the unlucky country

Black Soccer Sides Suck

2010-06-27T00:07:00.000+02:00

Although as I write this Ghana has just eliminated the USA and thus enters the last 8, but remember they only qualified for the last 16 by being awarded a penalty for a “handball” that never was – against Australia.

So the dreams of FIFA and the multi-cultis who are so desperate to see a nigger nation steal the Soccer World Cup, are thus kept alive for another game. But, can you imagine the uproar and the rioting that would occur if the blackies made the Final, or even the semis, and were then eliminated by having an “unfair” penalty awarded against them?

Is there a referee alive who is brave enough to award a crucial penalty against a black side on the verge of winning the WC? I seriously doubt it.

Anyway, if Ghana makes it through to the semis, I am predicting that the Africoon quota will be increased from 5 to 6 or even 7 teams at the next WC. Because by foul means or foul a black side MUST be made to win and thus eliminate another hurdle of the white racism and inequality that has always held them back!

Anyway, the best thing about this WC was the humiliating early exit of a “French” team whose majority black players apparently refused to sing the Marseillaise and then went on training strike over an alleged “racist” slight from their white trainer. The way things are going Englands similarly multi-cult side will also exit soon – and good riddance!

I fancy Uruguay as an outside bet – dammit I really meant to have a $100 punt on them at the outset when I probably could have got 100 to 1, but my computer connection was so poor and the Betfair site is so full of stuff that I couldn´t get the frigging bet on. Too late now, others have woken up to their chances.

Anyway, this is a very good article about the racial make-up of the competing teams – be sure to click on the link and read the always excellent comments of the Amren readers.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/06/black_men_cant.php

Joe Kowalski, Alternative Right, June 19, 2010

Soccer—fútbol, Fußball, futebol, football—is the world’s most popular sport, and literally hundreds of millions of people are now watching the 2010 World Cup. {snip}

{snip}

Race is also on display on the pitch and for all the talk of diversity, multiculturalism, and a global community, most of the 32 teams in the field feature racially exclusive teams.

European and South American teams dominate world soccer and have won every single World Cup. But to make the event a truly global affair, there are quotas for each region so that everyone feels represented.

I watched each opening round game and noted the races of all 11 starters for each squad. All five sub-Saharan Africa squads (Nigeria, South Africa, Ivory Coast, Ghana and Cameroon) start all blacks. All three Asian teams (Japan, South Korea and North Korea) start all Asians. The one North African team (Algeria) starts all Arabs. The eastern European teams (Slovenia, Slovakia, and Serbia) start all whites.

Australia and New Zealand are not soccer powers but each qualified this year. Australia starts an all white team and New Zealand starts 10 whites and one aboriginal (probably a Maori).

Latin American teams are a mixed bag racially, much like the region itself. The races of some of the players are often hard to pinpoint. Are they mestizos or darker skinned whites of Portuguese or Spanish descent?

The three white nations of Latin America start mostly white sides. Argentina starts nine or 10 whites with one or maybe two mestizos. Uruguay starts nine whites with one clear mestizo and one clear Negro. Chile starts seven or eight whites with three or four mestizos.

Mexico and Paraguay have a starting 11 consisting of a mixture of whites and mestizos. Honduras starts eight mestizos and, surprising, three blacks.

Brazil starts four whites and seven players who are black or racially mixed.

The United States again made the tournament and has a decent shot of advancing to the next round of 16. Racially, the team starts seven whites and four blacks. Mestizos are now about 15 percent of the U.S. population, but there are only three Hispanics on the team and one of them—Carlos Bocanegra—is clearly a white Hispanic. The two mestizos are backups and there are no Asians or Middle Easterners on the U.S. squad. The U.S. is being overwhelmed with millions of soccer-mad immigrants every year. Why aren’t these people making the national team?

So far, most nations of the world have teams that racially represent their people. Black Africans, Asians, Arabs, and Eastern Europeans (God bless ’em) can support teams that reflect them 100 percent. Whites in Australia and New Zealand can still proudly support a team that looks like them.

Blacks are overrepresented on the Brazilian side, but most Latin American nations have squads that reflect their racial demographics. Americans are no doubt used to blacks being overrepresented on national sports teams, but the current squad has enough whites so that it is not viewed as alien—like the often all-black U.S. national basketball team.

We are constantly told that multiculturalism and diversity are unalloyed blessings. But of course, white nations are the only countries that are enjoying these blessings—and it is starting to show in the national squads of the Western European teams.

Italy has won four World Cups including the last one in 2006. They cling stubbornly to the view that Italians don’t need blacks to win World Cups and still start an all-white (and, with one exception, all-Italian) side. {snip}

Germany has won three World Cups and is always a threat to win it all. This year’s starting squad can be described—depending on your definition of white—as either all-white or as nine whites and two Turks. Like Italy, the Germans have stubbornly resisted starting supposedly superior black players.

France has shown no such resistance. Historically not a soccer power, they won their only World Cup in 1998 with four black starters and apparently attributed the victory to having more blacks. They have consistently fielded seven blacks starters since and this year is no exception as the four true Frenchmen who start for France stand out on the pitch. The French side represents Africa and not the traditional French nation. Happily, the side is beset with squabbling and will probably go home early this year.

Nigger penalty kick

England won their only World Cup in 1966 with an all-white side but is perhaps going the way of France. They started a bare majority of whites over blacks in their first round game. They may start 7 whites for the next game but the team is trending black. Perhaps if England is bounced from the tournament in the first round it will change things. The team disappointed in a first round draw versus the U.S.

Spain is the favorite to win the whole thing. Like the Italians, the Spanish are all white and have found great success lately. {snip}

Portugal also has an outside chance to win the whole tournament. Led by the great Cristiano Ronaldo, the squad starts 10 whites and one black.

The Greeks round out a solid Southern European contingent with an all-white side.

A few years ago, the Netherlands seemed on the verge of becoming another France. This year’s squad starts nine whites but has several black substitutes who will see playing time. {snip}

Denmark has 10 whites and one black who distinguished himself by accidentally hitting the ball into his own net and losing the first game for the Danes.

Switzerland starts two blacks and an Arab. But the team still retains an overall European identity and pulled a huge upset over Spain in the first round of games.

{snip}

Since only white nations let in millions of people of different races, they are the only countries to be effected by demographic change. Asians, Africans (both Arab and black) and mestizos can be sure their national soccer teams will always represent them. If Eastern Europe can hold the line on immigration, they can also be confident that their teams will always reflect them as well.

{snip}

Another lesson is that it is mainly blacks who are changing the face of the Western European soccer teams. There are many more Arabs and Middle Easterners in France and the Netherlands than blacks. Why are these significant minorities absent from the starting lineups? In England, there are many more Pakistanis, Indians, and Bangladeshis than blacks. Yet they are not represented on the national team. As noted, mestizos and Asians have yet to make an impact on the U.S. side.

A proper HBD response might be that blacks are better athletes than whites, and much better athletes than Arabs, Asians, and mestizos. But that is certainly not reflected in the World Cup results. All-black African sides are losers who have never come close to contending for the World Cup, though soccer is universally played throughout the Dark Continent. Some might say they need better training and coaching, but all black African teams are currently coached by whites. Even the Asian sides usually outplay the all-black nations. Though they enjoy home field advantage, the record of the all-black teams at this writing is a pathetic one win, four losses, and two draws. {snip}

On a more political note, I noted the typically fawning news coverage the media have given South Africa. They have not been too curious about the robberies of players and fans and the killings (one victim was Nelson Mandela’s great granddaughter, which kept him from the opening ceremonies) that have occurred around the event.

Several commentators have referred to the “the rainbow nation” of South Africa without wondering why the national team is all black. This is especially ironic as the ANC has mandated quotas for the sport of rugby to ensure some black representation in this white-dominated sport.

A COON-FUSINGLY COON-TRADICTORY COON-UNDRUM

2010-05-14T11:21:00.000+02:00

On the SAS blog someone wrote a story about a Transkei school that is much in demand by the local better-off blacks for its top academic results, as most of its teaching staff is white.

This reminded me of what Gedahlia Braun said in “Racism, Guilt, and Self-Deceit” – now an e-book available from AfricanCrisis. He claimed that ordinary blacks fear black rule because they know from their own experience that, even under apartheid, whenever some blacks got power – eg, as police – they become corrupt and arrogant, tyrants and bullies. He said you can test his theory by asking your domestic/gardener if they would prefer white teachers for their kids, white doctors, etc. And after they have answered “yes” to white everything, you then ask them “so why do you vote for a black government?”

After reading this I did the test on a black employee and, sure enough, she agreed on all points until, when it came to my suggestion that she should vote DA, she simply said “I won’t vote next time..!” So the idea of actually voting for a white party was a bridge too far – probably because she would have been in dread fear of discovery via the tokolosh in the polling booth.

So, due to rampant Kaffirmative Ekshun, Kaffirmative Procuration, EmployMUNT Equity, and BEE (Black EnrichMUNT by Extortion) we now have a new breed of blacks who have suddenly accumulated wealth beyond their wildest dreams and totally disproportionate to their skills or ability, or rather lack of. After white liberals (a fast disappearing species) these Kaffirmatised blacks are the biggest threat to SA whites, because they owe everything to the ANC and they know it, and they have the most to lose from a white resurgence.

These black (fake) diamonds resent whites remaining in SA because we are a daily reminder of their own inferiority and they are well aware that one of us, not them, should be driving their luxury car to their overpaid unearned executive position where they depend totally on subordinate whites to do all the real work.

Even when his victims are oblivious to his identity, a criminal feels very uncomfortable in their presence lest he be discovered. And they know that if they do not get rid of us, then one day the country will revert to its founders and rightful masters. But can the self-deluded liberal Mandelatopians see this coming?

Despite all of this, I am willing to wager good money on the following speculation…..

At least 90% of the black so-called “elite”, the black so-called “diamonds” prefer….

Their teachers to be white
Their doctors to be white
Their dentists to be white
Their surgeons to be white
Their computer technicians to be white
Their lawyers to be white
Their private detectives to be white
Their accountants to be white
Their airplane pilots to be white
Their helicopter pilots to be white
Their bankers and money-managers to be white
Their stock-brokers to be white
Their architects to be white
Their engineers to be white
Their most important employees to be white

From this list one thing stands out clearly –

wherever BRAINS and FINANCIAL TRUST, are crucially important….

BLACKS ALMOST INVARIABLY PREFER WHITES..!

WITH ONE GLARING EXCEPTION…..

for some reason they prefer a BLACK GOVERNMUNT..!

Are they admitting that a black government has no need of either BRAINS or TRUST..?

Am I the only one to have noticed this coontradiction?

Requiem for Rhodesia

2010-04-01T14:31:00.000+02:00

Carlos W. Porter (b 1947)

In re-reading this brilliant essay one should be reminded that the author was only 26 years old at the time and had not been brought up in Africa. Considering that, it is truly remarkable that he could have been so unfashionably "illiberal" and so insightful into the African psyche.

As the essay is so long and not everyone has the time or inclination to read it all, I have selected some of his most perceptive remarks.....notice how horribly relevant to the awful situation that white South Africans find themselves in today.

Truly, this is a case of deja vu all over again..! (sic)

For those who want to read it all, here is the link again: http://www.cwporter.com/rhodesia.html

In Africa, European-owned farms, homes, and businesses are tolerated only
until the Africans can stand the chaos created by their confiscation. The owners
are given 24 hours to leave the country with two suitcases and a few dollars; or
they are given cash and expelled, but are prohibited by “exchange control
regulations” from taking the cash with them; or they are paid off with
government bonds which do not mature for 25 years and can be repudiated by any
succeeding government; or they are terrorized by thugs and are told by the
police, “If you don’t like it, why don’t you get out of the country!”

We (the Western nations) must help to kill the white Rhodesians (or S.Africans)
so as to butter up the blacks into allowing us to help exploit their property,
or the enormous mineral resources which the blacks were never aware of.

“The trouble is, a lot of the Europeans just got greedy”, said a woman in
Salisbury who ran from Zambia. “A lot of them just thought, oh, well, it won’t
happen to me. I knew someone who had a business in Zambia. He stayed. They
waited ten years. Then sure enough, when he had built it up into an established
business, they ‘Africanized’ it.

The terrorists are not freedom fighters. The purpose of terrorism is to discourage civilian cooperation with an established government. What is not safe is to be an unarmed African in a terrorist-infested zone. Such a person is likely to see his chief beaten to death, his wife and daughters raped, his sons kidnapped, his ears, lips and nose cut off . Since he fears being cut to pieces with a rusty bayonet more than he fears hanging or imprisonment at the hands of the authorities, the whites cannot win in a contest of terror and do not try.

Liberated" of her lips by Mugabe's "freedom fighters" (with full approval of your government)

Is failing to outnumber the blacks really a worse crime than murdering them all?
Or is it simply that the Rhodesians are white? Are we fighting a race war
against ourselves? Do we despise ourselves that much? Or is it simply that
we only care about money? “Oh God, let my neighbours be slaughtered one by
one, let my children live under Communism, but let me have my boat, my car,
my TV, my sauna bath, my swimming pool, my plane, but oh God, please don’t
make me think about tomorrow.”
Perhaps you have noticed that countries in which Africans hold all the land must
subsist largely off foreign aid. The Frelimo government of Mozambique
confiscated the homes and farms of a quarter million Portuguese, and then asked
the Rhodesians to feed their starving population! As soon as they got their
hands on a couple of trainloads of Rhodesian maize, they declared war on
Rhodesia! They were instantly given a healthy dose of foreign aid “assistance”
by Britain, whose socialist Prime Minister at that time owned five houses.
What would happen to the standard of living of American and the world if all the
best land were divided up into 1 acre parcels to be farmed by people who use no
machinery, who plant by poking holes in the ground with a stick, who use no
contour ploughing or erosion control, no artificial fertilizer, who quit work
for several years every time they get a good harvest, who use no crop rotation,
who erode and exhaust the land and then move?

The South African government spent 77 million Rand (100 million dollars) on farm
machinery for the Zulus. The next year everything was rusting and going back to
bush. And the Africans said, “We had a good harvest last year, why the hell
should we work this year?”

Rhodesia (SA) is criticized for spending more money on the education of white
children than black. What do you expect? The whites are outnumbered every year
simply by the number of black babies born. Either the whites must adopt an
African standard of culture and educate no one, or they must spend more of their
money on themselves. Half of the blacks in Rhodesia are less than fifteen years
old; yet the percentage of population in school is almost as high in Rhodesia as
it is in Britain.

If the blacks are not capable of educating themselves, what makes them capable
of running the country?

American and British policy towards Rhodesia is to support “majority rule”, even it that means minorities must be killed. Since this is in direct contradiction to the policies followed in their own countries, where minorities are worshipped, it simply means that if blacks are in the minority, they must be given privileges. If they are not in the minority, they must be given more privileges.

Perhaps those journalists to whom 10,000 miles’ distance has given a superior
understanding will explain what gives the African his right to wreck everything. Perhaps those who sell their homes at a loss rather than share a single American city with the blacks will explain whether they would prefer to farm in Zambia.

To say that one hopes for a peaceful solution to Rhodesia’s (or S.Africa's) racial problems while agitating for majority rule, is simply to utter a hypocritical threat. Rhodesia’s racial problems are created by foreign politicians. If they do not get what they want for nothing, they will resort to war.
The peaceful solution is/was to leave Rhodesia (SA) alone.

Would you abandon your home, your business, your savings, risk the lives of your family, to beg charity in foreign countries you have never seen, in climates you have never experienced, in middle age -- if you could escape? And for what? So that Africans can vote?
In the weeks following UDI, military take-overs and revolutions were taking place in Africa at the rate of one a week. Every single one of these dictatorships was recognized by the world within a week.
Look at the slaughters, look at the tortures, look at the ignorance. It is not enough to treat the Africans better than they have ever treated each other? No. It is not enough to treat the Africans as well as you can. No. In Rhodesia (SA) the rule is not “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In Rhodesia (SA) the rule must be: “Allow others to do unto you things you w ould never dream of doing to them, just as long as they are black.”
Everything the Africans have has been given to them by the whites. It is to satisfy the ignorant envy of people too incompetent to supply themselves with the most basic of modern conveniences that Rhodesia (and SA) must be destroyed.
It is to erase the last reminders of the black mans technical and inventive inferiority that the whites must be killed with our help.
“Few of their houses are equipped with electricity…” says Time. One would think the blacks invented electricity, since it is theirs by right regardless of cost, possibility, or birth rates. The whites must be killed to allow the politicians to pretend that they did invent it.

To defy the world for independence with a handful of professional soldiers would at one time have been called “courageous”. Today that is a privilege reserved “For Non-Whites Only”.

Overweight "exploited" Africans line up to vote for majority rule, 1979, followed, in many cases, by emigration to Britain or flight to South Africa.The "majority" today would probably emigrate anywhere they could, now that they have their "rule". (Only 15 years later S.Africa went the same suicidal route to "democracy")

Britain, which only recently modified a law theoretically permitting any citizen of a Commonwealth Country (that is, about half the world) to enter Britain as a permanent resident regardless of money, skills, diseases, or knowledge of English, will take black Rhodesians, but not the white.
(White Rhodesians and South Africans) know that as long as white authority is maintained, they are safe; but the day it crumbles, their homes will be attacked, their wives will be raped, their children will be butchered. This is no fantasy; it has happened in a dozen UN member states. It is dismissed as fantasy by people who live in fantasies of their own.

Posted by Bantu Education as a public service to white people.

THE HOLY GRAIL OF BLACK ENTITLEMUNT

2010-03-10T20:56:00.000+02:00

Doodler, commenting on Irish Savant blog, said

“I know several black professionals, but when one gets to know them well, you begin to understand the chasm between us. For a rapid understanding, get one drunk - their true colours become readily apparent”.

Unlike many white South Africans who have to suffer the predations of the faeces species daily in their lives and workplaces, my face-to-face encounters with these parasitical creatures are happily rare, mostly car guards, building wekkas, the occasional over-promoted minor bureaucrat, and the like, or should I say, the dislike! And although it is good and advisable to try to keep it that way, I do have one big regret.

Purely for scientific purposes, and the furthering of my own "Bantu Education", I would dearly love to meet some of these fabulous (but almost certainly fake) black diamonds we keep hearing about, and discover what (stolen) mechanism makes them tick. But I have little contact with any AA-infested wekker-place nor any BEE dis-industry.

However this following story of a chance recent encounter confirms 100% what Doodler said above.

At a new CT wine bar we met a pleasant Dutch couple (30-ish) and a very well-groomed, smartly-dressed, very affable, black gentleman, a lawyer of some sort (at least in its own estimation), and a connoisseur of fine wines. Eureka! Maybe I had at last sighted that mythical African beast, a sophisticated black gentleman!

On being invited to join their table the smooth-talking SBG displayed his sophistication by launching into a discussion of fine red (nevertheless whitey, if you get my drift) wines. It soon became apparent that the woman, a tall busty blonde, had been er, making amends for apartheid by engaging in bestiality, er, close inter-personal activities with the SBG.

With the help of SBG’s sophisticated chat, we were all getting along so well that the Dutchman suggested we go to a nearby favourite bistro of his. Turned out the prices were somewhat more sophisticated than we were accustomed to but, never mind, our SBG had taken charge of the wine ordering department, and as the usual restaurant convention is that the person in charge of the wine is the one presented the bill, I thought all was fine.

We were enjoying our new friends and I, especially, was more than a little fascinated with the SBG. As he discoursed along in his amiable fashion, it crossed my mind that maybe our SBG was the ideal of the Holy Grail of liberal equalitarian fantasy.

Here was maybe a genuine black diamond - a cultured and civilized being from the noble but downtrodden race that had been so grievously traumatized by (in the measured words of Noble Prize Bishoprick Tutu) “The Unspeakable Horrors of Apartheid”, damningly indicted by the Orgasm of Useless Nations as “a Crime against Humanity” (sic) and, with nary a hint of histrionic hyperbole, a “Holocaust comparable with THE Holocaust” (words to that effect), by the incontestable authority of the faultlessly virtuous and saintly Lord Madiba, blessings be upon thee.

Unaware of my musings our SBG continued to display his leadership qualities, sophistication and, a hopefully fat wallet, by ordering 3 more expensive bottles of wine, on top of the 2 or 3 already consumed. But inevitably whitey’s stuff did its devilish work on the SBG - the fragile mask of sophistication dropped like a stone and the pent-up rage against whitey’s achievMUNTS erupted in a torrent of infantile resentMUNT pouring like vomit from the suited monkey.

Not wishing to assist the SBG in, what had by now become, his feverish quest for the “Holy Grail of Kaffir entitleMUNT” (the cherished 100% discount!!!), I somehow resisted the enormous temptation to chime in. All to no avail, as the arrival of the sophisticated bill was the cue for our (not-so) SBG to go shake hands with his best friend. Not having brought enough cash I paid the bill by card and the Dutchies gave me their cash.

When our now rather unsophisticated BG came tottering back, and I asked for his share, the wine fancier exclaimed “Eish Man, eh no marney..!”

Long story short, Blondie paid the missing share a couple of days later – almost certainly her money not the SBG´s who, she informed us, "she´d dropped". Sadly, we never saw our Dutch friends again, I suspect because I attempted to give them an unwelcome crash course in Bantu Education (ie, educating whitey about the Bantu).

A Mindless Mantra

2010-02-24T16:33:00.000+02:00

The mindless regurgitation of the equalitarian mantra that blacks are inherently as capable as whites is puzzling when the evidence to the contrary is so enormously overwhelming. So one has to ask why, in public if not in private, virtually 100% of white people pay lip service to this absurdity?

Of course we all know the answer to this seemingly incomprehensible paradox. It is the FEAR of being labelled a racist, a fear as dread as that of being labelled a heretic in an earlier period when truth was also no defence against the dogma of religious correctness.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know how invidious that fear was both for science and society. And we rightly consider that period to have been an era of darkness and tyranny in which countless "heretics" suffered cruelly at the hands of the inquisitors whose mission then (now) was to "root out heresy (racism) in all its forms, wherever and whenever it appears".

"Racism" - a new "deadly sin" concocted by the neo-marxist left barely 80 years ago - is "heresy" re-made for new uses, a tool with which to intimidate, suppress, and ultimately liquidate those who dissent from the prevailing political orthodoxy - "the innate equality of all mankind".

So on the side of darkness and ignorance are "racists" who question or deny the holy scriptures of the god of equality.

Against them are the forces of light and goodness, so-called "liberals" who heartily promote freedom of expression provided they endorse what is being expressed. The holy warriors for the cause are the "anti-racists" latter-day inquisitors - self-righteous thugs on their mission to "root out racism in all its forms wherever and whenever it appears".

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Will Whites Never Learn?

2009-06-12T10:24:00.000+02:00

ONLY ONE OF THESE AFRICAN LEADERS WAS NEITHER A LOOTER NOR A PSYCHOPATH - CAN YOU GUESS WHICH..?

It would be nice if the entirety of this book is as good as this review but I suspect many of the more forthright sentiments are not quite those expressed in the book, but rather those of Jared Taylor, because I doubt it could have been published otherwise.

One paragraph towards the end (that JT strangely doesn’t dispute) that SAS readers will rightly call “utter liberal rubbish” is where Mandela is dutifully praised as being “among the tiny number who have not enriched themselves”. I wish the author had told us who the others are.

Now let me think of other leaders of African countries who did NOT get filthy rich. By far and away the least corrupt was Ian Douglas Smith who, at one time, even rode a bicycle to office. (If he was such a racist bastard how come a black bus or truck driver didn’t run him over?) Later he drove himself in an old Peugeot 404 without any security whatsover..! But we must also not forget the unfairly slandered Hendrik Verwoerd. PW Botha retired to a house in Wilderness but that’s not exactly Constantia or Cannes is it? Who else? Ah, I’ve just been told that whites were racist rulers and not “African leaders”.

Sorry..! Then all I can say is that the "tiniest number" one can get is ZERO..!

Review by Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, February 2006
The Fate of Africa: From the Hopes of Freedom to the Heart of DespairBy Martin MeredithPublic Affairs Press, 2005752 pp., $35.00

At close to 800 pages, The Fate of Africa is a huge book about a huge subject: the history of Africa since independence. Martin Meredith, who worked for years as a journalist on the continent and who has written eight other books about Africa, carries off this nearly impossible task with just the right combination of style and scholarship. At the same time, he sugarcoats nothing and spares no one. As any honest contemporary history of the continent must be, this is largely a story of greed, corruption, oppression and massacre. There may be no better and more up-to-date single-volume account.

The Fate of Africa covers North Africa as well, but this review will concentrate on the continent south of the Sahara. Although Mr. Meredith draws few broad conclusions, he offers a wealth of evidence for anyone who wishes to.

Untouched by Europe
As Mr. Meredith explains, even though in some cases colonization had lasted 200 years, most blacks were essentially untouched by Europe. The French ran their West African empire with only 385 white administrators, and the British were famous for equally thin-stretched, indirect rule. At the end of the Second World War, only the British even thought in terms of eventual independence for these untutored lands, and did not foresee it until the end of the 20th century. It was pressure from the United States, post-war exhaustion, and militant independence movements that forced a pace no one anticipated in 1945.

Whatever the timetable, because it was West Africa that had been in closest contact with Europe, it was thought best prepared for self-government. By 1920, for example, the Gold Coast (future Ghana) had 60 practicing black lawyers, whereas Kenya did not get its first lawyer until 1956. The first black deputy to the French National Assembly came from Senegal in West Africa in 1914. Leopold Senghor, another deputy from Senegal, helped draft France’s Fourth Republic constitution in 1945. His French was so good he was in charge of policing the constitution’s grammar.

Independence consequently did come first in West Africa, with Kwame Nkrumah as leader of Ghana. Nkrumah’s career set so many patterns for the new Africa that it is worth following in some detail. What began with great promise ended in tears, in a cycle so often repeated that Mr. Meredith has adopted it as the subtitle of his book.

Nkrumah had one of the most sudden rises to power of any politician in history—from prisoner to prime minister in a single day. Held in a Gold Coast prison for stirring up anti-British riots, his party managed to win 34 of 38 contested seats in a 1951 election. The British governor, Charles Arden-Clark, stiffened his upper lip, summoned his prisoner, and asked him to form a government.

Ghana went on to six years of democratic self-government under the close supervision of Arden-Clark. It seemed to be perfect training for sovereignty for the perfect candidate for independence. Ghana had a sound educational and economic infrastructure built by the British, excellent natural resources, and healthy foreign currency reserves due to cocoa exports.
(I recall they had 200 million sterling in reserves, more than Britain at the time)

The Cold War was raging, and both the United States and the Soviet Union were eager for new clients. Mr. Meredith writes that when independence came in 1957, there was world-wide hope and optimism on a scale now difficult to imagine. The six-day gala was a love-feast of goodwill and high expectations.

Once the British were gone, Nkrumah stamped out the opposition, built up a personality cult, squandered money on gold-plated projects, and ran the economy into the ground. He built the largest dry dock in Africa, which was almost never used. He set up a national airline and insisted it fly to politically fashionable places like Cairo and Moscow for which there was no commercial demand. He set up state-run corporations and state farms that only spread failure and corruption. He made it a crime for anyone to “show disrespect to the person and dignity of the Head of State.” Foreign businessmen learned that anyone with a glib tongue and a bright idea—the more grandiose the better—could get a fat government contract. The head of state himself signed deals.

Nkrumah had ambitions for the entire continent. In 1958 he hosted an All-African People’s Conference to promote anti-colonial agitation. Among his guests were many who later became heads of state: Julius Nyerere (Tanzania), Kenneth Kaunda (Zambia), Hastings Banda (Malawi), Patrice Lumumba (Congo), Amilcar Cabral (Guinea Bissau—assassinated shortly before independence), Holden Roberto (Angola), and Joshua Nkomo (never quite made it to the top in Zimbabwe). Nkrumah is still something of a saint for many Africans and American blacks because of his militant anti-imperialism. He dreamed of an Africa as mighty as the United States, and squandered millions on a huge complex of buildings he hoped would become the capital of a continent united under his leadership.

Nkrumah’s follies had predictable results. By 1965, just eight years after independence, what had been one of Africa’s most prosperous countries was bankrupt. Increasingly deluded and anti-white, Nkrumah blamed every failure on imperialists and neo-colonialists. He might have gone on wrecking Ghana had he not tried to clip the wings of the army. In 1966, while he was junketing in Peking, the generals took over and told him not to come home. School children who had been taught to chant “Nkrumah is our messiah,” now chanted “Nkrumah is not our messiah.”

The cashiered messiah found refuge in a clapped-out house in Guinea Conakry, where he received ever-dwindling bands of admirers, and spent his days drawing up impossible plans for Ghana. He was convinced that a popular movement would rise up to bring him back to power. By the time of his death in a Bucharest hospital in 1972, he was a pathetic figure.

Nkrumah was also typical of a surprising number of independence rulers who had been jailed or banished by the white authorities before taking power: Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Bourghiba of Tunisia, Banda of Malawi, Mohammed V of Morocco, and Patrice Lumumba of Congo (convicted of embezzlement, not independence activity).

Accra - Monumental Mausoleum of Kwame Nkrumah

In many respects, therefore, Nkrumah set the pattern for the continent: dictatorship, corruption, mismanagement, quirks bordering on madness, and involuntary departure from office. In particular, his example of one-man rule caught on almost everywhere. A few dictators explained that nation-building required unity of purpose, but most simply siezed power without explanation or apology. When someone once asked Habib Bourghiba of Tunisia what kind of political system his country had, he relied, “System? What system? I am the system.” Hastings Banda of Malawi once observed, “Everything is my business. Everything.” He also said, “Anything I say is law. Literally law.” In 1965 he went further: “If, to maintain the political stability and efficient administration, I have to detain ten thousand or one hundred thousand, I will do it.” Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, whose attempt at African socialism will be examined later, explained that political parties arose in the West because there were economic classes. In Africa, there were no classes, so only one party was necessary: his.

Also, like virtually the entire first-generation of independence leaders, Nkrumah had lived and studied in Europe or the United States. Men who went abroad were undoubtedly a better sort to begin with, and some experience of the West probably tempered their excesses, at least at first. In the next generation, semi-savages like Idi Amin (Uganda), Samuel Doe (Liberia), and Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Central African Republic) would shoot their way into presidential palaces, and go on to ever-more gruesome antics.

Unlike most African rulers, however, Nkrumah did not surround himself with toadies and mistresses, and seems to have been lonely and isolated. He decided, apparently on a whim, to marry, and asked Gamel Nasser of Egypt to find him a wife. Nasser did: an Egyptian girl who spoke only Arabic and a bit of French; Nkrumah understood neither language. He married her the same day he met her, and she gave him three children but little companionship. The only real friend Nkrumah seems to have had in power was a British woman, Erica Powell, whom he met when she was Governor Arden-Clark’s private secretary. He hired her away, with the governor’s blessing, and always said she was the only person who gave him unbiased advice. (He didn’t take the advice presumably?)

Central Africoon Emperor Bokassa

Nkrumah’s interest in a European woman did not lead to marriage, but for many rulers it did. Kenyatta, Bourghiba, and Banda had white wives, as did Leopold Senghor of Senegal and Seretse Khama of Botswana. Jean-Bedel Bokassa, who crowned himself “emperor,” had 17 wives, including a blonde Rumanian cabaret dancer, a German, and a Swede. (He kept wives in separate houses and left his office several times a day to call on them.)

(Emperor Bokassa had a good sense of humour – don’t know if its repeated in this book but I recall reading that he carried out public executions in a football stadium whilst the loudspeakers blasted out Mary Hopkins’ “Those were the days my friend, we thought they’d never end..”)

Finally, Nkrumah differed from other African rulers in another important way: He does not appear to have looted the treasury. He enjoyed the privileges of office—his secretary Powell wrote that he was “a-gog with excitement” at the prospect of meeting the Queen of England—but his own greatness was to come not from bank accounts but from a spectacular new Ghana.
All things considered, by African standards, Ghana’s transition to independence was a great success.

Elsewhere, there were failures, some so spectacular the West could not ignore the mess. Mr. Meredith’s account of the Congo’s almost immediate implosion is worth summarizing.
The Belgians have long been derided for failing to prepare the Congo for self-rule, and there is some truth to the accusation. In 1960, the country had only 30 university graduates and no black doctors, secondary school teachers, or army officers. However, the Belgians had built good basic infrastructure, and a broad base of elementary schools. They simply had not foreseen independence, but did not try to thwart it when times changed. After riots in 1959, they proposed a four-year transition to self-government. It was the Congolese who insisted on a quick handover.

Mr. Meredith points out that the independence ceremony of June 30, 1960 set the initial jarring note. King Baudouin of Belgium praised the early colonizing work of his great uncle, Leopold II—whose exactions were so ruthless that the Belgian government took over in 1908 what had been his private preserve—and talked down to the Congolese: “It is up to you now, gentlemen, to show that you are worthy of our confidence.” Patrice Lumumba, prime minister to be, replied with a rant against “exploitation,” “terrible suffering,” and “humiliating slavery that was imposed on us by force.” “We are no longer your monkeys,” he added. (not Belgium’s monkeys maybe, but still monkeys..!)

Just a few days later, black soldiers revolted against their white officers, and went on a rampage, beating and raping whites, singling out priests and nuns for particular abuse.

(Unless he says more in the book this is somewhat glossing over the reality – I heard from a friend who lived just over the border in Mufulira that pregnant white women had their babies cut out. And probably eaten too.! And what exactly happened to the white officers? Presumably the same fate as white SA officers when the day comes)

Thousands of whites fled the country—setting a model for what was to happen with dreary regularity elsewhere. The Belgians asked Lumumba for permission to use force to save whites. When Lumumba refused, Belgium acted unilaterally. The southwest province of Katanga seceded. The Congo was just two weeks old and already in chaos.

Lumumba called on the UN for help, which arrived in July, but what he most wanted UN soldiers to do was kick out the Belgians. He gave the UN two days; otherwise he would turn to the Soviets. Ralph Bunche, the black American head of the UN mission described Lumumba as “crazy” and acting “like a child.” (“half-devil, half-child” noted Kipling) Later that month, Lumumba visited the United States. Under-Secretary of state Douglas Dillon thought him “an irrational, almost psychotic personality.” (only “almost”???) Lumumba telephoned the Congo desk at the State Department and asked for a blonde companion. The CIA found someone to send over, but the White House quashed the tryst.

(Lumumba was before his time – he would have gone far in the ANC..!)

Belgian troops eventually left the Congo after they had evacuated whites, but Lumumba then insisted that the UN put down the Katanga rebellion. When another province, South Kasai, went into revolt, Lumumba really did call in the Soviets, who sent technical assistance. His attempt to put down the Kasai rebellion resulted in massacre and produced 250,000 refugees. By now, both Belgium and the US were convinced Lumumba was a menace, and both governments wanted him assassinated.

President of the Congo, Joseph Kasa-Vubu, dismissed Lumumba, who in turn dismissed Kasa-Vubu. In September, Joseph Mobutu, chief of staff of the army, ousted all politicians in a military coup. Lumumba stayed on in the prime minister’s residence in Leopoldville, guarded by an inner ring of UN troops to keep Mobutu’s men from arresting him. An outer ring of Mobutu’s soldiers made sure he did not escape. In pouring rain on the night of Nov. 27, Lumumba slipped out and headed for Stanleyville, where he had support, expecting to form a rival government. He might have reached Stanleyville, except that he kept stopping to harangue villagers. Mobutu’s men caught him and brought him back to Leopoldville, and his supporters in Stanleyville set up a government without him. That made a total of four competing governments, along with Mobutu’s, and secessionist regimes in Katanga and South Kasai.

Mobutu had Lumumba hauled before him and spat in his face. With the approval of the Belgians, he flew him off to the leader of the Katanga revolt, Moise Tshombe, who was certain to kill him. Tshombe helped torture him for hours, returning home, according to his butler, “covered in blood.” The next day, Belgian officers commanded a firing squad that executed Lumumba. The Belgians began to worry about bad press, and concocted the story that Lumumba escaped from detention and was killed by “patriotic” villagers. To cover their tracks, they cut up Lumumba’s body and dissolved it in sulfuric acid. Still, word of his murder prompted anti-Belgian demonstrations all over the world.

To this day, Lumumba is a hero to nutty leftists because he called in the Soviets, and to nutty blacks because he was rude to white people.

The UN eventually put down the Katanga rebellion in 1963, and by the time Joseph Mobutu consolidated power in 1965, he could almost be seen as the savior of his country.

Far less well known is the independence disaster of the tiny country of Equatorial Guinea, which was a Spanish colony until 1968. The Spanish had groomed Francisco Macias Nguema to be leader, but like so many whites, had no idea how much he hated them. One of his first acts was to stir up anti-white violence, and most of the country’s 7,000 Spaniards left their businesses and farms and were gone in the first six months.

Nguema was a real monster. When a director of statistics published figures that displeased him, Nguema had him cut into little pieces to “help him learn to count.” On at least two occasions, he ordered the killing of all known former lovers of a mistress. Whenever he wanted a new woman, he had her husband killed. Of his 12 original ministers, only two escaped murder.

Nguema ran out of money and started paying only soldiers and the police. (This would't happen today - the tiny country is swimming in oil..!) Every other part of the government shut down. Nguema closed all libraries, newspapers, and printing presses, and in 1974 emptied the country’s last school. He outlawed Christianity and turned churches into warehouses. To raise money, he started holding foreigners for ransom: $57,600 for a German woman, $40,000 for a Spaniard, $6,000 for a dead Soviet. He held hostage the last Claretine missionary, age 85, until he got a ransom. Nguema carried on for 11 years until a nephew deposed him in a 1979 coup. When it came time to execute Nguema, blacks were so afraid of his rumored supernatural powers they refused to pull the trigger. Moroccan soldiers had to be found for the firing squad.

The new man, Teodoro Obiang, is still in power, and the country still has no newspapers. A recent statement from an aide hints at the flavor of his regime: “He can decide to kill without anyone calling him to account and without going to hell because it is God himself, with whom he is in permanent contact, who gives him this strength.”

A few African leaders have sincerely tried to help their people. A curious and genuinely tragic figure, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania stole nothing, fought corruption, and worked tirelessly. The trouble was, his schemes were all wrongheaded. With his “Arusha Declaration” of February 1967, he set out to nationalize everything in sight, even private houses that were rented out. He wanted the whole country run on the principle of ujamaa or “familyhood,” which was supposed to capture the ancient spirit of “African socialism.”

His state corporations posted huge losses, but his greatest folly were collective farms, or ujamaa villages. Joining up was supposed to be voluntary, but eventually 11 million people were herded onto collectives in the largest mass movement of people in African history. When farmers fled back to their old fields, government workers burned their houses. (Imagine the international condemnation if this had happened under white rule..!)

Nyerere tolerated no dissent from socialism, and under his rule Tanzania went from being the largest African exporter of food to the largest importer. Always the darling of Western leftists, he got enough foreign aid to keep the country from starving. In 1985, after 23 years of familyhood, he gave up and left office. With a frankness unusual in politicians anywhere, he announced, “I failed. Let’s admit it.”

Nelson Mandela is another exceptional figure (???). He, too, is among the tiny number (zero?)who have not (???) enriched themselves, who genuinely tried to better their people, and who sought true racial reconciliation (???). With his successor, Thabo Mbeki, South Africans are discovering what black rule is really like. Those who follow are likely to be worse.

The Facts As He Finds Them
Mr. Meredith records the facts as he finds them, and the result is largely a litany of horrors. He gives us full accounts of the complex and sordid events surrounding the Hutu/Tutsi genocide of Rwanda, the wars of extermination in Sudan, the chaos and barbarity of “liberation” in Angola and Mozambique, and the downfall of white regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa.

Still, a few of Mr. Meredith’s observations stand out: In Kenya, a popular saying is “Why hire a lawyer when you can buy a judge?”

Omar Bongo of Gabon, who ran the country for 22 years and had a penchant for trying to seduce American Peace Corps volunteers, spent no less than $500 million on his presidential palace.

Nigeria spent $8 billion on a steel industry that never produced steel.

During the civil war in Chad in 1982, mobs sacked and burned both the national museum and the national archives.

President Siaka Stevens of Sierra Leone once spent two thirds of the country’s annual budget to host a meeting of the OAU.

When AIDS was discovered, Africans widely derided preventive measures as a racist plot to keep them from reproducing.

In 1973, Juvenal Habyarimana of Rwanda forced everyone, even babies, to join his political party.

And how is this, asks Mr. Meredith, for an absurdity: In the late 1980s, Cuban troops were protecting American-owned oil fields in Marxist Angola from attacks by US-supported guerillas.

Here are more vignettes from The Fate of Africa:
Abeid Karume became ruler of Zanzibar in 1964 before the merger with Tanganyika that produced Tanzania. One of his first acts was to supervise the slaughter and expulsion of Arabs and Asians. (one of the most memorable scenes in “Africa Addio”) Somewhat more unusually, he stopped all anti-malaria measures, claiming Africans were “malaria-proof.” There was a huge upsurge in malaria. An army officer shot Karume to death in 1972, not for political reasons but over a personal grudge.

In 1984, Haile Mariam Mengistu of Ethiopia spent $150 million on the 10th anniversary of his Marxist-Leninist “revolution” rather than do anything about a terrible famine ravaging his country. As he explained to an aide, “There was famine in Ethiopia for years before we took power—it is the way nature kept the balance.”

Liberia has had a particularly colorful history, but a few episodes stand out. Thomas Quiwonkpa led a revolt against tyrant Samuel Doe in 1985. When Doe’s men caught and killed him they publicly castrated him, cut him in pieces and ate him. Five years later, it was Doe’s turn. Prince Johnson ate at least one of his ears while he was still alive. After suitably torturing him, (needless to say this included castration..!) Johnson’s men paraded Doe’s mutilated body through the streets of Monrovia in a wheelbarrow. Doe had been a guest of Ronald Reagan at the White House in 1982.

In 1996, one of the groups fighting in the streets of Monrovia earned the nickname the Butt Naked Brigade, from its belief that fighting naked gave protection from bullets. In 1997, when Liberia held elections of a sort, warlord Charles Taylor announced there would be killing if he lost. He campaigned on the slogan “He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him”—and won.

Nigeria, with its oil revenue, should be one of the richest countries (if it were run by whites there can be no doubt it would have been THE richest..!) on the continent, but hundreds of billions of dollars have disappeared. In 2000 and 2001 in the eastern part of the country, crime was so bad and the police so corrupt that vigilantes took charge. A group known as the Bakassi Boys liked to herd criminals into a public square, where huge crowds watched while they hacked away with blunt machetes. If some of the condemned men were still alive, writhing on the ground, the boys would finish them off by tossing gasoline-doused tires on them and setting them on fire. Street crime disappeared, and the Bakassi Boys were hugely popular.

Mr. Meredith tells us that even the fabled revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara had an African mishap. In 1965, he went to north Katanga in the Congo to test his “detonator theory” that revolution could be kicked up with a little violence. It was a complete failure. He was supposed to be helping Laurent Kabila (who was still knocking about 30 years later and had a brief stint as Mobutu’s successor) but Guevara found him “addicted to drink and women.” “The basic feature of the People’s Liberation Army,” he wrote later, “was that it was a parasite army; it did not work, did not train, did not fight, and demanded provisions and labor from the population, sometimes with extreme harshness.” It was worthless as a fighting force: “Often it was the officers who took the lead in running away,” he wrote. Guevara gave up in disgust after seven months. (sounds a lot like the ANC's so-called liberation ummy - Umkhonto Ve Sizwe)

The French, who had been in Africa for a long time, seem to have understood that European forms of government are not natural to the continent. They kept bases and soldiers in Africa, and used them frequently to keep order. As one spokesman explained, it just wouldn’t do “for a few men carrying machine guns to be left free to seize a presidential palace at any time.”

Even with Europeans around to spoil the fun, African politics have been a gaudy business.
By the end of the 1980s, of the 150 heads of state the continent had boasted, only six had left office voluntarily, three of these after more than 20 years in power. Not one had been voted out of office.

That did not come until after the Cold War, when the US and the Soviets stopped propping up thugs for ideological reasons. Western donors began to pressure the Big Men to hold multi-party elections, and in 1991 Benin became the first country to see a ruler voted out. Democratic change hardly caught on. By 2000 only three others had been voted out.

When pressured to produce “democracy,” Africans showed considerable resourcefulness. In 1989, General Babangida of Nigeria set up two parties. His government wrote their constitutions, gave them their emblems, and most of their cash. One was to be, in the general’s words, “a little to the left” and the other was to be “a little to the right.” Three years later he got tired of them, and abolished both. Sani Abacha, also Nigerian, did even better. In the mid-1990s, under yet more pressure to democratize, he set up five political parties. Each duly chose him as its candidate for president.

The idea of elections makes no sense to the average African ruler. The whole purpose of government is to make him rich and powerful. (But black rule in South Africa would be an exception because we have Mandela…!) An election, of all things, is the stupidest reason to step down. For the huge majority of Africans, political activity is therefore palace politics; the closer you are to the Big Man, the better your chances for patronage, kickbacks, payoffs, and outright theft. (and now BEE which is essentially all those rolled into one package..!)

Mr. Meredith writes that almost without exception, government jobs mean legalized theft. Public service is an empty concept on a continent of what he calls “vampire governments,” where nepotism and corruption are as natural as breathing. (Vampires are far preferable – at least they are only active by night..! The ANC are 24/7looters..!)

Like all experts on Africa, Mr. Meredith notes that Botswana is the great exception. Independent in 1966 under Seretse Khama, it has little corruption and regularly-contested elections. Diamonds supply half of all government income, but the Big Men have kept hands off. By the end of the 1980s, careful use of diamond income had given the country a per capita GDP that hardly sounds like black Africa: $1,700. Like other experts, Mr. Meredith ventures no explanation as to how Botswana does it. (I don’t know Botswana but I dont think its the success it is often claimed to be, and if it is then I would venture it is probably due to all the white – mostly South African – expats helping to run the show)

Elsewhere, the picture is bleak. Since independence, the continent has swallowed more than $300 billion in Western aid with, as Mr. Meredith puts it, “little discernable result.” Corruption eats up an estimated one quarter of the continent’s gross domestic product. Although sub-Saharan Africa has ten percent of the world population, it has 70 percent of the AIDS cases, and accounts for only 1.3 percent of world GDP. By the end of the 1980s, per capita GDP was lower than in 1960, when many countries became independent.

Mr. Meredith generally refrains from drawing larger conclusions, (because to do so would of course be “racist”) but does note near the end of the book that “in reality, fifty years after the beginning of the independence era, Africa’s prospects are bleaker than ever before.” At the beginning he writes of “the extent to which African states have suffered so many of the same misfortunes.”

Why the mess? Mr. Meredith does not say. (if he had been as honest as a Jared Taylor, the book would never have been published) Perhaps the closest he comes is to note that tribalism has been a continuing curse. Ancient enemies sometimes buried the hatchet during the independence struggle but dug it up again once the common enemy was gone. The simplest conclusion is that Africans are simply not like Europeans and cannot build European-style societies. (but they are very good at destroying them..!)

Another conclusion Mr. Meredith could have drawn but did not is that white relations with post-independence Africa have been naïve and stupid. Interventions have been consistent failures. Whether it is Americans in Somalia or Liberia, the British in Sierra Leone, the French in Rwanda, the Soviets in Ethiopia or Somalia, no one gets what he expected. Even semi-Third-World people like the Cubans, North Koreans (in Zimbabwe) or Chinese (in Tanzania) got nothing for their efforts. When Europeans ruled Africans outright, without illusions that they were dealing with people like themselves, they had modest goals and achieved them. As soon as they started reading cultural anthropology, they lost their bearings.

Mr. Meredith writes that not until 1989 did the World Bank acknowledge that Africa’s problems were not all economic, that there were also leadership problems. (no mention of quality of people I suppose ) Men from 100 years earlier like Lord Lugard or Sir Garnet Wolseley would have been amazed by such stupidity.

Another remarkable aspect of recent African history is how easily one thug after another duped the white man. Both the United States and the Soviet Union funneled enormous sums to people who claimed to be either capitalist or communist but were really just thieves. (its the nature of the beast..!)

Samuel Doe was not the only White House or Kremlin guest to end up in a wheelbarrow.
Mengistu of Ethiopia, who let his people starve while he celebrated ten years of “revolution,” also played whites for fools. Once word got out about the famine, whites shipped in tons of food. Mengistu learned that it made no difference what he did with it—sell it on the black market, dole it out to friendly tribes, deny it to starving enemies—it kept coming. Gaafar Numeiri of the Sudan learned the same thing. The famine of 1984 did him a lot of good. White people showed up with boatloads of food he could use as a weapon. Whites fed his people while he bought guns and kept killing his enemies.

Perhaps saddest of all is that time and again—in Congo, Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa, the Guineas, Angola—whites who spent their lives in Africa and should have known better, underestimated the hatred of blacks.

Whites everywhere think blacks will love them if they treat them kindly.
They do not realize that kindness or fairness are not enough;
many blacks hate whites because they cannot be like whites.
No matter how they are treated, blacks will blame their failures on “racism.”

Some of the whites who fail to understand this end up in piles of bloody corpses. Others get out while they can. Two hundred thousand fled Mozambique, 300,000 left Angola, many thousands fled the Congo, Zimbabwe lost half its population immediately after black rule, and a steady flow of whites is now escaping South Africa. It was 40 years after independence, but thousands of French left the Ivory Coast when blacks started running through the streets shouting “Kill the whites.” There are pockets of friendliness and lulls in the process of dispossession, but
once blacks take power, they do not like to live with a minority whose success highlights their own failure.

Despite the rotting bodies and mountains of evidence, despite the chronicle of barbarism Mr. Meredith tells so well, whites have an inexhaustible capacity to deceive themselves about the motives and behavior of Africans.

Columnist Mary McGrory was fully exercising this capacity when she wrote in the Washington Post on May 12, 1994 about how wonderful black rule in South Africa was going to be:

“Newspaper readers will think they are reading scripture when they read dispatches from South Africa that cannot be read except through tears.”

People wrote rubbish almost as bad about Kwame Nkrumah. Whites will never understand Africa—or the blacks in their own countries—until they cease being capable of writing and publishing such nonsense. The Fate of Africa is an excellent corrective.

Simian Stupidity

2009-04-18T19:37:00.003+02:00

In 1992 I had only been in SA for less than a year and was fairly ignorant about Black stupidity although I´d heard a few hilarious stories and jokes.

Having driven from the Cape to Joburg via Durban I had my car stolen on my very first day in Joburg. And, guess what else? In the boot was a recently purchsed case of 24×250ml dinkies of Nederberg Baronne (1984 “superior”) …! The bottles had screw caps, so predictably enough, the simians must have joy-ridden it around whilst pouring the stuff down their ugly necks because I eventually found the car a writeoff – front end completely stoved in – in a police stolen car compound (a vast field) in Soweto, the inside littered with empty broken wine bottles.

Shortly thereafter, still in Joburg, I bought a 1984 Honda Prelude (nice car), which I later took to one of those drive-through car wash places. I stepped out of the car to ask the ape attendant the routine, prices etc, and was about to get back into the car when the monkeyman seemed to indicate it wasn´t necessary for me to actually sit in the car during the wash.

Hmmmm I thought….anyway I fell for it..!

But there must have been something especially primordial about the look of this ape that made me somewhat doubt whether I was talking to a human (I have since discovered that I was not) or some other creature, so I carefully watched my car going through the process and noticed that exactly at the end of the rail where the car stops – or not, as in this case - the tarmac suddenly became a slope of about 10 degrees for about 15 metres or so, beyond which a troupe of simian wekkas were lazing around munching on fried Chicken and coke as is their fashion.

I looked around for my monkey but he must have disappeared back into his tree, so there I was helplessly wondering whether the car would come to a stop at the end of the process or would it career away driverless down the slope into the adjacent zoo and the waiting simians? Naturally enough it did the latter and I had to break into an Olympic dash and jump inside just before it wiped out the audience of Chicken Men who were meanwhile laughing uproariously at this stupid mlungu chasing alter a runaway car..!!

I went back to angrily berate the ape attendant, who hearing the commotion had climbed down from his tree, but all I got was SILENCE, and a blank hate-filled stare from BALEFUL EYES…!

The Eloi waiting for the Morlocks Pt 1

2009-03-08T20:48:00.008+02:00

Here’s something to ponder on…

At the time Chris Hani was killed 3 brainwashed in kumbaya young white guys had taken to visiting a shebeen in the Lwandle squatter camp (nr Strand) and naively thought they were all “matey” with their black bruthas - well after the black cunt was killed they went to commiserate with their ape “friends” over a beer with predictably horrific results. One had his tongue cut out, maybe other choice parts, another was burned, and I think the 3rd might have escaped with the help of a brave African woman. (if true she probably got killed herself later)

In the wake of Hani's killing it is possible that dozens of whites were killed by “mourners” and roaming bands of savages out for revenge. And this was pre 1994 when whites still had control of police, etc.

Imagine if something similar were to happen today. Some fed-up and or crazed whitey - perhaps after having seen his family killed - goes berserk and kills Zuma or Mbeki or any of those evil fuckers….or just a bunch of random worthless simian shitskins.

Suppose hundreds of baboons are stirred up by the rabble rousers and invade a particularly vulnerable white suburb or school or shopping centre and start killing every white in sight? Would the simian police FARCE try to protect the whites? Fuck no, they would either disappear or join in the fucking slaughter themselves. And it only has to happen once for it to be repeated over and again, once the savages realise that whites can be killed with total impunity.

Anyone who truly understands the reality of Apezanian tyranny knows that this scenario is not simply a theoretical possibility, but a probability. It is not a question of IF, but WHEN..!

Within a few years only the W.Cape will be relatively safe….and then….

Adapt and Die—South Africa’s New Motto

2009-01-23T01:46:00.002+02:00

By Dr. Dan Roodt, Afrikaner Action Group (PRAAG)
February 2005

During the time of National Party reforms in the seventies and eighties, the cliché “adapt or die” used to do the rounds. Nowadays, given the highest murder rate in the world, this should be modified slightly to read, “adapt and die”. For the endemic social violence in South Africa is probably incurable.

Optimists think that violent crime can be solved through better policing, more efficient courts and more secure prisons. Even assuming that such improvements were possible under conditions of hard-core affirmative action, it must be admitted that criminal justice treats the symptom and not the cause of social violence. The Department of Correctional Services, for one, has lost 496 out of 500 former Deputy Directors since 1994, representing most of the intellectual capital in the department. Newcomers may learn their job properly, or they may not, but they have to be flown to overseas countries to find out how prisons work as most of those previously involved in managing our prisons are no longer there.

South Africa used to have a problem of political violence. It was not as bad as elsewhere in Africa, but for some reason elicited hysterical international condemnation. However, actors in political violence are mostly driven by some sort of creed or belief system. Whether such a person is a communist, an anarchist, a neo-Nazi or an ethnic or religious guerilla fighter, he is usually amenable to persuasion or compromise. Even a group of Muslim suicide bombers might declare peace if they were given a territory in which to set up an Islamic theocracy, governed only by themselves and not subject to any outside influence.

In the same way, South Africa’s so-called liberation movements who were at one time fanatically convinced of the need for violent and bloody revolution, laid down arms and bombs upon being told that F.W. de Klerk would surrender power unconditionally. Solving political violence is often intractable, but not impossible.

Not so social violence. Endemic crime, the breakdown of the social fabric, a sense of drift regarding norms of good conduct, point to a far deeper problem. The freedom fighter or urban terrorist is ultimately rational, despite a value system that normal society might find idiosyncratic.

But what is “normal society”? It is only the sum-total of behaviours prevalent in any given society at any given time. The Aztecs, infamously, practised daily human sacrifice to appease their sun god. It might revolt many of us today, but to them it was entirely normal. South Africa currently sacrifices about 87 humans per day to violent crime, or 32 000 per year. Those are only the ones who actually die. Scores of others are injured, maimed, traumatised, robbed, raped, burgled and so on.

In any suburb today an entire history of murders, hijackings, and other violent events can be written, if only the locals were narcissistic enough to consider their own history worth recording for posterity. On the other hand, social violence lacks the charm and grandeur of political violence as it is usually not committed in the interest of some glamorous cause like national liberation or world revolution but simply to acquire some hapless person’s BMW or rape his wife because she happened to be inside.

However, some time ago a Johannesburg newspaper engaged in chronicling some local history in the suburbs of Westdene and Lakefield in Benoni. Nearly every resident had a story to tell, an entire litany of mayhem. Mr. John Gee miraculously survived a shot through the eye, but now feels traumatised. His wife says, “One lives in fear in one’s own home. One does not sleep. One prays for protection, yet only more fears come.”

But who are the authors of South Africa’s social violence? Even asking this question presents one with a sense of discomfort, because most violent criminals in South Africa are young black men between the ages of 16 and 36. As one surgeon who had stitched together at least three child rape victims, two of whom were infants, said recently, “Probably white men commit such acts too; it is just that no-one in South Africa has come across such a case.”

Of course, it would be preposterous to say that all young black men are prone to violence. Judging from our daily experiences in crime-torn South Africa, however, a sub-section of that population, large enough to cause more havoc than even a well-equipped guerilla army of a few thousand men, has taken up practices such as heists, hold-ups, murders, sexual violence exacted upon women and children, and so on.

Explanations for such deviancy are manifold. The ubiquitous answer of it being due to apartheid might have been satisfying if other African societies never subject to group areas and a homeland system did not display similar traits. The Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone come to mind. There is a whole nature/nurture debate around black violence, except that no adherent of the “nature” side would publicly admit to being one, for fear of being branded a racist. Even though mainstream American cancer research has conclusively shown that black men have higher levels of testosterone than their white counterparts, few would hazard the notion that this might be linked to their greater propensity for violent crime.

America has a gargantuan prison population of two million, over half of which consists of African-Americans. This is despite their minority status in the USA, comprising only 12% of an overall population amounting to 290 million. South Africa could neither afford nor succeed, given the dire state of our criminal justice system, in jailing a similar number of black male offenders. Currently, only 10% of murderers in South Africa get arrested and only 6% are convicted. Any murderer therefore has a 94% chance of getting away with it.

If by some miracle all serious criminals in the country had to be caught and imprisoned, the prison population would surely treble or quadruple from the present 200 000, which is already high by world standards. Not only is such an improvement inconceivable under current conditions, but it would also be politically unpopular with the ruling ANC who would be incarcerating large numbers of young black males who are mostly its own supporters at the polls. Few whites, if any, commit violent crime and there are only 3 900 of them in prison, mostly for white-collar offences such as fraud or insider trading on the stock exchange.

All that remains in the world’s most violent society, is precisely to adapt and die. Twice as many South Africans of all races now die of murder than of road accidents—even though the road accident rate is also the highest in the world, surpassing that of Turkey. Crime extends to trade in driver’s licences, so that a large number of drivers use so-called “bought licences”, hardly a contribution to road safety.

There are some people naive enough to think that “something can be done about crime” in South Africa, mostly opposition politicians who dream about diverting funds from arms procurement to policing, but this would be futile. There are already three times as many private security personnel as state-employed policemen, and even they do not succeed in containing what has become Africa’s only peacetime killing field.

“I killed them because they were white.” These famous words were spoken last year by William Kekana, who participated in one of the most horrendous incidents in which the entire family of Mr. Clifford Rawstorne was wiped out, consisting of his fiancée, baby, as well as his own mother. Even this massacre of an entire family would not have made headlines, were it not for the fact that one year-old Kayla was executed on her very first birthday with a shot in the head. Needless to say, the two adult women were first raped before being killed. Both William Kekana and his accomplice, Charles Fido Baloyi, fell into the high-risk group of young black (and Coloured) males who commit almost all violent crime in the country.

South Africa actually has a Minister of Safety and Security, which to some might seem like an example of absurd humour. His Excellency Mr. Charles Nqakula, whose official résumé proudly states that he was once “a waiter and wine steward”, has immortalised himself by euphemistically stating that there was no real crime problem in South Africa, except that it was “a little on the high side”.

All in all, South Africa has got remarkably used to its new-found status as the crime capital of the world. The high-rise districts of Hillbrow and Berea in Johannesburg have been officially designated by Interpol as having the highest murder rate in the world, that is, 600 people per 100 000 population members per annum. Consider for a moment that such a figure represents 12 times the rate found in inner-city ghettoes in the United States, often seen as no-go zones by many Americans.

One British immigrant to South Africa who has survived three car hijackings, refuses to emigrate, stating that he is now accustomed to having Kalachnikovs pointed at him from point-blank range. Everyone knows a relative or friend who has been killed or at least subjected to some form of violent crime, and no South African can remotely imagine a society where people do not live behind razor wire, electrified fences, high walls, burglar bars and similar decorative props.

Outsiders might find our lifestyle bizarre, but many pundits in South Africa consider our society to be much more “normal” now than at any time in the past, which was tarnished by ethnic separation albeit without the present large-scale violence. At the height of segregation and apartheid under Hendrik Verwoerd, South Africa was almost as peaceful as Switzerland but she was immoral. Today we are the apotheosis of racial morality and political correctness, yet as violent as the Congo or Liberia. Surprisingly, however, our economy continues to function amid the carnage. No economist has ever studied this as far as I know, but not only is crime our biggest industry—bigger than gold-mining or manufacturing—it also stimulates consumption as stolen goods are replaced; it is a boon to the insurance and security industries and ultimately makes surgeons and undertakers rich. The government earns billions of rands in Value-Added Tax on stolent goods being replaced with new ones. So crime pays.

News about killings or shoot-outs no longer elicits the slightest surprise. It is part of our daily existence, and one assumes the lethal risks attending to something as simple as going shopping or driving to work. My wife, for example, has twice been to the local shopping centre where in the one instance a shoot-out was taking place in the parking area so that she had to hide between the cars with our 18 month-old son in her arms; in the second case an armed robbery had just taken place with the robbers casually strolling by with their guns and their loot.

Everyone knows someone who has been killed, raped or maimed. Just this week, the wife of a friend and former literary editor of Die Burger, François Smith, was stabbed to death with a screwdriver in their home in Wellington, near Cape Town. Her murderer was a 16-year-old squatter camp resident whose race was omitted by the press but presumably few, if any whites, reside in his particular squatter camp which is dedicated to black Africans. Lisbé Smuts-Smith was a well-known academic and head of the Afrikaans literature department at the University of Cape Town. Just two weeks ago, another UCT academic, mathematician Brian Hahn, was attacked by a former student, dr. Maleafisha Steve Tladi (35). Hahn died in hospital a week later, while Tladi was released on bail of R500 (about $80).

Two years ago Louw Rabie, a brilliant albeit reclusive geologist and brother of author Jan Rabie, was beaten to death with a fence pole by two Coloured men to whom he had lent some money a week earlier. Police in the small Cape town of Montagu readily caught his murderers because they happened to have drinking money during the week, taken from his home. He was 80 years old, but in good health. He is reputed to have been one of the most brilliant geologists and intellectuals this country has ever produced, writing copiously throughout his life but disdaining publication and public esteem. Africans with their oral tradition are fond of saying that “when an old person dies, a library burns down”. What strikes me about the relentless killings of educated whites, is that the criminals are indeed “burning down the libraries” of this country and physically exterminating the intellectual class, much like Pol Pot did in Cambodia.

The media are celebrating youth, dance, colour, being black and exuberant—as opposed to the quiet studiousness of middle-aged and elderly whites, the bearers of knowledge and understanding. Are these learned whites who are being killed in exuberant, paradisiacal outbreaks of violence simply the remnants of a civilisation that is being eradicated in the name of decolonisation? No government spokesman has ever condemned such killings; so we may assume that the present regime is completely indifferent to them, where such killings do not enjoy their tacit support.

Around our local school in the past week there have been two car hijackings, as well as one murder. It is not really considered to be an exceptionally violent area. Most of this is not even reported in the press, because there really is not enough space and ordinary crime is no longer newsworthy. It needs some further sadistic element to make the front page, such as babies getting killed or raped, or elderly farmers being tortured to death. Farming in South Africa is now arguably the most dangerous profession in the world with more than 1600 farmers murdered since 1994, often in macabre and dehumanising ways.

To the outside world, white South Africans are congenitally evil. If our murderers and rapists had been white and their victims black, Europe or the United States would long ago have sent an expeditionary force to put a stop to it. At present, news of white suffering in South Africa inspires the occasional yawn in Western capitals. This is why a recent article in The Despatch, detailing the rape of a dog by three black men, gave me some hope that a chord will be struck somewhere in the coolly indifferent breasts of our fellow-Westerners. Even if the lives of Louw Rabie, Brian Hahn, Lisbé Smuts-Smith, Kayla Rawstorne and tens of thousands of others are of no value to them, perhaps they will take pity on the mongrel bitch in Grahamstown that was recently raped by three black men. Or perhaps two black men, as the third one protested his innocence upon being dragged out of the shack by screaming, “I came here to relieve myself. These two were raping the dog when I arrived!” Cruelty to humans, especially white humans, is today a normal feature of our society, just like human sacrifice used to be in the culture of the Aztecs. Cruelty to animals, or non-consensual sex with dogs, may still evoke some sympathy, not only locally, but also internationally. I therefore feel sorry for Masganda—the name of the dog concerned—who was rescued with a bleeding vagina and in need of veterinary attention, but perhaps this lowly creature of uncertain lineage could become a martyr for our cause in alerting opinion-makers and political leaders of our plight.

Cycling has become a popular sport in South Africa. However, its practitioners regularly get shot at by gangs of black youths in the street, so that many of them carry guns and knives for self-defence on their bicycles. Members of the Johannesburg mountain-bike club were outraged a while ago when two cyclists, Scott and Lloyd Griffith, were charged with murder after an armed battle with their four black assailants, one of whom succumbed to his wounds.

Most of the time, however, whites are helpless victims of crime. The government has recently passed a new gun law which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to own a fire-arm. They have also abolished rural commandos of military reservists entrusted with crime-prevention in the country, without any police units replacing them. Occasionally the newspapers carry stories of crime victims successfully defending themselves against attacks, offering armed resistance. As a result of the new gun law, this will soon end and we shall simply be able to hide or flee from our assailants. Defending oneself against a marauding robber or rapist might be a manifestation of racism, and is therefore frowned upon as being a kind of “right-wing” response.

Being robbed of one’s vehicle or household belongings is now considered quite normal, and often people ascribe escaping with their lives to their own astuteness, such as being friendly to the robber, helping him load the effects into a vehicle, not looking him in the face so as not to recognise him afterwards, et cetera. A friend of mine in Kempton Park kept up a reasonable conversation with the thieves emptying his house, tied up as he was with a gun pointed at him. He survived, although his elderly mother was badly roughed up and had to be hospitalised. In other instances, of course, people are not so lucky and they become just another murder statistic. Then they simply adapt and die.
*
The first draft of this article was submitted to the British Spectator, who turned it down about a year ago. I have now updated it with references to more recent incidents. Probably no mainstream newspaper in South Africa will publish it, because it refers to the race and gender of violent criminals, which is taboo here as elsewhere in the Western world. As George Orwell said, however, “during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”.

In the interest of drawing attention to the anarchy that exists in South Africa, the author qualifies his copyright on this article and invites everyone to post it on his or her website, copy it and mail it to friends and mailing lists, translate it into other languages and to distribute it far and wide. The only condition is that no element must be changed or censored.
A PDF-version of the article which can be printed out, photocopied and distributed otherwise than on the internet, is available for download on the home page of www.praag.co.za.
Dan Roodt is an Afrikaner author and activist.
Posted by The Uhuru Guru

CRIMCAM

2008-09-01T16:46:00.004+02:00

THE FAECES SPECIES

One look at the sneering arrogance and the cold vacant stare on these representative samples of simian sub-humanity surely proves that, with their belief in Phrenology, the Victorians were on the right path to an accurate facial id of the criminally-inclined. The politically-correct revisionists who attempt to dismiss Phrenology as a “nowadays discredited pseudo-science" are the ones who should be throughly discredited and thoroughly ashamed, because Phrenology could save many lives of many innocent crime victims.

I’ve always maintained that the preventive elimination of criminally intentioned individuals (preferably at birth, if not before) would be an infinitely more efficient method of crime control than our idiotic system of waiting for the sub-human scum to commit their evil deeds, then trying to catch them at public expense, then trying to convict them at even greater public expense, and then having to pay to have these creatures incarcerated, fed and cared-for at enormous public (human) expense for the remainder of their useless turd-extruding lives.

OK, the rest of this post is satire...but,

Someone should invent a crim-catching camera, one that incorporates facial-recognition software that rates faces for criminal propensity on an index of 1-10, with "1" being the face of a totally honest and sincere person like Madiba (sarcasm), and "10" being the complete opposite, like Mugarbage or the lumps of putrid excrement illustrated above.

Now if I were to write such a piece of software, I would vastly simplify the code by giving every nigger face a default "flag-fall" criminality index of no less than 5..!! Most race realists would rightly aver and say "what ONLY 5..! Bullshit, at least 9"..! This is my liberal side coming out..!

In my ideal future eco-cities powered by the renewable energy of nigger criminals on treadmills (I never said it was “clean” or "emission-free" energy, just renewable and in great abundance), any citizen scoring a perfect "1" on the "CRIMCAM" would be licenced to take random photos of suspicious looking characters (nigger and muslim mug-shots would obviously be prime targets – and muslims hate being photographed, hehhe) and, once the criminal is captured and caged and put to good use producing electricity, manure, and pig-swill, the crim-cam toting citizen would receive a reward. No criminals, no police force, no courts, no lawyers (they will be on the treadmill too), and no wages to pay – would this not be the perfect society?

1790 - Boers save Australia from starvation

2008-08-20T04:08:00.014+02:00

Image: Sirius Rock and Plaque at Mosman Bay.

This historical episode has been virtually forgotten by modern Australians who, of all people, should remember when their nascent and fragile colony was saved from starvation by the racist Boers..!!

The frigate HMS Sirius was the Royal Naval flagship that escorted the “First Fleet”, departing Portsmouth in August 1787 bound for Botany Bay, NSW, where they arrived in Jan 1788. After depositing their human and animal cargoes, the 11 transport ships returned to England, leaving only the Sirius and the smaller Supply to defend the new penal colony.

After a few months it became clear that the harvest was not going to be sufficient to feed the colony, partly because the land around Sydney Cove was not very productive but also because the convicts did not make good farmers. By October the food supply had become so critical that Sirius, a warship not a transport, was sent on a perilous emergency mission to the nearest reliable wheat growing source. And where was that? It was half-way around the world at the Cape of Good Hope, at that time administered by the Dutch East India Company (VOC), and not yet a British colony.

Sirius circumnavigated the globe via Cape Horn, loading up at Kaapstad with Boer-grown wheat and other Boer produce, returning to Port Jackson 7months later in May 1789 with enough food to keep the colony alive until the next (better) harvest and/or the arrival of the 2nd fleet.

After this epic RTW voyage the Sirius was in a bad state, so she was beached on a remote cove of the largely unexplored north shore of Port Jackson where she was repaired and “careened” of marine growth, etc, before returning to service. Just months later, in March 1790, HMS Sirius was wrecked on the reefs of Norfolk Island. Her anchor was later recovered and is on permanent display in Macquarie Place, close to Circular Quay. The outdoor seating area of the adjacent "Customs House" pub is a good place to sit and appreciate it.

The sheltered bay where Sirius was beached was initially named “Great Sirius Cove”, but later renamed “Mosman Bay” after the owner of the whaling industry that later occupied the bay. (Nearby "Little Sirius Cove" abuts onto the famous Taronga Park Zoo). Today, this beautiful spot only a 20 minute ferry ride from Circular Quay, is surrounded by 1920's mansions and expensive apartments, and packed with yachts, notably the 42m “Nelson” (hopefully named after the naval hero and not the false black “saint”!). It is one of the most expensive Sydney suburbs, expect to pay $A700,000+ (R5 million) for a small 2br apart with good views.

Every Australian child is taught about the first fleet, in fact any Australian who can trace their line to a convict, especially a 1st Fleet arrival, is regarded almost as a national treasure. But very few remember this episode, and even fewer (in fact NONE) have ever thanked the Boers of South Africa for having saved their once fragile colony.

On the contrary todays smugly self-satisfied offspring of petty criminals and ten quid trash who "call Arse-stray-liar home", have done everything politically, economically, and culturally possible to destroy their race relatives in South Africa by cynically conspiring with Black Thugs and Islamo-Fascists and self-hating white neo-Marxists, in the international anti-white "morality" fest that "triumphantly" ended in the undeserved gift of Africa's only civilised nation to Mandela’s moronic (IQ67) and psycopathic Xhosa savages. Meanwhile, in their stupefying self-righteous ignorance, Arse-stray-liars have been led by the nose to believe Mandela's Xhosa savages are the local “Aborigines” whose land it once was..!!! Fact is that, before 1900, when a few hundred black wekkas were imported from the Transkei region to help build Cape Town's new Victoria dock, there were no Bantu settleMUNTS within 1000km of Cape Town.

So, in order that some selfish self-righteous Arse-stray-liars could heal their (IMO, unjustified) guilt-complex about their own worthless indigenous sub-humans, and feel that re-assuring inner glow of goodness that comes from doing supposedly charitable deeds; every year thousands of South African whites are brutally murdered (and frequently tortured) by prowling bands of predatory sub-human psychopaths let loose and virtually sponsored by the gang of criminal psycopaths that unjustly mis-rules a once-great country that they KNOW they could never have built and KNOW they will never be able to maintain. The Afro-Nazi Criminals (ANC).

White South Africans are paying a terrible price for the arrogant selfish hypocrisy displayed by (many) white Australians, especially their political leaders.

“The degree of sympathy whites feel for blacks is in inverse proportion to their actual experience with them”. How true..!

The mystery of Albert Schweitzer's heretical passage.

2008-07-27T07:31:00.010+02:00

Remember this..?

"I have given my life to try to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There is something that all white men who have lived here like I must learn and know: that these individuals are a sub-race. They have neither the intellectual, mental, or emotional abilities to equate or to share equally with white men in any function of our civilization. I have given my life to try to bring them the advantages which our civilization must offer, but I have become well aware that we must retain this status: the superior and they the inferior. For whenever a white man seeks to live among them as their equals they will either destroy him or devour him. And they will destroy all of his work. Let white men from anywhere in the world, who would come to Africa, remember that you must continually retain this status; you the master and they the inferior like children that you would help or teach. Never fraternize with them as equals. Never accept them as your social equals or they will devour you. They will destroy you."

I'll return to that, but meanwhile....

Many people today would be amazed and shocked to discover that, prior to WW2 (and, to a gradually lesser degree, until the early 1960’s) virtually all white men of learning and distinction would today be regarded as “racial supremacists of the worst sort”. This is largely why the acronym “DWEM” (Dead White European Male) had to be coined, in order to belittle their academic heritage whilst poking fun both at their imperfect morality and their mortality.

“Young people – don’t be in awe of past generations of white men – firstly they are dead, so they cannot have been as great as they have been portrayed, and secondly you can safely ignore much of what they said because most of them were odious racists”.

For example, here are a couple of quotes from 2 famous American “liberals”
(uh-oh, I can’t vouch for their accuracy either, but they do ring truthful for their times)

Inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC in reference to Negro slaves:

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.”

Thomas Jefferson's actual words:

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."

Abraham Lincoln to a group of Negro community leaders on August 14th of 1862:

"Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated."

Therefore, it came as no great surprise to find that Albert Schweitzer held “racist” opinions about blacks, especially so since he lived amongst them for 50 years. That is to say he didn’t believe the prevailing orthodoxy - the Marxist misinformation that “all races are inherently equal”, and that if some APPEAR not to be equal it is only because they haven’t been educated”. In other words, its whiteys fault AS USUAL of course, as it is our responsibility to educate them isn’t it? (If, like me, you can immediately spot the flagrant flaw within this classic case of “liberal logic”, then you are obviously a racist too..!)

Now if one hundred liberals had loudly proclaimed that Schweitzer, a Nobel Prize Peace Prize winner, “never said such a thing” I would have rightfully ignored them due to the liberal urgency to grasp at the flimsiest straw that would seem to support racial equality whilst ignoring the strongest tree pointing in the opposite direction. Liberals are part liar, part fools, and part self-deceivers, but mostly they are intellectually dishonest LIARS..!

However, once a single “race-realist” (ie, an intellectually honest person) sincerely questions the veracity of the passage, then I really have to think again. Also the more I thought about this "quote" the more I began to get suspicious, esp as there was no chapter/page reference. It is very important that us RR's dont publish untruths - that is the trademark of the lying liberal.

A bit of internet searching didn’t throw any new light on the matter, so it necessitated a trip to my local library, which in my case is the South African Library in the Company Gardens. The first surprise - given it supposedly contained the heretical passage - was that they had the book at all. But they have both the original German version and the 1938 English translation (by Mrs C.E.B.Russell) .

As the title suggests, “African Notebook” is rather a short book, of about 132 pages, and doesn’t appear to have any controversial content aside from a short chapter (p.48-56) entitled “differences between white and black people". (Today, to even suggest there are ANY differences aside from skin colour would be considered controversial, as we all now know there are NO differences, don’t we?) But even this potentially scandalous chapter doesn’t say anything negative about Africans – on the contrary - rather like a “progressive” white apologist, Schweitzer is at pains to focus on a few common traits wherein (given a bit of liberal embellishMUNT) Africans could in some trivial ways considered to be BETTER than whites..!

With the benefit of hindsight it was suspicious that a specific chapter or page was never mentioned, only the name of the book. Also, in 1950, the Useless Nations (in a foretaste of the lunacy for which it was to become known) solemnly declared that all humans were equal.
All in all, it would have been surprising for him to have won a Nobel Prize AFTER saying such things, even back in 1951.

Of course, this does not mean that Schweitzer NEVER expressed these words, but if he did then I am now quite sure it was not in a mainstream publication – more likely it was in an interview (or letter) to an obscure European magazine and most probably not long before his death at the age of 90 in 1965. Old people are inclined to speak their mind – it is perhaps the only advantage bestowed by old age. Besides which, it is apparently acknowledged even amongst liberals that Schweitzer did have some racist traits – he would not sit at the same dining table as Africans, for example, and this dovetails rather closely with some of what he purportedly said in the heretical passage.

The bottom line is, it doesn’t really matter whether he said it or not, because anyone who knows the African mentality well, knows the sentiments expressed are 100% accurate.

The Disaster of Democrazy..!

2008-05-06T19:13:00.004+02:00

DEMOCRAZY is a fatally flawed concept, even in civilised countries. Last night I watched in disgust as Billary blatantly bribed the MORONITY with freebies and subsidies and suchlike.

But as bad as it is in the West it is an unmitigated disaster for white people in African countries. And yet, if you were to ask them, 99% still claim to believe in it. Whites have truly become tragic victims of their own well-intentioned propaganda.

The only way out of this bind is for like-minded people to seek out under-populated land in friendly host countries that would be willing to offer very long leases in which to create new city-states and mini-states from scratch.

Many South/Central American countries have vast swathes of under-utilised territories and might be amenable. Such enclaves/colonies would offer many advantages for the host country too.

Qualified franchise seems like a good idea, but qualified by what parameters?

This is a subject I’ve put quite a lot of thought into because I have long believed that, in an ideal society, citizens should be able to earn additional votes by virtue of one’s commitment and contribution to society, etc. This does not nullify the basic democratic principle of One Man One Vote, but rather extends it in acknowledgement of the obvious fact that some individuals are more worthy than others, and therefore SOME MEN deserve MANY VOTES..!

Listed below, in ascending order of importance, are what I have nominated as the qualifiers for CommonSense Democracy. (note that with our existing IRRATIONAL system “Citizenship” is the only qualification, which is rather like passing a driving test by merely knowing which side of the road to drive on.) Under CSD, Citizenship will remain the basic qualification but, in terms of an individuals voting power, it will be the least valuable of 5 qualifiers. Note that people will vote for ISSUES, not POLITICIANS..! In the future (as in the past) there will be no need for Politicians as we know them, by which I mean PROFESSIONAL (ie, highly paid) POLITICIANS.

QUALIFIERS FOR COMMONSENSE DEMOCRACY (CSD)

1) CITIZENSHIP – basic single vote for all citizens.
2) CONDUCT – eg, temporary suspension of voting rights for misconduct.
3) COMMITMENT – length of residence in a particular community.
4) CONTRIBUTION – taxes, rates, etc, contributed to the community.
5) COMPREHENSION – an individuals knowledge of the issue he is voting on.

In our existing hyper-capitalistic societies, a very clever chap is one who earns big bucks but withholds as much as he legally can from the state. In a decent society, this would amount to unethical behaviour but, Arsezania being what it is, I am of course 100% in agreement with this!. But in a society of our own making, tailored to our own specifications, there can be no better incentive to not dodge ones taxes, etc, than to be able to boast “I pay $xxx in taxes, so I qualify for maximum votes in the legislature..!”

How many additional votes one might qualify for under such a system would obviously be a matter for furious debate, but in order not to concentrate too much power in any one individual there should be an upper limit.
An average worthy citizen might qualify for between 10 and 30 votes (depending on his/her score in category 5) and a maximum of 50 or 100. As I said this is highly contentious topic.

Also note that, in principle at least, any individual could qualify for maximum votes. Nobody is penalized on account of his/her lowly heritage, education, or IQ. Neither would one be disadvantaged by colour or creed.

Mbeki's "Quiet Ethnic Cleansing" a prelude to open Genocide

2008-05-04T18:39:00.003+02:00

Mbeki said “the victory of the national liberation struggle did not result in the departure of the foreign ruling class." In other words “the struggle is not complete till we’ve finally rid ourselves of the whites (foreign ruling class)”.

But I would not describe the Afro-Nazi Criminals present tactics as genocide (at least not yet) but rather as “quiet ethnic cleansing” facilitated by a climate of “anarcho-tyranny”. They actually do not want us to leave too quickly – or whilst we still possess some wealth they can steal – for their intention is, as always, to have their cake and eat it. To “punish” – through crime and pauperization - as many of us as possible whilst simultaneously whittling our numbers down to a level at which point the genocide option will look increasingly attractive to them. The big question is – what residual number of whites will they consider a suitably lower level for them to openly enact a “final solution”?

Consider Rhodesia - at its peak in the mid-70’s whites numbered about 250,000, but two-thirds left within the first few years of black rule. Unlike the backs-to-the-wall situation SA whites now find themselves in, Rhodies were lucky to have a friendly white-ruled country just a car drive away. So, after just a few years of black rule, whites (never more than 5% of the total) were reduced to less than 1% of Zim’s population. Even so it was many years before Mugarbage gathered the “courage” to finally address his “white problem”, although rumour has it that he had planned to act earlier (around 1990), but the ANC begged him to wait till after they had consolidated power. (thus explaining Mbeki’s “quiet diplomacy”).

The existing ANC programme of rampant racial discrimination, demonisation, and indirectly sponsored violence has reduced SA’s whites from about 5.2m in 1994 to maybe 4.2m in 2008 (about 14% a decade). SA whites not having the luxury of “a friendly country just down the road”, and as half of those who can leave easily have probably already done so, it will take something VERY BIG to reduce the white pop’n down to 1%. And even if it were to happen, there would still be at least 500,000. Therefore, if they intend to maintain a white attrition rate of 14% per decade, let alone increase the rate, the ANC will have to step up their hate campaigns substantially.

Assuming an attrition rate of 14% a decade, the future white pop’n can be extrapolated as…

2008 – 4.20 m (estimate)
2018 – 3.61 million
2028 – 3.10 m
2038 – 2.67 m

If we assume the black population (excl coloured and Indian “honorary blacks”) to be 40 million now, it may take 20 years before whites are reduced to the 5% of Rhodesia’s peak, even with a continuing huge influx of illegal blacks.

Remember that in the main cities and other parts of the country where they are concentrated, whites are “only” outnumbered about 5 to 1 or less and, unless armed with AK’s, cowardly blacks will not have the “courage” to openly attack us with less than 20 to 1 odds. And yet I also cannot see them having the patience to wait more than another decade for the final “re-distribution” of whites “ill-gotten apartheid gains”. South Africa being such a large country I also don’t believe they will be able to plan, let alone enact and co-ordinate a “spontaneous” national uprising.

Therefore, the most likely scenario is that, sometime before 2020, the relentless demands of the majority and a massive (possibly worldwide) financial crisis plus, will force the ANC to play its dirty hand, probably through some radical surrogates like the youth league.

In localized rural areas the black uprising may well take the form of a Rwandan-style “panga pogrom”, but in the cities for such an uprising to be successful a large number of blacks would need to be armed with AK’s, and it is very unlikely that this can be done without giving ample warning to the intended victims.

If, or rather when, something like this happens, it will prove be a blessing in disguise, as even the liberals must then finally awake from their mandelatopian dreams and realize their only hope is to carve out their own enclaves from the ruins of the rainbow nation.

The bottom line is - I believe the blacks greed and impatience will bring this scenario about sooner rather than later.

Black EmpowerMUNT by Extortion (BEE)

2007-10-18T10:45:00.000+02:00

ANC spokesmonkeys are forever rambling on about "our people" - "our people must have this", "our people must have that", they drivel incessantly. "Nothing wrong or unusual about that", the tourist to Azania...er, sorry, the New South Africa, might say. "Governments everywhere are always making promises to their people, some of which are even granted".

However, the typical tourist visiting SA has probably been programmed to be utterly faithful to the Mandelatopian "Rainbow Nation" fantasy that he has been hearing about for years, and may even have to chosen to visit SA in order to confirm the reality of the much-touted "miracle". He is probably unaware that there is such an immense social and cultural gulf between black rulers and their white erstwhile "subjects" that black and white can never, ever, truthfully be considered as part of the same country, however much self-delusional white liberals might want or wish it to be. So when the ANC mouths the weasel words "our people", they most certainly are not including whites, esp where the demands of "our people" need to be fulfilled. On the contrary whites are regarded as "alien people" or "non-people" - an incidental "un-natural" resource to be mined and exploited to the limit.

Consider BEE, in which at first large, then medium, and eventually small and family-sized "white" businesses cannot do business without appointing a (thoroughly useless and parasitical) black "partner". In some respects this is similar to the rules in many countries (mostly of the turd world variety) where foreigners cannot do business without a "local partner". So the first thing we notice is that the ANC has - with barely a whimper of outrage - created laws wherein white south africans have been demoted, de facto if not yet de jure, to "alien" or even "non-person" status within their own country.

However, in countries with "local partner" regulations (India quite possibly), the prospective foreign partner knows the rules beforehand and of course he is free to choose a local partner with useful skills and capital to contribute. Neither of course is the case in Apezania where blatantly racist BEE legislation forces whites to donate 100% of their skills and maybe 30% of their profits (more later, needless to say) to a "partner" whose sole "qualifications" are his/her ANC membership and black skin. This amounts to no more, nor less, than anti-white extortion by a "legalised" criminal fraternity, the ANC.

ANC = Afro-Nazi Criminals

BEE = Blacks Extorting Europeans

Knowledge cannot be "stolen".

2007-10-08T08:16:00.000+02:00

http://www.ilanamercer.com/Safari.htm

The idea that knowledge (or civilisation) can be "stolen" from others, in the way that artifacts (eg, books) can be stolen, and that such "stolen knowledge" is forever lost to the originators of that knowledge (or civilisation) is so patently looney it really does not deserve discussion. The only possible way this could have been achieved would have been for the Greeks (or other evil whites) to have utterly exterminated the inferentially superior (sic) black (sic) creators (sic) of such a civilisation (sic). And, to the white mans everlasting cost and grief, this ultimate world-cleansing ecological achieveMUNT was sadly was never even considered by white men - not even by the Boers - although they had every incentive and right to do so after one third of their number were treacherously and butchered by the cowardly Dingaan, Shaka's half-brother and assassin.

(Shaka, btw, despite his bloodlust, clearly admired the whites. It is rumoured he learnt his devastating military tactics from his mentor Dingishwayo who, whilst an outcast from his tribe, had spent a lot of time with a British officer who had deserted and "gone native". It is more than likely that, over camp fires, the renegade oficer spoke about military tactics and transferred some of his knowledge to the carefully-listening black man. Anyway, as he was being budgeoned to death by Dingaan and accomplices, Shaka reputedly said "you fools, the white men will now come and conquer you".)

Something never remarked upon is that, historically, genocide is rarely if ever performed by a superior race. On the contrary, it is ALWAYS performed by a cognitively inferior (but numerically superior) race/group against a cognitively superior (but numerically inferior) one. The Nazi's did not contradict this generalisation because, although the Germans are quite probably the most intelligent European nation, Ashkenazi Jews are even brighter. This was an extremely rare, possibly unique in all of history, example of an otherwise highly civilised people engaging in genocide.

The tragic upshot of this episode is that, post WW2, the best interests of the white race have been irreparably harmed by legions of guilt-wracked "white liberals" subjecting the entire white race to everlasting penance and humiliation in the form of "multi-culti" race mixing - a course which can only lead to our own self-destruction - in a foolishly misguided attempt to right this historic wrong...! The post WW2 policy of giving "freedom" to inferior races which have been "oppressed" by whites is part and parcel of this penance seemingly without end. Indeed it would be no exagerration to liken it to a gigantic sacrificial offering - a free feast for the "useless turd extruders" (UTE's) of the "turd world" - in which Rhodesia was the small but tasty appetiser, South Africa the substantial and delicious entre, and no prizes for guessing the name of the yet to be served but enormously rich and satisfying main course...!

In case any of the jewish and american liberals who generously "donated" Rhodesia and South Africa to the "UTE's" are reading this - dont say you weren't warned..!!!

The greatest irony of all is that, ultimately, the white race (of which Ashkenazi Jews are a part) will suffer far more from this never-ending penance than the original victims.

To continue where I left off -

Assume I am the inventor and world authority on hydrolastic dododecahedron widgits (HDW´s). Nobody can "steal" my knowledge from me although, through books, articles, lectures, and the electronic media, I can if I wish choose to disseminate my encyclopaedic knowledge of HDW´s to the ignorant unwashed masses. But, unless my knowledge and expertise is absorbed and taken to new higher levels by another (smarter and more capable) individual, I will remain the world authority until I die or am otherwise eliminated from society.

Note that the person/persons who manage to climb new heights of HDW´s must either be cleverer or more vigorous (or both) than myself. Thousands of years of total lack of achieveMUNT have shown that this is clearly NOT the case with blacks vis a vis whites.

The very fact that many blacks have convinced themselves that "their once great knowledge" was irretrievably stolen from them by evil exploitative whites, is in itself compelling evidence that they are the complete imbecilic morons they most assuredly are...!!!

The Paradox of "Anti-Racism"

2007-08-02T06:10:00.000+02:00

Greg Kaffir-Boetie said (on SAS 01 Aug 2007) –

Most of you people who post here are indeed racist, of the worst kind, like the KKK and even neo-Nazis. I spent six months in SA, most of that time in Johannesburg. During that time, I circulated among blacks, including on minibus taxis and at taxi ranks. The vast majority are not criminals, but are hard-working people, they clean your houses most likely for those of you who live in SA. As for crime, yes there is crime there, I got robbed near MTN taxi rank. Yet the bloggers here and even the media like www.iol.co.za and news24 blow the crime problem out of proportion. Millions of South Africans enjoy their days without encountering crime. As for the hatred that some crimes, like farm attacks, exhibit, that is indeed horrendous. However, what you fail to mention each time is that over three hundred years of white racism and brutality, and forty years of sheer brutality under apartheid (the murder of Biko in 1977 just one case in point among many), has produced some blacks who hate whites to the point that they will do horrendous things. The same happens in US on a lesser scale. But that has not turned me into a racist. In fact I am much more likely to believe AZAPO than anything bloggers here have to say. Many bloggers here accuse ANC of being Marxist. They are far from it, having taken a 360 degree turn since the 1994 election from their previous economic policy statements, to the point that many, including AZAPO, COSATU and the PAC accuse ANC of pandering to foreign investors. Whether that charge is entirely true is something I still need to examine. Clearly, the ANC is not, contrary to what bloggers here say anti-white. There are whites who still work for ANC in Lutuli house in Johannesburg. The ANC has long included whites who truly understood the struggle - like Joe Slovo.

To Bantu Education - I do not have a blog, never said I have one. I just started posting comments here because I got fed up with the racism, and did not want to hide behind anonymous. I am white, live currently in Cincinnati, Ohio USA. While I was in South Africa I made friends with a few black South Africans and I can see that they are right - there is still a lot of white racism in South Africa.

What about black racism Greg KB? In my 16 years in this country I recall maybe a dozen examples of whites killing blacks, some of which were clearly accidental like the recent “I thought it was a dog” case or, some years ago, a poor white smallholder Nicholas Steyn heard rustling noises on his land; having called out a verbal warning he then fired a warning shot in the air that richocheted off a power line and killed 2 yr old “Baby Angelina” who was hiding in the bush with her sister. The black family apparently squatted on the Steyn's land and poor blacks and poor whites were on good terms with each other according to some newspaper accounts.

But the hapless Steyn was accused of "murder" and savaged relentlessly by the media for a year or more and at every court appearance had to run the gauntlet of packs of hate-dripping blacks baying for his blood and wanting to savage him in traditional fashion. In fact Steyn was so much in fear of his life be begged to be kept in jail and not let out on bail.

Like many others since, this incident was manipulated by the ANC into a general white-bashing opportunity. Mandela couldn't resist joining in the anti-white hate-fest by staging a “photo opportunity” with Angelina's “grieving family” where he issued grave threats to "racist gun-toting whites" whilst not expressing an ounce of sympathy for Steyn's unfortunate predicament and his equally traumatised and very frightened old folks.

My point is this - in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE the media paints white on black killings as racist-inspired. Meanwhile, black on white crime being so downplayed and under-reported, I have barely been aware of the tip of the white genocide iceberg, but even so I must have heard of many hundreds if not thousands. As best as I recall, NOT A SINGLE ONE has ever been painted by the media as racist-inspired..!

And what better example than the murder of Juan Lee Olivier, a few stories down from this one ?

And then we have the anti-white rantings of comrade M’beggi who, every time he opens his mouth, implies that all whites are racist and only whites are ever guilty of racism. How come I get the distinct impression that the noble oppressed peaceloving blacks are incapable of contracting this white social disease.?

Given that "racism" is said to be the most repugnant social disease of our times, then anyone who claims, or implies, that whites are capable of racism whilst blacks are not is really saying that whites have lower moral standards than blacks. The irony of this position should be patently obvious but moralising "anti-racists" like greg, who only ever see whites as racist, are blind to the mote in their own eyes. Because to imply that one race has lower moral standards than another is one of the very definitions of racism itself..!! In other words "anti-racists are the real racists.."..!

Although the media will occasionally (but very infrequently) label a black beast like Mugabe as a racist, the dirty label somehow doesn’t stick for long and is not really taken seriously either by the media or the blacks themselves. Therefore, because the racist label is almost invariably only ever used (abused) against whites, it amounts to a form of HATE SPEECH to use exclusively against whites..!

Greg's attitude reminds me of the white traitors who were used by the ANC to transport weapons and explosives in their cars and cache them in their houses/garages for later use by the ANC. (These "whites" were incredibly useful to the black terrorists because they could move around without suspicion). A few years ago ANC-TV made a documentary glorifying these white “struggle heroes”. I particularly remember an otherwise attractive young white couple who admitted on camera that, after all their dedicated traitorous work, they were “rather disappointed” when the promised and hoped-for bloodbath of whites by blacks did not eventuate…!!! In the annals of history, has any other race stooped to such lows of self-abasement as these "whites"..?

But perhaps their “work” wasn’t in vain – maybe the bloodbath is still coming..? If, or rather when, it does it will be largely due to the efforts of self-abasing race traitors like Greg KB who use every opportunity and excuse to slander white south Africans as “a despicable bunch of racists”..!

"Mystified" Liberals just dont get it

2007-07-10T01:42:00.000+02:00

Liberals are not mystified when Comrade “Great African Liberator” Robber Mugarbage steals white farms, even though this meant destroying the very foundations of the Zimbabwe economy.

Liberals are not mystified when Comrade Chairboy Tarboii M’beggi feigns to engage in “quiet (ie, silent; ie, non-existent) diplomacy” when faced with such typicals act of African "enterprise" as stealing, extortion, and murdering.

So we have established that Liberals are not at all mystified when blacks terrorise, pauperise, and even murder whites, because (they smugly self-justify) such regrettable actions have “understandable” historical justifications.

Cultural Note 1: notice how often liberals employ mawkish over-sentimentality - words like “understanding”, "concerned", and "regrettable" are among the most popular in the liberal lexicon of self-deceit.

BUT when, in his exalted duty of “getting rid of our colonialist legacy”, the demented despot Mugarbage destroys the livelihood of millions of blacks, liberals wring their guilt-wracked hands in agonized horror and claim to be "MYSTIFIED” as to why he would want to hurt “his own people”?

Cultural Note 2: the liberal mindset applies a double or even triple moral standard. Whites cannot be forgiven for mistreating blacks, whereas blacks can and are forgiven for everything, especially mistreating whites. In other words liberals admit (and EXPECT) blacks readily (and naturally) discriminate against whites in favour of their fellow blacks, which amounts to a subliminal acknowledgment that blacks are natural-born racists..!

What liberals fail to understand, and will never admit, is that negroids are a PSYCOPATHIC sub-species and the human qualities of empathy and altruism (which are most developed in the white race) are either very weak or non-existent in most of these vile creatures.

Blacks as Jekyll and Hyde Creatures.

When negroids are in their natural subservient position they are typically smilingly obediant and jolly, which of course endears them to us. Other times they can be obsequious to the point of grovelling, which tends to embarass us. But when given even a small degree of power they quickly develop an "attitude". They lose their smile and become surly, arrogant, and bullying. When they are given great power they become totally demented devils who simply DONT CARE about anyone except themselves and their inner circles, with whom they share a symbiotic need to keep each other in power.

It should be clear to any level-headed INTELLECTUALLY HONEST person that blacks are very different from whites - and we are not talking about physical appearance, but social behaviour. It should also be obvious - given their glaring lack of any useful contribution to civilisation - that they are a very INFERIOR race. However, most whites are so riddled with "equality" nonsense and the guilt this engenders (because it must be whitey's fault that blacks are clearly not "equal"), that they are repelled by the very notion of "inferiority" in respect of race, although they will routinely use it to apply to almost anything else.

DIRE - The Doctrine of Innate Racial Equality

It is the insidious neo-marxist DIRE propaganda that has infected these liberals and, unless it is totally rejected as the falsehood it clearly is, will surely end in the self-destruction of the white race.

Communism may have lost the cold war but marxist theory lives on and flourishes in all our government-funded educational institutions, which have become breeding grounds for these internal enemies and race traitors (aka white "liberals").

Ultimately it is not blacks and muslims - evil as they are, but both of whom we can defeat easily in a fair fight - but the entire post-WW2 liberal "education" system we are fighting against.

Colonise Africa with Chinese

2007-07-01T05:40:00.000+02:00

If there were ever to be a contest for the most politically-incorrect letter ever published by a major newspaper, then this is the one which surely must win.
Aside from its content, there are several very intersting things about this letter. The first of course is, to our PeeCee-ingrained sensitivities, its almost naively earnest honesty. Galton realised (as has been conclusively proved since) that Africa is wasted on the Africans and it was (and still would be) a brilliant idea to populate Africa with hard-working thrifty Chinese colonists. If Galtons suggestion had been taken up, one can be sure that today Africa would be a much better and safer place, it would be exporting food and would not have become the worlds biggest and filthiest begging bowl.

Another remarkable thing, especially when one considers the chaotic conditions in China at that time, is Galton's obvious respect for the many good qualities of the Chinese people. If Galton were a blindly bigoted racist (which no doubt today he would be considered to be) you would expect him to look at conditions in China and dismiss them as "a useless race" much as we do today (and Galton did back then) with the Africans (and the Arabs too, hehe..!). But Galton was smart enough to realise that the poverty of the Chinese was a result of poor governance and not something innate in the Chinese character. Of course it is worth noting that, although his letter doesnt make it clear, he presumably wasn't promoting Chinese administration in Africa - such matters being best left to British colonial overseers. And, considering the phenomenal successes of Hong Kong and Singapore who can say he was wrong?

Another thing to remember is that in 1873 (aside from South Africa) European control was limited to a few coastal enclaves. This was written 11 years before the BerlinCongress of 1884 decision to carve-up Africa amongst the major European nations in order to (hopefully as ever) bring the benefits of European civilsation to the Dark Continent.

Africa For The Chinese. (June 5 1873)

To The Editor of The Times.

Sir, - In a few days Sir Bartle Frere will return to England, and
public attention will be directed to the East Coast of Africa. I am desirous of availing myself of the opportunity to ventilate some speculations of my own, which you may, perhaps, consider of sufficient interest to deserve publication in the Times.

My proposal is to make the encouragement of the Chinese
settlements at one or more suitable places on the East Coast of Africa a par of our national policy, in the belief that the Chinese immigrants would not only maintain their position, but that they would multiply and their descendants supplant the inferior Negro race.

I should expect the large part of the African seaboard, now sparsely occupied by lazy, palavering savages living under the nominal sovereignty of the Zanzibar, or Portugal, might in a few years be
tenanted by industrious, order loving Chinese, living either as a semi-detached dependency of China, or else in perfect freedom under their own law. In the latter case their would be similar to that of the inhabitants of Liberia, in West Africa, the territory which was purchased 50 years ago and set apart as an independent State for the reception of freed negroes from America.

The opinion of the public on the real worth of the Negro race has halted between the extreme views which have been long and loudly proclaimed. It refuses to follow those of the early abolitionists, that all the barbarities in Africa are to be traced to the effects of a foreign slave trade, because travelers continually speak of similar barbarities existing in regions to which the slave trade has not penetrated. Captain Colomb has written a well-argued chapter on this matter,
in his recent volume. On the other hand, the opinion of the present day repudiates the belief that the negro is an extremely inferior being, because there are notorious instances of negroes possessing high intelligence and culture, some of whom acquire large fortunes in commerce, and others become considerable men in other walks of life.

The truth appears to be that individuals of the mental caliber I have just described are much more exceptional in the negro than in the Anglo-Saxon race, and that average negroes possess too little intellect, self-reliance, and self-control to make it possible for them to sustain the burden of any respectable form of civilization without a large measure of external guidance and support.

The Chinaman is a being of another kind, who is endowed with a remarkable aptitude for a high material civilization. He is seen to the least advantage in his own country, where a temporary dark age still prevails, which has not sapped the genius of the race, though it has stunted the developed the of each member of it, by the rigid enforcement of an effete system of classical education which treats
originality as a social crime. All the bad parts of his character, as his lying and servility, spring from timidity due to an education that has cowed him, and no treatment is better calculated to remedy that evil than location in a free settlement. The natural capacity of the Chinaman shows itself by the success with which, notwithstanding his timidity, he competes with strangers, wherever he may reside. The Chinese emigrants possess an extraordinary instinct for political and social organization; they contrive to establish for themselves a police and internal government, and they give no trouble to their rulers so long as they are left to manage those matters by themselves. They are good-tempered, frugal, industrious, saving, commercially inclined, and extraordinarily prolific. They thrive in all countries, the natives of the Southern provinces being perfectly able to labor and multiply in the hottest climates. Of all known varieties or mankind there is none so appropriate as the Chinaman to become the future occupant of the enormous regions which lie between the tropics, whose extent is far more vast than it appears, from the cramped manner in which those
latitudes are pictured in the ordinary maps of the world. But take a globe and examine it, and consider the huge but poorly-peopled bulk of Africa, by whose side the areas of India and of China look insignificant, and think what a field lies there for the development of a suitable race. The Hindoo cannot fulfil the required conditions nearly as well as the Chinaman, for he is inferior to him in strength, industry, aptitude for saving, business habits, and prolific power.

The Arab is little more than an eater up of other men’s produce; he is a destroyer rather than a creator, and he is unprolific. The history of the world tells a tale of the continual displacement of populations, each by a worthier successor, and humanity gains thereby.

We ourselves are no descendents of the aborigines of Britain, and our colonists were invaders of the regions they now occupy as their lawful home. But the countries into which the Anglo-Saxon race can be transfused are restricted to those where the climate is temperate. The Tropics are not for us, to inhabit permanently; the greater part of Africa is the heritage of people differently constituted to ourselves.

On that continent, as elsewhere, one population continually drives out another. Consider its history as it extends over successive centuries. We note how Arab, Tuarick, Fellatah, Negroes of uncounted varieties, Cadre, Hottentot surge and reel to and fro in the struggle for existence. It is into this free flight among all present that I wish to see a new competitor introduced-namely, the Chinaman.

The gain would be immense to the whole civilized world if we were to out-breed and finally displace the negro, as completely as the latter has displaced the aborigines of the West Indies. The magnitude of the gain may be partly estimated by making the converse supposition –namely, the loss that would ensue if China were somehow to be depopulated and restocked by negroes.

The pressure of population in China is enormous, and its outflow is great and increasing. There is no lack of material for a suitable immigration into Africa. I do not say that it would be possible at any moment to persuade communities of men and women from
Southern China to establish themselves in Africa; but I am assured, by excellent authorities, that occasions of political disturbances frequently arise when it would be practicable to do so by the promise of a free, or nearly free, grant of land. The Chinese have a land hunger, as well as a love for petty traffic, and they would find a field in which to gratify both of these tastes on the East African Coast.

There are many Chinese capitalists resident in foreign parts who
might speculate in such a system and warmly encourage it. If once successfully started, it ought to maintain itself. The colonist could not starve; and when they began to succeed they would send money to their relatives to enable them to follow, just as they now do from the many other parts of the world where they are located. For these reasons it is probable that the streams of emigration from China have sufficient "head" to enable them to reach and overflow the coasts of Eastern Africa if they were watched and judiciously diverted in that
direction.

I have finally to speak of the political effort necessary to secure a free right of occupancy and of settlement at suitable points on the coast. No very serious obstacle seems to stand in the way; certainly none was met with when Liberia was founded. It is probable that as the success of such an enterprise would be of equally great value to all nations commercially interested in those parts, no national jealousy would be excited by its promotion, and the necessary territory could be obtained with little difficulty and at a small cost, to be advanced in the first instance as a charge on the land and hereafter to be redeemed.

Francis Galton

read more about this fascinating Victorian gentleman here

Kibbutzim for Africa?

2007-06-23T07:31:00.000+02:00

There once was (and in a way still is) a liberal side to me and (dont ask me why now) like many whites I often thought about the problem of Africa and how we could "help" the blacks. Of course I never approved of food handouts, foreign aid, and other freebies, and most certainly never wanted to adopt any nigglets, but rather through ideas.

Specifically I naively thought that the Israeli Kibbutz system could (or should) be adopted in Africa. After all, before whitey arrived and "destroyed their culture" by spitefully creating cities and industries to which they were "forced" to migrate and look for “wek”, they apparently lived an idyllic communal lifestyle in which reigned a harmonious spirit of co-operation and communal sharing (or "ubuntu").

That was in my pre-SA days before I understood blacks and their "culture" better. In reality their much-trumpeted "ubuntu" is a modern myth and their idyllic rural "economy" was largely based on wholesale pillage (often accompanied by slaughter) of their weaker neighbours’ wealth (ie, chiefly cattle and women).

I have come to realize that because the Kibbutz system involves a high degree of conscientiousness, commitment, co-operation, hard graft, and trust, it would never work with Africans…..unless the whole project were to be supervised by white overseers with strict disciplinary powers.

I sometimes wonder what God’s purpose was in creating such a useless parasitic race, unless it was to torment whites and perhaps make us stronger? However, this assumes that God is ultimately good whereas someone I know who has suffered repeatedly at their hands believes them to be “Satans People”.

So perhaps the existence of blacks (and Muslims) is compelling evidence for this realm being created by an evil God (aka Satan) as was believed by the Gnostics and Cathars…? Just something spiritual to think about this weekend.

Affirmative Action = Corruption & Nepotism

2007-06-18T05:50:00.000+02:00

(K)AffirNative Action is a malignantly evil form of racism that intrinsically amounts to an extended form of NEPOTISM or inter-tribal favouritism. It is innately evil and thoroughly corrupt to its foundations.

Even where it benefits a minority (as was the original intention in the USA) once the AA Genie has been let out of the bottle it can never be put back in without a racial civil war against the beneficiaries.

In Arsezania, where it benefits the ruling majority tribe, there will NEVER be a sunset clause for the very simple reason that, in virtually every important sphere of life, whites are magnitudes more capable than blacks, who tend to be lazy, sullen, envious, rude, unreliable, un-cooperative, strike-prone, and larcenous. Not to mention, although I will, congenitally STUPID…!

For the sake of argument, lets imagine that the Afro-Nazi Criminal guvMUNT were to announce that from (say) 2014 there would be no more AA and, from that date on, all govt departments would have to completely ignore race and hire solely on the basis of ability. Further suspending reality, we will also have to pretend that the personnel hirers (all AA appointees) would co-operate with the new directive and suspend their innate racial bias. (All this also pre-supposes that when “ability-day” dawns there will still be a “significant” white minority).

Assuming all these improbable caveats are met, the incoming (mostly white) non-affirmatives would be so appalled by the laziness, incompetence, arrogance, and corruption of the entrenched black AA employees that (even without the racial divide) the 2 groups would immediately be at daggers drawn, with the “affirmatives” constantly trying to frustrate and sabotage the incomers attempts at introducing efficiency, integrity, and diligence to the workplace. By then the system would be thoroughly rotten from top to bottom, the merit employees would find themselves completely unable to do their job properly.

I’m sure anyone who thinks about it would realize that, as long as South Africa has a significant white population, there is absolutely no possibility that a black govt would, or even COULD, bring an end to blatant racial bias in hiring (AA).

The only possibility of AA being repealed would be if 95% of the whites were to conveniently disappear from the scene. Such a dramatic decline in the white population wont happen through emigration alone.

The "Old SA" could have survived much longer

2007-06-03T06:29:00.000+02:00

I wrote this in response to someone who said -

"if SA did not change to majority rule, the world's noose (ie. Britain & US) would've been tightened to the degree where the country would not function, and white-ruled SA would have been forced to surrender."

I agree with you that white minority ruled SA could not have continued INDEFINITELY. Where I disagree with you is your implied notion that the "Old SA" could not have survived much beyond 1994 because it would have economically collapsed. I believe it could have survived for AT LEAST another decade and possibly (although not probably) for a lot longer. 10 years may not sound like much of a breathing space until you consider a couple of factors -
1) ZIMBABWE – Since 1980 Mugarbage had been aching to evict and dispossess his white farmers and, had Mandela not been freed in 1989, thus presaging eventual black rule in SA, it is almost certain that he would have acted on his desire well before 1994. If Mugarbage had done in 1990 what he was later to do in 2000, it is almost inconceivable that a majority of SA whites would have voted for black rule (not that they actually did, but that is another story). The rumour that the ANC, on learning of Mugarbage’s plans, begged him not to do so until after they had gained power, is highly credible and would account for the ANC’s otherwise inexplicable defence of Mugarbage.
2) EASTERN EUROPE FREED – Largely due to the black uprisings since 1976 and the resultant economic sanctions, SA had been starved of its usual sources of white immigration, ie, Western Europe. It is a tragedy therefore that the demise of the Soviet Empire and its satellites occurred just a few years before De Klerks traitorous scheming. Had there been a longer window of opportunity it is almost certain that SA could have boosted its white population by at least 500,000 white East Europeans, unburdened with (unjustified) "white guilt".
What I am saying is that, largely due to Judas De Klerk (ably assisted by Slick Willie Clinton’s 30 “pieces of silver”) SA prematurely caved-in to black moronity rule. I believe that if white-ruled SA had hung on for another 10 years the political situation would have been more favourable and, we almost certainly could have got a much better deal than we did. We will never know.
What I do know is that white liberals and greedy race traitors like Judas De Klerk have effectively sentenced thousands of whites to be butchered by blacks in the inhuman fashion typical of their sub-human race. Mark my words and write them down.

Bantu Education was too good for most Bantu

2007-05-21T09:00:00.000+02:00

Anne Paton's "why I am fleeing SA" (here) is a classic example of liberal hand-wringing, self-deception, and stubborn denial of the innate depravity of blacks, whose psychopathic character traits quickly rise to the surface in the absense of a strong authority figure. After a lifetime of liberal indoctrination and self-denial Paton has obviously failed to learn the most important lesson whites need to know about this primitive sub-species of humanity. (see Albert Schweitzer below) Which is that, when he is faced with the incomprehensible sight of the white man surrendering his authority and baring his soft white neck to the predatory instincts of his species, Sipho’s natural subordination and respect for the white man goes out the window.

But, as the saying goes – "there’s no greater fool than an old fool..!"

One of the purposes of this blog is to demolish the slanderous (to SA whites) myth that apartheid was a "Crime Against Humanity" and an "evil system of racial classification" bereft of any moral justification or redeeming qualities. So I will begin by focussing on the subject of "Bantu Education", perhaps the aspect of apartheid most condemned by non South African useful idiot whites when they want to feel smug and morally superior.

In her "fleeing" article Anne Paton made this typical "blame it on whitey" comment - One of the worst legacies of that time is that of the Bantu Education Act, which deliberately gave black people an inferior education.

Nobody is arguing that the white government didn’t spend proportionately much more on the education of white kids. However, nobody ever mentions that during apartheid, when blacks contributed virtually zero to the nations fiscus, 40% of the education budget – almost exclusively white-funded - was allocated to the education of blacks. It would have been a crime against humanity (ie, whites), and the superior white intellect, to have allotted equal amounts to every individual based on absurd Marxist ideals of innate racial equality. After all, if every individual were allocated the same amount of state education funding, then the state would be unable to give any financial support to universities. (Given "transformed" uni entrance exams maybe a good idea for the Rainbow Brain-No Nation)

But lets look at this from another angle. Since when has it been my responsibility to ensure that my neighbour’s kid (even if he is a good friend) gets a decent education? If I were to interfere in my neighbour’s private family affairs, surely he would be entitled to take my interference as a gross insult to his own fatherly ability, maturity and responsibility? So why is it always presumed to be the moral duty of whites to educate blacks, and never the blacks own moral duty? Is it because, secretly, the white liberal knows that blacks are irresponsible and incapable of doing these things without white assistance? We all know the answer to that.

And besides, what sort of education could whites give that would not be intended to teach (inferentially inferior) blacks the (inferentially superior) ways of the whites? If a strong dose of "Eurocentric" education is such a desirable thing (for blacks) that whites are morally bound to project it (by force if necessary) onto them, does that not strongly imply that black culture is so vastly inferior to white culture that blacks would (or should) welcome it with arms outstretched and regard "education" as manna from heaven, and something more desirable than a herd of cattle?

Assuming the apartheid-era SA economy was the worlds richest and the white minority so prosperous that they could have, in theory, given the black majority a "white" standard of education, I am sure that such a concerted effort to educate blacks in the ways and morals of whites would have been retrospectively condemned by the Patons of this world as a "racist" and patronising..! Why is it that liberals consider blacks as either too incapable, too lazy, or too irresponsible to educate their own people in their own "African culture"? This can only be a subliminal admission that whites represent the superior (adult) culture and blacks the inferior (childlike) culture.

Finally, although finance was an important factor, ultimately it was not the biggest reason for giving blacks an "inferior education". The fundamental reason for doing so was that the black intellect itself is inferior to that of whites, and thus their capacity and ability and willingness to learn is in itself inferior.

I have some figures somewhere – which I will later post on my blog – which indicate that as few as 1% of African blacks (versus 50% of whites) have an IQ over 100.

The truth is that "Bantu Education" was too good for all but a tiny minority of Bantu

Albert Schweitzer's opinion of Africans

2007-05-21T00:23:00.000+02:00

postscript: the beginnings of post-war political-correctness - a phenomenon largely spearheaded by left-wing Jewish intellectuals - ensured that this passage was omitted from later editions of African Notebook. (thanks UC..!)