Allister Sparks is one of those raving left-liberal journalists for whom nothing in South Africa will ever detract from the utopia of being ruled by the ANC and South African Communist Party. Together with his protégé, Helen Zille, current leader of South Africa’s ineffectual liberal opposition, he tirelessly calumnied Afrikaners until the hapless Mr. FW de Klerk finally capitulated to Communist Party chief Joe Slovo and his team in the early 1990s.
In 1987 Sparks made an even more sinister remark to one of his colleagues on a flight from Dakar to Johannesburg, overheard by Afrikaans journalist Chris Louw. He said: “It would have been better for South Africa if Britain had left all the Afrikaner women and children to die in the concentration camps in 1902.” It certainly evinces an extraordinary degree of anti-Afrikaans animus.
The irony is that Sparks, after being fired as a columnist from his beloved Independent Group of newspapers, has now been appointed as a columnist for the Naspers group where his cultural-marxist musings will be published in… Afrikaans. Naspers seems to have a policy now that Afrikaner columnists should no longer be allowed to publish in their media as they have not embraced the new ideology as wholeheartedly as they should. Only the extremist kind of Afrikaner “askari”, such as Mad Max du Preez, will be allowed to write in the Naspers media, with the rest of us condemned to Soviet-style censorship, at least in print.
Sparks himself is somewhat amazed that the very people whom he would like to see disappear from South Africa, preferably genocided by Britain or English-speaking blacks, should accord him the courtesy of preaching to them from the hallowed pages of South Africa’s largest media group. To Sparks and many others, Afrikaans remains “the language of apartheid”, which heightens the irony. I suppose Beeld editor Adriaan Basson will have a bottle of Dettol disinfectant handy to sprinkle over Sparks’s freshly translated copy.
Writing in English recently, Allister Sparks tried to explain his strange new bedfellows by saying:
There must surely be something symbolic about a former editor of the Rand Daily Mail becoming a columnist for newspapers of Naspers (formerly Nasionale Pers), especially Die Burger, a paper so intimately associated with its first editor, DF Malan, the founding father of apartheid SA.
For that is where this, my first column of 2015, will be appearing, as well as in its sister papers, Beeld and The Witness of Pietermaritzburg.
For those who do not know, Nasionale Pers and Die Burger alone bore the torch for the Gesuiwerde Nasionale Party in the 1930s under the legendary Dr. Geyer and the cartoonist D.C. Boonzaier. Not only did the hated “Nats” capitulate, but they have also embraced the ideology of their arch-enemies, the Sappe, that Afrikaners should dissolve into a common South Africanism and accept reverse discrimination and wall-to-wall English under black rule.
No less extraordinary is the fact that I, as an Afrikaner, am censored by the same Naspers who would not even publish a letter from me, let alone a column, probably because I am still not able to acquiesce in Sap-ism, even though I quite like Jan Smuts’s philosophy of holism. The editor of Beeld, Adriaan Basson, has even blocked me on Twitter!
Buy Dan Roodt’s book on this site
According to Allister Sparks, “the differences of the past were profound and passionate, but now all that is over, having ended where the demographics of our country always indicated it was bound to end”. I a way then, “demographics” (the black population growth over the last century) has made the much-desired Afrikaner genocide superfluous, although in various ways we are experiencing extreme violence and ethnic killings in South Africa.
However, I came across another intriguing statement by Mr. Sparks, quoted by Hermann Giliomee in his volume on Afrikaner history, The Afrikaners. In that quotation from The Mind of South Africa, Sparks claims that Afrikaners or white South Africans in general represent “the simplest and most backward fragment of Western civilization in modern times”.
I am quite prepared to accept that we are backward, given the fact that we have so little to show for our presence numbering 360 years on this continent, in terms of assets or influence. A few volumes of poetry, perhaps, and a farm novel or two before our authors became politically correct. But that’s it.
On the other hand, what is the cause of this backwardness? one is tempted to ask. Is it nature or nurture? Does it have something to do with our protracted exposure to the African sun that cooked our brains or is it more hereditary, genetic in origin? Or maybe our Calvinism, which also blighted countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland. Just look at how small those countries are: like us, the Dutch and the Swiss are real territorial losers!
Or is Mr. Sparks harking back to some late nineteenth-century British Herrenvolk idea, as formulated here and there by Rhodes and Milner? Were our forebears, the Dutch, the Germans and the French, simply not up to the high standards of the majestic island kingdom, Great Britain? It may sound sarcastic, but I am honestly just curious as to what – according to Mr. Sparks – the source of our South African backwardness could be.
It has become part and parcel in South Africa today for various opinion makers, entertainers and activists to take to political hectoring and vilifying of their fellow entertainers.
Since last week, various commentators and activists have come out strongly against Afrikaans singer and activist Steve Hofmeyr, who has been a thorn in their side for a while now for a variety of reasons.
Firstly he took a clear stance in favour of his people, stating how they are being killed off in droves while the major news sources, such as Naspers and its sister network Netwerk24 prefer to turn a blind eye.
After that he threatened to include the incendiary “K-“ word in one of his songs, followed by him singing “Die Stem”, the original South African anthem, which by the way nowhere refers to white supremacy or black inferiority at all, but pays homage to the natural splendour of South Africa.
Last but not least, he tweeted that black people themselves were behind the shaping of apartheid, and that was the last straw.
Hofmeyr has transgressed every petty taboo that the communist-based ANC has laid down, and now it’s payback time. From the house of Naspers – South Africa’s Pravda – came a vitriolic attack from a certain liberal retard named Virginia Keppler whose emotional outburst was only overshadowed by her complete ignorance of South Africa’s past, and one wonders if she actually had lived over there back then. To add insult to injury, the turncoat Afrikaner editor Adriaan Basson did not even correct her on these obvious fallacies as is wont of a respectable editor. Instead he chose to disable the comment section, perhaps realising all too well that Keppler’s pathetic outburst would be an object of ridicule, elevating Beeld’s status as a purveyor of mendacity even further.
It is doubtful whether the medieval Inquisition would have stooped to this level of idiocy. At least the Inquisition – in spite of their primitive techniques – consisted of trained scholars who abided by the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur, or let the facts speak for themselves. (Not many people nowadays realise that the burning of witches and hanging of heretics were in the vast majority of cases legal sentences passed in secular courts and not sovereign acts committed by the Inquisitors.)
In the “progressive” Rainbow Nation called South Africa the opposite tendency holds true. People are criminalised for speaking the truth. In the case of Hofmeyr’s tweet regarding blacks being behind apartheid, the various Bantu tribes strove for a patch of land for themselves, especially after a major tribal onslaught – the Difaqane – orchestrated by King Shaka and Mzilikazi killed up to three million blacks. This occurrence is historically documented, yet a heresy at the same time. The aftershock of this assault could be taken as a first step in the direction of Verwoerd’s grand apartheid plan. Need we also not forget that after the Union of South Africa in 1910, the Sotho, Swazi and Tswana tribes intentionally distanced themselves from the Union and demanded their own independent states.
On 23 January 1962, after Verwoerd had declared the homeland Transkei independent, he stated (translated from Afrikaans): “There are Bantu leaders with whom we have spoken who clearly stated that they are just as much in favour of keeping their own identity as we are. Maintaining their national ideals, their culture, their heritage are dear to them and they realise that this could only be achieved if they are granted independent suffrage and rights separately from the other groups.”
In other words, Hofmeyr wasn’t far off the mark, if at all.
During the dark years of white rule, Africans freely roamed through the streets of Johannesburg. Virginia Keppler’s unfaithful reporting that blacks weren’t allowed on the sidewalks has backfired on her. Shall we not forget the fierce propaganda war that the Western presses waged against South Africa, including the staged filming of “dead black people” scattered on the lawns of Joubert Park in downtown Johannesburg with “whites in the background nonchalantly walking by”? If one were to pass Joubert Park or any stretch of greenery in Johannesburg today, those “bodies” could still be seen basking in the African sun, only to get up and leave when something else has crossed their minds.
Not to mention how the Western presstitutes published damning pictures of black mine workers “chained to the rock face”, while in reality a safety harness on a treacherous slope is not such a bad idea.
Whereas South Africa’s feigned Mandela miracle was exported to the rest of the world, the culture of deceitful journalism was imported. It has become firmly ensconced in South African life, but instead of being the opium of the masses as the ruling elite had hoped for, it has become its laughing stock. It is unimaginable that someone would pay R99 (approximately US$9) per month to absorb slanted views written by their army of opinion makers whose intellectual courtesy emanates from their hatred of the language they were raised in. In fact, these opinion makers have only succeeded at one thing, and that is to fill the comments section with laughter and mockery from the disillusioned masses.
That is why Hofmeyr is their latest scapegoat. He is pointing the needle at their over-inflated balloon. Instead of trying to approach Hofmeyr with an honest debate regarding his views, mendacious columnists and comedians such as ventriloquist Conrad Koch are roped in to do the job, relying on their status as satirists to crucify him without further ado. After all, who needs cold intellectual talk if you could have a carnival of cant instead?
Remaining on the fringes is thus Hofmeyr’s fate, along with many followers who cannot stand the brokenness any longer. Whoever is tired of being swayed will themselves return to the path of principles and character, their integrity growing stronger.
To quote Rudyard Kipling:
Take up the White Man’s burden, No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper, The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living, And mark them with your dead.
An interim protection order was granted on Wednesday to popular Afrikaans singer Steve Hofmeyr against Conrad Koch, after Koch launched a massive libelous campaign against Hofmeyr.
Koch, in his anxious efforts to damage Hofmeyr’s reputation, also inter alia stated in a tweet that Afrikaner women and children had deserved their slaughter in concentration camps.
Koch thus reiterated the stance of an academic from the University of Cape Town, Elizabeth van Heyningen claiming the Boer women and children died not because of a deliberate lack of food and shelter, but because of their “backwardness”, “low intelligence” and “poor hygiene”.
Koch’s utterances come in the wake of worries that murders on white Afrikaner farmers show clear signs of a deliberate ethnic cleansing campaign.
Koch wrote a column in The Times last week, backing it up with hundreds of tweets calling on Hofmeyr’s sponsors to drop the “racist” after Hofmeyr reminded Koch that some black people actually also supported apartheid.
The Times and its editor Reuben Goldberg, have stood by Koch, saying that Hofmeyr is “scared of a puppet”. Koch is a ventriloquist manqué that sometimes uses a puppet “Chester Missing” for his scurrilous attacks.
The concerted campaign to defame Hofmeyr and Afrikaners in general, is also ironically supported by the apartheid media monopoly, Naspers, pandering to ANC sycophants and race baiters.
Hofmeyr is the most popular singer in South Africa, adored by both white and black.
Emerging markets media and internet giant Naspers looks set to shut down a number of e-commerce sites run by its online investment arm MIH. At least three of the sites affected are part of the company’s African Internet Accelerator (AIA) programme.
Ventureburn sources say that the collapse of the sites will come with job losses and a major restructuring. According to a well placed source, many of the South African ecommerce investments made by MIH in the last few years will be dissolved, with some parts being absorbed into larger Naspers players such as Kalahari.
Another source, however, said that the senior Naspers executives they were in contact with were surprised at talk of a shutdown, with one maintaining that most of the sites are on target and will be back up soon.
However, the notice on the 5Rooms site, which specialises in high-end furniture, included two major spelling clangers: “We will be up anr [sic.] running soon!!” and “… we applogize [sic.] for the inconvenience…”. This suggests that the “maintenance” notices were put up in somewhat of a rush.
Late on Thursday, a number of the sites in the portfolio went down, apparently for maintenance. The other sites affected, include online fashion outlet Style 36, digital camera store SAcamera and baby product outfit Kinderelo.
Johann van Tonder, a former senior executive at Naspers, commented on the link between the two on Facebook: “Rumours surfaced this morning that Naspers was pulling the plug on Internet Accelerator. This afternoon Style36, 5Rooms, SACamera & Kinderello went offline.”
The AIA sites had, for the most part, either run independently or come out of incubators before joining the accelerator (5Rooms started out in the Rocket Internet stable for instance).
AIA was founded in mid-2013 with a majority investment from MIH. The accelerator is headed up by Emilian Popa, a web entrepreneur whose previous experience includes time spent at Rocket Internet, as well as South African online clothing outlet Zando and Nigerian ecommerce site Jumia (both of which started out under the German-based startup clone factory).
SAcamera is perhaps the most notable of the affected sites, given that when MIH snapped it up in 2012 it was stated that it operated from within the Kalahari fold.
MIH’s global reach has seen it make investments in internet properties across the world, with the biggest focus being on emerging market countries such as Brazil, Russia, China and India. Two of those investments – in China’s Tencent and Russia’s Mail.ru – now account for the majority of the company’s revenue.
If MIH is shutting down AIA, it could be a suggestion that the emerging ecommerce space in South Africa isn’t working out as well for the company as it might have hoped.
Naspers, particularly its boss Koos Bekker, is known for showing low tolerance for under-performing divisions and wielding the axe to shut them down quickly.
Ventureburn has reached out to Naspers for comment and will update the story accordingly. It has also repeatedly tried to contact AIA’s offices for comment. All the ecommerce sites affected remain within Naspers’ officially listed structure at present. – Ventureburn.com
South African e-commerce and media firm Naspers Ltd said on Saturday Chief Executive Koos Bekker would step down in April after 17 years of explosive growth that transformed a small publisher into an emerging markets giant.
Bekker will be replaced by e-commerce chief Bob van Dijk, the company said in a statement. Bekker will take a year off to travel and look for new growth opportunities for the company before returning as chairman in April 2015.
Under Bekker, a soft-spoken executive hailed for a string of prescient investments, Naspers went from an Afrikaans-language publisher into a $48 billion multinational by investing in Internet companies and fast-growing markets.
Bekker’s greatest success was Naspers’ investment in Tencent Holdings, which has become China’s largest Internet company and in which Naspers owns around a third.
Bekker will stay on as a board member of Tencent, Naspers said.
“I hope to travel to places like Seoul and San Francisco, where the future is being manufactured, and see if there are new technologies we should be trying out,” Bekker said in a statement.
Van Dijk, 41, has previously headed up the German arm of eBay Inc.
Naspers has been investing heavily to become a major player in on-line classified ads globally and as well as in other e-commerce platforms.
Its other businesses include pay television across South Africa and Africa and it has operations in emerging markets from Brazil to eastern Europe.
Google is once again under fire for its international tax practices. This time though, the flak isn’t coming from an international government, but South Africa’s largest online publisher.
In a statement issued to the press 24.com CEO Geoff Cohen said: “In the digital age, we accept that we compete with businesses from all over the world.
“However, it is clearly wrong that, as we invest in building a tax-paying business employing hundreds of South Africans, we are competitively disadvantaged through aggressive tax planning strategies of global businesses.”
The publisher, which is a division of emerging markets media and internet giant Naspers, says that Google’s use of various off-shore accounts for its transactions means that it’s not paying anywhere near as much tax in the country as it should be.
This it says, means that South African publishers are simply unable to operate on a level playing field with the internet giant.
As Memeburn pointed out in mid 2013, Google pulls in around R1 billion in advertising a year in South Africa.
That’s about as much as South Africa’s digital ad industry makes as a whole. Google makes this revenue with very little infrastructure development needed and with only a small satellite office of about 30 or so people.
24.com reckons that this puts lost tax revenue from Google at an estimated R140 million per annum in corporate taxes, and possibly a further R100 million in PAYE.
They resort to tax-avoidance strategies known as the ‘Double Irish’ or ‘Dutch Sandwich’.
Google however strongly denies that this is the case, especially when it comes to PAYE, noting that it pays that tax for every employee it has in South Africa.
When Memeburn approached Google for comment on Cohen’s statement, a Google spokesperson said the company “complies with tax laws in South Africa and every country where we operate.
Google has come under fire for its international tax policies in the UK after it emerged that it had paid just £6 million on £2.5 billion worth of sales in the country in 2012.
A number of countries have now instituted special Google taxes in a bid to curb that kind of behaviour.
The most recent country to institute a Google tax is Italy, which did so in December 2013.
Other countries, such as France, have issued Google with massive fines for tax non-compliance.
24.com is in favour of applying the former approach in South Africa. Significant legislative changes will be required before South African internet businesses will be able to compete with some of their global counterparts on a level tax playing field, it says.
The state appears to be heading in that direction, as it readies legislation that will force overseas companies selling digital goods to South Africans to pay VAT on those sales.
In a 2012 interview, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said he was “proud” of the way Google had avoided paying taxes. “It’s called capitalism,” he said, “We are proudly capitalistic. I’m not confused about this.”
South Africa’s multiracial and multicultural society is exploding into a never-ending Kulturkampf or American-style culture war. Anti-racists are the new racists, spreading intolerance and even violence ahead of them with a megaphone, figuratively speaking. During the court appearance of a wine farmer, Mr Johnny Burger, the crowd in the Cape had been swept up into a lynch mob threatening to kill him on the spot. Police had to use pepper spray and a stun grenade to disperse them. Shades of the Ku Klux Klan? Except here the Klansmen are anti-racists.
Anti-racist intolerance is growing in leaps and bounds. In another recent incident, it led to the unfortunate resignation from Pretoria University of one of our praag columnists after Dr Piet Croucamp from the University of Johannesburg had accused her of hate speech. As I have commented elsewhere in an Afrikaans column:
“The media group Naspers and a small group of academics acting in bad faith and attacking others in the name of race, mostly for personal reasons, represent a danger to freedom of speech in South Africa.”
This afternoon I got an email from a friend saying that Mr Burger’s case reminded him of the notorius “Black Circuit” of the early nineteenth century. At the time a 1000 Cape farmers had to appear before a roving court to answer to trumped-up charges of murder, rape and assault. In the end, no-one was convicted and it was found that colonial English missionaries had colluded with local Khoi-San tribesmen to falsely accuse farmers of heinous crimes.
Contrary to our law, Mr Burger, accused of assaulting a Coloured child, was presumed guilty until his innocence could be proven. Two days ago, the Cape Times newspaper wrote about the case of Flippie Engelbrecht, the child concerned: “Those who brought the case to court charged that after the assault Engelbrecht had lost his sight, had epileptic fits, and because of this had rolled into a fire and suffered terrible burns, losing his hands.” In yesterday’s Cape Times, headlined Questions surround Flippie’s assault, “new evidence” came to light in the form of medical records showing that Flippie Engelbrecht had reported a “swelling on the side of his face”, which may have been a tumour, causing his epileptic fits and other medical problems. The same medical records contradict some of the dates advanced by the victim. However, in the meantime the wine farmer had committed suicide after his life and his business had been ruined by hysterical anti-racists pursuing him in the media, both traditional and social, led by the radical, Afrikaner-hating ex-lawyer (who was struck off the record as an attorney after dubious business deals and bankruptcy), Carina Papenfus.
So here we have two incidences of whites being subjected to histrionic public campaigns by so-called “liberal” anti-racists whose objectives have more in common with the Spanish Inquisition than with advancing the precepts of liberalism. Freedom of speech and even academic freedom in South Africa have been casualties of these campaigns, not to mention the two white victims, one committing suicide and another resigning her post and leaving the country, presumably for fear of being further persecuted.
Our universities are no longer places of learning but over-politicised shrines to political correctness and obtuse hatreds that are seemingly ignited by throwing a switch.
Volumes have been written on the cultural, linguistic, racial, anthropological, ethnic, ideological and religious divisions of South African society and I do not wish to dwell on the obvious. What concerns me more, is the apparent descent of people with nominal university qualifications into this kind of racial street fighting. They wield race and the word “racist” like a Cape Flats gangster brandishes his knife. Not so long ago, twelve schools had to be closed in that area as a result of gang activity and Mrs Helen Zille, the premier of the Western Cape, was calling for the army to be brought in to stabilise Manenberg.
Yet, ostensibly, we have more to fear from the pseudo-intellectual gangsters than from the drug-dealing, turf-warring criminals of the Cape Flats. Their influence on public discourse is far more insidious and destructive of the last vestiges of civilisation that remain in South Africa. They are intolerant zealots such as are to be found throughout history, wherever religious wars or ethnic conflicts have ignited and blazed.
Except for the Sunday paper Rapport, no-one seems to take Papenfus seriously. She waged a slanderous email and Twitter campaign against the hapless winemaker, apparently threatening and cajoling his customers into ceasing to order from him, with the intention of ruining his business and his life. Ms. Papenfus is a kind of cyber thug that replicates the intimidation tactics of petty gangsters in the public sphere. After all, as any mafioso or racketeer knows, a small business may be ruined by hitting one or two of its weak spots. Although she must have studied at one time for a degree or diploma, she has no intellectual pretensions. Her creed is simple: harass the whites. And being white and Afrikaans herself, but an ANC member, it is a case of être plus royaliste que le roi.
Papenfus is dangerous, but easily understood. The other two zealots who pounced upon the soft-spoken Pretoria woman philosopher, occupy positions of institutional power. Croucamp is a lecturer at the University of Johannesburg in political science and frequently appears on talk shows, both on radio and on television, wearing his trademark blue bandana. Schutte writes a column in the Mail & Guardian newspaper which is also avidly read by the “tenured radicals” at South Africa’s more than twenty universities.
Schutte was due to debate Croucamp’s victim on the topic: “‘Do white people have an obligation to withdraw from the public sphere?’ But as she stated in a subsequent column: “I am obviously not going to validate Louise Mabille’s hate speech by actually debating with her. Rather I will end by saying that she has presented a shining example of how whites should not participate in the public arena. It is a good thing that Louise Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of Pretoria has accepted it.”
From Rhodes University, we have already had an opinion by Dr Samantha Vice that all whites, i.e. everyone of European descent, should take some form of vow to remain silent in public. So white guilt leads to the ultimate form of self-censorship, public silence.
Elsewhere, Ms Gillian Schutte describes herself, somewhat pretentiously, as a “feminist-neopagan-post-structuralist-deconstructionist-socialist” and she apparently has a Master’s degree in creative writing from the University of the Witwatersrand.
The one thing we can already deduce is that the mob outside the Cape courtroom who wanted to lynch Mr Burger at least believed in some form of dialogue. They were screaming, hurling abuse and gesticulating. With police intervention and protection, one could still call it communication.
Croucamp and Schutte want to reduce us to silence, however. Theirs is the monologue of totalitarianism, of censorship, of “There is only one truth and it is mine”. They pontificate in the name of power, the corrupt power that is ruling, nay, pillaging, South Africa.
It is therefore ironic that Schutte should describe herself as a “post-structuralist-deconstructionist”. Does she even know what she is referring to? The very basis of any “deconstruction” is the existence of more than one meaning, even the uncertainty, indetermination and radical plurality of meanings. Just over ten years ago a small group of us Afrikaner thinkers had a private seminar with Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales on the boulevard de Raspail in Paris. I remember Derrida as a modest, soft-spoken, amiable figure who reminisced about his single visit to South Africa. He liked Potchefstroom and even told me that “Heidegger would have felt at home there”. Derrida was full of gentle irony, self-doubt and respect for others, even the Other, as he so often termed it in his more political writings.
Schutte, by contrast, is a third-world ideologue, possessed by a terrible certainty. She has more in common with Robert Mugabe or Idi Amin than Jacques Derrida. Like so many others strutting about our campuses today, she has no real culture but the fad of the moment. The more politically correct such fads are, the better. Her meretricious pseudo-intellectualism has all the charm of Winnie Mandela’s expensive sunglasses and jewellery, being the brash expression of a corrupt and power-hungry soul. Ideas are but slogans, brands, to market yourself to another kind of mob to the one that wanted to lynch the Cape winemaker.
I have often thought that South Africa today has much in common with Nero’s Rome. Our country has become murderous, corrupt and decadent. Innocence has died. Approximately a thousand children are raped every day, including babies, and nobody says a word. Or if they broach the subject, they are immediately reduced to silence, given the ritual knife for disembowelling themselves. Schutte’s smug satisfaction (“It is a good thing that Louise Mabille has handed in her resignation and that the University of Pretoria has accepted it”) may be deconstructed to reveal two things: Schadenfreude and a paradoxical expectation of honour in others.
There is no English word for Schadenfreude, hence the German loanword that is universally used. However, the Afrikaans (and Dutch) term leedvermaak expresses the same thing, with a few more connotations (“signifieds” for post-structuralists) thrown in. The other day I tweeted in Afrikaans, something to the effect that leedvermaak is the apotheosis of journalism in South Africa. Vermaak also means entertainment, hence the misery of others, their travails amid hysterical accusations, calumny and vilification provide entertainment. Anti-racist Blitzkrieg, either on the vineyards of the Cape or on the campus of Pretoria University, therefore feeds the sensationalist mainstream media machine, sated on the blood of murder victims.
Celebrity “businessman” Kenny Kunene
Due to the surfeit of murders in South Africa, people are becoming bored with news of another killing, no matter how ruthless and macabre. Celebrity murder, such as the Oscar Pistorius case, is still news, but not even serial killings elicit much attention. In a society as utterly cruel and corrupt as ours, we are in desperate need of frivolity, such as the camp antics of that incorrigible clown in drag, Pieter-Dirk Uys, or Kenny Kunene’s parties where guests eat sushi off the bodies of bikini-clad ladies.
South Africa is profoundly amoral. It lacks a moral or ethical code to define right and wrong. Someone like Baudrillard would say that this “lack”, in a psychoanalytical sense, creates a need for a kind of pseudo-ethics, a moral simulacrum.
This is where anti-racism comes in. Anti-racism is the simulacrum of our lost moral code. It is no coincidence that the objectionable sentence in Louise Mabille’s column contained references to both Calvinism and baby rape, the former marking the overtly Christian morality of the old South Africa and the latter epitomising the radical “freedom from all scruples” that characterises the new South Africa.
In this respect, Gillian Schutte, despite her evidently defective grasp of some basic philosophical and literary concepts, understands the “new amorality” well. In one of her “feminist” videos, a rape victim explains that the “cure” for the shame attached to having been raped, is to join the so-called “slutwalk”, ardently recommended by Ms. Schutte. By self-identifying as a slut, a woman is freed from the fear of rape and “forced sex” as it is euphemistically called. Miracle cures are to be found everywhere in South Africa, peddled by immigrant Nigerian pastors and indigenous witchdoctors alike. Not to forget the infamous “virgin cleansing myth” by which one may be cured of HIV-Aids by raping a virgin, including an infant, and which Louise Mabille alluded to in her column.
Gillian Schutte is also a champion of the word “cunt” which, according to her, should become part of our everyday discourse. As she puts it,
“When women finally reclaim and speak this word, its full potential will be released and women will repossess their collective cunt-power and rise up against misogyny and patriarchy with the absolute intent of ending it.”
Amid the universal amorality and Neronic decadence of South Africa, Schutte is clutching at ethical straws, more precisely: pubic hairs. Instead of simply affirming and enjoying the slutwalk, she opts for the simulacrum of the good, which has now turned out to be the “collective cunt-power” of women.
But there is no “good” anymore. South Africa is really living according to the famous maxim from Dostoyevsky’s Brothers Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.” As I intimated the other day, SA really stands for “Sadists’ Apocalypse”. Eighteenth-century French literature, specifically the writings of the Marquis de Sade, is all that we have to remotely begin to understand our baby rapists and farm murderers.
Apart from Gillian Schutte’s “cunt-power”, the other pseudo-morality that people desperately cling to is anti-racism. In our sadistic universe where nothing is wrong, some people imagine that racism is the one remaining sin. You may kill, rape, bribe, lie and steal, more or less with impunity, but uttering the word “Bantu” will earn you the opprobrium of polite society, that society which is now reappropriating the magical power of four-letter words.
The simulacrum of sin is transgression of anti-racist etiquette. That alone awakens some form of long-lost moral response which is delivered with predictable ecclesiastical ritual: denunciation, excommunication, prohibition, censorship. From the TV studio did Schutte, the high priestess of atavistic cunt-power and pagan ritual, deliver her sermon against what Orwell called thoughtcrime: “racist” thoughts and suspicions, including the mere mention of “baby rape”, which is a proven and documented phenomenon in this country.
Did Johnny Burger, the Cape winemaker, commit suicide to save his honour? In a country where “trial by media” and populist passions have come to influence courts and the judicial system, Burger probably correctly surmised that he would not receive a fair trial. His suicide reminds me of the death of the patrician Latin author Petronius who, having got wind of Nero’s henchmen being sent to kill him, preferred taking his own life while drinking wine and having musicians perform for him.
Thanks to Carina Papenfus’s hate campaign, no-one will ever drink Burger’s wine again.
Similarly to Burger, Louise Mabille fell upon her own sword and resigned. Understandably, there is despair and pessimism among the remaining class of thinking people in South Africa. We are outnumbered and outscreamed by those who are playing for the gallery.
However, notwithstanding samurai customs, there are other ways of saving one’s honour. On these shores, we have the example of the bittereinder, of someone fighting to the very, bitter end, against all odds.
Are we ready for that thankless struggle, knowing full well that we shall face calumny all the way? If reason be dead, can thought or the mind still withstand the mob, baying for our blood?
Mr. Hein Boonzaaier, one of the accused in the so-called “Bloemfontein 4 terrorism case” has just walked free from the Bloemfontein Magistrate’s Court, with the state withdrawing all charges against him. After eight months of investigations, the state could not find evidence of wrongdoing against the blogger and activist.
Over the last few years Mr. Boonzaaier had visited the United States twice, also attending an American Renaissance conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. According to him, he was seen to be guilty “by association” in having sought support for the Afrikaner cause among US conservatives.
On 16 December 2012, the Day of the Vow for Afrikaners, Mr. Boonzaaier was out in his garden walking his beloved dog, an indigenous Boerboel bitch. He lives in Centurion, a suburb of Pretoria.
“It was exactly a quarter to eight in the morning,” he said. “The next moment there appeared 30 heavily armed policemen in full-body armour and with automatic weapons trained on me. I had no idea what was going on and did not know whether it was some kind of joke or whether I should run away.”
In an open letter published Monday in Afrikaans elsewhere on the PRAAG site, he explained how both his dog and his wife were threatened too, with the sub-machine guns being waved about. The heavily armed police had two warrants: one to search his house and another to arrest him for high treason.
He had to spend two months in prison before he was let out on bail. The state opposed his bail application, as well as those of the three other accused, Johan Prinsloo, Mark Trollip and Martin Keevy.
According to his legal team, “he should never have been arrested”. Boonzaaier stated: “I think it purely revolved around an attempt to discredit me, a goal in which the state and the media have amply succeeded.”
Trial by media
Boonzaaier photographed in Mississippi, proudly wearing a new acquisition
Mr. Boonzaaier’s day job is that of financial consultant. Both South Africa’s powerful Naspers media group and the left-wing Mail & Guardian newspaper castigated him with a “trial by media” during which he was vilified as a “right-wing extremist”, “coup plotter” and so on.
According to Boonzaaier there was an attempt to fabricate evidence against him by distorting statements he had made in the USA so that “it would sound as if he had said exactly the opposite of what he had said in reality”.
Before his arrest, Boonzaaier was involved in the formation of a new political party, the Federal Freedom Party, aiming to contest elections in 2014 in South Africa. He was elected as president of the new party. “My attempt to participate in democratic politics was, however, answered with a ham-fisted, wrongful arrest,” he said.
Boonzaaier is of the opinion that the order to arrest him came from within the ruling ANC. “The most bizarre thing was that the National Prosecuting Authority, which is an independent body in terms of the South African constitution, did not want to release me, despite there being no proper charge or evidence against me. Only when the minister agreed to it, was I finally released. South Africa is becoming more and more like Zimbabwe where the criminal justice system is controlled by politicians within the ruling party.”
“I think it was all part of a plan to discredit our political party, apart from it being directed against me personally. I got the impression that the government did not want me to take part in politics,” Boonzaaier said.
The case against his three fellow accused is continuing. Mr. Martin Keevy was previously declared “psychologically unfit to stand trial“, something which the state prosecutor is disputing. So Keevy has now been referred back to the Bloemfontein psychiatric institution which examined him in the first place for a second observation period of 30 days.
The press ombudsman on Saturday ordered Rapport and its sister publication City Press to publish an apology for causing unnecessary harm to paralympian Oscar Pistorius.
The two newspapers were also ordered to issue corrections on a story they published on June 30 which alleged that Pistorius was seen at a car dealership with a woman buying an Audi R8, Press Ombudsman Johan Retief said.
The newspapers reported that Pistorius was brash and demanding while at the dealership.
It was reported that he was accompanied by bodyguards and a beautiful woman and insinuated that she may have been his girlfriend.
Pistorius is currently facing murder charges following the fatal shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on February 14.
The articles appeared on City Press’s front page and on page three of the Rapport and on Rapport’s website.
Retief said there were two separate judgements for the papers, as the story that appeared in the City Press was slightly different to Rapport’s version.
City Press had omitted some aspects as it adapted the story from the Afrikaans article written by Rapport.
Retief found that the uncertainty of the model of the car Pistorius was alleged to have bought was no longer reflected in the headline. The opening paragraph of the City Press report also appeared to be a statement of fact.
A mistake appeared in the article where it was stated that two employees “when called” confirmed certain detail, whereas these sources were not called, but personally interviewed.
The Rapport journalist, who wrote the original article quoted an anonymous person who was at the dealership when Pistorius was alleged to have been there.
He quoted another two anonymous people who said they were “close to the dealership” after dealership management refused to comment.
The newspaper also spoke to Annelise Burgess, the Pistorius’s spokeswoman, before publishing the reporting.
The paper reported that Burgess initially said Pistorius had gone to the dealership to buy the R8 vehicle for his uncle.
In a written response she later sent to the journalist, she stated that Pistorius had been at the dealership to buy himself a second-hand Sedan.
The journalist emailed Burgess, asking her to clarify the different versions.
She telephonically explained that she had misunderstood Pistorius’s uncle, Arnold, when he told her that Pistorius had simply been assisting him with paperwork for the R8 as he had wanted to purchase the vehicle.
Pistorius visited the dealership twice, once to buy himself a the second-hand vehicle, and secondly to assist his uncle.
Retief found that Pistorius had bought himself a used Sedan which was not as fast as an Audi R8.
It was later established that the woman who had been seen with Pistorius was his cousin.
The man who the papers reported was Pistorius’s bodyguard was his brother, Carl.
Retief ruled that the papers had used a headline and picture which was unfair to Pistorius.
The headline read: “Oscar takes beautiful young woman to see his racy R1.5m Audi R8.”
The papers also published a picture of a new Audi R8 sports car, with a picture of Pistorius superimposed on it.
Retief dismissed claims brought by Pistorius, his family and Burgess that the newspapers had failed to verify its information and ignored the information they supplied to the paper.
He ruled that the papers were justified in publishing the allegations as allegations, as that was the information they had at their disposal at the time of publication.
“The report was misleading, but not deliberately so,” he said. – Sapa
A new 24-hour news channel was launched in South Africa on Wednesday, owned by a wealthy family close to President Jacob Zuma.
Africa News Network 7 (ANN7) will focus on “constructive, nation-building stories in the interests of building a culture of unity and pride”, according to its website.
ANN7 is likely to face an uphill battle for viewers as it joins the existing and established eNCA (DStv 403) and the SABC’s new 24-hour TV news attempt, SABC News (DStv 404) which launched at the beginning of this month.
Based in Johannesburg and employing more than 75 journalists, the channel is owned by the wealthy Gupta family who moved to South Africa from India.
The family own Sahara Computers and The New Age newspaper, which is considered pro-government.
“ANN7 heralds a new era in news broadcasting which will give South Africans access to both sides of stories of national importance,” said CEO Nazeem Howa, quoted by The New Age.
The well-connected Guptas sparked outrage in May after flying in wedding guests from India to a military base on the outskirts of Pretoria.
A probe found that Zuma’s name had been dropped to secure landing rights, but that he was not involved in the scandal.
ANN7 is the third round-the-clock TV news channel in South Africa and follows the public broadcaster SABC’s launch of a continuous service on 1 August.
The 24-hour private eNCA channel went live in 2008.
These three channels are broadcast on the satellite DStv pay service, which also carries several foreign news channels. DStv belongs to Naspers which has a media monopoly in South Africa.
Industry insiders and TV critics are of the opinion that ANN7 come with a certain level of perception problems due to who the financial backers of the new channel are and whether news will be politically slanted and it remains anyone’s guess as to whether viewers will gravitate towards ANN7’s news offering.
The ruling African National Congress welcomed the new network, saying it “trusts that it will play a constructive role in our national discourse”. – AFP
The bewildered herd must be governed by a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality. (Walther Lippmann)
Knowledge is power… and power is money. In order to make big money, you need big money.
The first big fund to invest in Naspers was Comerica Foreign Equity. This fund is run by World Asset Management, the investment arm of HSBC. This bank has its main (private) office on Tortola, the largest of the British Virgin Islands.
And guess where Naspers’s investment arm, MIH Holdings Limited, is located? Yes, in the exact same street of this tax-haven of the (mostly) British elite. Just think about the above every time you pay a small fortune to watch M-Net, SuperSport, DSTV, et cetera.
Now, HSBC is the world’s 3rd largest bank with $2.36 trillion in assets. Formerly known as Hong Kong Shanghai Bank Corporation, HSBC is one of the most unscrupulous banks ever. It has been the cash cow of the British elite since its inception as a repository for British Crown opium proceeds accrued during the Chinese Opium Wars.
Armed with a royal charter, Lord Shelbourne started the Chinese opium trade in 1783 with merchants from the East India Company. Shelbourne’s main spin-doctor was Adam Smith. The latter worked for the East India Company, which was formed from the slave-trading Levant Company and later became known as Chatham House. The latter is home to the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the second most influential think tank in the world.
The RIIA was founded in 1920. Its American sister institute, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), was founded one year later. Walther Lippmann, the Pulitzer-Prize essayist, journalist and mass-media genius was one of the founding members of the CFR. But more about him later. Needless to say, these two organizations, the RIIA and CFR, work hand in hand.
Now, the CFR is run by some of the best brains in America. They are truly exceptional people. They basically run the State Department, the CIA and are connected to nearly everybody that matters in the business and academia in America, and globally.
The CIA operates under the cover of various organizations when it comes to furthering America’s strategic and economic interests. The Ford Foundation is one of the main fronts of the CIA (i.e. the CFR).
In June 1985, this foundation hosted the first ever meeting between the ANC and the Broederbond (i.e. the NP).
The conference took place in Glen Cove, Long Island on June 1st. The main players were Professor JP De Lange (Head of the Broederbond) and ANC officials, Thabo Mbeki, Mac Maharaj and Seretse Choadi.
This meeting did not produce the results the CFR were hoping for. So they summoned the (economic) artillery, David Rockefeller.
Along with being a CFR director for 46 years, David Rockefeller served as chairman of the board from 1970-85 and was the organization’s honorary chairman till 2001. During this time, he was also chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank.
On 31st July 1985, Chase Manhattan decided not to roll over South Africa’s debt. Apparently Pik Botha’s traitor heart nearly stopped beating: “I will never forget the night of July 31 when [Minister of Finance] Barend du Plessis phoned me … [He said]: ‘Pik, I must tell you that the country is facing inevitable bankruptcy … The process has started.'” (source).
The rest is history.
So what has this got to do with Naspers? Well, it just shows that Naspers is just another appendage of interest groups beyond the borders of South Africa. In other words, it does not serve the interests of South Africans. But then, neither do other media giants in South Africa.
Caxton/CTP’s chairman in the early 1990s was Van Zyl Slabbert, who also became the chairman of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Slabbert was the useful idiot of CFR member George Soros. The latter, through his Open Society Foundation, sponsored Slabbert and super-useful idiot Max Du Preez… especially with his anti-Afrikaner Vrye Weekblad newspaper.
So, every time you hear about the Davos Afrikaner called Koos Bekker, the big boss of the 33rd largest media company in the world called Naspers (worth R344 billion or $34,88 billion) just know that he is just another witting puppet on an Anglo-American string.
He is just like those rich Boer farmers who became hensoppers during the Anglo-Boer War… selling out their own people purely for profit. Nothing more, nothing less.
Meaning that the “Who is Naspers?” question is not really that interesting. The really interesting question is the “why” behind Naspers.
It is a fact that people can only make sense of Reality through “ideal meanings”. Those ideal “pictures in your head” prevent you, more often than not, to “… come to judgment by critical thinking” (Walther Lippmann).
Journalism is “intelligence work” and journalists are a link between policymakers and the public, according to Lippmann.
Meaning that journalists (and the media companies that employ them, e.g. Naspers) always sanitize the Truth at the behest of their pay-masters…
Naspers chief executive Koos Bekker’s remuneration package, which is currently valued at more than R7-billion before tax for the past five years, has broken all previous pay records for JSE executives and is expected to hold the record for the foreseeable future.
The 74 percent surge in the Naspers N share price over the past 12 months, combined with Bekker’s unique remuneration arrangement, has generated several billions of rands of potential profits for Bekker.
At a current price of R795, the 11.7 million shares that Bekker was awarded as remuneration for the five years to the end of March are worth R9.3bn. The cost to Bekker of the shares is just over R2bn.
This puts the value of his remuneration package significantly ahead of any other executive on the JSE, including executives of companies that have their primary listing on an international bourse.
Naspers’s annual report for financial 2013 reveals that 3.9 million shares were released to Bekker on March 31 this year and are being held in reserve for him in the company’s share incentive scheme. “This is the final tranche of his five-year contract entered into on April 1, 2008,” the Naspers remuneration report says.
In terms of his unique remuneration contract Bekker does not receive any salary, bonus, car scheme or medical or pension contributions from the company. Instead, in 2008 he was awarded 11.7 million shares, which vested in three annual tranches of 3.9 million at the end of years three, four and five.
The 11.7 million shares were awarded to Bekker at the ruling price at the beginning of his five-year contract, which was around R150. In addition, the price he has to pay is adjusted for inflation.
The first tranche, which was paid out at the end of financial 2011, cost Bekker R167 a share. The second tranche, at the end of financial 2012, cost Bekker R176 a share. The shares allocated to Bekker in March this year cost him R185 each.
This means that the total cost to Bekker for the 11.7 million shares was just over R2bn, compared with the current market value of those shares of R9.3bn. So, Bekker is currently showing a pretax profit of R7.2bn on his unique five-year remuneration package.
This is Bekker’s third five-year contract with Naspers.
In terms of the first contract, entered into in 1997, Bekker was allocated 3.3 million shares, which were released to him in three tranches ending in December 2003.
The dotcom collapse in 2001 highlighted the high-risk element of the arrangement and there was little value in the Naspers shares by the time they were awarded to Bekker.
In the second five-year contract, Bekker was allocated 4.4 million shares in 2003 at R21.40 a share. The shares were again released to Bekker in three tranches, with the price adjusted for inflation.
The steady upward trajectory of the share price during this five-year period meant that Bekker secured considerable profits.
The third contract, which has just expired, is by far the most valuable in terms of the number of shares awarded as well as the price appreciation.
The single most important factor in the surge in the Naspers share price in recent years is attributed to the performance of, and expectations for, China-based Tencent. Tencent is an acquisition that Bekker, who is regarded as having more guanxi (contacts) in China than most foreigners, championed back in 2004.
In addition to the 11.7 million shares, Bekker holds 4.7 million shares awarded to him in 2002 in terms of the rules of the Naspers share incentive trust. At the current share price, these 16.4 million shares are worth R13bn. The dividend payment on these shares will earn Bekker, and cost Naspers, R63 million a year.
Bekker appears to have sold the 7.7 million Naspers shares he was allocated in terms of the first two five-year contracts.
Supporters of Bekker’s remuneration contract argue that it is an appropriate arrangement given the critical entrepreneurial role he has played in building up the company.
Critics counter that the arrangement is unnecessarily generous and has contributed to the high-risk aspect of the share price.
The annual report does not indicate that Bekker has to hold onto the shares beyond the end of his five-year contract. They point to the fact that Naspers has a higher market capitalisation than Sasol, although its earnings-generating ability is significantly lower.
Remuneration consultants note that the arrangement has essentially de-linked Bekker from the group’s remuneration policies as set out by the remuneration committee. – IOL
Petition in support of Sunette Bridges. Fill in your name and e-mail, then click on “Sign Now”. Also tweet and share on Facebook by using the buttons on the far left of this page.
[emailpetition id=”4″]
[signaturelist id=”4″]
My verklaring oor Cancervive
deur Sunette Bridges
Hierdie is seker een van die moeilikste skrywes wat ek nog ooit moes doen. Ek het baie tyd spandeer daaraan om mooi te dink en hard gebid vir leiding oor die saak.
Ek het eergister op FB gemeld dat ek vandag in Naboomspruit optree ten bate van Cancervive. Ek is deur ‘n Boervrou in die gemeenskap genader op die optrede vir haar te doen om te help met die kaartjieverkope. Ek het ingestem om gratis vir haar te gaan optree. Hierdie vrou het self die pad van Kanker gestap en wou graag ‘n bydrae maak om dit vir ander moontlik te maak om behandeling te ontvang. Soos baie van julle seker weet, het my Pa ook Kanker gehad en is dit een van die sake wat ek al vir baie jare met graagte ondersteun.
Gistermiddag het ek ‘n oproep van my kliënt ontvang om my mee te deel dat Cancervive haar versoek het om onmiddelik my optrede vandag te kanselleer omdat hulle nie met my politieke oortuigings vereenselwig wil word nie. Die arme vrou was ongelooflik ontsteld en geweldig bekommerd oor wat sy vandag vir die mense gaan se oor hoekom ek nie by die funksie is nie. Ek was hartseer, maar het vir haar gese dat sy nie bekommerd moet wees nie en dat ek op enige ander datum in die toekoms gratis vir die mense sal kom sing. Ek het die saak daar gelaat.
‘n Rukkie later is ek meegedeel dat die besluit van Cancervive ‘n direkte uitvloeisel is van ‘n e-pos van deur ‘n ene Johan Pienaar aan Cancervive se publisiteitsmaatskappy gestuur is. In die e-pos deel Pienaar Cancervive mee dat hy geskok is om te verneem dat hulle geassosieer word met ‘n RASSIS soos ek wat deur die MRK aangekla word vir rassisme en voeg hy ook by dat hy ontevrede is met die feit dat die funksie in die AP-Kerk in Naboomsptuit se kerksaal gehou word aangesien die ook ‘n Rassistiese instansie is. Cancervive het egter gekies om nie kapsie te maak oor die saal nie, maar wel oor my optrede daar.
Daar is ‘n blad op FB wat jou al vir presies 11 maande ‘n smeerveldtog teen my voer en ek het verneem dat die e-pos op die blad gepubliseer is en hul hul lesers aangemoedig het om ook almal aan Cancervive te skryf om hul te versoek om nie met my te assosieer nie. Enkele lede van die blad het dit ook goedgedink om dieselfde skrywes op Cancervive se FB blad te gaan maak. Cancervive se eerste amptelike reaksie was om die persone mee te deel dat hulle A-polities is en ondersteuning van enigeen verwelkom. Dis nou blykbaar enigeen behalwe ek.
Die spreker van Cancervive het intussen in Naboomsruit opgedaag en dit was aan haar verduidelik dat my kliënt in ‘n reuse verknorsing was agv hul houding jeens my. Die dame, by name Frieda Henning, het my toe gekontak. Sy het vreeslik hard probeer om vir my te verduidelik dat Cancervive nie omgee van watter geloofs- of politiese oortuiging hul bydraers is nie, maar dat my deelname vir hulle in ‘n moeilike posisie plaas. Ek het aan haar verduidelik dat ek reeds ‘n e-pos aan Cancervive oor die situasie gestuur het en dat ek ‘n amptelike verklaring van hulle versoek oor hoekom my optrede gekanselleer is. Cancervive het egter alles in hul vermoeë gedoen om ‘n amptelike uitlating te vermy en my sowaar vesoek om steeds maar die vertoning te kom doen so in die stilligheid sonder dat hulle skriftelik hoef te reageer oor die insident. Dit terwyl hulle personeel reeds e-posse van die Smeerblad se lede geantwoord het waarin hulle die mense meegedeel het dat dit EK was wat my optrede gekanselleer het. Ek stel dit onomwonde dat ek op geen stadium my optrede daar gekanselleer het nie, maar dat die versoek vir my om nie daar te wees nie, ‘n direkte opdrag aan my kliënt van Cancervive af was.
Wat my stomslaan is dat Cancervive blykbaar GEEN probleem het daarmee om WIT mense in Naboomspruit, boonop lede van die APKerk, se geld te vat vir hul organisasie nie, maar nie die rugraat het om ‘n stadpunt in te neem teen ‘n ooglopende kwaadwillige smeerveldtog nie. Ek sou graag die optrede van die Smeerblad se lede as laakbaar wou beskryf, maar dit sou beteken dat ‘n mense beter van hulle sou verwag en dit is nie die geval nie. Wat ek wel laakbaar vind is die optrede van Cancervive.
Op geen stadium het ek navraag gedoen oor wie sou baat by my optrede nie. Vir my het dit oor die SAAK gegaan. Ek het ook besluit om nou eers hierdie skrywe te doen om sodoende nie vir Marinda, my kliënt in Naboomspruit enige skade te berokken of haar funksie in die wiele te ry nie, maar voel dat dit nou belangrik is om ‘n standpunt in te neem teen hierdie organisasie se optrede en die publiek in te lig oor die aangeleentheid. Ons velkleur is verkeerd vir hierdie BEE instansie. Ons politiek is verkeerd vir hierdie BEE instansie, maar duidelik is die kleur van ons geld vir hulle geen probleem nie. Dit is tyd ons ons begin om SLEGS Volkseie aksies te ondersteun en na ons eie mense om moet sien en, soos in die geval van Naspers, moet PRAAT met ons geld!
Die R25 000 wat Cancervive uit Naboomspruit se Blanke mense maak, behoort in totaal aan die gemeenskap terugbetaal te word!
Ek dank die Vader dat ek NIE afhanklik is van my sangloopbaan om te oorleef nie en dat ek dus nooit nodig sal he om my beginsels prys te gee om my siel te verkoop om te oorleef nie.
Hier is die skakel na die fotoalbum met al die detail oor hierdie siek mense se optrede… Sx
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
The irony is that Sparks, after being fired as a columnist from his beloved Independent Group of newspapers, has now been appointed as a columnist for the Naspers group where his cultural-marxist musings will be published in… Afrikaans. Naspers seems to have a policy now that Afrikaner columnists should no longer be allowed to publish in their media as they have not embraced the new ideology as wholeheartedly as they should. Only the extremist kind of Afrikaner “askari”, such as Mad Max du Preez, will be allowed to write in the Naspers media, with the rest of us condemned to Soviet-style censorship, at least in print.
