A truly awful British BBC presenter

Jimmy Savile sounds like a prison guard from the concentration camps of the Anglo-Boer War where Afrikaner women and children were subjected to extreme abuse.

Investigators were given “macabre accounts” of disgraced British BBC presenter Jimmy Savile “acting unacceptably” with dead bodies in the mortuary of a hospital.

An investigation into Savile’s abuse at Leeds General Infirmary (LGI) heard the now-dead entertainer claimed to have “interfered with the bodies of deceased patients”, including performing sex acts on them.

Investigators concluded that “it is evident his interest in the mortuary was not within accepted boundaries”.

Dr Sue Proctor, who led the investigation into Savile’s abuse at the LGI, told a press conference a student nurse reported having had a conversation with Savile in which he claimed he performed sex acts on the dead.

Savile’s professed interest in the dead was described by Dr Proctor as “pretty unwholesome”.

Savile visited the mortuary in his role as voluntary porter.

Investigators said he publicly acknowledged his fascination with the dead and there were a lack of stringent procedures surrounding the mortuary.

A series of chilling reports have revealed Savile subjected patients in hospitals across the country to “truly awful” sexual abuse for more than four decades.

Savile’s victims at the LGI ranged from five-years-old to pensioners and included men, women, boys and girls.

Savile, a Radio 1 DJ who also presented the BBC’s Top Of The Pops and Jim’ll Fix It, died aged 84 in October 2011 – a year before allegations that he had sexually abused children were broadcast in ITV documentary Exposure: The Other Side Of Jimmy Savile.

The documentary ultimately led to a joint review by the Metropolitan Police and NSPCC into allegations that the television presenter abused women, girls and boys.

The findings of the review, published in January last year, saw 214 criminal offences, including 34 rapes, recorded against Savile’s name across the UK between 1955 and 2009.

Claims that some of the abuse happened in hospital settings triggered separate NHS investigations published today.

Source: Western Daily Press

Britain could ban Muslim school governers

A set of rules aimed at promoting “British values” in schools could ban conservative Muslims from becoming governors, a religious rights group says. The new regulations follow allegations of a “Trojan Horse” plot to Islamisize schools in the UK.

The UK has also banned the teaching of creationism theory in free schools.

The Department of Education has introduced a new set of rules governing free schools and academies in Britain. The regulations dictate that school governors and trustees should demonstrate “fundamental British values” and give the state powers to close the schools if they do not toe the line.

“The Academy Trust must ensure that principles are promoted which support fundamental British values,” say the rules. These include respect for democracy and the democratic process, support for gender equality and tolerance of different faiths and religions.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MBC) argues the new rules are discriminatory and allocate too much power to the Department of Education to define “British values.”

Source: RT

Why I hate South Africa, part 1

by Dan Roodt

Like Dan Roodt’s Facebook page

South Africa is a land of great natural beauty. Its unique flora and fauna attract tourists from all over the world. Due to geological accident, we also have buried beneath our soil and rock the biggest or second biggest mineral bonanza of all time, including 80% of the world’s platinum. Since 1886 when gold was discovered, various fortunes have been made in mining those mineral deposits.

The weather, at least where I live in the north of Johannesburg, is more than ideal; it is perfect. We have three hundred days of sunshine per year or thereabouts and it is never too hot or too cold. Visitors from the northern hemisphere mistake our winters for summer as midday temperatures go above twenty Centigrade.

When the Voortrekkers, our nineteenth-century pioneers crossed the Drakensberg in their ox-wagons and arrived in the Transvaal, they stumbled upon a pristine land of sunshine, savannah and plentiful game, a true paradise.

South Africa could have been utopia, if it had not been for her people. Even using such a possessive pronoun in the feminine gender implies some kind of connection between the land and its inhabitants, if not patriotism. Now, patriotism and a sense of belonging would be the last thing the average interloper strutting and stomping about this fair land could be suspected of. Rather, he or she regards this bountiful place as the forty thieves did the cave of Ali Baba, simply a source of loot!

The turning point in South African history came in the nineteenth century when the gold rush drew like a magnet a horde of crazed would-be capitalists and criminals to these shores. For a few decades during the twentieth century we had managed to staunch the mayhem, the cold, unscrupulous greed venting itself upon us. Alas, for a variety of reasons – not least the utter cowardice and stupidity of the former Afrikaner leadership – that time of growth and hope for the future is long past. All that we may look forward to is more decadent dissolution, more crime and venality that will rage unabatedly. It is as if the land itself has been wounded, stung and, like a predator sensing its own demise, lashes out at every living being within the arc of its claws and fangs.

The floodgates of hell have been opened, in the name of “democracy”, that exalted term. It has become, in our context, comical, ironic and even absurd. It reminds me of the GDR, the German “Democratic” Republic which was equally lacking in real democracy. But let me not insult that erstwhile “farmers’ and workers’ state”, the GDR, by comparing contemporary South Africa to it. At least in the GDR there were still some principles held by a few people, communists at that, whereas South Africa has descended to the level of delinquent insouciance in which values or principles only exist to be mocked or sneered at.

Normally I would write these words in our noble local language, Afrikaans, which washed up on the shores of the Cape from Northern Europe. A spoken language, a patois of Dutch and Low German, we have lovingly preserved and standardised it to become one of the world’s great cultural languages. Yet, in recent times and under the influence of the ambient nihilism of South Africa, many of our people have discarded this age-old tongue, full of mysterious words and expressions that formed that “bridge between Europe and Africa” that NP van Wyk Louw, perhaps our greatest poet, spoke of.

South Africa has become a dump in every sense of the word. And I say that not only because garbage or litter is literally strewn all over, but because its inhabitants have no real sense of value. Money is proverbially “easy”, obtained through corruption or simple robbery and theft. So like all parvenus the “South Africans” do not know what it means to save, invest or work for money. However, in a more fundamental sense, things of great value – cultural, historical, linguistic, architectural, artistic – are simply thrown away, dumped. Some of our greatest buildings, monuments to a past of taste and a strong national identity, have been demolished without so much as a second thought.

Afrikaans too, has been dumped, with everything else, including by many Afrikaners who have become caught up in the general decay, the loss of societal moorings that have come to characterise this entity which we still mistakenly call a “republic”. To say that I feel alienated from South Africa represents an understatement. However, I feel almost equally alienated from my fellow Afrikaners, these new, obsequious, treacherous and venal people who are but a pale shadow of their patriotic and pioneering forebears. Apart from a tiny minority of proud and civilised Afrikaners who still honour their culture, language and traditions, the rest have become almost mimic men in the sense given to that term by V.S. Naipaul, a second-hand, quasi-British people and as rootless as the illegal African immigrants that wander over our borders on a daily basis.

Perhaps predictably, the Afrikaner has become ashamed of himself. Taunted and vilified by the invective and propaganda of his enemies, he has lacked the courage and the intelligence to respond in any meaningful way. The abjectness of the Afrikaner’s spiritual surrender is painful to behold. That is why this text would be simply lost on the vast majority of Afrikaners, milling about in their confusion, self-doubt and self-hatred. The glib clichés of their journalists and pundits, imitating American-liberal or politically correct discourse, are quite beyond any form of serious discussion or reflection. Like Captain Ahab confronting Moby Dick, I have to face up to this monstrous entity with the bland geographical name, South Africa, casting this message appositely to sea like a message in a bottle that might be read somewhere on the other side of the globe, or not read at all.

Apparently the first Roodt came to South Africa in the early 1700s, so despite what Afrocentric blacks proclaim to the contrary, that “Africa belongs to the Africans”, I may consider myself to some extent naturalised. I hold no other passport. Yet I am also very aware of the murderous xenophobia at the heart of contemporary South Africa which holds that both the white man and the foreign African are unwanted, “foreign”, fit only to be expelled or to be killed.

Like any sensible person of European descent has to admit, South Africa hates us. We are despised for many reasons, some more atavistic and preposterous than others, but in no other country has pure, unadulterated ethnic hatred been so mythologised and so obfuscated by largely spurious interpretations of history as here. Lest I be accused of lapsing into the commonplace black-white rhetoric representing analysis or thinking in South Africa, I am accutely aware that much of what passes for racial feeling in South Africa has always been stirred up from outside or been a handy way for the oligarchy currently looting us to justify its domination and ludicrously discriminatory policies, however much they may be clothed in US-style, politically correct jargon.

Sooner or later, one has to confront the salient fact: South Africa, or the gathering mob on the way to another necklace killing, that symbol of “liberation”, hates me. In turn, and increasingly so, I have come to hate South Africa. With a passion.

I may still love boerewors and biltong, and soaking up the winter sun through my window, but I have only contempt for this failed-state-in-the-making, this pseudo-democracy, this Little England, Little America and everything little, belittling and petty that one may imagine.

South Africa has no reason for existing. It is not the name of a country, but of a pathology. It possesses no identity to speak of. It is just a big parasite preying on the labours of the few who are still, against all odds, pursuing a normal existence under the Southern Cross.

I think I could write a book about why I hate South Africa. However, immediately I have to concede that writing books in South Africa is generally a waste of time. The few people who are still able to read, after umpteen educational experiments, the advent of cellphones and the ambient degeneracy, do not constitute a market for books. There is no literary society. Like everything else in South Africa, the book industry is controlled by a few colonial souls who make money out of importing British books. What is known as the local book, especially the so-called non-fiction book, is merely the endless repetition of baseless clichés and idées reçues. Otherwise there are various talking heads from radio and TV who somehow think that they should also bestow upon themselves the imprimatur of “author” by having their usual vacuous sayings coagulated into print.

The notion of “debate” and especially a debate by means of an argument that might span two or three hundred pages of a book, is so foreign to South Africa that it would make me even more of an outsider than I already am if I had to attempt anything like it. It would appear to be some foreign activity, like playing pétanque on a rugby field.

It remains therefore for me to sum up the very good and multifarious reasons why I hate South Africa.

(To be continued)

Donate or subscribe to praag!

Farage hails UKIP anti-EU triumph

ukipNigel Farage hailed Ukip’s victory in the European elections as the most ‘extraordinary result in British politics for 100 years’.

Support for Ukip has surged by more than 12 per cent, outstripping a more modest boost in votes for Labour, while the Lib Dems faced near-wipeout, with some calling for Nick Clegg to resign.

Mr Farage said he was ‘proud’ of the campaign which has seen him humiliate the Westminster parties, pushing Labour and the Tories into second and third.

As Ukip was triumphing in the UK, across the Channel France’s far-right National Front was on course for a massive victory in European elections tonight as the country swung behind its anti-immigration, anti-EU agenda.

Source: Daily Mail

Cornish recognized as official UK minority

cornishThe residents of England’s windswept, wave-lashed southwest are Europe’s newest official minority.

The British government said Thursday Cornish people have been given the same status as Scots, Welsh and Irish — the U.K.’s other Celtic peoples — under EU law protecting national minorities.

Residents of Cornwall traditionally spoke a Celtic language similar to that of France’s Brittany region. Cornwall is famous for its seafaring heritage and for the Cornish pasty, a popular lunch food.

Some in Cornwall have long campaigned for greater autonomy, and even independence.

Dick Cole, leader of independence party Mebyon Kernow, said it was “a proud day for Cornwall,” though it is unclear what the status will mean in practice.

The measure commits Britain to preserving and promoting the Cornish identity, but does not bring extra money.

Source: Miami Herald

Angry China cancels talks with interfering Britain

British human rights in Iraq
British human rights in Iraq

China on Tuesday condemned Britain for interfering in its domestic affairs, in response to a human rights report, a day after the British government said Beijing had called off human rights talks. Britain listed China as “a country of concern” in its annual human rights report last week, saying it had observed increased curbs on freedom of expression, association and assembly in 2013.

It also cited reports of “the forcible suppression of ethnic unrest in Tibet and Xinjiang.”

China reacted by calling off talks with Britain on Beijing’s human rights record. Chinese and British officials had been due to hold a round of the two-way Human Rights Dialogue in London on Wednesday.

The two countries had agreed to resume the regular meetings during a trip to China by British Prime Minister David Cameron in December.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying accused Britain of issuing the report with “irresponsible remarks made about the Chinese political system, rudely slandering and criticizing China’s human rights situation”.

Britain must immediately stop using human rights as a pretext for interfering in China’s internal politics and judicial sovereignty, Hua told a daily news briefing. “Britain’s path on this issue is not helpful to dialogue and discussion on the subject of human rights, and not good for the stable development of the health of China-UK relations,” Hua added.

Cameron’s visit was aimed at spurring closer trade and business links between Britain and the world’s second biggest economy and at drawing a line under a dispute involving Tibet’s spiritual leader that had led to a diplomatic freeze.

But Britain’s Foreign Office said Beijing had pulled out of the first round of the talks, the resumption of which Cameron had hailed at the time as a significant achievement. “We are disappointed that the Chinese government last week unilaterally postponed the dialogue, which was due to take place on 16 April,” a Foreign Office spokeswoman said in a statement. “It is not for us to say why it was postponed. We are now in discussion to agree new dates,” she said.

A spokeswoman at the Chinese embassy in London said she was unaware the talks had been cancelled.

Source: Voice of Russia

Pondo chief’s letter to Russia

Pondo Chief
Pondo Chief Umqikela

A chief of the Pondo people wrote to Russian Emperor in November 1886. The chief asks Alexander III to protect his people from British occupation. The letter is addressed «To the Czar St Petersburg, Russia, Esihlonyane Pondoland, 10 Nov. 1886». It goes as follows, «Sir, I again write, to you, I wish to explain our present position As a Nation. We are independent Nation subject to no other power up to the present Self Independent. The Pondo Nation now asks to be protected by you. The English Government wants to take away our Country». The letter provides the details of the matter and adds, «P.S. do not listen the English Govt. what might they say. They might say perhaps the Pondo country belongs to them. They might say this to delude you as you are no aware of the facts, that it is false. The boundary of the Pondo Country Commences from Umtata river Mouth and up along the Umtata river and through Gungululu to Shawbury Mission Station, and go down to Ngxaroli and through Ishungwana and to the Umzimvubu River and Run along the Stream to the junction of the Imvenyane stream and along the Intsuzwa Mountain and to Celintcungu Mountains to Nolangeni Mountains through Engele Mountains. Another thing they have armed their subjects to come and fight us. As we have no friend to assist us we don’t want to be under the protection of the English Govt. We shall await your valuable assistance. The English Govt. is treating us most shamefully. The population of the Pondo Nation is about 200 000. Our country is very rich in Copper, Gold, Coal, etc. and all kinds of Minerals. It is for this reason they want to take away our Country forcibly against our Consent. Should you kindly agree to protect us? We would allow you to open all Mines in the Country. I have the honor to be Sir Your most obedient Servant Umhlangaso JS Faku for Paramount Chief Umqikela Chief Councilor and Prime Minister».

Aborted babies burned to power UK hospitals

baby3Aborted and miscarried babies are being incinerated as “clinical waste,” with some being used to power hospitals in the UK, a policy that some have defended as an efficient means of sustainable recycling.

“Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat,” reports the Telegraph. The revelations emerged as a result of a Channel 4 Dispatches program set to be broadcast in the UK tonight which found that more than 15,000 babies were incinerated.

The program also unveiled the fact that parents who lost babies were being treated without compassion and were not properly consulted on what would happen to their child’s remains.

the revelations, the Department of Health slapped an instant ban on the policy, with health minister Dr Dan Poulter labeling it “totally unacceptable.”

The story represents an alarming fusion of the lunacy of pro-abortion and global warming alarmist sentiment, with some even taking to Twitter to express support for the practice as an “efficient and effective” means of recycling.

Another respondent to the Telegraph story remarked, “If the unwanted remains can be used for a worthwhile purpose, such as heat generation, then they should be. That’s the very essence of sustainability,” characterizing the aborted baby as “unwanted medical waste”.

A respondent to this Prison Planet story asserted, “I don’t get what the problem is; it’s recycling and more economical than using, say, nuclear power or electricity.”

Many respondents to the Telegraph story made the point that the policy of burning babies is not surprising given that the practice of abortion itself is treated with such carefree abandon.

“Once people decide that unborn children are less than human what do you expect,” said one.

The revelations are certain to bolster arguments that the NHS should be privatized.

Source: prisonplanet.com

Britain’s private army, G4S

g4sG4S is the world’s third-largest private-sector employer. The British multinational security services company headquartered in Crawley, United Kingdom, is the world’s largest security company measured by revenues.

Contractors from the security behemoth cleaned up after an explosion in a crowded souk in South Sudan.

G4S is based near London and is traded on the stock exchange there. Though it remains generally unknown to the public, it has operations in 120 countries and more than 620,000 employees.

The security company is engaged by the United Nations mission sometimes to handle difficult tasks.

In recent years it has become the third-largest private employer in the world, after Walmart and the Taiwanese manufacturing conglomerate Foxconn.

The fact that such a huge private entity is a security company is worrying.

Most G4S employees are lowly guards, but a growing number are military specialists dispatched by the company into what are delicately known as “complex environments” to take on jobs that national armies lack the skill or the will to do.

Pierre Booyse, an Afrikaner and ex-SADF colonel, for one, did not dwell on the larger meaning. For him, the company amounted to a few expatriates in the Juba headquarters compound, a six-month contract at $10,000 a month, and some tangible fieldwork to be done.

He felt he was getting too old to be living in tents and mucking around in the dirt, but he liked G4S and believed, however wearily, in the job.

As he set out for the west, his team consisted of seven men—four de-miners, a driver, a community-liaison officer, and a medic.

The medic was a Zimbabwean. All the others were soldiers of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, the S.P.L.A., now seconded to G4S, which paid them well by local standards—about $250 a month.

At their disposal they had two old Land Cruisers, one of them configured as an ambulance with a stretcher in the back.

Merely two years after official independence, South Sudan was fracturing as a country, but the names of the Souk Sita victims could be inserted into the U.N. forms, and for G4S the day had been a success.

Source: Vanity Fair 

Should Britain give the Falklands back?

cristinakirchnerArgentine leader Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner recalled that the UN Charter stipulates the right of people to self-determination, which means that this rule should be applied to all countries without any exception.

Kirchner compared the situation in Crimea with another event in modern history. The Falkland Islands also held a referendum a year ago. It was a disputed territory, claimed by both Argentina and the United Kingdom. In 1982, differences resulted in an open military conflict.

Britain then defended the Falklands by force of arms, and last March almost all the residents voted to stay a part of the UK in a plebiscite. The UN did not question the legality of the vote at that time, Kirchner said.

“Many of the major powers, which have secured the Falklands’ people right to self-determination, do not want to do the same in relation to the Crimea now. How can you call yourselves guarantors of world stability, if you do not apply the same standards for everyone? It looks like the Crimeans cannot express their will, but the residents of the Falklands can. There is zero logic in that,” she said.

The EU countries and the US government refused to recognize the results of the referendum in the Crimea, with region’s residents voting almost unanimously for joining Russia.

The EU imposed second-tier sanctions against Russia on Monday, as a retaliation measure to the holding of a referendum in Crimea. Financial assets freezing and a visa ban on entry into the EU countries were applied to those Russian officials, who the West calls responsible for the annexation of the Crimea.

The US sanctions have affected an even higher tier – Barack Obama signed a decree that prohibits entry into the United States and seizes US assets of seven Russian officials and deputies: the Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, Presidential Adviser Sergei Glazyev, Assistant to President Vladislav Surkov, State Duma deputies Elena Mizulina and Leonid Slutskiy, Senator Andrey Klishas.

Rejecting contacts with Russia, the West harms himself, not us, the Vzglyad newspaper states. As a response to the US and European sanctions the State Duma issued a document named “On the US and EU sanctions,” suggesting that Western leaders should extend restrictions on all Russian deputies.

British child-porn advisor arrested for child abuse imagery

Patrick Rock
Patrick Rock

Patrick Rock who served as special advisor to UK Prime Minister David Cameron and played an influential role in the Prime Minister’s national Internet censorship plan, has been arrested for possession of images depicting the sexual abuse of children. The National Crime Agency is conducting forensic analysis of the computer networks at the Prime Minister’s office/residence, Number 10 Downing Street.

The Prime Minister brought him into Downing Street in 2011 to work in the Number 10 policy unit. He took responsibility for home affairs issues and was among officials who were involved in drawing up controls against internet images of child abuse.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “On the evening of February 12, Downing Street was first made aware of a potential offence relating to child abuse imagery. It was immediately referred to the National Crime Agency.

‘The Prime Minister was immediately informed and kept updated throughout. Patrick Rock was arrested at his home in the early hours of February 13, a few hours after Downing Street had reported the matter.

‘Subsequently, we arranged for officers to come into No 10 and have access to all IT systems and offices they considered relevant.

Source: Boing Boing

Queen Georgina and the Holocaust card

Georgina Guedes enjoying the Colonial Life
Georgina Guedes enjoying the Colonial Life

by Albert Brenner

[followbutton username=’albertbrenner1′ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

I must admit that I did not expect Georgina Guedes to do it. But then, maybe I underestimated the impact my column had on her. For her subsequent reaction speaks volumes about her desperate attempt to silence me… and all other Red October supporters once and for all.

Unfortunately it is, even in our day and age, still very easy to silence someone. All you have to do is pull the Holocaust card. This card still trumps all others. It is the Royal Flush of the moral poker of our Zeitgeist. Whoever pulls this card is guaranteed to win the game… solely by way of implicitly accusing his/her opponent of complicity (by association) in the horrors of Auschwitz.

And this is exactly what Georgina did in her critique of my column. Her play was narrative crudity at its best. She simply focused in on the Jewish genes of Nadine Gordimer. Something which I never even mentioned, simply because it was neither relevant in/to the context of my argument, nor does her, Gordimer`s, ethnicity/race interest me in the least. I specifically stated that Gordimer represents the interests of the British upper-class in Mandelatopia. Yet it provided Georgina with the golden opportunity to use the Holocaust card.

Why? Well, the Holocaust card still has the ability to blind all and sundry to the horrors that occurred before and after Auschwitz. It is the ultimate card played by Anglo-Saxon liberals when the Hillbilly-card and the race card have zero effect anymore. It is their way of telling the rest of humanity to simply shut up, for only they know best… what is best, for all.

And it is the moral weapon of choice of the British upper-class when it comes to deflecting all criticism from its unsavory role in history during the oh so glorious days of the British Empire — an epoch which saw the Brits invade nine out of every ten countries on the planet.

It suffices to say that the conquered did not appreciate their de facto enslavement by the Crown. Yet many Brits still yearn for those “glorious” days of old… when they, according to their moral rationale, “civilized” the world. Now obviously there were some positive aspects to British colonization, but woe beholds all non-Brits who use the exact same moral rationale to point to positive aspects of other forms of domination, like Apartheid, for example. For if you do so, the Brits automatically pull the Holocaust card.

Even more hypocritical is the fact that Cecil John Rhodes, one of the champions of the British Empire, was even more morally depraved than Hitler himself. According to Rhodes;

“I contend that we British are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence.”

“… despicable specimens of human beings… ?” Did he mean Africans, or the French, or the Chinese, or the Boers? Whatever his depravity; one thing is for sure, Hitler, as we know, at least liked white people. Rhodes on the other hand, hated all those who were not British… including all other whites on the planet. Yet his name and fame live on as if he were a benign being at heart, a hero. We have a Rhodes University in Mandelatopia, and innumerable statues and street names honouring him. A Rhodes scholarship is one of the most prestigious in the country.

Now just imagine a Hitler University, or a Hitler Scholarship. Just imagine if, for example, the half-wit pseudo-intellectual hobby gay-porn writer Eusebius McKaiser had instead received a Hitler Scholarship to study philosophy at Oxford. Maybe then the British visa/customs authorities would have taken a closer look at McKaiser`s past, especially given that little girl’s skeleton in his closet. But then, the victor writes morality, and little lackeys like McKaiser tag along merrily.

Be that as it may; Guedes’s attempt to silence me and, by association, all Red October supporters, back-fired beautifully. For not only has support for this peaceful movement grown exponentially, but the true face of anti-Semitism in Mandelatopia has revealed itself at one of the very tertiary institutions founded by the ever-so-innocent British upper-class, Wits University.

During a recent performance by an Israeli artist at Wits University, members of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) sang the Dubula iJuda (Shoot the Jew) song. Ha-ha… it used to be Shoot the Boer but now the wheel has turned — thanks to the ever-patronizing attitude of the British elite towards the locals of South Africa — the blacks, Coloureds and the Boer.

I wonder why Guedes did not pull the Holocaust card on these people, for they richly deserve it. But no; only the Boers are all aspiring Auschwitz camp guards, eternally. Little does the little MSM half-wit know that the Boers were the first to provide military assistance to the Jews fighting to ground their Heimat after their millennia-long Diaspora… which included their 350-year long expulsion from Britain.

But then; who cares that the Boer never harmed the Jew in South Africa? Who cares that the Boer was the best friend of the state of Israel? Who cares that the Jew became the richest group in South Africa during Apartheid? Who cares that the former Israeli Foreign Minister recently advised all Jews in Mandelatopia to flee to Israel? Who cares that England was the first European nation to require Jews to wear a marking badge? And who cares that the British upper-class physically banned Jews from Britain for a period seven times longer than the entire duration of Apartheid?

Nobody cares. Just blame the Boer. Just blame Dr Dan Roodt, Steve Hofmeyer, Sunette Bridges and all the Red October supporters. Just use the full might of Her Majesty’s MSM newspapers in Mandelatopia to hound them like an oh so sporting fox-hunt back on the sacred soil of the country upon which “God`s sun would never set”. Just keep on slaughtering those elderly Boer farmers like animals… they are all Hitler’s spawn anyway, period!

Who cares about the truth? Nobody in the Mandelatopian MSM, it would seem. Especially not those black journalists now working for Her Majesty.

All is just fine and dandy in the Queen’s backyard. Mandela`s inner-circle blacks have all been co-opted — as has the Afrikaner elite. The “dumb Dutchman” farmer Boers are still feeding the Great Unwashed… who have to slave away in Her Majesty`s gold, diamond and platinum mines in order to eke out a living in a world which Her money-mongers forced them into with Her hut and dog tax, in those glorious old days of the oh so benign British Empire.

Thank goodness the Natives are still not too restless, after even more than a century of bondage. No annus horribilis like in Zimbabwe… goodness me, have some more tea. Simply use MSM minions to silence the likes of Boer Albert Brenner and Bikoist Zolisa Socrates Soji. It’s all too easy…

Who cares that South Africa is a failed state in the making? The Queen’s cup still runneth over. Nothing to see here; just move along, as if nothing is awry — whilst blaming those “Jew-hating” Red October supporters. Just keep that stiff MSM moral upper lip. It is all so easy to keep the foot of the Queen on the neck of these people — Boer and Black. What military metal did a century ago, Anglo-Saxon morality is doing now. And if Her subjects dare rebel against their bondage, just say they are in league with Lucifer/Hitler.

For as long as the Holocaust card still trumps all others, all Good & Evil — past, present and future — remains the sole moral property of the Monarch of England.

[followbutton username=’albertbrenner1′ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

‘BBC made terrible mistake in downplaying immigration’

immigrantsSupport for sweeping curbs on immigration to the UK has reached record levels, a major study of public opinion shows, and the BBC now believes it was wrong to downplay the fear of being swamped.

Almost eight out of 10 Britons now believe that the number of new arrivals should be limited and nearly six in 10 want to see major reductions in the number allowed in.

The numbers advocating a large cut have swelled by more than 40 per cent since before the expansion of the European Union, according to the latest findings from the British Social Attitudes survey, which has been charting public opinion for more than 30 years.

Strikingly, it shows that even among those who believe that immigration has boosted Britain’s economy and enriched its culture, clear majorities now want to see it cut.

There is also a sharp divide along class lines, with an elite of highly paid and highly qualified people twice as likely as workers from middle and lower income families to view immigration in positive terms.

Significantly, attitudes have also hardened even among those from immigrant families themselves with less than half now convinced that it is good for the economy and a quarter doubting the cultural benefits.

The findings came as Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, underlined divisions with the Coalition over immigration insisting that the Government “certainly won’t achieve” its target of getting numbers below 100,000 before the General Election next year.

The Blair government had not spelt out the full impact because of a “fear of racism”.

Nick Robinson, the BBC’s political editor, who presents the programme, said at the weekend that the corporation had made a “terrible mistake” in downplaying public concerns over immigration.

The study of more than 3,000 people found that 77 per cent want immigration reduced, with only four per cent favouring an increase.

David Cameron has pledged to reduce net migration to the “tens of thousands” rather than hundreds of thousands . But figures published in November show it rose markedly ni the last year and now stands at 182,000.

The Treasury was convinced that the economic benefits would outweigh the disadvantages earlier.

“We didn’t spell out in words of one syllable what was happening, partly because of a fear of racism” a member said.

Source: The Telegraph

South Africa’s war of perspectives and the whites’ dwindling fortunes

roodt_dan_wiki

by Dan Roodt dan[at]praag.org

Ever since Britain started getting seriously interested in South Africa after the discovery of diamonds at Kimberley in 1866, there have been at least two conflicting views of the country. Throughout the twentieth century too, South Africa has borne the brunt of the Western ideological revolutions, all the way from colonialism and so-called “white supremacy” to contemporary political correctness. In fact, in the aftermath of the Mandela funeral, one could almost speak of the West’s religious devotion to black Africans who are being endowed with all the capricious amoral innocence of Greek gods.

More precisely, South Africa has been the theatre of an “epistemic war” if I could be excused such a French-sounding term. Apart from the very palpable shifts in demographic, political, economic and military power towards South African blacks, locals are also acutely aware of how the Western world view is no longer the dominant one in South Africa.

A few years ago I spoke to a liberal, anglophone, Jewish woman who lived in Johannesburg but who had some connection to the huge Baragwanath hospital in Soweto, one of the proud achievements of the former Afrikaner-led government. Within the Afrikaner mind, blacks had wanted not real political power but hospitals, schools, universities and jobs which is why they put so much effort into constructing such public institutions. Those institutions are currently being derided as having been entirely useless and a sop, or an insult to blacks, especically to the divine black leaders such as Mandela.

The point is, however, that since the black takeover in the country “they have changed the frame of reference” as my liberal Jewish friend put it. But she wasn’t really speaking in general terms, referring to the broad sweep of history and politics. First and foremost, she was speaking in medical terms. What she was saying, was that with the new order had come a new way of looking at healthcare, at patients and the function of a hospital. In short, the age-old belief systems of Africans have been reasserting themselves and “success” is no longer measured in white or European terms. That is why, when whites decry the deterioration of the state hospital system, as well as standards of professionalism and hygiene there, blacks are quick to retort with the ubiquitous cry of “racism”. After all, blacks are now in charge and they make the rules and set the standards against which a hospital, a school, a university or even a government will be measured.

It is really hard to understand the hullabaloo over President Zuma’s expenditure on what amounts to a private Zulu homestead or kraal at Nkandla. Compared to the billions being frittered away in corruption and unauthorised expenditure, the R240 million (about $20 million) involved seems almost paltry.

It is a truism of historians and philosophers alike, that one’s assessment of a situation – any situation – depends on one’s perspective. Not so long ago I read a paragraph by French political philosopher Alain de Benoist wherein he said:

… I am not fighting for the white race. I am not fighting for France. I am fighting for a world view. I am a philosopher, a theoretician, and I fight to explain my world view. And in this world view, Europe, race, culture, and identity all have roles. They are not excluded. But mainly I am working in defense of a world view. Of course, I am very interested in the future and destiny of my own nation, race, and culture, but I am also interested in the future of every other group.

That all sounds very interesting, but somewhat abstract. To the Afrikaner farmer who is being attacked in his or her home by a group of blacks who had imbibed some form of “medicine” or muti to make them invincible, the quesion is one, not of philosophy but of survival.

At a more mundane or political level, the clash is one of perspectives, even a traditional fight between the left and the right. In South Africa, any statement expressing concern over the future of whites or their well-being is almost always characterised as “right-wing”. Blacks are simply too good-natured and inherently moral ever to commit evil on a significant scale against whites.

This is also the foreign perspective. A Marxist theologian in Germany or a pro-white militant in America would concur that whites “have no place in South Africa, at the southern tip of a black continent”. On the other hand, the Afrikaner perspective is quite the opposite. They feel deeply rooted in South Africa and reject the “black supremacism” of both the foreign whites and the anglicised, superficially Westernised blacks who see them as being “not indigenous” to the country or the continent.

For most of the twentieth century, there has been a perspectival war around the notion of whether Afrikaners or whites really “belong” in South Africa or not. Once, I was shocked to see the former leader of the opposition, Tony Leon, being bluntly told by a BBC announcer on the programme Hard Talk that he was a “white politician” and that South Africa had always been “their country” – meaning that of the blacks – even in former centuries when their numbers were limited to about a million, nomadically drifting through parts of a mostly unpopulated territory twice the size of France.

Buy Dan Roodt's book through Amazon.com
Buy Dan Roodt’s book through Amazon.com

History, as the ruling ANC politicians usually put it in their quasi-communist way, is “a terrain of ideological struggle”. Needless to say, whites have lost that ideological struggle – or the perspectival war over the past – hands down. It is now better to kiss the feet of Mandela’s bronze colosssus than to voice your own opinions or interpretation of history.

Faulkner, that strange author from the American South who uses the “N word” in his novels but depicts his own Southern whites with relentless cynicism, once wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” So there will always be a feud over history, everyone’s history.

But looking at the future of South Africa, or even our present safety in a physical sense, it also depends on one’s perspective. To foreigners and overseas correspondents in South Africa, this is Mandelatopia, a liberal democracy with same-sex marriages and universal suffrage – although cannabis is not yet quite legal. According to this view, which is based on a very superficial “multicultural” reading, “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity”, as it is stated in our incongruous constitution, replete with rancour and affirmative-action clauses.

Many whites, especially women, have a sense of impending doom. The crime, corruption and general sense of lawlessness portend worse to come. Usually, they are not arguing against the dominant ideology with its illusions of democratic bliss. Rather, they intuit some kind of typically African implosion or civil war during which whites will be punished for all the evil they have wrought in their zeal to “uplift” and “civlise” blacks, admittedly ridiculous notions within the present context.

To the pessimist or the more intuitive analyst, South Africa’s future represents the “chronicle of a death foretold”, or many deaths, if you will pardon my paraphrasing the fetching title of Gabriel Márquez’s little novel. It will be Zimbabwe on a much vaster scale, and much bloodier. It is already much bloodier, and ultimately the country will be ethnically cleansed of its Caucasian undesirables, probably to universal acclaim.

Depending on one’s point of view, South Africa is either a “problem that has been happily solved” or a disaster in the making. Looking at the past, especially the nineteenth century when indigenous whites were as weak as they are now and were regularly massacred by blacks, as well as the history of postcolonial Africa, I am not macho enough to cast all caution to the winds and believe in the foreign male fantasy of a South Africa that is some kind of Switzerland or Singapore, clean, tolerant and law-abiding.

There being no common ground in this war of perspectives, no rational debate will take place either. I am inclined to trust those “womanly” truths that are as unspeakable as they are likely to come to pass.

Donate or subscribe to praag!