: How the EU lost Russia over Ukraine”, making Scholtz’s task all the more difficult to paint Afrikaners as Nazis and rant on about Russian aggression.

Signed, in an unprecedented move, by Spiegel Staff as a whole – hence indicating an overall editorial stance – the leading article refused to blame Putin for the Ukraine crisis. It instead blamed Merkel, Scholtz’s darling.

Just as Merkel’s political opponents smell victory, Germany’s leading weekly equates Merkel’s faults to Putin’s. But the turn-around will not be smooth for Media24, a blind neo-con sycophant.

And just a week earlier, ARD had given 30 minutes of airtime to Putin, who was finally able put forward his views in full before a major Western audience. ARD’s editorial decision was also unprecedented.

Meanwhile senior German politicians endorsed the Russian annexation of Crimea.

The Anglo-American media retaliated at full tilt, screeching with indignation: “Why Angela Merkel is saying farewell to Ostpolitik”.

Had they been interested in journalism, and reporting instead of Russia-bashing and race-baiting, they would have asked some pertinent questions about South Africa, BRICS and Europe.

Scholtz, who fancies himself as an honorary re-educated German, is strangely mum, pointing to the fact that there is no editiorial independance from neo-con manipulation in South Africa.

From the English press in the country Atlantic subservience is a given and a constant, but Afrikaners thrive on anti-colonialism and independence.

The big cheeses in Media24 would rather like to forget that fact and concentrate on ad hominem tags.

How more subservient to the US, and deaf to their own readers and businesses, can a media monopoly become? Especially when Afrikaner farmers are killed by the thousands and white crosses dot the countryside marking their torture and demise.

The resentment that Media24’s stubborn Atlanticism and anglophilia arouses among ordinary Afrikaners is thus an old story from our concentration camp past from Aliwal North to Bethulie, Balmoral and the long list of wanton destruction, rape and war crimes by Englishmen.

The news is that even senior politicians and business leaders are now getting tired of Atlanticism, and this may eventually lead to Media24’s downfall.

In their eagerness to bad mouth Steve and Dan, factual errors are overlooked, and outright lies told. Ordinary Afrikaners inundated the media with complaints, calling their reports inadequate, one-sided and biased. But this has strengthened Media24’s resolve to find a “racist” scapegoat or two and save their Atlanticist neo-colonial project.

They also attack the increasingly economically fragile Afrikaners and accuse them of militaristic nationalism.

In their deluded, scapegoating mood, nobody in the crumbling edifice wants to address the real issues. That alone may go down as a major shift in geopolitics.

Meanwhile back in black Chicago…

While the events down in Ferguson play out, back in Chicagoland the same old killing fields continue day in and day out with nary a peep. In the 107 days since officer Darren Wilson shot and killed 18 year old Michael Brown – 12:03pm, Saturday, August 9th – the following stupidity has taken place in Chicago:

155 homicides (74% black males)
725 shot & wounded
Six (6) 18 year olds killed: Kawantis Montgomery, Kamaal Burton, Tony McIntos, Alexandra Burgos, Rayvon Little, Johnathan Cartwright
59 18 year olds shot & wounded
29 teenagers (13-19) killed
244 teenagers (13-19) shot and wounded
10 shot (5 killed) by the CPD
2 teens – 17yo Laquan McDonald & 19yo Roshad McIntosh – shot & killed by the CPD
9yo Antonio Smith was executed.
3yo Donnell Coakley killed by his mother

Brutal, yet incredibly asinine and absurd to say the least.

So what is it about these stats that hasn’t caused people to lose their collective shirts?

After all, there have been plenty of opportunities to march, chant, throw brics, break stuff, come up with a hashtag, etc… in the past few months, not only in Chicago, but all over the nation. So where is the US national media? The cable news talking heads? The race pimpin’ super duo of Jesse [Jackson] and Al [Sharpton]? The professional agitators and social justice warriors? The exploiting politicians? Almost 900 shootings and homicides in the past three months and not one is worthy of their attention.

Someone once said “never let a crisis go to waste”. Apparently these stats aren’t scary enough.

Trotsky, Red Terror a global threat

“Trotsky” might be the code word for understanding the nature of chaos in the Middle East and beyond. The 1917 October revolution in Russia shook the world spreading horror of “communist atrocities” and “red terror”. Now, almost a hundred years on the Soviet state is gone, but Trotskist policy has grown into a global threat that has never existed before.

Says Dr. Mateusz Piskorski, Director of European Centre of Geopolitical Analysis:

I think that most of the former American Trotskists turned to neoconservative ideas. Those are the people like Irving Kristol and his song, people like Robert Kagan and all those elites who are forming the agenda of the contemporary American politics, regardless of which party is in power now. I mean, we had the neoconservative agenda during the administration of George W. Bush, of course. It was very open at that time.

But it is still continuing. We have people like Victoria Nuland, who was actually very active when it comes to the Ukrainian crisis. And she is the wife of Mr. Kagan who is one of the leaders of the neoconservative movement. Which means that the idea that lies behind the American policy, the American way of interfering in the foreign affairs, in the affairs of other countries is actually the same or it is quite similar.

Of course, during the Bush administration we had some voices which stated it more openly, which more openly claimed that they are going to interfere with the so-called hard power, which means military interference. And now we have more focus on the so-called soft power, but anyway, the final goals of the Obama administration and of the former Bush administration are quite similar.

Do you think we could remind our listeners of what the Trotsky theory is all about? Is it something dealing with permanent revolution?

Dr. Mateusz Piskorski: First, it is something dealing with the permanent revolution, but, second, this is an idea which claims that there is one universal political system, one universal civilization which should be spread all over the world, regardless of the local traditions, of local history of several nations. This is quite the way the Americans do their international politics since many years.

I mean, on the one hand, they are claiming that they are a unique state which is the only one in the world. But, on the other hand, they try to impose all their values and also their way of thinking about the political system and the organization of the public life onto the other countries, doing it, of course, by force. And this is the ideological basis. Of course, we cannot forget about the interests which lie behind all those interventions in different places.

But, anyway, from the ideological point of view, that claim that the American system and the American system of values is the only one which is of universal importance, is quite characteristic of the Trotskists’ way of thinking and which is continued by the neoconservatives in the US. And this is the most important, I would say, basis of the American foreign policy ideology in the contemporary times.

I suppose everyone knows that Russia has had some experience with Trotsky’s theory and practices. And something we do remember is that they are all associated with the outmost cruelties, something that would now be described as crimes against humanity. Do I get it right that this is also the case right now?

Dr. Mateusz Piskorski: Yes, of course. According to the idea of Trotsky’s permanent revolution the end justifies the means, all the means, which means that all kinds of bloody terror revolutions might be organized just to bring the final goal, which is the world revolution – the change that would embrace all the countries of the world. And secondly, of course, to control the power in different countries, the Americans are also using another idea of Trotsky – the idea of a permanent revolution.

This means that during a revolution, if you bring to power one political force, it should feel all the time the threat of being overthrown by another political force, which is already prepared and ready. And this makes it very obedient to those who are organizing all the so-called fake revolution processes. In this particular case it is the US.

Of course, the instrumentalisation of the ideas of Trotsky, including the idea of the terror of permanent revolution embracing all the world, are used or, perhaps, some contemporary Trotskists would say that they are abused by the American neoconservatives since several years.

So, is there anything in common with something more known as the controlled chaos theory? Any relations?

Dr. Mateusz Piskorski: Yes, of course, the modified Trotskism is behind all the activities of the US authorities all over the world. And the way of thinking which was presented by Trotsky in the past is still alive in the minds of the American political elites. And this is quite interesting, concerning that, on the one hand, the US is still rejecting all the leftist ideas of the 20th century, regarding them as communist or dangerous left-wing revolutionary ideas, but on the other hand, it uses very successfully the methods which were invested by Trotsky and other Trotskists. So, in this case, it is just using the left-wing, perhaps, not ideology but methodology of revolutionary activities to achieve its own goals.

It is interesting that, I suppose, it is precisely what we are witnessing in Ukraine right now.

Dr. Mateusz Piskorski: Yes, I think that the Americans, after having their successful –let’s say – test of these methods during the overthrow of President Victor Yanukovych earlier this year, are thinking that any president of Ukraine in the future who would dare not to obey the orders from Washington and who would dare to build the bridges between Ukraine and Russia, he will be threatened by another Maidan or EuroMaidan.

Perhaps, it will be called in another way, but there will be a new Maidan with the new ideas voiced during it. But anyway, all the Ukrainian politicians and leaders must feel that the fate of President Yanukovych is an example for them to be obedient to their masters who brought them to power when Yanukovych fell.

And that might explain why the US administration has been congratulating the Kiev authorities with this election, though the Rada has largely become ultra-nationalistic, not to say neo-Nazi.

Dr. Mateusz Piskorski: Yes, the US are legitimizing the only political force now, which could be capable of organizing another Maidan, as we have seen in the last months, several times during the different protests which were organized by the ultra-nationalist camp. We could notice that this is the only power which is still able to bring the people out in the streets in Kiev, to organize a brutal and aggressive protests and actions. Like the one near the Parliament, when they were throwing people into the trash bins and so on.

So, the Americans realize perfectly well that this is the only force which could mobilize the people and which could possibly organize another so-called revolution, for instance, if President Poroshenko would try to be more compromising with his Russian partners. So, he must feel the threat all the time. The threat that if he will not be obedient, he might have problems similar to those of President Yanukovych.

And I think that President Poroshenko is actually aware of that, and that is why he tries to appease all those ultra-nationalist forces. He tries to symbolically support several ideas, like the idea of building a new historical identity of Ukraine. Here, he is fulfilling the wishes of the ultra-nationalists, by glorifying the Nazi collaborators from the times of the WW II.

So, as long as Poroshenko understands this, he will have the support of the US. If he would try to somehow, let’s say, sincerely negotiate with Russia and try to get a compromise with Russia, he might have real troubles with his former supporters from the US.

Mr. Trotsky used to say that real revolutionaries are located in the Wall Street. Which might imply that he is pointing to the financial companies and financial system. Now, we see that the EU financial system of governance is drawing a lot of criticism from inside the EU and Hungary is the latest example. So, do you think that the situation we have witnessed in Ukraine might be somehow extrapolated to the EU and the old world at large?

Dr. Mateusz Piskorski: Well, when it comes to the EU, it is another discussion about the extent of sovereignty of the EU as the subject of the international law, and the extent of the American influence on the EU. If you look at Hungary, their real problems started when Prime Minister Viktor Orbán tried to, let’s say, build bridges and the possibilities of cooperation with those global superpowers which are not very friendly to the US – Russia, in the first place, but then also China.

So, he tried to play a role of a country which has a pragmatic foreign policy and which tries to cooperate with different centers of power in this world. And the consequence was that, first, there was a campaign within the EU against Viktor Orbán and his party. And this campaign was organized mostly by the pro-American forces and pro-American political leaders in the EU. And second, we had the sanctions, the black list of those people who are not allowed to enter the US published officially by the Department of State just a few weeks ago.

So, this is a kind of pressure exerted on a small country which still tries to have partly independent and sovereign foreign policy. And of course, the Hungarians are a good example of that. If the Hungarians would succeed in the diversification of their foreign and economic relations, that would be an example for other European countries, perhaps, including also Ukraine. I mean, for the Ukrainians who are still talking about their European dream, as they call it, Hungary might be a good example, that within these existing European financial structures the so-called troika which decides on the economical transformation of the EU countries, that even inside the EU it is not that ideally and every country should try to build and create different options for their external policy not depending on only one center of power.

But could the financial institutions start to react in a more decisive manner, shall we put it that way?

Dr. Mateusz Piskorski: When it comes to Hungary, we have to remember the situation of the year 2012, when after introducing some political reforms the Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his cabinet were refused the financial support and the credits from different banks which are representing the EU. Like the European Bank of Development and Reconstruction. So, this is the kind of financial influence exerted on those countries which are not obedient.

So, jut to round up our interview, do I get it right that Trotsky’s kind of revolutions are still going on in the world, with the world not much aware of that?

Dr. Mateusz Piskorski: Yes, Trotsky’s kind of revolutions are organized now in the name of the corporate interests, which of course is a paradox, that the ideas and the methods proposed by one of the far-left thinkers are actually used to strengthen the control and strengthen the grip of the international capital which is politically represented by the US in the contemporary world. So, this is a paradox from the ideological point of view, but this is how the things are now.

Open letter to Virginia Keppler

You’re not free, Virginia. Your white baas gave you a job. You use his language and you write what he tells you to write.

We take it whence it comes, your tirade against Steve Hofmeyr. The truth is sometimes brutal, but it remains the truth. Steve’s right of course – he knows his history (his people had the written word so things can be checked) while the “others” occupied this continent for millennia and did nothing, absolutely nothing except kill each other and plant a few mealies. No wheel, no written word, no towns, gardens, hospitals, railway lines, factories, shops or any other accoutrements of a civilization worth its salt. Just check out what the early English missionaries found when they ventured into the country’s interior in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They had no political agenda and they wrote as they saw – they sketched primitive people with spears and loin cloths standing outside straw and mud houses. They wrote about their wars and their early deaths because of disease and internecine struggles. There were no title deeds then, so claiming land is now a bit hit and miss, given that there were no records of anything. The white man codified their languages (who else did it?) so being “oppressed” by whites is hardly the way it was.

There is no proof whatsoever that these Africans would have advanced one inch without white influence. Otherwise why didn’t they create a civilization of their own? They had the territory, they had the sun, the rain, the rivers, the green pastures. Oppressed? Give me a break! I would think they should go on their knees every day that the whites came to South Africa first. (What would have happened if the Chinese or the Arabs had got here first? You should shudder to think, Virginia.)

You talk about the black “owners” of this land. How can they prove they owned anything? They didn’t have the written word so no title deeds, no records, no nuttin’. Where’s the proof, Virginia? Aren’t you supposed to back up your journalistic integrity with facts? Or did your white baas tell you you can say what you like because you’re “previously disadvantaged”?

So let’s get down to the basics. Every single thing you own and consume was provided to you by the whites and their civilization. Tell me one thing – one single thing – that occurs in your life that is indigenous to black South Africa? Even your job is courtesy of a white man. The language you speak, the clothes you wear, the food you eat spring from a white civilization. The transport you use, the water from the tap, the electricity lighting your house are not indigenous to Africa. The fact that you are not standing on some dusty red earth watching the Ebola health workers take out your neighbours for burial can be attributed to the fact that you live in a developed South Africa, taking advantage of the solid, first-world health system whose foundations were laid down by the forefathers of the Steve Hofmeyrs of this world. For who else did it? The ANC? They are busy destroying it but that is in their DNA. They are destroyers by nature. Why don’t you fill your newspaper space criticizing them? (And by the way, why can’t Africa look after the Ebola outbreak itself? Why must the white people (and others) of this world rescue them from their cultural backwardness of not knowing how to wash their hands properly?)

Apartheid

You bleat about apartheid! Did you ever think what would have happened to this country without apartheid at the time? As the post-war hordes streamed into the cities looking for work (they can never create work, someone else must give them a job!), where would it have stopped? Our cities then would have become like our cities today, only fifty years earlier! We would have been sitting with a Kwame Nkrumah or a Jacob Zuma fifty years earlier, with all that this implies! Where did Eskom, Sasol, Iscor, our nuclear achievements and one of the world’s most vibrant economies have come from except under apartheid? Unshackled by the huge drain of a welfare state (as we have now), white creativity and entrepreneurship flourished. Did you know that the rand was worth more than the US dollar at that time, that investors streamed into our country because the non-Zumas were in charge? That millions of blacks to the north of us tried to get into the apartheid pariah country?

Like so many of your ilk, you call the truth racial hatred. Well, the whole world must be practising racial hatred because they do all in their power to keep blacks from Africa out of their countries. Why do you think the Australians won’t let aliens even touch their shores? Why are the Italians and the French and the Greeks complaining about too many blacks in their countries? Check out Israel’s policy towards blacks: they are deported en masse and attacked in the streets of Tel Aviv. Why is this?

There are reasons, Virginia and they can be found in the streets of our once pristine South African cities. The fact is that when the blacks move in, the whites move out and this happens all over the world. (Detroit is now filing for bankruptcy for this very reason).

I just loved your “we are twenty years into democracy, into freedom” platitude. Democracy? You’ve got to be kidding! When the country is run from Luthuli House, where not one parliamentarian is responsible to any constituent, and where the so-called government is the worst the country has ever had, there’s not much to be said for democracy. And freedom? Freedom to do what? Pee against someone’s wall? Throw rubbish into our once clean spruits? Murder someone for a cell phone? Live in crowded shacks in a squatter camp because you were “free” to come to a city with no job for you? So that’s freedom is it?

You’re not free, Virginia. Your white baas gave you a job. You use his language and you write what he tells you to write. The “verkrampte regses” are right. Democracy and freedom screwed up big time!

You ask Steve to “pak op en trek”. Why don’t you do this if you’re not happy with the white man’s legacy to this country? How about looking for a job in Zambia? Or Rwanda? Hey, what about Liberia, home of Ebola! This is the country comprising slaves repatriated from the United States. The country has been financed and supported by America ever since – the US couldn’t get them back to Africa fast enough! Liberia has freedom and democracy too, but they don’t even know how to wash their hands. There are no whites in Liberia, and that’s the difference. Why don’t you go there and you won’t have to put up with people like Steve?

You talk about being “onderdruk”. Yes, there was law and order and you couldn’t just go into a park and defecate and throw your papers all over the show and leave your takeaway mess under a seat. Which park do you take your children to now, Virginia? Remember Joubert Park in Johannesburg? Christmas was a wonderful time – the lights, the theatre shows, the decorations. Now it is home to Somali squatters who live there, and hang their washing over the trees and use the gutter as a toilet. Was it better under apartheid, or worse, Virginia? Now that the park is for everyone, who wants to go there? What was wrong with control under apartheid? Sweden for example didn’t have apartheid because it didn’t have third world hordes. Now our cities are ringed with squatter camps. (I bet you live in a gated community, or if not, your windows are barred and there’s plenty of “security”. Security against whom, Virginia? Whites? No my dear, security is against the “freedom of movement” you so like to punt.

Steve doesn’t “staan alleen in die land”. Not at all. Millions agree with him, millions. They just don’t say anything. But they curse as they drive through Sunnyside in Pretoria, once a pleasant flatland with parks and nice shops. Now the rubbish is on the streets, not in bins. The prostitutes roam from corner to corner, waste is tipped out from flat windows and no one in their right mind would be seen dead living there. The Sudanese and the Somalis have it all to themselves. So was apartheid so bad, or is this better? Better for whom?

And Hillbrow? It’s not called Little Lagos for nothing. If you feel free, just go and rent a flat there and then you’ll realize why there was apartheid. You say footpaths were only for whites? I never saw that. People could walk where they wanted in public places. There was no “one side for you, one side for me”. Where did you see that, Virginia?

You can’t have it all in South Africa, Virginia. You ask how it feels to experience this and that. Does it not worry you that we experience things that are a hundred times worse than not being able to go into someone’s restaurant? What about the vicious crime? What about the wanton killing and torturing of farmers? What about the unemployment and the terrible poverty, much worse than under apartheid?

What about the corruption in government? Who is stealing us blind? The whites or the ANC? Who has destroyed productive farms in their hundreds in order to prove a failed policy? Who is putting food security at risk? The whites? Who has turned our once world class health system into a third world disgrace where babies die and patients have to buy their own anaesthetics and medicines because the hospitals have run out? The whites? Who doesn’t answer the phone, doesn’t reply to letters and generally doesn’t give a rat’s backside for the people who pay their fancy salaries? The ANC’s comrades occupying jobs for which they are not qualified, or the Whites? Who are “deployed” somewhere else when they’re found with their hands in the cookie jar? White employees or the others?

Your freedom and democracy people can’t even run a post office, Virginia. They can’t keep the country in electricity, and they can’t run the Johannesburg Zoo, let alone protect our wildlife. They let their animals starve on farms they were given on a plate by their pals in the government. They are unable to produce books for school children. They steal from their own children’s school feeding schemes. They steal from the social grants (read welfare payments) destined for poor old people in the homelands who stand all day to get their money.

They talk nonsense with regularity. They promise the earth but do nothing. They are charlatans of the first order. They refuse to admit they are wrong. They are incompetent and useless. It’s always someone else’s fault – it’s the stolen cable, its apartheid, it’s the weather, its colonialism, its racism. This is why they are legal thieves under the guise of BEE. They need BEE because they can’t even start a spaza shop in the township. They rob and assault the Somalis and the Pakistanis who do start them. They are a disgrace and you would do well, Virginia, to concentrate on this cancer eating away at a once beautiful and prosperous country. Don’t worry about apartheid, Virginia, or Steve either. There’s much worse on the way to focus your mind. Concentrate on crime, and our window bars and our alarms and our palisade fences with the spikes on top. It’s amazing how many commentators say that crime affects the blacks “as well”. But when there were whites-only areas, there was hardly any crime. This is why there were no bars on windows, no townhouse complexes (for security!), no boom gates to keep who out? Whites? No, blacks dear Virginia. When they were not there, there was virtually no crime.

So put up or shut up. Concentrate on bringing to book the criminals (both government and freelance), and leave Steve alone. He’s telling it like it is, and so should you. Ask those venal creatures in the ANC to move to black residential areas, to send their kids to black schools, to use state hospitals, to go to black doctors and to buy their clothes in Soweto. The sins of apartheid are pisswilly compared to the wholesale pillaging of our country by the charlatans calling themselves the government of South Africa.

– Sic Transit Gloria, Gauteng

N.B. The editors are not responsible, nor do they necessarily agree with the opinions expressed by letter writers or columnists on this site.

Berlin Wall: I immigrated to anti-communist South Africa but now…

Watching the excellent CNN coverage yesterday of the 25^th anniversary of the breaking down of the Berlin Wall takes me back to 1964 when I was on my way to a new country South Africa from Canada with my South African husband and my son, born in Canada in 1961.

On our way we travelled to Berlin and crossed Checkpoint Charlie to have a look at our first “communist” country. We walked down Unter den Linden street, an avenue of bleakness and despondency. Everything looked grey, even the people. We couldn’t wait to get back to vibrant West Berlin.

I said to my husband thank Heavens we’re going to a country which has so vehemently rejected Communism. En kyk hoe lyk ons nou!

Our current regime’s cabinet is replete with communists (either overt or still in the closet). True to type, they have purloined the capitalist’s goodies for themselves and left their followers with promises, as did the communists of the greater Soviet Union.

Everybody derided the old National Party for its anti-communism (there’s one under very bed!) but communism in the flesh was no party! Ironically and not surprisingly, none of the so-called communists in our government lived under communism as opposed to living with communists. Most of them were guests of the ruling cliques (who calculated there might be something in it for them in the long run!) but they never suffered as did those hapless souls who for example tried to scale the Berlin Wall and lost their lives in doing so. I wonder how many of our apparatchiks watched the ceremonies yesterday and saw the photos of those who died for a taste of freedom.

These troglodytes of the SACP are a bunch of phonies, driving their BMW’s and pontificating about “the people” while quietly pillaging the country for themselves. And all in the name of democracy, nogal! What a travesty!

– Gaye Derby-Lewis

The brilliance of propaganda and the mass media

It really becomes about having the the most politically correct jibe – people with “real” morals breaking down another, less popular view, with insults of stupidity and thinly disguised hatred.

It’s like many Germans detesting hearing the word “Hitler”.

Many of those with very strong opinions will “TLDR” a carefully worded response as mute reminder that they know next to nothing about what they are speaking of.

Herein lies the brilliance of propaganda and the mass media. Divide and conquer. Use triggers to whip the people up against themselves. Let them kill each other – then we step in and “save” them from themselves. (we = the powers that be/were)

We are lambs to the slaughter. We fear each other and thus prance and pontificate while the cattle cars lie in wait.

Steve has a problem with the murder of white farmers. Somehow we have to start discussing this. Many might say that his tweet was not a way to get that attention. But it did. He is also saying that there is a lot of history most of us will just not look at.

The current government is rotten to the core. Why is this acceptable?

But one tweet that just maybe might make us “thinking Afrikaners” look bad… and we summon enough energy to rid the world of fraudulent bankers.

A friend of mine has a saying for most of us Afrikaners: “Bly dof, my volk”.

He’s right. We are so trained to accept any authority. The way our schools taught us.

I personally go with George Carlin. “I have certain rules I live by. My first rule: I don’t believe anything the government tells me.” These days, it includes the mainstream media.

– Mad Pierrot