South Africa's own SAT

Our dear (in the sense that Kim Jong-Il is North Korea’s Dear Leader) minister of education, comrade Blade Nzimande, wants to institute a university entrance exam for those who fail to get university exemption in matric.

According to comrade Nzimande, it is unacceptable that “only” 18% of all matriculants gain exemption. According to him, 18% is “too low.” Excuse me comrade, but of these 18% that do reach university, why do almost half still fail their first year? This was also the case with my all-white classmates when I was at university during the apartheid years. Actually, comrade, the opposite is true: matric is and has always been too easy. Too many people that should not be there, still go to university and waste their time and their parents' money in the process.

However, in principle, something like the American Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is not a bad idea. The SAT is an entrance exam to get into college or university. If people do indeed have the potential to excel at university but are being constrained by a poor school environment, such a test would introduce a measure of fairness into the system. What it would also do, is to lay to rest the myth that apartheid / Bantu education / poor schools etc are to blame for poor educational outcomes.

Except.

We all know what the outcome will be. Let me give you a clue: no matter whether it’s matric or an SAT, some groups of people will still do better than others in any academic and aptitude test. In the USA, the people who do best at SAT's happen to be of East Asian origin.

So, as soon as comrade Blade introduces South Africa’s version of the SAT, guess what will happen? Right. A South African SAT still won’t solve comrade Blade’s problem and address his real reasons for wanting to offer another route to university. He will still have to institute quotas, like the extreme forms of racism perpetrated by the UCT's Faculty of Medicine against whites.

To understand this, just look at the USA: the Americans already have an SAT but now they have to institute quotas to keep the East Asians from filling too many places in science and engineering at MIT and Harvard. They're simply much better at maths and science than us Caucasians are.

The above obviously constitutes a very relevant philosophical question: what is the point of administering tests? Obviously it's to distinguish between competent and incompetent candidates. If you fail your bar exam, you can't become a lawyer. However, in the age of insane political correctness, things are not as simple as they seem. People can write tests and pass but if the politicians don't like the outcome, for example because only white people passed, tests are disregarded.

If you're going to disregard the outcome of a test and regardless of his passing or failing make somebody a neurosurgeon or give him a promotion, just because he happens not to be a Caucasian, what is the point of having a test at all? Does the test then just become some kind of charade that attempts to fool some people into believing that their abilities, as opposed to their skin colour, matter at all?

However, I believe I can help our dear comrade. Here’s my suggestion for a South African SAT, a test that will remove the need for any quotas and will allow comrade Blade to truly transform all universities.

1. You have 6 girlfriends and you’ve all been sexually active since age 8. You have also raped a number of women since age 14. What are the odds of all of you being HIV+? a) 100% b) 100% c) 100% (5 points)

2. You and your mates decide to rob a cash-in-transit van. What is the best artillery to take along? a) 9mm b) AK-47 c) RPG-7 d) M-16 e) all of the above (5 points)

3. The best way to get rich quickly in Mzansi is: a) Robbing a bank, b) working as a corrupt civil servant for Home Affairs, c) having a BEE deal awarded to you because you’re related to a minister, d) being friends with JZ. (5 points)

4. Driving on the wrong side of the road while pissed is acceptable if a) you’re a AA-appointed judge, b) you drive a black Jaguar, c) you really have to d) all of the above (5 points)
5. Your population group is: a) black (+10000000000000000 points) b) coloured (5 points) c) Indian -10 points d)other / currently disadvantaged / Caucasian (-1000000000000 points)

Funny how some Muslims behave in non-Muslim countries...

The Egyptian soccer team that is currently participating in the Confederations Cup soccer tournament in South Africa has complained that they've been robbed. "Typical of South Africa, one the most crime-ridden societies on earth" cynics would say, shaking their heads.

 

Things are not quite what they seem, however. Rumour has it that the players were robbed by hookers they were entertaining in their plush hotel rooms in the 5-star Michelangelo hotel in Sandton, Johannesburg. Prostitution is illegal in South Africa. If these rumours are true, the Egyptian "victims" were themselves committing a crime. Funny thing is they come from a Muslim country, where many women are forced to wear head-to-toe veils and where there are medieval laws against indecency, if not women in general.

 

In 1998 two touring Pakistani cricket players were mugged in South Africa. The team threatened to call off the remainder of the tour. Pakistan is also a fundamentalist Muslim country. It turned out that the players who were "mugged" were really beaten up after they had touched strippers in a sleazy Sandton joint called Club 69. Once again it appears that once the strictures of fundamentalist laws have been removed, these guys have no compunction in availing themselves of the pleasures of the flesh.

 

Rumours also circulated that the leader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta, had a predilection for strippers, cocaine and alcohol. I'm sure Allah will forgive him, however, and that the offer of 70 virgins in heaven still stands provided you're willing to martyr yourself.

 

What is interesting is how some Muslims behave when they are no longer subject to religious laws. Perhaps it's not only the West that's so decadent...

The chardonnay socialists get a whipping at the polls

Many observers are somewhat perplexed by the extremely poor showing of the Left in the recent European Parliament elections, especially given the current economic crisis. One would have thought that parties with left-wing, socialist inclinations, those that promise more state aid to voters, would have done better among voters who are concerned about their long-term financial security.

The exact opposite happened, however. The Left was murdered in Europe’s elections. The real winners were right-wing parties.

The apparent mystification shown by the liberal press, such as The Economist, just once again goes to show how out of touch the Left and the liberals are with the concerns of the proverbial man in the street. This especially applies to well-off left-wingers.

The sardonic term “chardonnay socialist” is the often applied to those upper-class individuals who tend towards left-wing political views. These are people living in the better suburbs of London, the northern suburbs of Johannesburg or those on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. From the comfort of their penthouse apartments or mansions, they often want to lecture others on the “benefits” of multiculturalism.

What they will never do, however, is to experience those “benefits” for themselves. They will not, for example, go and live in suburbs like Harlem or cities like Bradford, where the “joys” of multiculturalism can be experienced first-hand. You will not catch a British chardonnay socialist living in a suburb with more mosques than churches, or an American one living in the inner-city area of Philadelphia. In South Africa they will live in their secure complexes in lily-white suburbs, hidden as far away as possible from the unwashed masses in Soweto.

While the white South African chardonnay socialists pay lip service to diversity, they strangely almost always marry white partners. One wonders what the statistical chances are of a truly colour-blind chardonnay socialist marrying a white partner, seeing that 9 out of 10 people in South Africa are not white... Chardonnay socialists in South Africa especially are however by no means all white. They are often nouveau-riche black plutocrats, the politically connected who became exceedingly rich without adding one iota of economic value. Like Julius Malema with his Mercedes and Sandton dwelling, they too will waste no time in escaping the unwashed masses for the leafy northern suburbs of Johannesburg, while still at the same time maintaining their left-wing rhetoric.

The ordinary voters in Europe, the working men and women, often do not have the luxury of living in Kensington or Highgate. They are forced by economic circumstances to live on streets where all the shops sell Halaal foodstuffs, where the hair salons specialize in ethnic hair. They have to compete with immigrants, often illegal immigrants, for welfare and jobs. They are the ones who experience the “joys” of diversity and multiculturalism first-hand.

Is it any wonder, then, that anti-immigrant parties like the Dutch PVV and the British BNP have shown remarkable gains in recent times?

Reitzhuis and Parktown Boys High: a case study in anti-Afrikaner bias

Possibly it’s because I hail from humble origins, but I’ve always been pretty skeptical about private schools. As one wag put it: Private schools are the cream of society – thick, rich and full of clots.

Although Parktown Boys High is admittedly not a private school, its fees are high and it is situated in the wealthy northern suburbs of Johannesburg. Possibly because of its liberal constituency, Parktown Boys was the first public school to admit non-whites in 1991. As the Wikipedia entry for the school gushes: “This was a bold step and can be attributed to the free thinking management which is passed down to the school boys.”

Pity that its so-called free-thinking and liberal management does not extend to curtailing its barbaric initiation practices, which include stripping people naked and beating them with cricket bats and clubs, one might add.

What is of particular interest to me is the reaction of the press, many of the old boys and parents to the arrest of those responsible for the brutal initiations at Parktown Boys in 2009, and the contrast to the Reitzhuis incident in 2008, as well as other incidents of initiation at Afrikaans-speaking schools and university residences.

For those who don’t remember, the Reitzhuis incident involved students at a University of the Free State residence filming black cleaners eating food, as part of a mock initiation ceremony, which had ostensibly been “urinated” on as part of a prank video aimed at satirizing the ANC regime’s obsession with racist transformation (aka the ethnic cleansing of whites from institutions.) In reality, the “urine” at Reitzhuis was Oros, an orange cordial. At no stage were the cleaners physically harmed, in contrast to the brutal beatings with cricket bats that boys like Pene Kimber’s son suffered.

Ms Kimber said during a TV interview that her son’s buttocks were covered in black bruises after the incident. In stark contrast, none of the Reitzhuis “victims” even thought of complaining, simply because they hadn’t been harmed. It was a black student who was not involved who stumbled across the video and whose complaint started the storm of controversy.

Possibly because the students at Reitzhuis were Afrikaners and their unhurt (and I want to emphasize: UNHURT) “victims” black, however, there was an orgy of condemnation from all and sundry, including the international press. The left and their sycophantic media had a field day by hysterically and in unison screaming “racism.” The ANC regime promptly instituted a commission of inquiry, which predictably concluded that all universities were infested by unrepentant white racists. Jonathan Jansen, an unapologetic critic and even hater of Afrikaners, was made rector of the university, possibly to teach those Afrikaner “racists” a lesson.

The students involved were also criminally charged, presumably by the institution itself.

Fast forward from February 2008 to February 2009. During a similar incident, this time at an upper class English-speaking academic institution (Reitzhuis was Afrikaans-speaking), the black head boy, Kaizer Tabane, of Parktown Boys was one of the ring leaders of the attacks on Ms Kimber’s white son and other victims. He was admittedly later stripped of his responsibilities but remained in the school. The students at Reitzhuis were expelled.

As far as I could ascertain, however, very few people viewed the Parktown attacks as a racial incident. There were no headlines in the New York Times calling Tabane a racist. This is illogical in the light of the Reitzhuis outcry, given that the ringleader at Parktown Boys, the head boy, Kaizer Tabane, was black, and his victims included whites. If white students at Reitzhuis play a prank on black cleaners without hurting them, it's racism. If a black headboy leads a vicious attack that leaves white people black and blue, it's not racism. Somebody should explain this to me someday.

The reaction and hypocrisy of the headmaster and some of the parents at Parktown Boys are also noteworthy. Whereas almost all callers to radio talk shows in the aftermath of the Reitzhuis video were unanimous in their shrill condemnation, many of the parents and old boys of Parktown Boys seem to want this incident kept silent. Many of them, in anonymous press interviews and calls to radio stations, want this incident to be handled “internally” (read: “swept under the carpet.”) The headmaster shows all the signs of somebody who desires a swift cover-up, accusing the press of bias against him. The parents of the miscreants at Parktown Boys want the charges withdrawn.

Note the important difference: the school was not the party that laid criminal charges. It was the mother of one of the victims.

Once again: when white, Afrikaans students play a prank in which nobody is physically harmed, it’s “racism” and it reaches the front pages of the international press. They are expelled from the institution and criminally charged by that institution.

When a black is a ringleader of a brutal attack on white victims at an English-speaking school, on the other hand, the headmaster and parents want it covered up and handled internally and the New York Times is strangely silent about the matter. No criminal charges are brought by the institution itself.

Call me excessively Afrikaans, but this reeks of the utmost hypocrisy and bias against Afrikaners and whites in general, perpetrated as usual by the idiotic English-speaking left-wing liberal.

Waar is die DA se konsekwentheid oor transformasie?

'n Hipotetiese scenario: 'n Man en sy vrou sukkel met geld. Hy is vreksuinig met die huishoudelike begroting, en baklei met sy vrou omdat sy geld mors. Hulle lewe van bruinbrood en ryswater. Tog speel die man elke Sondag gholf, teen R400 per rondte. Sy argument is dat sy spandering van R1600 per maand 'n spesiale uitsondering is, want hy't baie stres by die werk. 

Dink nie daar is baie mense wat simpatie met die gholfspeler sal hê nie - die man is 'n skynheilige ou huigelaar, sou die meeste mense sê.

Dit is eweneens so in die politiek. Jy kan nie sê jy is ten gunste van iets, behalwe waar dit jouself raak nie. 

Die DA is openlik ten gunste van (rassistiese) transformasie en regstellende aksie, en alles wat dit impliseer soos rassekwotas. Behalwe waar dit by die party self kom.

Die ANC het daarom 'n punt beet as hy kla oor die rassesamestelling van die Weskaapse provinsiale kabinet. Die DA kan nie konsekwent wil sê dat hy pro-transformasie is, maar dan soos die gholfspeler in my voorbeeld heel bo wil kla as die transformasie ook die party se eie aanstellings raak nie.

Dit gaan eenvoudig nie op nie, en is net so skynheilig soos die gholfspeler se uitsondering wat hy wil maak as hy sy eie reëls aan sy eie bas voel. 

Klink vir my al te veel of Botoxzilla-hulle slegs ten gunste van transformasie is, mits dit ander mense is wat getransformeer word, en nie haar Engelssprekende wit elite nie.

Good riddance to another incompetent ANC cadre

The South African minister of communications, Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri, has died. While any death is sad, very few, with the exception of her family and the ANC regime, will miss this fundamentally incompetent waster of oxygen.

Her long list of failures and disastrous policy decisions have deservedly earned her the nickname "Poison Ivy."

South Africa is blighted by its sloth-like telecommunications monopoly, Telkom. Its telecommuncations costs are amongst the most exorbitant in the world.

Telkom has enjoyed a monopoly since its creation, and only recently got some modicum of competition in the form of a second communications provider, Neotel. However, Neotel's creation came disastrously late and has yet to bring down South Africa's astronomical internet and telephony costs. Matsepe-Casaburri was directly responsible for this state of affairs by deliberately instituting obstacles and delaying tactics.

Another piece of incompetence for which Matsepe-Casaburri (what IS it with these idiots and their double-barreled surnames?) can be blamed is the delay in installing another undersea network cable. She insisted that any cable that arrived at the South African coast had to be owned by a majority of local shareholders. This was no doubt to enrich some ANC cronies – possibly Matsepe-Casaburri's husband or cousin.

Glittering eulogies have been spewing forth from the mouths of the ANC, and no doubt Matsepe-Casaburri will receive a state funeral, thereby adding to the billions she had cost taxpayers during her incompetent life.

Some may miss her. Internet users and the long-suffering South African consumers of telephony services won't be among them.

Increasing motor vehicle prices now is lunacy

The South African car industry is under severe pressure with sales dropping through the floor. Year-on-year sales, 2009 compared to 2008, are down by approximately 30%. Dealerships are closing. People working in the industry are losing their jobs.

If you believe that the law of supply and demand applies to the motor industry too, clearly the demand for motor vehicles has collapsed entirely. Nobody is buying cars. When demand is rising, sellers of products can increase their prices, because people want their goods. When demand is falling, however, it is very difficult to raise prices without exacerbating your falling demand.

Yet this is exactly what car dealers are doing. I have been receiving emails throughout March from BMW South Africa "warning" me about the coming price increase in April. BMW is not the only dealers raising their prices – Mercedes, Toyota and the others are doing the same. In Sunday's Rapport newspaper, it was reported that a new model 1.3 Toyota Corolla would set the idiot buyer back R195000 (approximately $20,000.) This is an insane price for a 1.3 liter runabout, and I don't care how many bells and whistles it has. It's still a 1300cc pissant.

Do the motor manufacturers such as BMW perhaps not know about the law of supply and demand? Were they not paying attention in Economics 101? Apparently not. To increase prices during such a severe international downturn, is utter madness, if not stupidity.

Expect more demands from the motor industry, nevertheless, that government (i.e. the taxpayer) should bail their industry out.

Expect the taxpayer, in turn, to have absolutely no sympathy for their lot, a fate which the car industry has brought upon itself because of its continuous gouging of the public. BMW should not warn me, Joe Public, about an increase in its prices. It should send out warning mails to its board of directors, informing them about how ludicrous increasing prices right now would be.

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.