Former Czech President: West’s lies about Russia are monstrous

Václav Klaus has made a habit of saying things others shy away from saying, but it doesn’t seem to have done him much harm in the popularity stakes. Quite the opposite: the 73-year-old ardently Eurosceptic free-marketeer has legitimate claims to be regarded as the most successful ‘true blue’ conservative politician in Europe over the past 25 years. He was, after all, prime minister of the Czech Republic from 1992 to 1998 and then his country’s president for a further ten years, from 2003 to 2013.

So when we meet after a typically hearty Serbian lunch — at the International Science and Public Conference in Belgrade — I am keen to ask if he has any advice for David Cameron and the British Conservative party.

‘I was invited to a conference last year in Windsor which was called the Conservative Renewal Conference,’ he says. ‘I made a speech in which I asked the question: “Do you really need a renewal — or don’t you think it would be sufficient to have a return?” My speech stressed the need to return to standard conservative ideas and approaches. I am afraid the current leadership of the Conservative party are not exactly doing that.’

Klaus’s message clearly resonates more with activists than with the serial ‘modernisers’ at the top of the party. ‘After I had finished my speech, two or three older ladies came up to me and said, “It was like Maggie’s speech!” So I find the Conservative party now rather confused in its ideas. The party is playing with the green ideas in a way I can’t accept.’

Klaus is not too keen — to say the least — about another element of the ‘modernising’ agenda. ‘The same-sex marriages and all that stuff about family, to put it broadly, is for me another tragic misunderstanding by the current leaders of the party and I am very sorry about that.’

We move on, inevitably, to Europe. What effect does Klaus think a British referendum on EU membership — and the prospect of a UK withdrawal — might have for the Continent? ‘It would send a strong signal. I was very angry, even in the communist era, looking at Britain from the outside, from behind the Iron Curtain, that Britain decided to leave EFTA to join the EEC in the early 1970s.’

It was a Conservative prime minister, Edward Heath, who took that momentous step. What, I wonder, does Klaus think of the present Conservative leader’s line on Europe? ‘I have met Mr Cameron several times and I am not so sure about his credentials on the EU. I understand he must somehow reflect the division in the whole country and in his party, but nevertheless I don’t think that in a secret ballot in a referendum that he would vote yes [for Britain to remain in the EU] — but this is only my guesstimate.’

Listen to Klaus in full flow on the absurdities of the EU and it’s hard to think why any sane individual — on left or right — would want their country to stay in it. ‘A few days ago I studied the names of the EU commissioners under Mr Juncker, and their portfolios. We in my country say that 16 is already too high for having meaningful portfolios. But the EU now has 28, more than in any country in our part of the world. If you look at the names of those portfolios, I really don’t believe my eyes. The former Estonian prime minister is a commissioner for digital markets. As an economist I really don’t know what the term “digital markets” means. Plus there is another, a German politician, Günther Oettinger, who is the commissioner for “digital economy and society”. We would laugh in the communist era to have such names for the members of our cabinet. I can’t imagine what these commissioners are doing.’

I put it to Klaus that in the bloated and bureaucratic EU economic model, we have the worst of all worlds — one which pleases neither genuine socialists, nor Thatcherite free-marketers, and he readily agrees. ‘What we have in Europe now is not the German Soziale Marktwirtschaft — the social market economy — but the German model deteriorated by another adjective, “ecological”.’

‘I started my political career after the fall of communism with a well-known slogan: “I want to introduce markets without adjectives.” There was a big fight in the country about this phrase. They said, “Klaus wants to introduce markets without social policy.” “No,” I said. “There can be a social policy, but the slogan means a market economy with an additional social policy and not a social market.”The sequence of the words is all important. At present we are going deeper and deeper and deeper into the ecological and social market economy.’

Whatever we decide to call the current system, he adds, it clearly isn’t working for Europe. ‘I am really shocked to see leading EU and European politicians pretending that everything is OK, which is ridiculous and funny,’ Klaus says. ‘I recently read an article by a well-known German economist, Professor Sinn, who has studied the situation in Italy. He presented statistical data which showed that GDP in Italy has declined by 9 per cent since 2000. It’s unimaginable! I don’t think communist Czechoslovakia would have survived such a long-term decline. At the same time, industrial output declined in the same period by 25 per cent! One quarter of the economy simply disappeared.’

Klaus believes the EU is beyond reform and has called for it to be replaced with an ‘Organisation of European States’ — a simple free trade association which would not pursue political integration. He recalls his own experience at the forefront of Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution in 1989. ‘When we started to change my country we quite deliberately did not use the term “reform” — we used the word “transformation”, because we wanted a systemic change. Such a systemic change is needed in Europe today.’

It’s not just on the economy that Europe has got it wrong, says Klaus. He doesn’t agree with the western elite’s current hostility towards Russia, which he believes is based on a false and outdated view of the country. ‘I remember one person in our country who at one moment was minister of foreign affairs, telling me that he hated communism so much that he was not even able to read Dostoevsky. I have remembered that statement for decades and I am afraid that the current propaganda against Russia is based on a similar argument and way of thinking. I spent most of my life in a communist Czechoslovakia under Soviet domination. But I differentiate between the Soviet Union and Russia. Those who are not able to understand the difference are simply not looking with open eyes. I always argue with my American and British friends that although the political system in Russia is different from the system in our countries and we wouldn’t be happy to live in such a system, to compare the current Russia with Leonid Brezhnev’s Soviet Union is stupid.’

He says, with finality: ‘The US/EU propaganda against Russia is really ridiculous and I can’t accept it.’

Klaus wants to transfer other democratic decision-making powers back to the nation states. ‘I’m not just criticising the EU arrangements — at the same time I’m very critical of global governance and the shift to transnationalism. A week ago I was in Hong Kong and I criticised the naive opening up of countries without keeping or maintaining the anchoring of the nation state. Doing this leads either to anarchy, or to global governance. My vision for Europe is a Europe of sovereign nation states, definitely. But we have already gone well beyond simply economic integration. The EU is a post-democratic and post-political system.’

Klaus has spent his political career standing up for sovereignty and rejecting the dominant orthodoxies of the day. Unlike other leaders in the former Soviet bloc countries, he did not feel inhibited about criticising western policies when the Berlin Wall came down. He was one of the few to oppose the Clinton/Blair ‘humanitarian’ bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999 (he was also strongly critical of the Iraq war).

Yet he feels the freedom to hold — and express — ‘unfashionable’ views in the West is now under increasing threat.

‘If you ask me whether I think liberty is under huge attack in Europe now, I would say yes. I feel repressed by not being allowed to express my views. I have permanent troubles with this. Suddenly I have discovered, for the first time in 20 years, having been invited to be a keynote speaker at a conference, that the organisers find out I have reservations about the EU, about same-sex marriages, about the Ukraine crisis, and they say, “We are very sorry, we have already found a different keynote speaker, thank you very much.” This is something I had experienced in the communist era but not in so-called free Europe. Only a very narrow range of opinions is now considered politically correct.’

It’s to fight this worrying trend that Klaus has decided to launch a new project. ‘I am planning, if we can get the money and people together, to start a new quarterly journal in 2015 called Europe and Liberty.’

Source: The Spectator

Emerging markets eye renminbi as alternative to dollar

With some effort, it is possible to discern the outline of a future “renminbi zone” emerging as a rival to the “dollar zone” that has dominated the world’s financial system since the end of the second world war.

Though still indistinct, the contours of this new currency contingency are nowhere clearer than among the Brics countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), following a decision to create a Brics bank in July.

The bank’s two key entities – a New Development Bank (NDB) and a Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) – are designed to form a developing world alternative to the two institutional bulwarks of the “dollar zone”, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The Brics bank has not disclosed which currencies it intends to use to disburse development funding (through the NDB) and support against short-term liquidity pressures (through the CRA), but given China’s status as the world’s second-largest economy the renminbi is expected to dominate, officials and analysts say.

“It will represent a spectacular own goal if the Brics bank ends up having its assets denominated in US dollars,” says Jan Dehn, head of research at Ashmore, an emerging markets investment manager.

So a vision of a future “renminbi zone” starts to take shape: funding in renminbi is to be disbursed from a Shanghai-based multilateral organisation to emerging economy recipients to finance infrastructure projects and assist governments when liquidity crises strike.

If this future materialises, it will mean a rebalancing in global governance powers towards China and away from the “Washington consensus”. In a sense, the west has only itself to blame. The bank – which will have initial capital of $50bn and maximum allowable capital of $100bn – was formed in response to the west’s reluctance to devolve influence to emerging powers.

The IMF, for instance, allocates just 10.3 per cent of its voting rights to Brics countries despite the fact that they have more than doubled their share of global GDP to 21 per cent in 2013 from less than 10 per cent in 2000. European countries, by contrast, control voting rights of 27.5 per cent for just 18 per cent of the world’s output. To add to the imbalance, the IMF presidency is reserved for a European while that of the World Bank routinely goes to an American.

From another perspective, the Brics bank may evolve to challenge the conditionality – or cash for results – that the IMF and World Bank have sought to inculcate around the world.

With an estimated $8tn needed to finance infrastructure development plans in the Asia-Pacific region between 2010 and 2020, according to an Asian Development Bank estimate, the Brics bank will have ample opportunity to make its presence felt.

The creation of another organisation, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), is set further to underline Beijing’s attempt to boost its financial soft power within the developing world.

But while the banks represent key conduits for the projection of Chinese financial power, more immediate determinants of the renminbi’s place in the world hinge on the attractiveness – or otherwise – of the Chinese currency as a unit for trade, a store of value and for portfolio investments.

In all of these categories, the renminbi remains a minnow compared with the US dollar. More than 50 central banks around the world have said they intend to invest part of their foreign currency reserves in the renminbi, according to Jukka Pihlman, global head of central banks and sovereign wealth funds at Standard Chartered. Uptake is strongest among Brics countries and in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America that have fast-growing trade and investment links with China.

“While the renminbi is unlikely to challenge the US dollar’s dominance as a global reserve currency in the immediate future, the international monetary system is rapidly becoming ‘multipolar’, with the renminbi gaining prominence as a reserve and transaction currency,” Mr Pihlman says.

Under IMF rules, the renminbi cannot be officially included in central banks’ reported totals of reserves because it is not “freely usable”. However, some central banks have started report their offshore and onshore renminbi investments as official reserves anyway, Mr Pihlman says, indicating a further unravelling of IMF influence.

Nevertheless, if the IMF were to include the renminbi as a Special Drawing Rights reserve asset – which is up for review next year – it would act as a significant propellant for renminbi internationalisation, Mr Pihlman says.

The bigger opportunity for the renminbi, though, lies with potential changes in portfolio investment flows, says Ashmore’s Mr Dehn. An inflationary surge in the US dollar zone, which might follow the current recovery in US demand, could lead to a sharp increase in the relative attractiveness in renminbi assets (so long as inflation does not hit China too), Mr Dehn argues.

“So the gradual internationalisation of the renminbi may be followed by the potential for a greater surge, as people try to protect themselves from inflation in developed markets,” says Mr Dehn.

“I’ll eat my hat if the renminbi isn’t the strongest currency on the planet over the next 10 years,” he adds.

Source: FT

International investigation called after mass graves found in Ukraine

The Russian Foreign Ministry, legislators and members of non-governmental and human rights organizations have demanded an international investigation into mass graves in Ukraine.

Russia’s Public Chamber has adopted a statement with a call to the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to investigate mass graves in Ukraine’s Donetsk Region.

The graves were found on Ukrainian National Guard positions in eastern Ukraine. Forensic experts examined one of them to arrive at the conclusion that the victims had been shot in the head at a point-blank range. Four bodies have been examined so far.

“The discovered graves are evidence of outrageous war crimes and require investigation under international control,” runs the statement read out by the Civic Chamber’s deputy secretary Sergey Ordzhonikidze.

“The Public Chamber is asking the United Nations, the OSCE and other agencies to create an independent panel of inquiry to investigate the affair,” Ordzhonikidze said, adding that “a military tribunal for war crimes in Ukraine must be the end goal.”

On September 23 there were reports local militias discovered several mass graves near the Kommunar coalmine near Donetsk. Earlier the territory was under the control of the Ukrainian army and the National Guard’s battalion Aidar.

The whole territory will be combed. Militias have already found several other graves, which are kept intact for the time being.

Lesotho and other African countries look comical

Journalists have been having a field day ridiculing the recent “coup” in Lesotho.

For African journalists, it turns out to be a joke on themselves — especially the notion that Lesotho should be SA’s 10th province.

Unlike SA, which was decided by the colonisers — the Boer republics and the areas annexed by the British Empire — the King of Lesotho was significant in the founding of his country. King Moshoeshoe 1 got on a ship to England to negotiate that the Queen of England should refrain from any attempt to annex his land.

The result was an undertaking by the British Empire not to do so and further to protect Lesotho from other colonisers — hence Lesotho was a British protectorate, not a colony.

The tragedy is not whether Lesotho exists on its own, but the fact that there is minimal development of its citizens to be sufficiently creative to buttress poverty and want in their land. Africans seem obsessed only with power. Occupying positions of power is seen as the only means by which they think one can secure income, status and prosperity.

Had Lesotho been in Europe, it would have publicised its history. King Moshoeshoe would be right up there in the consciousness of the world as one of the greatest diplomats of his time. With fewer than 2-million citizens, it would have unleashed the creative potential among themselves through proper education, and poverty would be minimal.

Conflict, if any, would have been about incorporation of the area dubbed the Free State as their ancestral land. Similarly, Botswana would be reclaiming what is called North West. AmaZulu would be fighting the “war” Scotland is engaged in.

The desire for nations to own and control their own land is not for any other reason than to engage in self-development, entrench their language, their culture and their history, which they would “sell” to the world.

The incorporation of Lesotho into the white-created and black “managed” SA will not bring its citizens any improvement in their lives as leadership in SA is still about hogging power and not human development.

If African countries concentrated on their own development and strove for excellence, they would not look so comical.

– Dr Kenosi Mosalakae, Houghton

European parliament calls for cancellation of South Stream

In a resolution adopted Thursday, the European Parliament called on the EU leadership to cancel agreements with Russia, including on the construction of the South Stream gas pipeline.

The European Parliament “calls… on the Member States to cancel planned agreements with Russia in the energy sector, including the South Stream gas pipeline,” the resolution reads.

Aiming to diversify export routes from Russia to Central and Southern Europe, Russia began construction of the South Stream gas pipeline across the Black Sea in 2012. The pipeline, which will allow gas transfers to travel to Europe without crossing Ukraine, is expected to become fully operational by 2018. The first gas supplies are scheduled for late 2015.

Intergovernmental agreements were signed with Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Greece, Slovenia, Austria and Croatia in order to implement the construction of onshore pipeline sections. However, in August, Bulgaria suspended operations saying that they did not meet the requirements of the European Commission.

The commission has long been trying to hamper the project saying it violates the EU’s Third Energy Package, which stipulates that pipelines in the European Union cannot belong to natural gas extractors. Moscow insists that the construction of the pipeline does not contradict the regulations in any way.

Source: RIA Novosti

Washington’s War Against Russia

The new sanctions against Russia announced by Washington and Europe do not make sense as merely economic measures. I would be surprised if Russian oil and military industries were dependent on European capital markets in a meaningful way. Such a dependence would indicate a failure in Russian strategic thinking. The Russian companies should be able to secure adequate financing from Russian Banks or from the Russian government. If foreign loans are needed, Russia can borrow from China.

If critical Russian industries are dependent on European capital markets, the sanctions will help Russia by forcing an end to this debilitating dependence. Russia should not be dependent on the West in any way.

The real question is the purpose of the sanctions. My conclusion is that the purpose of the sanctions is to break up and undermine Europe’s economic and political relations with Russia. When international relations are intentionally undermined, war can be the result. Washington will continue to push sanctions against Russia until Russia shows Europe that there is a heavy cost of serving as Washington’s tool.

Russia needs to break up this process of ever more sanctions in order to derail the drive toward war. In my opinion this is easy for Russia to do. Russia can tell Europe that since you do not like our oil companies, you must not like our gas company, so we are turning off the gas. Or Russia can tell Europe, we don’t sell natural gas to NATO members, or Russia can say we will continue to sell you gas, but you must pay in rubles, not in dollars. This would have the additional benefit of increasing the demand for rubles in exchange markets, thus making it harder for speculators and the US government to drive down the ruble.

The real danger to Russia is a continuation of its low-key, moderate response to the sanctions. This is a response that encourages more sanctions. To stop the sanctions, Russia needs to show Europe that the sanctions have serious costs for Europe.

A Russian response to Washington would be to stop selling to the US the Russian rocket engines on which the US satellite program is dependent. This could leave the US without rockets for its satellites for six years between the period 2016 and 2022.

Possibly the Russian government is worried about losing the earnings from gas and rocket engine sales. However, Europe cannot do without the gas and would quickly abandon its participation in the sanctions, so no gas revenues would be lost. The Americans are going to develop their own rocket engine anyhow, so the Russian sales of rocket engines to the US have at most about 6 more years. But the US with an impaired satellite program for six years would mean a great relief to the entire world from the American spy program. It would also make difficult US military aggression against Russia during the period.

Russian President Putin and his government have been very low-key and unprovocative in responding to the sanctions and to the trouble that Washington continues to cause for Russia in Ukraine. The low-key Russian behavior can be understood as a strategy for undermining Washington’s use of Europe against Russia by presenting a non-threatening face to Europe. However, another explanation is the presence inside Russia of a fifth column that represents Washington’s interest and constrains the power of the Russian government.

Strelkov describes the American fifth column here.

Saker describes the two power groups inside Russia as the Eurasian Sovereignists who stand behind Putin and an independent Russia and the Atlantic Integrationists, the fifth column that works to incorporate Russia in Europe under US hegemony or, failing that, to help Washington break up the Russian Federation into several weaker countries that are too weak to constrain Washington’s use of power.

Russia’s Atlantic Integrationists share the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines with Washington. These doctrines are the basis for US foreign policy. The doctrines define the goal of US foreign policy in terms of preventing the rise of other countries, such as Russia and China, that could limit Washington’s hegemony.

Washington is in a position to exploit the tensions between these two Russian power groups. Washington’s fifth column is not best positioned to prevail. However, Washington can at least count on the struggle causing dissent within the Eurasian Sovereignists over Putin’s low-key response to Western provocations. Some of this dissent can be seen in Strelkov’s defense of Russia.

Russia, thinking the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, opened herself to the West. Russian governments trusted the West, and as a result of Russia’s gullibility, the West was able to purchase numerous allies among the Russian elites. Depending on the alignment of the media, these compromised elites are capable of assassinating Putin and attempting a coup.

One would think that by now Putin’s government would recognize the danger and arrest the main elements of the fifth column, followed by trial and execution for treason, in order that Russia can stand united against the Western Threat. If Putin does not take this step, it means either than Putin does not recognize the extent of the threat or that his government lacks the power to protect Russia from the internal threat.

It is clear that Putin has not achieved any respite for his government from the West’s propaganda and economic assault by refusing to defend the Donbass area from Ukrainian attack and by pressuring the Donetsk Republic into a ceasefire when its military forces were on the verge of a major defeat of the disintegrating Ukrainian army. All Putin has achieved is to open himself to criticism among his supporters for betraying the Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine.

The European politicians and elites are so deeply in Washington’s pocket that Putin has little chance of courting Europe with a Russian show of good will. I have never believed that this strategy could work, although I would be pleased if it did. Only a direct threat todeprive Europe of energy has a chance of producing within Europe a foreign policy independent of Washington. I do not think Europe can survive a cutoff of the Russian natural gas. Europe would abandon sanctions in order to guarantee the flow of gas. If Washington’s hold on Europe is so powerful that Europe is willing to endure a major disruption of its energy supply as the price of its vassalage, Russia will know to cease its futile attempts at diplomacy and to prepare for war.

If China sits on the sidelines, China will be the next isolated target and will receive the same treatment.

Washington intends to defeat both countries, either through internal dissent or through war.

Nothing said by Obama or any member of his government or any influential voice in Congress has signaled any pullback in Washington’s drive for hegemony over the world.

The US economy is now dependent on looting and plunder, and Washington’s hegemony is essential to this corrupted form of capitalism.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

Europe created the Afrikaner problem in South Africa

A recent statement by the FW de Klerk Foundation in Cape Town after the Constitutional Court’s finding in the Renate Barnard affirmative-action case, said that “[the judgement] is, in effect, a prescription for, and validation of, harmful discrimination against millions of South African citizens for an indefinite period, on no basis other than their race – and with no reference to their individual merits, circumstances or concerns”.

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

roodt_fbfotoLegalised “positive discrimination” against South African whites is now a fact of life, as is the growing racial nationalism of the country’s blacks. “Africa for the Africans” is the underlying slogan in South Africa, by which we must understand “African” in a racial sense. Many of South Africa’s radicalised black intellectuals and celebrities affirm that every African has the right to cross the border and settle in South Africa, but that whites “belong to Europe”.

Raidersblad2
Buy Dan Roodt’s new ebook essay for only $3 or R30.

In essence, what black racial nationalists assert is that Afrikaners have not naturalised after 360 years in the country. This might have been dismissed as simple talk by blacks, if it were not supported by the courts and the political system in South Africa which effectively exclude the Afrikaner minority of all political power and influence. Outside the Western Cape, there is not even a single municipality where Afrikaners have any say in how their taxes are spent, let alone a province or the central government.

Objectively speaking, Afrikaners have been disarmed, disenfranchised, culturally marginalised and now find themselves in the position summed up by the Canadian political scientist, Heribert Adam, as an “internal diaspora” in South Africa. Being an internal diaspora is but a few nuances removed from having the status of internal refugees.

Since 1994, criminal, political and social violence has been constantly rising in South Africa and Afrikaners have been victims of so-called “farm murders” and attacks during which they are tortured and executed in dehumanising ways reminiscent of ethnic war and ethnic cleansing. In the cities too, house robberies and interracial attacks are rising. Together with legislation all but prohibiting them from holding state and corporate jobs, it is clear that the only rational choice for Afrikaners is to leave as many have already done, emigrating to Australia, New Zealand and other countries in the British Commonwealth.

With the benefit of hindsight, both South Africa and the ex-Rhodesia were deliberately brought under the control of radical black-nationalist movements that saw no long-term future for whites in Southern Africa, notwithstanding the posturing of Nelson Mandela before the world media, which was simply meant to ensure a smooth transfer of military and police power to the ANC and the South African Communist Party.

Over the past decade or two we have seen many countries destabilised by the Western drive for “democracy”, which is usually an ill-concealed strategy to strip the target countries of their mineral wealth and other assets. In that respect, South Africa is no different to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen where the USA is currently fighting wars. America also has military personnel deployed in other states, including Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates.

While Europe normally pays obeisance to the USA in its global strategy and foreign adventures, lately also seen in Ukraine where Russian commentators have accused the EU of being a “lapdog” of the USA, the Old Continent carries a heavy responsibility for the destabilisation of Southern Africa. Instead of finding a compromise between the various peoples and interest groups in this part of the world, European states have consistently supported the most radical, anti-white, quasi-Marxist revolutionary groups. The rise of Malema and the Economic Freedom Fighters in South Africa portend exactly the same future for South Africa as the present Zimbabwe, with the confiscation of white-owned farms, urban property and other assets.

As in Gabriel García Márquez’s famous novel, Chronicle of a Death Foretold, we know exactly what the outcome is going to be: the ethnic cleansing of Afrikaners from South Africa, with or without even more violence than we are experiencing at present from the marauding, anomic killers that prosper under the ANC government’s policy of laissez-faire and a gradual descent into general lawlessness.

At least five European states may be held accountable for Afrikaners’ becoming a stateless people: Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, (East) Germany and our former colonial power, the United Kingdom. They financed and supported, also through propaganda and diplomatic means, the African National Congress and South African Communist Party, knowing full well that these were radical, revolutionary movements that would ultimately “chase the whites into the sea” as had occurred in several other African states, notably the Belgian Congo (currently the DRC), Algeria, and the Portuguese colonies such as Mozambique and Angola.

It is telling that, after finally seeing the writing on the wall, albeit 20 years too late, the FW de Klerk Foundation has just launched an appeal to the “international community” in trying to stem the devastating effects of permanent affirmative action upon a politically powerless minority. According to the FW de Klerk Foundation, “We must make it clear that we are not prepared to accept a status as second-­‐class citizens.”

Clearly, De Klerk merely followed European and particularly British dictates twenty years ago, in the optimistic belief that there would be some kind of Western or European “veto” in the future if things had to go wrong. However, with so many countries being destabilised by American wars, the international community would simply regard South Africa as yet another casualty of internal divisions without acknowleding the key role played by Europe in setting what used to be an organised Western-style industrial state on the road to radicalism, revolution and ethnic cleansing.

There is an expression in Afrikaans, gedane sake het geen keer, which is more or less equivalent to the English “no use in crying over spilt milk”. Afrikaners will never rule South Africa again and the country is living through a miniature “decline of the West”, with long-forgotten African beliefs and superstitions displacing Christianity and even the secular, scientific thought of the European Enlightenment. Mbeki’s so-called AIDS denialism was but one, highly publicised challenge to science which is also taking place in many other fields.

South Africa, like Zimbabwe, has been broken and it will never be fixed, unless there takes place such a vast conceptual revolution in the world which makes possible another basis for political power besides sheer numbers and demography, but there are very few signs of such a development. In truth, no-one cares about the fact that Zimbabwe has gone from bread basket to basket case, and neither does anyone care that South Africa is slouching towards the same fate.

VOC_shipThe only question that remains is: What is to become of the Afrikaner people? We started life out here in this colony almost four centuries ago as either refugees from Catholic France or as indentured employees of the Dutch East India Company. Today and once more, we have become at best a stateless people or “minority at risk”, holding South African passports but without any say in government, in our schools, universities, municipalities or other institutions from which we are being increasingly displaced. Everywyhere, we are subjected to a rapidly intensifying racial quota system and our children hardly have the right to study, let alone to find work within the state or corporate sector. At worst, we are already internal refugees and unlike the Portuguese of Angola or Mozambique, or even the white Rhodesians, we do not have the luxury of holding European passports. In a certain sense, having destroyed or at least destabilised our heimat, Europe does not want us back.

The behaviour of Europe could perhaps be compared to that of a man burning down his brother’s house and then refusing him shelter afterwards. Being the victims of European and American geopolitical scheming and social engineering, we do not have any form of recourse as to the consequences of their destructive designs. It was also cleverly done by means of indigenous proxies or “exiled” ones, so it is going to be difficult to prove European mischief in destabilising South Africa.

Even though we speak a variant of seventeenth-century Dutch and Low German, that former lingua franca of Northern Europe from 1300 to 1600 when the Hanseatic League held sway, we have long since ceased to think of ourselves as Europeans. We named the standardised form of our language “Afrikaans” in honour of our adopted continent, that same continent which is now rejecting us in the name of the slogan, “Africa for the Africans”, understood in a racial and cultural sense. The paradox is that the anglicised or americanised African speaking English, but racially African, is able to stigmatise the white Afrikaner as a foreigner, an interloper, despite the fact that our cultural roots in this place are deeper and more ancient than his.

However, Europe too, although it does not seem to accept the principle of “Europe for the Europans”, also enthusiastically supports the notion of “Africa for the Africans”. Most European companies apply discrimination against indigenous whites with alacrity, as it is the law of the land.

Given the continuing African population explosion, with the continent’s population set to rise to 2,5 billion in the next 30 years, the demographic pressure on us is going to be relentless, added to all the other pressures such as the violence and institutionalised discrimination. What kind of racial quota do you get by the time that you constitute only one or two percent of the population? A percent or nothing?

During the call for sanctions against South Africa during the 1980s, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher opposed it on the basis that up to a million whites from here had British passports and could therefore swell the ranks of British unemployed. Presumably the same million whites of British descent could still return to the United Kingdom, like the Portuguese from Africa did or the French pieds noirs from Algeria. But what about us, descendants of the French Huguenots, the Dutch, the Flemish and the Northern Germans whose forgotten trading language from centuries gone by we still speak, write and school our children in?

If all else goes wrong, as increasingly seems likely, do we not have the same right of return as the British, the Portuguese, the pieds noirs or the Belgians, even though we are technically “non-Europeans”?

Will Europe, as it welcomes the Syrian, Iraqui, Afghan and other refugees from destabilised countries where the Anglo-Saxon oil wars have played themselves out, reject us, despite being its own flesh and blood? Not only that, but we are truly the victims of the European political junkyard dumped on South Africa, with its Swedish theory of the melting pot, of multiculturalism, of communism, of white guilt and the rest.

In more senses than one, Afrikaners are a problem of Europe’s making.

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

Sanctions against Russia would affect Exxon and BP

The U.S. and European Union are poised to halt billions of dollars in oil exploration in Russia by the world’s largest energy companies in sanctions that would cut deeper than previously disclosed.

The new sanctions over Ukraine would prohibit U.S. and European cooperation in searching Russia’s Arctic, deep seas or shale formations for crude, according to three U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the measures haven’t been made public. If implemented, they would affect companies from Dallas to London, including Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP Plc.

EU ambassadors met today and will resume deliberations tomorrow in Brussels on whether to trigger added sanctions or wait longer to see if a cease-fire holds between Ukraine and pro-Russian separatists and if Russia backs moves toward a longer-term agreement.

Once the EU implemented the new ban on sharing energy technology and services, the U.S. would follow suit with a similar package, including barring the export of U.S. gear and expertise for the specialized exploration that the Russians are unequipped to pursue on their own, the U.S. officials said.

EU governments agreed on these oil-related sanctions on Sept. 8 as part of a wider package of measures intended to hobble Russia’s finance, defense and energy industries, pending evaluation of the cease-fire declared in Ukraine last week, according to two European officials who also spoke on condition that they not be named.

Source: Bloomberg

McDonald’s suffers worst monthly decline in more than a decade

The American fast-food giant witnessed a sharp decline in global profits in August, hit by the closure of its restaurants across Russia and a “rotten meat” scandal in China.

McDonald’s earnings with stores open at least 13 months slid taking a worse-than-expected hit in August, falling 3.7 percent, the Oak Brook, Illinois-based hamburger chain said in a statement on Wednesday. This is the biggest monthly drop since 2003, according to Bloomberg. Market analysts had expected a 3.1 percent drop in earnings.

Across Europe, where McDonald’s brings in a hefty 40 percent of its total earnings, proceeds were down 0.7 percent.

Much of the decline is connected to Russia, where health officials last month closed 12 stores, including the first-ever McDonald’s outlet in Russia, which opened to tremendous fanfare on January 31, 1990 in the center of Moscow, as well as two in Sochi, the host of the 2014 Winter Olympics.

Meanwhile, Russian health inspectors are investigating hygiene conditions at 100 McDonald’s outlets nationwide over alleged issues.The closure of three of its outlets in Moscow came at the same time that Russia introduced a one-year embargo on agricultural products from the United States, the EU, Canada, Australia and Norway, in response to Western economic sanctions over Moscow’s alleged involvement in the Ukraine conflict.

The fast-food giant said it will “do everything it can” to continue operations in Russia.

Last month, Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich said that Russia has no plans to completely shut down the restaurant chain.

“No one is talking about it at all (a ban on McDonald’s in Russia),” he told reporters. “It has just happened that the inspections were completed at the same time (as the ban on Western goods),” Dvorkovich said.

McDonald’s has 440 outlets and over 35,000 employees in Russia, which ranks among the company’s top seven markets – outside the United States and Canada – according to its 2013 annual report.

The fast-food company sold more than $1.5 billion worth of meals to Russian customers in 2013, attracting one million people daily to its outlets in Russia, according to its website.

At the same time, domestic demand for the food franchise sank for the fourth straight month in August, falling 2.8 percent.

Meanwhile, the company’s Asian markets took a major hit after it was reported that Chinese meat supplier OSI Group LLC was investigated for changing the expiration dates on food, prompting fears among consumers. Sales in the company’s Asia Pacific, Middle East and Africa division plummeted 14.5 percent last month.

The poor economic data comes at a particularly hard time for the American hamburger chain, as US fast-food workers have been staging protests demanding higher wages, and the debate over high obesity rates in the United States is causing many consumers around the world to look for healthier food choices.

Shares in McDonald’s, which serves around 68 million customers daily in 119 countries across 35,000 outlets, declined 1.5 percent to $91.09 on Tuesday. The company is scheduled to release third-quarter earnings on October 21.

Source: RT

Hungary seeks EU alliance with closer ties to Russia

Hungary Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Monday said he would seek to form a political alliance to stop the European Union pulling away from Russia over the crisis in Ukraine.

“The EU gets further away from Russia every day. That’s not only bad for Hungary, but for the entire EU,” Orban told Hungarian ambassadors in Budapest.

“We will have to seek the company of those EU member states who are interested in slowing and stopping this separation process,” he added, without naming any specific countries.

Ties between the West and Russia have hit a post-Cold War low over the crisis in Ukraine, with the European Union and Washington slapping massive sanctions on Moscow over its perceived support for separatists.

Russia hit back with sanctions of its own, banning nearly all food imports from the EU and United States.

Orban, who has been criticised for steering Hungary away from Europe and towards Russia, insisted Monday that the country’s Western alliances were “not in doubt”. But he again warned that isolating Russia could hurt Europe’s competitiveness.

Scotts airline passengers in major Ebola scare

Airline passengers in Scotland were at the centre of an Ebola scare after their plane was quarantined at Aberdeen airport

Passengers on a British Airways flight from London were kept on the aircraft for over two hours after a young African girl complained of feeling unwell on the flight.

Medics in chemical suits boarded the plane while anxious passengers watched on in horror.

Passengers on a British Airways flight from London were kept on the aircraft for over two hours after a 10-year-old girl, believed to be of Nigerian descent, was “violently sick” onboard the BA1314 service.

Environmental Health and trained infectious diseases medics immediately quarantined the aircraft until the sick passenger could be safely removed. It’s understood the girl travelled from infected regions in Africa.

One man, whose pregnant daughter was on the flight, said: “We tried to get information but nobody was returning our calls.

“The passengers weren’t being told anything other than the girl was sick and quarantine measures were put in place.”

It is understood the woman has now been transferred to the infectious diseases unit at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary where further tests will be carried out.

Source: Daily Record

‘Putin won’t be around forever’

This must be the nice way of saying “we are trying to kill Putin”.

Following a summit in Brussels, a senior NATO diplomat proudly proclaimed that ‘allies’ have pledged more spending and will beef up its presence in Eastern Europe. However, likely to the chagrin of President Obama (and the West’s narrative), he let slip some uncomfortable truths:

*NATO DIPLOMAT SAYS PUTIN HOLDS TACTIAL SHORT-TERM CARDS (hhmm, ok)
*NATO DIPLOMAT SAYS LONG-TERM GEOPOLITICAL TRENDS FAVOR THE WEST (phew…)
*NATO DIPLOMAT SAYS PUTIN WON’T BE AROUND FOREVER (threat or warning?)

So, all the West has to do is be patient? Wait out Putin? We suspect that ‘strategy’ may get accelerated at some point.

It was reported some years ago that someone attended a firewall/email training course (PEAPOD BORDERWARE) along with a nice chap from NATO. The NATO chap looked after the email for them but he had no idea what an IP address or subnet mask was. It lead many to believe that NATO is merely an empty vessel being controlled from Washington.

Source: zerohedge.com

‘Anti-Semitism and far-right correlate’

Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky warned last week that “we are seeing the beginning of the end of Jewish history in Europe,” in an op-ed published in the U.K.’s Jewish Chronicle last week.

Sharansky joins a number of European figures, including French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, to warn about the alarming rise of anti-Semitism on the continent since the beginning of Israel’s military operation in Gaza on July 8.

In Britain alone, the number of anti-Jewish incidents has more than doubled in the past month. According to a report in the Daily Mail, more than 100 events have been recorded since the beginning of Operation Protective Edge, the second-highest total since Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense in 2008.

Newsweek’s upcoming cover story on rising European anti-Semitism highlights the rise in far-right political parties as directly correlated to rising numbers of anti-Semitism throughout European countries.

Sharansky himself estimated in June that between 5,000 and 6,000 Jews were expected to leave France for Israel this year because of anti-Semitism.

“Never in the history of the State of Israel has there been a Jewish community in the free world that has sent such a large proportion of its Jews to Israel,” Sharansky said at the time.

Sharansky has been an outspoken critic of European anti-Semitism since the early 1970s, when he became the symbol of Soviet Jewry’s struggle for human rights.

Ukranian parliament collapses

Ukrainian parliament-appointed Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk announced his resignation on Thursday.

He said his announcement would have “very complicated, if not dramatic, consequences for the country”.

The premier’s resignation automatically means the resignation of the entire government. But the cabinet members will continue fulfilling their duties until a new coalition is formed in the Rada.

Earlier Thursday, the parliament did not support the government’s bill on 2014 budget sequestration, as well as a draft law on reforming the country’s gas transportation system.

Violent anti-government protests, which started in November 2013 when Ukraine suspended the signing of an association agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia, resulted in a coup in February 2014.

Then-President Viktor Yanukovych had to leave Ukraine citing security concerns the same month. New people were then brought to power amid riots in Ukraine.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk, or Yats, the leader of the parliamentary faction of the Batkivshchina party was also the choice of Victoria Nuland, the US assistant-secretary of State.

Crimea seceded from Ukraine and reunified with Russia in mid-March 2014. The move was not recognized by the international community despite being legal.

Crimea’s example apparently inspired residents of Ukraine’s southeastern regions who did not recognize the coup-imposed authorities, formed militias and started fighting for their rights. Kiev has been conducting a punitive operation against the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk regions to regain control over them.

Western-leaning billionaire businessman and politician Petro Poroshenko won the May 25 early presidential election in Ukraine set by the provisional Kiev authorities propelled to power during the February coup. He was sworn in and took office June 7.

Poroshenko signed the economic part of the association deal with the EU on June 27, on the sidelines of an EU summit in Brussels. The political part of the deal had been signed in Brussels on March 21.

Poroshenko, dubbed “the chocolate king” was rewarded with the appointment after he had funded anti-government protests that led to February’s coup.