British concentration camps

Britten’s indifference

One very positive side-effect of the Red October protest was that it aired the stale house of the MSM in Mandelatopia. This breath of fresh air made the usual suspects, and a few newbies, cough convulsively, as expected.

The loudest convulsion was a coarse phlegm-ejecting piece by the foul-mouthed Irish colonial reject Chris McEvoy. It is not worth reading. The second raffish algospasm was by Georgina Guedes. She tried, via an attempt at irony, to persuade her readers that it was oh so bleeding-heart symbolic of the freedom of democratic expression in Mandelatopia seeing a “dignified” black policeman escorting and “protecting” the white Red October marchers. She somehow conveniently forgot that the “dignified” policeman’s colleagues killed another peaceful protester, Mark Tatane, not so long ago – not even to speak of the Marikana massacre, the 1000-plus deaths per year in police custody since 1994, or the fact that both the ex-bosses of the “dignified” policeman are criminals.

The third bawdy paroxysm came from Lady Nicky Falkof, fresh from her 14-year sabbatical at the feet of Her Majesty the Queen of England. Her strident call for “progressive language” (e.g. rights, minorities, diversity, etc.) to remain the sole moral property of those who run Manor Mail & Guardian – at the behest of the Queen and her moneymongers – is only out-cramped by her near-autistic fixation with proper syntax and correct spelling. I’ll deal with Miss Commonwealth Spelling Bee 2013 in my next column.

The most interesting throe was thrown by the ever-so-swanky MSM darling, Sarah Britten. Her piece, albeit well-argued and neatly packaged, was pure sentiment. And it was precisely this appeal to emotion which prompted me to, once more, put my theory about white liberal irrationality to the test.

It only took six tweets of 140 letters/characters each to confirm said theory.This was how it was done. I simply asked her if she supported black lesbians protesting against “corrective” rape. She answered in the affirmative, of course. Then I pointed out that rape affects all women, not just black lesbians. Meaning that black lesbians form a sub-group protesting that which affects them specifically namely “corrective” rape. But, as mentioned before, rape affects all women, not just black lesbians.

From this it follows that it is logically and, even more importantly, morally inconsistent to laud one sub-group (black lesbians, in this case) for their “discriminatory” form of protest – i.e.they only protest against corrective rape, and not all rape – whilst demonising another (in this case, Red October whites) by accusing them of partaking in a “discriminatory” form of protest.. based on the fact that crime affects all, not just whites. Ergo, the rationale underpinning the protest by whites against their slaughter at the hands of blacks is no different to that of black lesbians protesting against corrective rape. Yet, the former is demonised while the latter is lauded and applauded by Britten and her MSM ilk.

It suffices to say that that which is good for the black lesbian goose is not good for the Red October white gander. This means that people like Britten discriminate on the basis of race – in terms of the above-mentioned biased sentiments expressed publicly. Given the above context, and what we know from all the standard definitions of racism, this would make Britten a racist.

Yet I doubt whether Britten could be classified as a racist, for she loves all those whites and blacks, et cetera, who agree with her. Meaning that her irrationality must be founded on something other than race-based zealotry. Or is it?

Britten is part and parcel of the upper-class British establishment in Mandelatopia. This group is the richest and (still) most influential collective in the country. They are just another appendage of her Majesty the Queen of England. And, as we know, England is the fons et origo of Pax Britannica. This (former) global empire was built by men like Cecil John Rhodes… whose moral motivations can best be summed up by the following quote; “

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…

At first glance the above quote seems like the paragon of racism. Not even Verwoerd ever said anything remotely similar. But I think it goes deeper than that. Is it “hate”? I mean, you really need to dislike others quite a lot to refer to them as “despicable specimens of human beings”. In short: are upper-class Brits like Britten hateful racists, like their forebearers, like Rhodes?

I think not. They are simply indifferent to all others, other than themselves. If dislike were an adjective, hate would be its comparative… and indifference its superlative. I mean it is beyond hate to, for example, kill 33 000 women and children in concentration camps and coldly go about carrying out a scorched-earth policy which reduced a unique nation to the poorest white nation on the planet, just for the sake of gold and diamonds. Similarly, it is beyond hate to try and turn the whole population of one of the oldest civilisations on the planet, the Chinese, into opium drug addicts… simply because your love of/for tea caused a huge trade deficit at the time.

It is a cardinal mistake to think that this indifference has, somehow, mysteriously vacated the non-soul of the British upper-class. Just think about the following fact: England is the only country in the Western world which (still) has such a huge divide between the upper and middle class. This divide is rigorously enforced, by complete indifference to the wishes and aspirations of the British middle and lower classes.

And this indifference is still very much present in modern South Africa. Just listen to Nobel Prize winner Nadine Gordimer – a representative of the British elite in this country:

Afrikaner women are lower than rats, closer related to plants, just fit enough to be raped in an act of genus preservation.

Lovely lady, ain’t she? She may have said “hate”, but it is clear from the magnitude of her hate that it is indifference. They only disguise their indifference as hate, so as to appear as if they actually give a continental toss… as if they actually still have one shred of humanity left.

Meaning that the imperial indifference that was once projected (and protected) by the military might of the old British Empire has simply morphed into an imperial indifference enforced by morality. In short; what the sword did for Rhodes, neo-liberalism (à la Pax Brittanica) is now doing for Gordimer, Britten and their useful idiots like Helen Zille, boy-man Fransie Cronje, Eusebius McKaiser, Piet Croucamp, Djonitin Jansen, Anton van Niekerk, Tim du Plessis, Max du Preez, Leopold Scholtz, Willie Esterhuyse, FW de Klerk and ilk.

Therefore never think that they actually care. They feel zilch for other nations, other peoples, cultures, traditions and their moral idiosyncrasies. They are completely indifferent to the plight of all others, especially poor blacks and the white farmers in this country.

The quickest way to rid this warm country of these cold bastards would be to unleash Raka in the form of a Mugabe-Malema on them. But that would lead to wanton slaughter; something the Afrikaner, unlike the British upper-class, has not got the stomach for, unfortunately. The Afrikaner hates wanton slaughter… that is why they organized the Red October protest.

The most humane way to ship their pitiless afters back to their crappy little mud-island with its Islam(ic) weather (partly Sunni, mostly Shiite) would therefore be to treat them with the exact same indifference they display towards all and sundry on the planet. Now that would be cricket, wouldn`t it, Sarah?

Deconstructing David Smith on Oscar Pistorius

The British Guardian is a notoriously anti-South African and more particularly anti-Afrikaans newspaper. As a purveyor of quasi-leftwing propaganda it is probably only rivalled by the former Soviet rag Pravda (‘The Truth’) which nowadays no longer enthuses about the class struggle and violent revolution. Unlike The Guardian.

The Oscar Pistorius incident is a kind of fait divers that would have gone unnoticed were he not a Paralympian athlete. However, for The Guardian’s Africa correspondent, David Smith, the murder is pregnant with meaning, revealing “deep-rooted attitudes to women, race and guns”. (See Oscar Pistorius: South Africa prepares for its own OJ-style trial of the century.)

A murder between two white people, which is ostensibly some kind of crime passionel, therefore has a deeper social meaning which the brainy Brecht-quoting Brit will reveal to us. Unfortunately for David Smith, his sensationalistic article, half-reportage, half-oped piece – but full-blooded propaganda – does not live up to its pop-psychological pretensions.

Smith, like his namesake in the Johannesburg Star, Janet Smith, who equally specialises in stereotypes about South Africa and Afrikaners, is confident that his British readers share those same idée reçues, reinforced by years of one-sided caricatures sent out from South Africa. Asserting racism in the Pistorius case, is like invoking a mediaeval theory of witches, referring to succubi that we know “exist out there somewhere”.

The notion that there is any similarity between the case of O.J. Simpson and Pistorius is equally spurious. In Simpson’s case there was a clear racial element, which eventually played itself out in the differential white and black perceptions of Simpson’s guilt. Simpson, a black man, had been accused of murdering his white wife. There is more of a resemblance to the recent allegations of abuse suffered by Mrs. Judy Sexwale at the hands of her cabinet minister husband than to the Pistorius case.

Yet probably accusations of black husbands beating up their white wives is not news to David Smith and The Guardian. It does not fit their edenic view of Africans as the innocent victims of white racism.

Smith and The Guardian, as far as I know, have never reported on farm murders or the many high-profile cases of white children, some even babies or toddlers, killed in cold blood by young black males in South Africa. Willemien Potgieter, Danielle Esterhuizen and Alyssa Botha come to mind. News from South Africa is carefully filtered to incite international animus against local whites, Afrikaners especially.

Obviously, David Smith and other foreign correspondents are acting in bad faith. Their writing flies in the face of journalistic ethics, credibility or even basic decency. In more than one sense, they are “framing” us, portraying us as ruthless killers and “racists” while we are the real victims of the sadistic violence raging in South Africa.

I would go even further and suggest that the British Left, that motley collection of Anglican radical clerics, cultural Marxists and whatever “militant tendency” remains in the Labour Party, are not happy with the slow pace of the killing in South Africa. The sadism, although vicious and bloodcurdling as when elderly ladies are tortured with hot irons, made to drink boiling water, gang-raped or hacked to pieces, does not happen on a scale large enough to satisfy the heirs of Kitchener or Roberts’s genocidal instincts.

David Smith, for example, laments the fact that there are “160 000 inmates who endure incarceration in Africa’s most overcrowded prison system”. We know that only 8% of murder cases ever result in a conviction in this country. The inefficiencies of our “transformed” criminal justice system, as well as corruption, see to that. Recently we learned that one third of all “South African” men had raped a woman on some occasion. Now, if all the murderers, the rapists and the robbers could have been apprehended and punished, there would no doubt have been a million “inmates enduring incarceration” in South Africa, almost elevating us to American levels of imprisonment.

However, even the fact that 8% of our murderers are in jail is too much too bear for British sadists who believe that these admirably passionate animals, the murderers and rapists, should be allowed to roam free within the paradise of cruelty that is South Africa.

Since the early nineteenth century, Britain has followed a remarkably consistent policy of ethnocide and even genocide towards the indigenous whites and Afrikaners of this country. I get the sense in David Smith’s ramblings about gun culture and white racism, that the process of decay and dissolution is not taking place fast enough. The hundreds of thousands of our people who are fleeing to Australia, New Zealand and other countries as a result of the violence, to be assimilated there into the Anglo-Saxon population, are not sufficient to ensure our immediate and sudden demise. More horror, more sadism is needed.

Hence Smith and all the others who are inciting black hatred against us, hoping for some sort of “final solution”. Smith’s message is clear: every Afrikaner male is, like Oscar Pistorius, a woman killer, a “gun freak” who needs to be eliminated in some or other way. Gated communities and other ways of protecting oneself from the paradise of cruelty brought about by British political intervention in South Africa, “arguably inflame the divide between the haves and the have-nots”, as Smith puts it. His platitudes tumble like clothes in a tumble dryer, but we must not miss the underlying logic that protecting oneself from violence is morally wrong. Within a sadistic universe the victim, once chosen by the master, has no right to resist being abused or slaughtered.

When the British camp commandant barks, we should all accept our fate unreservedly. Britain is an island state with an immense capacity for ethnocentrism, whether directed against Afrikaners, Russians, the French or the Germans. I recently re-read Kurt Vonnegut’s cult novel from the late sixties, Slaughterhouse Five, set against the backdrop of the Dresden bombing. British contempt for the Other inspired not only the Boer concentration camps and the Dresden bombing, but also the series of colonial killings in Africa and India. More recently, British soldiers in Irak have been accused of committing atrocities against the civilian population there. Terms used by these paragons of antiracism for Iraqis include: “stinking Arabs”, “yip-yaps”, towel-heads”, “flip-flops”, and “crusties.” (See The British Military in Iraq : A Legacy of War Crimes and Atrocities.)

To Britain and its journalists, South Africa is just a zoo or game park where they may gawk at the next “kill”, naturally siding with the predators, those magnificent creatures.

Not all South African blacks are amenable to the antiwhite hate being broadcast from London by the likes of David Smith and his local emulators. A decade or two ago Muff Anderson of the Johannesburg Sunday Times smuggled AK-47s from London in the boot of her car, dishing them out to any young warlord feeling like a bout of killing. She was widely lauded for this. Gun-smuggling is an interesting sideline to journalism as one creates the news one writes about.

On the other hand, the affable Zulu, President Jacob Zuma, has said some sympathetic things about Afrikaners and acknowledged our right to exist in South Africa. He is certainly for a return to law and order, even while South Africa is being destabilised by barely disguised ethnic and racial propaganda from Britain and those local media who still fawn at the feet of the colonial power.

The only South African politician currently finding favour in British eyes, is Mrs. Helen Zille, leader of the DA and the daughter of German immigrants who is trying her best to pass for English. On the subject of South Africa’s rape epidemic, when the Rape Crisis Centre in Cape Town appealed to Zille for funding, she callously replied: “Get in line – there are thousands of NGOs desperate for funding, all equally needy.” A few weeks later she was in front of the cameras protesting against the gang-rape and murder of the coloured girl of 15, Anene Booysen. Even if Zille’s accent is not quite pukka yet, at least she has mastered British hypocrisy.

Frankly, Oscar Pistorius holds little interest for me. Let him have his soap opera in court. However, we should refuse to let him be portrayed as some kind of archetypal white male or Afrikaner “everyman”, which he is not. I have never even heard him speak Afrikaans in public. Apart from his surname, you could really mistake him for an Englishman. Or a journalist. They have a taste for guns too, especially AK-47s. Just ask Muff Anderson.

The British were terrorists

British_Terrorism2 — British Terrorism Against Boer Civilians, cover of Dr. Elma Ross's book

by Dr Elma Ross, Wynberg, Cape Town

The letter by Pauline Morris, Anglo-Boer war myth, refers.

It is indeed necessary to debate issues concerning the concentration camps of the Anglo-Boer War.

My grandparents were in the Bethulie and Aliwal North camps as children, and they could never shake off the horror that they experienced. They went from healthy homes with everything they needed to situations of starvation and extreme thirst (children were sometimes deprived of water for a full day).

Their suffering motivated me to translate the stories of some of the survivors of those camps. I also point out how the children experienced the symptoms due to lack of food when they would slowly starve to death. I called the book British Terrorism against Boer Civilians, because the actions of the British soldiers meet the criteria for terrorism.

[ad 1]

The symptoms of fear and starvation are discussed, as well as the psyche of the soldiers that would, for example, force children to sleep in the mud or deny women the use of toilets. Years spent in the Middle East enabled me to show the difference between the actions of the US in building up Middle East societies after the discovery of oil, versus the ways in which Britain destroyed the Boer republics by means of the concentration camps.

The movie, Die Wonderwerker, points out that some people “were never the same again”; that some parents were too traumatised to look after their children, and had to farm them out to strangers. With more research in epigenetics, possible damage to future generations should also be considered. I would suggest descendants of survivors of those camps be consulted, before it is too late.

It is indeed time to discuss the damage the camps did to the psyche of the Boer people. But, I would urge Ms Morris to visit the camps, and to talk to us — not to strangers who had no family in those camps.

Boer women and children died ‘due to backwardness’

LizzieVanZyl600 — The emaciated Lizzie van Zyl. She and other children died in British concentrations camps due to 'Boer backwardness', claims UCT academic

A letter writer in Business Day, as well as an academic at the University of Cape Town, Elizabeth van Heyningen, claim that Boer women and children died in British concentration camps during the Anglo-Boer war because they were “backward” and did not know about soap and water.

Van Heyningen implies that it was really a “myth” that Afrikaners were “civilised Europeans… and not dirty African peasants”.

In her reply yesterday to a previous letter by Dr. Dan Roodt of PRAAG, Pauline Morris of Johannesburg writes:

I REFER to Dan Roodt’s Apartheid revisionism no threat (Letters, September 25). Mr Roodt must realise that historical revisionism applies to all history.

Let’s take the Anglo-Boer War which it seems is the bedrock of Afrikaner identity. A focus feeding this identity is the “genocide” of women and children in the refugee or concentration camps by the British.

I have been reading and interpreting letters that have recently been uncovered in a family archive in Sweden. One of the writers was a medical doctor who served in an ambulance on the side of the Boers at the Ladysmith front, and then in their retreat to the Biggarsberg after the British relieved the siege of Ladysmith.

The opinions expressed by this doctor support the recent research finding on these camps by historian Elizabeth van Heyningen that the “atrocities” in these camps were exaggerated into mythical proportions to support Afrikaner nationalism in the 1920s and 1930s.

The reality as I understand it is that there were many cultural and socioeconomic factors that exacerbated the deaths in the camps. Many of those in the camps were very poor bywoners, and many were indigent. Also, not surprisingly the “modern” medicine administered at the time by the British was unfamiliar to the Boer population who had been living in isolation for so many years.

I agree that we “need to find our own truth, commensurate with our own reality.” This means opening up a critical debate on the realities of the Boer War concentration camps. I take it this will pose no threat to yourself and other Afrikaners.

In an article published in the journal Historia 55,2, November 2010, pp 12-33, Elizabeth van Heyningen, a professor of history at the University of Cape Town, suggests that it was really a “myth” that Afrikaners were “civilised Europeans… and not dirty African peasants”.

She quotes from the British “Blue Books” which blamed the Boers themselves for dying of hunger and disease in the camps:

“The high death rate among the children, I would like to emphasise again, is in no way due to want of care or dereliction of duty on the part of those responsible for this camp. It is, in my opinion, due to the people themselves; to their dirty habits both as regards their own personal cleanliness and the cleanliness of their children and their surroundings; to their prejudices; their ignorance; and their distrust of others, even their own nationality, when their advice runs counter to their own preconceived and antiquated ideas. This is specially noted in connection with their treatment of the sick, to their rooted objection to soap and water, and to hospitals.”

According to Van Heyningen, the mortality rate in the camps, where 34 000 women and mostly children died, was not much higher than in Afrikaner towns in the Cape before the “civilised” British introduced public health reforms in the 1880s:

“Lack of sanitation was not confined to the camps. The Boer laagers, when they remained stationery for any length of time, were filthy. A number of commentators remarked on the insanitary state of the laagers besieging Mafeking. Flies were a major problem because the offal of slaughtered animals was never cleared away. The interiors of the wagons and tents were black with the “little devils” and flies flew into the mouths of the burghers as they struggled to eat. The stench from the latrines, built too close to the laager, was unbearable, the Rev Abraham Stafleu complained. Paardeberg and Modderspruit, too, were gripped by disease and foreign doctors attached to the Boer forces, particularly, were critical of the lack of hygiene in the Boer laagers.

“Lack of sanitation was certainly not unique to the Boer republics. The camps have been seen too much in isolation, as sui generis, a unique experience. In the Cape Colony, as public health reforms were introduced by modernising doctors from the 1880s, and district surgeons’ reports and statistics were published, it became clear that many country towns lacked effective sanitation and mortality rates, especially those of children, were very high indeed.”

Elizabeth van Heyningen argues that the vast majority of the camp inmates were lower-class bywoners or “white trash” who knew nothing about basic hygiene and therefore died of their own accord. She then goes on to explain how Afrikaner nationalists have misrepresented the British concentration camps that were really an attempt at “poverty relief” for Afrikaners instead of the military exercise against the Boer civilian population that they were. She also glosses over the burning down of most of Northern South Africa by the British sodiers, leaving the civilian population without food, to be herded into camps where many were again denied food or placed on below-subsistence rations.

Van Heyningen equally neglects to mention the many reports of poisoning by the camp commanders and nursing staff of inmates under the pretext of administering “medicine”.

Writing in Die Burger on 10 July 2010, journalist and historian Marthinus van Bart offered the following criticism of Van Heyningen’s jingoist apology for the British concentration camps:

“Other experts have emphasised that the main reasons for the deaths were malnutrition and lack of food, exposure, polluted food and water, a dearth of soap and other cleaning aids, open furrow toilets and the bucket system, the serious overpopulation of the camps, immunity deficiency, little or no fuel to boil water or do cooking, the denial of the disaster and inaction to set things right after the British opposition had demanded it in parliament in London.”

In the 2001 documentary Scorched Earth “it was indicated that the women and children were civilians against whom war was literally conducted. Their farms (more than 30 000) and furniture were burnt down, food and livestock were destroyed, they were molested and raped, and they were violently herded into the camps.

[ad 1]

“Up to 18 people were divided into a single bell-shaped tent – mostly old, worn-down army tents giving no protection against the scorching Karoo sun, rain and wind storms, bouts of hail and snow. Diseases like pneumonia were widespread due to exposure to the elements, which was worsened by malnutritiion and deficient medication.

“The toilet facilities were one bucket for every 300 people. In one camp there were only 28 bucket toilets for 4 600 inmates. The toilet holes of many camps were 1 km from the tents.

“Most people suffered from diarrhea due to the polluted water and bad meat. Water was limited to one bucket per family per day, in other cases to one small kettle of water per day – not even a cup of water per person per day.

“There was mostly no water for washing, either their bodies or clothes and bedlinen. The elderly and children who fell into the toilet furrows could not be properly washed afterwards.

“In addition families of burghers in the field were placed on half rations, a diabolical plan to slowly but surely exterminate these inmates. That was one of the notorious Methods of Barbarism to which historian S.B. Spies refers in his book.

“There were approximately 235 000 camp inmates and 240 000 soldiers that had to be fed by the British army. The deficient infrastructure made a disaster inevitable.”