Beware the Black Borg!

Borg Art  Pic

by Albert Brenner

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

The greatest bogeyman ever conjured up in order to keep rebellious white South Africans in line, comes in the form of an amorphous, same-thinking, same-feeling, black entity. This all-dominant Jungian (archetypal) mass of collective agency was reinvigorated by the half-wit CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), Fransie Cronjé, in a Rapport (read Naspers Pravda) column last weekend.

According to Fransie, whites in Mandelatopia must stop rebelling against their de facto enslavement forthwith, lest blacks destroy them utterly in a “second revolution”. In short – in line with the finest Stockholm Syndrome diagnosis – Fransie is screaming; “Keep quiet, otherwise they will kill us!”.

Now the thing is just whether the little bald pseudo-intellectual shyster is actually dim-witted or just plain ignorant. For he neither knows or represents white South Africans, nor does he know or represent black South Africans. Yet he presumes to do both, in public!

The simple fact is that this amorphous collective black entity that he so dreads, simply does not exist. It is simply another bogeyman created by the MSM and Hollywood – an entity akin to the Borg in the science-fiction series Star Trek. The former fictional being – written in the singular because they all share the same consciousness, and conscience – is famous for their (dreaded) command; “This is the Borg. We`ll assimilate you now. Resistance is futile”!

All fiction, all guano… in the real world. Never in recorded history has there been absolute hegemony among Africans – and, especially not in South Africa. The various black groupings – mostly tribal, in nature – were at each others throat before Apartheid, during Apartheid, and even now… after Apartheid.

To even think that all blacks share the exact same thoughts, feelings, moral sentiments, et cetera, – just because they share the same skin colour – is not only incredibly naive, it is also downright patronising and racist. In short; there is no absolute hegemony among the other races; so why should blacks be different in this regard?!

It therefore beggars belief when even (self-appointed) black intellectuals, like the awfully trite Hegel-emulating “Bikoist”, Andile Mngxitama, throw tantrums when blacks – wherever they may find themselves in space and time – do not act as “one” (see picture below).

andilem

Be that as it may; the “Black Borg” myth is only topped by its inverse, the myth of the Noble Savage. The latter, a neo-Romantic Rousseauian-regurgitating MSM/Hollywood creation, sees all blacks as inherently cherubic beings who only want the best for humanity, the universe… and the environment, of course. All little Mandela`s in heart, soul and suffering… all “one” in their eternal victimhood at the hands of the White Devil.

It is, frankly, beyond belief that even blacks themselves ascribe to this sickening denigration of their very being. I mean honestly, how can they acquiesce to a perception that only allows them collective agency, and not individual agency? But then, hey; they have been baby-sat for so long by bleeding-heart White Guilt-driven liberals that they, blacks, have left it up to others, like little lentil Fransie, to speak on their behalf.

Whatever the moral weather on that one; it is a fact that blacks have never, and will never, act as “one”. And the threat by the SAIRR vegetable, Fransie, that disillusioned (`”bitter”) whites will cause the Black Borg to suddenly appear from the Delta-quadrant wormhole just because they, the whites, are justifiably recalcitrant, is equally preposterous. Nothing, in the context of Mandelatopia, illustrates this more succinctly than the transition period to black rule in the early 90s.

During this time, the blacks did not rise up as “one” to take revenge on their Tutu-myth Holocaust oppressors, the whites. On the contrary; once the blacks realised that FW (fuck-wit) De Klerk was just going to hand over the whole caboodle, they went straight for each other’s throats…to get at the loot first.

Near-civil war circumstances prevailed as the Zulus of Buthulezi’s IFP fought the (mostly Xhosa) ANC of Mandela. More than 16 000 blacks died during that period. Hardly any whites were harmed, except for the cowardly APLA attacks on the St George’s Pub and the Roseview Church.

In her brilliant bookThe People’s War, Anthea Jeffery painstakingly researched the true facts behind the so-called “liberation struggle”. Her findings illustrate, beyond any doubt, how blacks used fellow blacks as a mere means to an end. It is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of blacks in South Africa were coerced, by threat of physical violence, to partake in Joe Slovo’s callous revolution.

  • `”the ANC had little compunction about attacking black civilians, including its own supporters, for the formula for people’s war draws no distinction between combatants and others and regards all civilians (irrespective of their political affiliation) as expendable in conflict;
  • the ANC had a motive to unleash violence, for it wanted to create enough mayhem and unrest either to spark an insurrection or to weaken its opponents to the point where it could triumph in negotiations;
  • the ANC had the means to unleash violence, for the peace process allowed it to bring back into South Africa some 13 000 armed and trained combatants whom it then refused to disarm or disband; and
  • the ANC was the only organisation to draw benefit from the 15 000 political killings that took place in the early 1990s (after all major apartheid laws had been repealed), for it used these to;
  1. stigmatise De Klerk and the IFP,
  2. stampede negotiators into giving it what Joe Slovo called ‘a famous victory’ in negotiations, and
  3. put great pressure on the first all-race election, while making it unthinkable for anyone to demand a re-run of the deeply flawed April 1994 poll in which it was accorded (no accurate count being possible) some 63% of the vote.” (source)

The above-quoted just illustrates, once more, that Fransie is as dumb as mud… especially given the fact that Dr Jeffery is his chief researcher at the SAIRR!

Hell, one does not even need to read a single book to understand that blacks are not “one”. Just look at the dismal moral state of all post-colonial sub-Saharan countries. The chief “liberator” and his inner circle have always enriched themselves shamelessly, at the expense of their own people.

In Mandelatopia, Mandela, like his cronies Sexwale, Zuma, Ramaphosa, et cetera, are drowning in money, while the vast majority of their fellow blacks are suffering under extreme poverty. It suffices to say that they, the former, couldn’t`t give a continental damn. There is no “oneness”, no ubuntu, no Noble Savage and no Black Borg. Period!

That a “second revolution” will take place in Mandelatopia is a fact. But it will not be because whites are standing up for their rights. It will be because blacks will revolt against their own leaders because of the broken promises of the past 20 years of typically-African mis-governing. That whites will bear the brunt of the coming (inevitable) revolution is obvious, because they (still) have those things that the black leaders promised their black sheeple, but failed to deliver… as always.

It is thus abundantly clear that the motive behind Fransie`s reinvigoration of the Black Borg myth is everything but noble, in the sense of heroically”saving” the enslaved backsides of whites in Mandelatopia.

For you see, for Fransie – as one of the main Afrikaner H-G men in Mandelatopia – it is all about keeping his ill-earned privileges and prestige. Had the playing-field with his white peers been level, half-wits like Fransie, Piet Croucamp, JP Landman, Tim du Plessis, Pierre de Vos, etc. would never have reached the level they have attained now.

But then; Fransie`s DNA is coward-based. His survival instincts and skills were honed in his dad’s nutsack… where he used to cower in the most remote corner because he was the lesser of 60 million. Now he is still cowering, in front of 60 million blacks. But that is his saving grace, his claim to fame. For unlike the one million whites who were forced to emigrate in order to seek employment, Fransie is in league with the new Master of South Africa. He is a made-man!

So the next time Fransie screams at you, as a white South African, to shut the fcuk up and continue paying unquestioningly for the `”sins of your forefathers”, just think of the picture below.

frans

Buthelezi mistaken for Ray Charles at Thatcher’s funeral

Risen from the dead? Buthelezi as Ray Charles

Inkatha Freedom Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi was mistaken for the late singer Ray Charles at former Britain prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in Britain, it was reported on Thursday.

While the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, gave his sermon, cameras suddenly turned to “a dapper-looking Ray Charles”, The Times newspaper reported.

Lady Thatcher died of stroke last week, aged 87, having governed Britain between 1979 and 1990.

Buthelezi was among the dignitaries who bade farewell to the “Iron Lady”.

Confused viewers took to the social media network Twitter about “Ray Charles” attending the funeral. Ray Charles passed away in 2004.

@Jlloydbutler: “Why are Netanyahu and Ray Charles sitting next to each other?”

@TheShottstepper: “Ray Charles?”

@bumface69: “Ray Charles at #thatcherfuneral; WTMF?”

@PaulStafford12: “Good of Ray Charles to show up all the same. What’d I say?” – Sapa

Inkatha Freedom Party protests against compulsory labelling of Israeli products in South Africa

by Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi

The Inkatha Freedom Party joins this march with a clear and unambiguous message. We oppose our Government taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly in an atmosphere of escalating tension that threatens to boil over into violence.

The IFP supports the two-state solution. We believe that both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist as sovereign states. We advocate a negotiated settlement and are vehemently opposed to violence, regardless of its origin.

We therefore view as gravely serious the public statement by the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces on 20 May 2012, that the cause of his nation is, and I quote, “the full annihilation of Israel”. We also reject the inciting statement of the Supreme Leader of Islamic Revolution, that, and I quote, “The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumour that should be cut and will be cut.”

The IFP is cognisant of the heated nature of the debate even within our own country, where opposition to Israel is gathering pace and exposure.

We note that the University of KwaZulu Natal bowed to pressure to retract an invitation to the Ambassador of Israel to address students. We note Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s public call for a boycott against Israel. We note that when Members of Parliament were invited to the second Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism, not one responded. We also note that Government was barely represented at the Israeli Embassy’s celebration of the 64th anniversary of Israeli independence.

South Africa has official diplomatic ties with Israel and recognizes its sovereignty. Yet our Government has maintained an unstated position with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has made no effort to conceal the fact that it supports the Palestinian cause. One seldom hears an unbiased statement in Parliament. Our Government has taken sides.

Against this background, the IFP opposes the move by the Department of Trade and Industry to require traders in South Africa to label products from the West Bank or Gaza as products from “Occupied Palestinian Territory”. There are no legal bases in our law or in international law to support this requirement.

The IFP believes this is a provocation aimed at promoting a consumer boycott.

This action on the part of the Department of Trade and Industry is not in the interests of South Africans. It reflects the political interest of the ANC which continues to utilise the State to pay off its political debts, confusing the national interests of South Africa with the private interests of the ANC.

Imposing this labelling requirement is detrimental to our national interests, to our trade relations, our economic growth and employment generation.

We remind our Government that consumer boycotts were the precursor to the persecution of Jews in Germany, which ended in the holocaust. Indeed, soon after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor in 1933, Nazi storm-troopers began posting signs on storefronts warning, “Kauft nicht bei Juden!”, “Don’t buy from Jews!”

Let us therefore remain vigilant against the escalation of tensions. The South African Government has a moral responsibility to support peace, non-discrimination and nonviolent negotiation wherever these are threatened.

The IFP recognizes that there is pain on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is tragedy on both sides and a story to be told from many different perspectives. Suffering is never something we can turn a blind eye to. We must support a peaceful outcome to this historic conflict to ensure that neither side sustains a loss of dignity or basic humanity.

We seek to stem the flow of blood and promote a different path forward that embraces compromise as well as the importance of accommodating different views. We seek to create peace.

By virtue of our long struggle for freedom, South Africa should relate to the heart’s cry of Israel. We sought peace and freedom for our own country.

How can we seek anything different for Israel?

We cannot accept the portrayal of the Israeli situation as an apartheid situation. I have been a victim of that kind of propaganda and know the damage it can cause. Indeed, in 1985, Prime Minister Shimon Peres told me, “We are brothers in suffering”.

Let me make the IFP’s message clear: We believe in the two state solution.

By engaging this march, we are not taking sides, but are telling South Africa’s Government in no uncertain terms that taking a stand against Israel is irresponsible, damaging and contrary to our country’s stated principles.

We call on the Minister of Trade and Industry to desist from imposing the new labelling requirements, as this is neither in South Africa’s national interests nor in the interests of Israel.