Criminality is rewarded in the transformed South Africa

Rear admiral Khanyisile Litchfield-Tshabalala (and don't you just LOVE the pretentious double-barrel surname, borne by somebody who is clearly not fit to be a domestic servant?), an affirmative-action appointee in the South African Navy, was found guilty on four counts of fraud, loss of state equipment, crimen injuria and assault during 2008. She received a suspended sentence after stealing a notebook computer from the navy and assaulting a sentry.

Litchfield-Tshabalala was the navy's director of transformation. "Transformation" is the ANC regime's code for anti-white racism, and a catch-all phrase for the deliberate ethnic cleansing of whites from all public life. The admiral's criminality is therefore not without great irony, seeing that transformation is in fact nothing less the criminal plunder of white assets, and a systematic, Nazi-like campaign of racial hate against whites. She was thus the navy's director of criminal actions against white members of the navy.

Not only has transformation produced shining paragons of integrity like our dear Khanyisile, but it has also caused most expertise (i.e. whites) to flee the navy as their career opportunities became seriously limited. The net result is that the navy, in spite of its new vessels worth billions of dollars, is no longer able to defeat somebody rowing a kayak. It is rumoured that the exit of expertise caused by racist transformation has left the navy with expensive white elephant vessels that are lying idle, because their commanding officers were selected because they were black, and not because they are capable seamen.

The admiral has been on leave since August 2008, but has been receiving a full salary regardless. And now, to add insult to injury, and with jaw-dropping illogic, she has received a performance bonus of R25000 (approximately $2500). Yes, you read correctly, she has been rewarded for her criminality.

This is of course nothing new in the banana republic that South Africa has become since 1994. Why, even our next president is about to be rewarded for his criminal ties with Schabir Shaik.

Dropping charges against Zuma will accelerate the descent into a failed state

During a speech at the University of Pretoria, Mo Shaik, brother of convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik and himself a person of very suspect morals, not to mention a member of the Xhosa-Muslim-Communist clique running the ANC, that the National Prosecuting Authority would drop the case against Jacob Zuma.

Zuma is under investigation for nefarious dealings with Schabir Shaik. Shaik was sentenced to 15 years in prison, but was recently bizarrely paroled on so-called medical parole, although he suffers from nothing more serious than high blood pressure. According to the evidence, Zuma received bribes from Shaik as part of South Africa's infamous arms deal.

Logic dictates that there are two sides to bribery: the person doing the bribing, and the recipient. If the person doing the bribing is sentenced to jail, how can the counterparty get off scot free? However, this being Africa, such things are indeed possible.

It seems likely that Zuma will become president and not face jail, because the moronic majority of voters who are unable to discern between right and wrong, and who indeed seem to admire criminality, if they are not criminals themselves, will re-elect the criminal ANC regime. Should Mo Shaik be correct, however, and the case against Zuma indeed be dropped, it would be a body blow to fairness, transparency and equality before the law.

It would send out an unambiguous message: if you have political connections to the corrupt ANC regime, you are above the law. Should you not have such connections, as is the case with Clive Derby-Lewis, you can expect to rot in jail. Derby-Lewis, in spite of being a model prisoner, is being refused parole, whereas the scumbag Shaik was released on medical parole.

South Africa's criminal regime is mounting increasing pressure on the justice system, and in so doing eroding one of the cornerstones of a functional democracy. Should Zuma's case be dismissed, South Africa's descent into a failed, criminal state, a process already in progress, will be accelerated.

Third World immigration is in no Western country's interests

I must firstly point out that I am a resident of a 3rd World country myself, although I am admittedly of European (Dutch, German and French) descent.

We are often told, usually by liberals and left-wingers, how immigration from the 3rd World "benefits" recipient nations. The large-scale immigration to America from Europe of the 1800's and 1900's is often used as an example of these benefits.

The problem is that immigration today has a very different complexion to that which happened in the case of America. The immigration America experienced, starting with the Mayflower, consisted mainly of European Christians, most of whom came from advanced, Western cultures.

Immigration today is of a radically different nature. In the case of Europe, it is experiencing large-scale Muslim immigration, in other words by people from a radically (in every sense of the word) different culture, religion and skin colour.

America is also experiencing an unprecedented stream of people who not only look completely different to what was previously understood to be an American, but who also belong to a different culture entirely.

Whereas it may have been true that immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island tended to cluster in ethnic neighbourhoods or even ghettos, this soon changed as the 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants became upwardly mobile.

The above does not seem to be the norm with for example Pakistani immigrants to the UK, or Muslims in the Netherlands. They remain bound to the same area for generations, seemingly unable or unwilling to integrate with what is an alien culture to them. They are disproportionately dependent on welfare, at the cost of native inhabitants. These ethnic ghettos become breeding grounds for hostility towards their hosts, and even led to the terror attacks on London in 2004.

The immigrants' culture is often so at odds with Western values, that cultural and racial conflict is the inevitable result. Almost without exception, so-called racists in the recipient countries bear the blame when conflict happens, never the immigrants themselves, but the root cause is ignored. If there were no Turks in Germany, the skinheads would have nobody to attack. Remove the cause of the so-called racism, and it will simply disappear.

Furthermore, if immigration really benefits the host country so much, would staying behind not benefit the donor country even more? If those who have enough ambition and drive to board rafts and boats to cross the Mediterranean, were to apply their ambition and drive in their own country, would that not be of immense benefit to the host nation? Almost without exception the sources of immigrants are countries in dire need of skills and ambition. Almost inevitably, the flight of people of working age exacerbates the load on Western donor countries, who not only have to play host to the immigrants on their own soil, but also have to pump billions into foreign aid.

On the economic front, there is increasing resistance to immigration in European nations and the USA, and this is for good reason. It is unjustifiable for the United States to give an Indian programmer an H-1B visa if any American programmers are out of work.

Once again, as was the case with my previous column I fail to see the upside of immigration for any Western country.

Spot the resemblance

Teenage Mutant Ninja Zuma, anybody?

Diversity: too much hard work with no upside

In our modern, advanced and enlightened age, we have moved beyond primitive superstitions and beliefs, have we not? We can look back at the Catholic Church's threats against Galileo for daring to have wild theories about the solar system and nod sagely and feel smug that we've moved on.

The problem is of course we haven't really moved on. We are still scared of the modern-day equivalent of the Catholic Church: political correctness. There are certain things we dare not do, say or think, just like Galileo. One of them is to even dare to question the benefits of the great god diversity.

Diversity and the blind, unthinking and uncritical pursuit thereof have reached quasi-religious proportions. Anything that promotes or increases diversity is per definition good. Any resistance to diversity is by nature evil. It is frowned upon and open resistance to diversity is tantamount to heresy. It can cost you your reputation, if not your job.

Diversity, of course, means one thing and one thing only. It is rather like an electronic diode, allowing current to flow in only one direction. Diversity always means reducing the number of straight white males in any given situation, and replacing them with others – blacks, Asians or Latinos. Like the diode above, it never works in the opposite direction. Nobody would dare to suggest that the 100m Olympic sprint team representing the USA would benefit from fewer black faces and more whites.

A lack of diversity is however the natural state of affairs. Nobody had to teach you to associate with your own kind of kids on the school playground. You just did it. Nobody gave you a course to help you choose where you bought a dwelling – you naturally migrated to a neighborhood populated by people who looked more or less like you. It wasn't that you hated others, it was just natural and comfortable to associate with those who resembled you.

This is not the case with diversity. It is damn hard work. People have to be forced by law to participate in it. Another favourite word is "tolerance." If you have to tolerate something, it implies that you don't really like it. Organizations like the extreme left-wing, white-bashing Southern Poverty Law Center even have courses that aim to educate people to quote "appreciate diversity" unquote.

Nobody can furthermore explain the value proposition of diversity to me as a white man. Why must I attend courses and peruse handbooks to learn about it? What's in it for me? Where's the benefit? The answer is of course that there's no upside to me as a white man. On the contrary: people like me getting barred from colleges in the name of diversity is diametrically opposed to my best interests.

Not only is it not in my interests at all, it's way too much effort. I enjoy doing what comes naturally. It's nice associating with my own kind. I like to do things that make me feel comfortable. If I have to attend a course to get along with my neighbors, I may just possibly be living in the wrong area, y' know?

Are we heading towards a second revolution?

There can be no doubt whatsoever that the euphoria around the so-called miracle of the rainbow nation, South Africa, has completely evaporated since 1994. It was killed by rampant crime, corruption, decaying infrastructure, the abuse of the judiciary and many other actions of what is still a terrorist movement, the ANC.

 

This should not surprise anybody who's been reading the newspapers for the past 15 years since 1994. It has gradually become clearer and clearer that Nelson Mandela was not the Messiah; that Uhuru would also not put a chicken in every pot, and that South Africa was no different from any other African country in terms of its capacity to disappoint and disillusion.

 

What is also becoming clearer, is that as the financial tide went out worldwide, those swimming without trunks have been exposed. Here I am specifically referring to the beneficiaries of BEE, black economic empowerment, and affirmative action, AA. BEE is a form of forced racialized distribution, in terms of which white corporate assets are forcibly transferred to empowerment beneficiaries.

 

There are fundamental problems with BEE. One is that it is akin to winning a lottery. People who didn't take the risk, who didn't work their butts off, who just got handed wealth on a plate, are notorious for the way in which they waste such wealth. BEE is funded by loans, and these loans depend on the share prices of the donor companies going up. Exactly the opposite is happening at present, however. Many BEE transactions are about to fail because of the stock market collapse and crashing share prices.

 

Another aspect is that BEE attempts to short-circuit market forces. There is no relationship to the business acumen (if any) of, say, Smuts Ngonyama, and the millions he received merely for knowing the right people. It is therefore not productive in the sense that an entrepreneur's actions are productive economically. It is rather a form of tax on corporations. BEE lowers corporate competitiveness and makes the country as a whole less competitive.

 

Related to BEE is affirmative action, in terms of which millions of blacks were appointed to especially government jobs, not because they had the skills or experience, but simply as a reward for being black. Predictably, the chickens have come home to roost in this regard too. Companies which are under pressure are going to look at unproductive dead wood, and guess who're going to get the ax?

 

The artificially created black middle class was never sustainable. It depended on parasitizing white skills, i.e. white workers carrying AA appointees, and on rising stock prices to carry BEE beneficiaries. South Africa is therefore facing a situation whereby BEE beneficiaries are going to go from instant millionaires back to instant Joe Soaps. Companies are going to start thinking twice before appointing somebody just because he is black.

 

The country is going to sit in a situation where millions of newly-empowered blacks (empowerment is a fallacy done this way in any event) are going to have to go back to the townships from whence they came and to hand back their luxury cars.

 

My prediction is that they won't accept this lying down. Revolutions are led by the bourgeoisie, not the poor. A second, more violent revolution than 1994's is becoming a real possibility in South Africa.

Soccer World Cup 2010: a damp squib?

I must admit I'm not the world's biggest soccer fan. Why a game where people run around aimlessly kicking a ball for 90 minutes, with the final score often 0-0 or 1-0, has such international appeal, is quite beyond me.

I'm not alone in thinking that soccer is monumentally boring and a game for people with 0.005% brain activity, apparently. Witness the lack of interest shown in the USA compared to gridiron football. Soccer is seriously in need of a revamp in terms of wider goals, or a repeal of the ridiculous offside rule, if you ask me.

Be that as it may, South Africa's ruling ANC regime is apparently furious at the low level of ticket sales and general lack of interest shown in the 2010 World Cup Soccer.

According to a report in South Africa's Times newspaper, 80% of the tickets sold to date have been sold to foreigners. Ticket sales recently started happening online.

The true mystery here is why the cabinet or anybody else is surprised. South Africa is, after all, a third-world country mired in poverty. What did you expect, mister ANC cabinet member? Residents of squatter camps logging on with the super-fast broadband and latest PC's and flashing their Diner's Club Platinum cards in a rush to obtain tickets?

Did the cabinet members perhaps forget that most soccer fans in South Africa are from the poorer sections of the community, with no electricity in their shacks, let alone a broadband internet connection? Even the local discount of 40% off ticket prices still place the tickets beyond the reach of the vast majority of local fans.

Furthermore, people in European host countries like Germany have the expectation that their home teams may do well, or even win the cup. South Africa's pathetic soccer team, the abysmal Bafana-Bafana ("Boys-Boys"), are not even in the top 50 soccer teams in international terms. They have just as much chance of winning the World Cup as Jacob Zuma has of going to jail. International games between these losers and other international teams are often very poorly attended.

Big surprise then that the people who do have money in South Africa are also so apathetic. Many local fans would much rather watch Brazil play Italy than they would want to see the Banana-Bananas being thrashed 4-0 by Ecuador.

Given the international financial crisis, and the lack of affordability of tickets to local fans, do not be surprised if 2010 turns out to be one very expensive damp squib, resulting in major losses and white elephant stadia once the spectators have gone home.

 

 

The only chronic thing here is the ANC's bullshit

Schabir Shaik, convicted fraudster and South Africa's next president's financial "advisor" (in reality his partner in crime) has been released from prison on "medical grounds" (sic.)

No, that's not quite accurate. Shaik has spent very little time of his 28-month sentence actually behind bars. He was in fact in hospital most of the time, ostensibly suffering from high blood pressure. He was in reality released from hospital, not prison, on medical parole.

Up to now, medical parole has only been granted to those in the last stages of terminal conditions, in order to allow them to die at home, and even then this was rare. Thousands of AIDS cases die in prison annually. High blood pressure is not a terminal disease, although its complications may be. However, the interesting thing is Shaik immediately went home from "prison." He was not discharged and didn't go to a hospital for further treatment, as one would expect for someone with such a "serious" condition, but rather to his own dwelling. I suspect it will be a long wait before Shaik actually goes to a hospital of his own volition. Strange, that...

Furthermore, a very large proportion of South Africa's prison population suffers from another chronic disease called AIDS, one which is also potentially fatal and possibly more serious than mere high blood pressure. Will they too be allowed out of prison now, seeing that Shaik was allowed out? The authorities can hardly be consistent if they don't immediately release all HIV+ prisoners too, seeing the Shaik was let out.

The whole thing was a sham, a charade, a mockery of justice. Shaik's medical parole was granted for one reason only: as a political favour to Jacob Zuma. In what would surely be an extremely embarrassing "coincidence" in any civilized country, Jacob Zuma over the weekend said that he was of the opinion Shaik should be released. Voila! A few days later, in a ground-breaking ruling, Shaik is granted medical parole, and will probably spend his first night partying the night away by breakdancing in a night club.

Once again it is clear that there are one set of rules and laws for the ordinary people on the street or in prison, and another set entirely for those connected to the ANC regime. Seeing that Shaik has been rewarded for his despicable criminal acts by being let out of prison, can we expect to see the criminal Shaik as a replacement for Trevor Manuel - South Africa's next minister of finance?

How dumb are the Stormers' selectors?

On Saturday the 7th of March, the Stormers are facing the Bulls in a Super 14 rugby match at Loftus Versfeld in Pretoria.

 

One of the possible members of the Stormers squad is one Luke Puke Watson, the player who insulted Afrikaners by using the perjorative term "Dutchmen" to describe us, and who feels the need to vomit on the Springbok rugby emblem.

 

Watson has already and deservedly been booed in earlier matches played at his home ground, Newlands. There is a much bigger problem waiting in Pretoria on Saturday, however. There are a million or more Afrikaners who live in Pretoria and surrounds, and the Afrikaners who live in Pretoria are a lot less forgiving than those in Watson's home town, Cape Town. Mr Watson can expect a very, very hot and hostile reception from the Loftus crowd.

 

That is if he is picked. One wonders whether the Stormers' selectors and coach Rassie Erasmus are really that dumb. Surely you don't want to place your team under added pressure, given that they've already lost two of their matches? Might there on the other hand be political pressure brought to bear on the Stormers' management, which would force their inclusion of this loathsome individual, to prove some kind of point?

 

I personally hope, as an Afrikaner, that they do pick Watson, and that he hears first-hand what we think of him.

Those sneaky Reds...

The South African Communist Party (SACP) held a conference over the weekend. According to Blade Nzimande, the head of the SACP, there are SACP candidates on the ANC's list of nominees.

Nzimande says that these candidates should be "accountable to the SACP." Let's understand this: the SACP does not stand in elections. You cannot at the polls vote for an SACP candidate, or for the party itself. You can only vote for the ANC, with the understanding that you may also be voting for communists, but there is no link between the will of the voters and the number SACP members of parliament.

Why then, if the SACP expects accountability and loyalty from their members who happen to be on the ANC's list, does it not do the logical thing stand in elections as an entity on its own. What is the SACP afraid of? We all know the answer: clearly it knows that it is a party of ideological dinosaurs, who belong in the dustbin of history along with the Berlin Wall.

The entire setup smacks of blatant opportunism by communists, who by riding on the coattails of the ANC, want to have a say out of all proportion to the true size of its membership base - less than 50,000 out of a total population of 50 million. They don't want to participate in elections but yet they want political power. How extremely democratic of them.

Having a say without being accountable to a voting public, is called a dictatorship. Comrades: if you want to be tinpot dictators, why don't you all just bugger off and go and jerk Kim Jong-Il off in his North Korean paradise on earth?

Cope self-destructs

And so the political party Cope self-destructs – if not politically, then at least as far as its credibility is concerned.

Cope keeps making promises about accountability and its commitment to fighting corruption. Having made all these promises, however, what does it do in the key Western Cape province, the one in which the opposition parties stand a realistic chance of usurping the ANC’s provincial government?

It elects Allan Boesak as its candidate for provincial premier. For those not familiar with this Boesak's past, he was the one who embezzled Danish donors’ funds.

The abovementioned donor funds were intended for the poor, amongst which Boesak’s own flock must surely count. Boesak, however, like Carl Niehaus, another corrupt cleric formerly associated with the ANC, clearly has a taste for the high life, especially so when there are women around. In particular, relationships across the colour line seem to hold a peculiar fascination for the ANC's cadres.

Niehaus has been married to black women twice, something which was illegal under the apartheid government. Boesak, a coloured (in South Africa this indicates a mixed-race, as opposed to black, individual), also started an adulterous affair with a white journalist, Elna Boesak, for whom he left his wife. Hardly behavior befitting a man of the cloth, but something paled when compared to his next misstep.

Rumour has it that one cause of Niehaus’s current financial woes was the demands that the women in his life made on him in terms of lifestyle. Boesak seems to have had similar issues, because he stole the Danish donor funds after he became involved with Elna. Boesak stole from the poor to fund a lavish lifestyle and fancy house, no doubt, and also possibly to keep Elna in the style she thought she deserved. Hardly the stuff of priestly virtue and celibacy, but regrettably exactly like Niehaus and any number of ANC cadres known for their extravagance.

Boesak was sentenced to prison for his theft, but was later pardoned by president Thabo Mbeki after serving time in prison. However, pardon or no pardon, the fact remains that Boesak is a lowlife, and clearly unfit to hold public office. Cope hasn’t won any seats in parliament yet, and already if sullies its reputation by picking criminals like Boesak as its candidate.

Cope has shown itself to be no better than the bunch of thieves, terrorists, murderers and scumbags known as the ANC, from whence most of its leadership came. But here’s the irony: there will still be idiot voters who vote for Cope, even with the Boesaks of this word on its list of candidates. They will believe the words gushed by the politicians, and not consider their actions.