Monday, 27 April 2009
What many consider to have been one of the most historic elections in Post-Apartheid South Africa is finally over. Over the last decade it has become clear that South African politics is still very much defined by a struggle over the issues of race and class. This election demonstrated that fact more than ever.
Even before Mbeki took over the helm from Mandela both the ruling party, the African National Congress and the two main opposition parties at the time, the New National Party and the Democratic Party, pushed for a neo-liberal agenda of structural adjustment and privatization. The first casualty of this shift to the right was many of the ANC’s struggle slogans, including the Freedom Charter promise that “the wealth of the country shall belong to the people”, followed by the social democratic Reconstruction and Development Programme which was replaced by the self-imposed structural adjustment represented by the Growth with Equity and Redistribution Programme (GEAR).
Once in power Mbeki endeared himself to global capitalism by “talking left and walking right” (Patrick Bond, 2004). Mbeki’s Government carried out pro-capitalist policies while at the same time trying to create a layer of a “black bourgeoisie”. From pursuing a presence in the main global financial and economic summits and structures, to appointing an Economic Advisory Council composed of the CEOs of major global multinationals and ‘deploying’ senior ANC people not in government into the fraction of mining billionaires as part of the ANC’s black economic empowerment programme.
Mbeki further pushed the neo-liberal New Economic Partnership for Economic Development (NEPAD) onto the rest of Africa. Opening up the African hinterland to South African and global mining corporations. Mbeki immersed himself so much in ‘international affairs’ that locals soon began to joke that he was the president who most frequently visited South Africa.
Back in South Africa Mbeki began to push his neo-liberal right wing agenda onto the ANC. With his trusted lieutenants Terror Lekota, Alec Erwin, Essop Pahad, Trevor Manuel and Manto Tshabalala Msimang he turned ANC conferences into red bashing and red baiting events. Mbeki was liberally supported by the neo-liberal media in South Africa who cheered his intentions to privatise state enterprises, while aspirant black bourgeois elements licked their lips in anticipation of the tasty morsels coming their way. Of course privatisation meant job-losses through down-sizing, right-sizing and given the current political climate possibly capsizing! These policies led to tensions and divisions within the ANC and between the ANC government and leadership and the other organisations in the Tripartite Alliance, COSATU and the SACP. COSATU called a series of general strikes reflecting the anger of workers and the poor against the capitalist policies of the government they had elected. Within the SACP there was also strong criticism towards the policies of the ANC government but the ANC leadership continued to cling to the discredited two-stage theory of the revolution. This states that first there will be a “National Democratic Revolution” which will overthrow capitalism, and then, later on, once this question is solved then we can raise the question of socialism. The leadership of the SACP insisted that the “deepening of the NDR” would somehow lead to socialism. But as a matter of fact, there was nothing to deepen, since the ANC in government was pursuing openly capitalist policies. To make matters worse, SACP members were sitting in parliament as ANC MPs voting for Mbeki's policies and some were even ministers in his government carrying these policies into practice.
In trying to entrench the shift to the right the Mbeki government allegedly began a process of using the structures of the state such as the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), the judiciary, the National Prosecuting Authority and of course the Office of the President to effect a purge against left-wing elements in the Ruling Party and in Government. This took the form of compromising those opposed to Mbeki. Thus an attempt was made to taint the leader of the South African Communist Party, Blade Nzimande by alleging that he corruptly pocketed a SAR500,000 donation from a corrupt businessman meant for the SACP. It now appears that this was a sting in which the businessman was promised a reprieve from charges of corruption if he laid charges of corruption against Nzimande. Then there were the rape charges against Zuma; it is alleged that the unfortunate mentally unstable girl had close ties to the NIA and the National Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils. Finally there was the corrupt arms deal, where Zuma’s lawyer client confidentiality was abused in an Apartheid style raid that targeted both his home and the offices of his lawyers. No one in the media mentions that the architect of the Arms Deal was Mbeki. The deal emanated from his office as Deputy President. All the transactions had to be authorized by the Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel who has a reputation of being a bean counter, while the economic trade offs were the responsibility of Alec Erwin. Despite there being rumours of back-handers involving tens of millions of dollars, only Zuma was ever investigated for allegedly receiving a pay-off of a paltry half a million. The energy in which the Zuma investigation was being pursued by both the NPA and the media clearly demonstrated an agenda other than good governance. This became especially apparent when Mbeki stepped in to protect Jackie Selebi the chief of police who kept rather unsavoury company, and the Deputy President Ngcuka who allegedly took her pals and family members on a spending spree to Dubai.
In the mineral rich provinces the peasantry faced a land grab from mining companies, many of whom have prominent members of the ANC and key civil servants under Mbeki as shareholders. In many cases rural communities who received their land back as part of the land restitution and redistribution programmes of the Department of Land Affairs just as quickly lost their land as the Department of Minerals and Energy issued prospecting and mining licenses to mining companies in bed with senior politicians and civil servants. Anglo Platinum proudly boasts of providing training in “human rights” for the police in platinum rich Limpopo province. To the right is a picture of the face of Sammy Ledwaba an activist from Motlhotlo village after the local police meted out some ‘human rights’ to him for resisting the expansion of an Anglo Platinum mining operation that means the relocation of his house, tilling fields and grazing land.
Given the huge boom in mineral commodity prices one would expect communities living in the vicinity of mines and in particular mineworkers to have experienced some improvement in their lot in terms of housing and wages. Yet many mineworkers find themselves in squatter camps; the Orwellian sanitized name used by government and the media is “informal settlements”. These squatter camps are cesspools of substance abuse, sexually transmitted disease, TB and HIV/AIDS. Thabo Mbeki’s denialist attitude further alienated the working class and the poor.
Given this rightwing shift and the prolonged pressure being brought to bear on the working class and the poorest of the poor during Mbeki’s tenure it is not surprising that the rank and file members of the ANC lost patience with the leadership of the organisation under Mbeki. The day of reckoning for the Mbeki clique came at the ANCs Polokwane Conference in December 2007. The resounding defeat of the Mbeki clique at Polokwane and his subsequent recall as president led to the resignation of his entire cabinet. The same clique then formed the Congress of the People (COPE) to great pomp and ceremony in the media and opposition parties who hoped that this ‘split’ would irreparably harm the ANC and the tripartite alliance and destroy the ruling party’s ability to run an effective election campaign. It was hoped that the left-wing populists would be taught a lesson in the 2009 election. After all, Mbeki had received nearly 40% of the votes at the Polokwane conference. By splitting the ANC the ruling class hoped to destroy its electoral domination and maybe form a new coalition government between the newly formed COPE and the DA, or at the very least form a strong opposition which would neutralise any danger of a leftward moving ANC government.
COPE ran a campaign which claimed that they were the true custodians of the Freedom Charter (the definitive script of the liberation struggle); that they were the voice of middle class reason, and that their members were above corruption. This despite the fact that COPE’s president Terror Lekota was Minister of Defence during much of the arms acquisition that became the arms scandal. Lekota was also caught out in 2003 for not declaring business interests to parliament.
Given these publicly known skeletons in Lekota’s cupboard and his reportedly abrasive, dictatorial personality, COPE wisely decided not to make him their presidential candidate for the 2009 elections. Instead they appointed the Reverend Mvume Dandlala, a priest eager to exchange the pulpit for the pillbox. Dandala found another priest in COPE, the Reverend Allan Boesak who spent time in jail for corruption. There are persistent rumours of divisions and leadership struggles in COPE. Apart from Lekota’s ego it is a party of “Chiefs” with very few “Indians”. COPE is funded by amongst others Mbeki loyalist and billionaire Sakkie Macozoma.
Instead of splitting the ANC vote, Cope split the middle class and fundamentalist Christian vote, and while the party fared poorly nationally it has become the official opposition party in four provinces taking support away from parties such as the United Christian Democratic Party (UCDP), the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Democratic Alliance (DA) in those provinces with very small white populations. However, Nationally COPE only managed to garner 7.43% of the vote. They failed to get any support from the working class and the poor, reconfirming the defeat of their leadership in the ANC nationally. The workers and the poor, once again, turned out massively to vote for the ANC, but this time an ANC that they saw as representing a change of policies, a shift to the left. As a matter of fact, even though the percentage of the vote for the ANC was slightly down, the actual number of votes went up (despite the split) to 11.6 million (as compared to 10.8 million in 2004 and 10.6 million in 1999, though still short of the historic 12.2 million of 1994).
Bringing us back to the hysterical anti-ANC white vote. The Democratic Alliance (DA) is celebrating a victory on the grounds that they managed to obtain 16.66% of the national vote. They are further celebrating the failure of the ANC to get a two thirds majority, a central tenet of their oppositionist election campaign built around white fears of black government and of the possibility of communist influence on that government. The DA failed to present the populace with an alternative vision to that of the ANC, and most voters will remember their posters which read “Stop Zuma!” and “Prevent an ANC two-thirds majority!” Today Afrikaans newspaper banners proclaimed, “South Africa stopped ANC two-thirds majority!” The ANC won 65.9% of the vote, just less than one percent of a two thirds majority. Given these statistics it would be more accurate to say that South Africans rejected neo-liberalism and religious fundamentalism of all sorts.
The DA did win slightly more than 50% of the vote in the Western Cape Province confirming the combined and uneven nature of issues of race and class in South Africa. The Western Cape is acting like a magnet for white South Africans, a Great Trek in reverse so to speak to the colonial days prior to 1834 when whites started penetrating the interior of South Africa beyond the Ghariep (Orange) river for the first time. Coloured voters in the Western Cape associate with the white population there and the area is still feeling the impact of the old Group Areas Act which made the province a ‘coloured preferential area’ as far as work opportunities and residential status was concerned. Many from the coloured community feel threatened by the increasing numbers of blacks seeking employment there and fear that an ANC provincial government would give preferential treatment to blacks as far as jobs, housing and services are concerned. Apart from the Western cape the ANC won all other provinces resoundingly.
The white electorate are told by opposition parties including the DA in just about every election that the ANC would change the constitution of the country should it win a two thirds majority. This despite the fact that the ANC has never campaigned with a manifesto that calls for any changes to the constitution. Almost all the opposition parties including the DA have campaigned around calls to change the constitution including bringing back the death penalty, criminalizing homosexuality, bringing back corporal punishment, curbing freedom of speech and expression through censorship, revoking labour rights, and changing the manner in which the president is elected. Just about the only part of the constitution that most parties to the right of the ANC do not want changed is the “Property Clause” which protects private property.
Currently the media and opposition parties are brining great pressure to bear on the ANC to exclude left-wingers from the alliance from ministerial positions and to continue with Thabo Mbeki’s neo-liberal policies.
Scarcely hours after the announcement that the ANC, with the help of its alliance partners, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions, received an overwhelming mandate from the electorate, 65.9% nationally and 66.31% provincially, the voices of the capitalist class – the various investment agencies and Media – are warning the ANC not to shift policy to the left. Before the election the neo-liberal interests held a gun to the temple of the South African Electorate threatening that a two thirds majority for the ruling party would be bad for investment. Now they are hysterically trying to influence government economic policy away from the election manifesto for which the South African population voted so overwhelmingly. In other words the capitalist class wants to, yet again as with every previous election, steal victory from the working class and the poor by either scaring the leadership of the ANC with the threat of an investment strike, or through buying off that leadership. In the meantime the neo-liberal media are trying their best to demonise and ridicule the left in the ANC Alliance, on SABC one commentator went so far as to say that “there is not a single example on the planet of where communism has succeeded” (SABC3).
An editorial in the London-based Independent was very clear in its “advice” to Zuma:
“He should confirm that now by reappointing the ANC's widely respected finance minister, Trevor Manuel, who has steered the economy through 40 consecutive quarters of growth until the end of last year. He should offer a third term to the governor of its central bank, Tito Mboweni, one of the most respected economic officials in emerging markets. He should keep the former ANC Youth League leader Fikile Mbalula and the Communist Party general secretary Blade Nzimande, well away from any posts that might unsettle investors. And he should resist all temptation to reach for his infamous machine gun. Government is no place for the songs of opposition.” (Leading article: South Africa's New Beginning)
Given that the South African media is owned and controlled by corporate capitalist interests there is very little room for alternative viewpoints reaching the public. Even the public broadcaster, the SABC, slavishly repeats the mantra of neo-liberalism warning that the ANC will not be able to realize its election manifesto once in power because “the tax base is only 6 million taxpayers strong, while 23 million people registered as voters and the total population equals 50 million” (SABC 3, 24 April 2009). What the public is not told is that every South African pays 14% VAT on any purchases, including basic foodstuffs. Education, water, health, housing have all been commodified, and in order to create “conditions conducive for investment” the government has prostrated itself before corporate interests over the last 10 years, thus corporations pay a fraction of the price that ordinary consumers pay for utilities such as water and electricity, not to speak of a variety of other incentives offered by the Department of Trade and Industry. No wonder that South Africa has one of the biggest gaps between wealth and poverty in the world.
The poor have in fact subsidized the neo-liberal project advanced under the regime of Thabo Mbeki over the last decade. Corporations have shifted the costs of their environmental impact, their social impact and even the costs of exports onto the poor. Thus mineworkers live largely in shacks without potable water and electricity in places such as Rustenburg. Communities who have historically used stream, well and borehole water stream water in Limpopo province can no longer do so as mining operations have poisoned these sources of water. The same mining corporations now purify the water and sell it as a commodity back to the same water users – the water has been turned into a commodity through first poisoning it, then purifying it and selling it as a commodity. The principle of polluter pays has been subverted into the polluter is paid!
Jacob Zuma is trying to reassure capitalist interests, but this, as we have seen in the last 15 years, can only be done by attacking the workers and the poor. This is even more the case as South Africa has entered into recession and the country has its largest budget deficit in a decade. One cannot serve two masters. If the new ANC government wants to please big business it will soon come into collision with the workers and poor which will express themselves through COSATU and the SACP.
The task of Marxists in South Africa is to reach out to the most advanced elements within these organisations and start a serious struggle to put them on a clear socialist programme, one that is based not on some “National Democratic Revolution” but firmly on socialist revolution. If one thing has been clearly demonstrated by the last 15 years of bourgeois democracy and ANC government it is that the problems faced by the masses of workers and poor in South Africa, overwhelmingly Black, not even those related to racial discrimination or access to the land, housing, education and healthcare, cannot be solved within the limits of capitalism. Only the expropriation of the means of production, “the wealth of the land” that the Freedom Charter says should belong to the people, can lay the basis for a democratic plan of production that can start to address the problems of homelessness, poverty and unemployment which millions of South Africans still suffer from.
Sources:
Patrick Bond (2004) Talk Left Walk Right, South Africa’s Frustrated Global Reforms. University of KwaZul Natal Press: Pieter Maritzburg.
Renegade Eye
55 comments:
Jacob Zuma might have to adopt a conciliatory posture whether he wants to or not. There is a real threat that the Mbeki faction of the ANC might bolt from the party if it does. A significant defection would make it impossible to form any kind of government, especially if close to half of Mbeki's followers leave. And while that might not seem likely, it is a slight possibility, as Zuma only ousted Mbeki's faction's leader by a little over fifty-percent of the ANC total, if I remember right.
If that happens, the only chance Zuma might have of retaining power would be by forming a coalition government with some of the more left-wing parties-which, he already has the communists in his coalition, so if there is a heavy, near fifty percent split, he will have his work cut out for him.
It is also not reassuring that Zuma was friends with Mugabe.
Brain fart alert-I meant to say the Mbeki faction of the ANC might bolt if Zuma does NOT adopt a conciliatory posture. For that matter, they might bolt even if he does, so I guess you could call it a silent but deadly brain fart.
Most of what I know about South African Politics comes from the Lyrics of "Free Nelson Mandela" so I guess I have a lot of catching up to do!
I read your post with interest & will return to your comments over the next few days (you have a Broad Church here!).
I wonder if you can find a version of Bring Me My Machine Gun, as sung by Jacob Zuma on YouTube. Now that would be priceless. Well, unless the song just ain't worth a shit.
Pagan: Mbeki did bolt. He didn't divide ANC, instead he divided the white party. I believe he is associated with COPE.
Both Mbeki and Zuma are soft on Mugabe. As Beatroot said on Sonia's blog I believe, that Mugabe is a UK issue.
In South Africa singing is part of campaigning. If you don't entertain there, you're considered early Al Gore.
Tony: Mandela was freed, the very same day Mike Tyson lost the strap.
A ha! South Africa, a subject matter on which I know something at last, as Eva-Jane is South African and her father still lives there and was a political activist in the 70s and 80s, utilising film and theatre as tools for change.
I've also spent some time there and have read much and I must say the post is accurate, in so much as the great travesty is the terrible, cruel betrayal of 'the poors', who are no better off now (in fact worse off, due to strict enforcement of awful legislation) than they were under white rule.
The nation needs a bit of socialist love and care, the economic policies have not helped with the white flight and collapsing infrastructure.
Also, there are still unsung issue of land theft from white farmers (as in Zimbabwe) and a constant energy crisis.
Much to be done in a fine nation.
The two main issues to face SA are interlinked: Rampant, out of control crime and racial violence against white farmers.
Crime has risen by epic proportions each years since the first ANC government, with murder, rape and ‘car jackings’ at world record levels.
Murder reports average around 25,000 a year – that is over 5 times more reported murders in SA in just one year then soldiers from all coalition forces in the whole of the Iraq engagement killed in 6 years. Rape charges run at 54,000 a year but even that is the tip of the iceberg as SA government officials estimate around 500,000 actual offences each year.
Through all of this, public corruption is endemic.
The plight of the white farmers, in parallel to Zimbabwe is virtually ignored globally because the victims are white, but the scope of it has led many academics, such as Dr Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch to evaluate that the white farmers are being subjected to genocide.
And as we have seen in Zimbabwe, this attack on the white farmers not only affects the whites themselves but has dramatic consequences for everyone in that country as the new owners cannot farm and run food production into the ground. Zimbabwe has gone from the ‘bread basket of southern Africa’ to a devastated basket case.
The UK, and in particular London is absolutely overflowing with white SA and Zimbabwean ‘refugees’ escaping the unchecked onslaught.
Many genuinely believe that there are ANC plans to slaughter all the whites in SA after the death of Mandela.
Will Zuma do anything to redress this?
Not likely! He is corrupt and has very dubious personal character and likes singing ‘get me my machine gun’ and his equally corrupt sidekick Winnie Mandela was / is heavily involved in corruption and violence too; in 1986 she made a speech in which she talked about achieving liberation from apartheid by using "necklaces" - a reference to the brutal murder of suspected collaborators by putting tyres round their necks and setting them alight.
And of course Zuma is fiends with Mugabe.
This mix of corruption, violence and hatred does not bode well for South Africans of any race.
SA farmers plight Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=y8x2olm7Gkc&search=south%20africa%20genocide
Situation in SA is ‘genocide’ says Dr Gregory Stanton of genocide watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B70d2Z9yago
Daniel H-G; Your analysis differs from Sentinels.
Sentinel: If even half of what you said is true, don't you think someone as Daniel, who visited there, would have something remotely similar to say?
I hate when people misuse the term genocide. The ICC's indictment against Bashir of Sudan, doesn't include a genocide charge. The activists have no qualms about throwing that term around.
Mbeki wouldn't have thought of expropriating white farmers. Mugabi expropriating the white farmers, was an act of cronyism. He promised a land reform program decades earlier. Mugabi even accepted the debt of the previous regime.
Some say much of the violence is gang against gang.
The white minority still control the economy.
The new government will be judged by how it deals with crime and corruption. Just replacing the old machinery is not enough. Neighborhood groups should be armed. They should be able to recall corrupt police.
You didn't mention that unemployment is amongst the highest in the world. With all of South Africa's resources, there should be a massive jobs program, to build housing and infrastructure.
The ANC is the party of the working class in South Africa. Charges against Zuma are yet to be proven. They contributed to Mbeki's downfall.
Socialism in South Africa, is the best thing that could happen to Zimbabwe. Revolution will sweep Mugabi away.
Sentinal is doing bad maths based on half of the story, which is fair enough, it's what most people do when talking about South Africa but it is a wee bit frustrating.
First off, they aren't the two main issues, there is only one main issue: poverty. The two things Sentinal talks of are by products of that poverty, poverty that has been made worse by the ANC's shutting out of thier more social-centred fiscal policy making and the all encompassing embrace of the neo-liberalist nonsense as outlined above.
The other missed truth is that it is getting better, slowly and surely but it is getting better.
Crime was always going to rise with the handover to the ANC, because the poors had been repressed under a violent and despotic regime, freedome brought a freedom of choice and crime is just that choice. The crime though stems from poverty, a problem that will take time.
It's funny you mention car jackings (which occur to a greater degree because more people now have cars) and rape, which has actually always been a terrible blight on South Africa, it's just that now more women (slowly slowly, in such a macho male dominated culture as South Africa) are in positions to flag the atrocities, such as the corrective killings of lesbians.
As for public corruption, its not endemic but it is a problem but, what Sentinal seems to be forgetting is that, a complex and harsh transition such as the one South Africa faces is never going to be easy and will be, indeed, very painful.
The issue of white farmers and land theft is a complex one, as the whole thing is. Maninly because South Africa is still caught in the 'rainbow nation' complex and rather than than face and share it's issues, it hides them and pretends they are not there. This is changing, slowly but transperancy is getting better, the main trouble is, South Africa carries the entire continental weight to be a beacon African democracy. Any failure is seen as a failure of the continent. This promotes the hiding and saftey first political approach, the idea that Western tried and trusted methods should be given preference to internal political methods and African-centric policies.
The white farmers are not being subject to genocide. That demeans the word genocide and demeans the farmers.
The issue is one of such regional complexity that an outsider is hard pressed to offer insight and solution, if you are interested read Midlands by Jonny Steinburg, a fine book that highlights that the issue is not just the farmers versus the ones who want their land but a complex trial of cultural mores that run back some hundreds of years.
Zimbabwe and South Africa are in very different positions and yes, South Africa do a degree have failed the people of Zimbabwe but it stems from the desire to solve the problems of Zimbabwe without bullets and invasion forces.
"The UK, and in particular London is absolutely overflowing with white SA and Zimbabwean ‘refugees’ escaping the unchecked onslaught."
This is not true, overflowing is a word I would not use to describe the number of South Africans and Zimbabweans in London and the UK. I don't know why this seems to matter to Sentinal but white flight, of course, is an issue in all of the African nations dominated by whites who oppressed the blacks but again, one to be expected given the difficult circumstances of transition.
"Many genuinely believe that there are ANC plans to slaughter all the whites in SA after the death of Mandela."
This is terrible, racist nonsense and Sentinal seems to be a purveyour of frankly bigoted trash by this point.
"Will Zuma do anything to redress this?"
Redress what? The main focus of any South African government is poverty.
Your personal attacks on Zuma and Winnie Mandela are a mix of fact and utter, hateful fiction, I am beginning to doubt the legitimacy of Sentinal's thinking on the issue of Southern Africa. There are plenty of world leaders with dubious personal backgrounds and qualities.
"And of course Zuma is fiends with Mugabe."
Again, a silly thing to say because every Southern African activist of a certain age is friends with Mugabe, what we can't hope to grasp is that to many he was and still is a figure of historical importance, bravery and ability. The fact he is clearly going mad is not helping but it is a case of an old friend, not being himself anymore but holding onto the idea of the friend when he was in his prime.
"This mix of corruption, violence and hatred does not bode well for South Africans of any race."
Again, these are not issues, you should go, it is a fine countrym, you'll not see much violence or hatred, which from your tone you're making out to be character traits rather than elements no society would want to be part of.
And be careful getting neck deep in white farmer's plight when you have no idea of the history of violence and oppression and the idea held by many, that the land was never theirs in the first place.
Ren:
I've read The Sentinal's latest blog post and it is clear that he or she is a racist, in the sense that they have an idea of racial purity or certain races being less able than others and that Africans are a lesser race than, let's say, Europeans.
Backward thinking stuff indeed, no doubt this terrible thinking has invaded his or her thoughts on South Africa.
I would watch out for your blog being used as a forum for racist views.
Also, "The ANC is the party of the working class in South Africa." if only Ren, if only.
Ah yes, that great, homogeneous middle-class that stays so united throughout history and in all situations, which of course is why there is such a long thousands year history of world socialism as compared to say capitalistic democracies and republics. It helps that they have traditionally recognized no racial, ethnic, or religious barriers. Nor do they really care a fig about being wealthy and prosperous someday their own selves. God love them, but where would we be without them. Probably ruled by Wall Street and banking interests.
I'm glad by the way Daniel you've found you another "racist" to play with. Personally, I like your old picture better. It's more challenging and assertive. It looks like its saying, come on, argue with me, I dare you. Your new picture makes you look like you might be a bit of a pushover.
And the brain farts just keep coming. I meant to say that great homogeneous working class, of course.
Oh wait a minute, the working class to a great large extent is what makes up the middle class, vanishing though they might be due to circumstances they only think is beyond their control.
My subconscious is working wonders these days. I keep thinking the word sacrifice. Wonder what that means. I think it might be a form of worker-controlled capitalism.
Here's hoping the good folks of South Africa build up their infrastructure and economy to where they can rise to the level that such sacrifice can become a tactic rather than a way of life.
Just a quick point of information. I'll comment more tonight.
When I say ANC is the party of the working class, I mean it in the sense of being like the Labor Party in the UK, NDP in Canada, Socialist Party in Spain and France, the PPP in Pakistan etc. It doesn't mean it is a revolutionary party.
Removed comment a couple of times - some formatting issue!
Renegade eye,
I would point out that just because Daniel says he visited SA it does not make him an expert on the country nor does it invalidate my opinion in any way- which I stand by. How do you know that I am not South African? Or my wife etc. and that I visit SA on a regular basis?
But in the main, as for not even half of my comment being true, that is completely false. If you really want me to link to verify the crime figures then that’s not a problem at all. As for the rest of it, I did provide links as evidence.
We are not just talking about 'someone' who was 'throwing' around the term 'Genocide' here; we are talking about Dr Gregory Stanton, President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars; a man who is also the president of Genocide Watch.
Dr. Stanton served in the State Department and he was responsible for the draft of the United Nations Security Council resolutions that created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Burundi Commission of Inquiry, and the Central African Arms Flow Commission. He also drafted the U.N. Peacekeeping Operations resolutions that helped bring about an end to the Mozambique civil war. In 1994, Stanton won the American Foreign Service Association's prestigious W. Averell Harriman award for "extraordinary contributions to the practice of diplomacy exemplifying intellectual courage," based on his dissent from U.S. policy on the Rwandan genocide. He wrote the State Department options paper on ways to bring the Khmer Rouge to justice in Cambodia.
Dr Gregory Stanton is clearly an expert and clearly one with no ‘racist’ agenda either. (And Sudan tops his organizations watch list, incidentally)
But he explains his conclusions in full in the link to the video in the previous post.
Unemployment is extremely high in SA, no doubt, but the chances of any real investment in SA is also extremely low when the crime rate is so astronomically high. That is one of the reasons I said crime is the first and foremost issue in SA.
Not only have the ANC proposed nothing of substance to remedy SA current woes but the SA current woes started with the ANC government - the unimaginable rise in crime and the attacks against the white farmers began when the ANC took power.
The charges against Zuma are unlikely to now go far, but he has been dismissed form public office for corruption and has much smoke coming from him whilst Mugabe has been in power for 29 years now without overthrow; he will most likely die before his power is relinquished.
Daniel,
I can see that you are not a fan of free speech and differing opinions and experiences.
I deal in facts though; however unpalatable, however currently unfashionable.
Poverty in SA (and in general) is caused by lack of money which is caused by lack of jobs which is caused by lack of investment which is caused by undesirable conditions which is caused by crime.
“And crime is taking its toll on business confidence.
The accountants Grant Thornton reported that 84% of the businesses they surveyed said that they or their staff had been affected by robbery, hijacking, violent crime, road rage or similar crimes in the past year.
The African National Congress (ANC) government estimates that 22 million potential tourists were scared away from coming to South Africa.
And this is undermining confidence in the country's ability to hold a successful football World Cup in 2010.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7052689.stm
And I have to say I find it astonishing that you think the explosion of murder and rape in SA is merely the result “of a freedom of choice” and given that that “freedom of choice” is not somehow unique to SA, why is it that South Africa now tops the world’s crime rates?
And for you to say that poor people commit crimes is an insult to poor people because criminals commit crime: poor people are just as affected by it too, as the same report above illustrates:
“The poor must make do with what they have, sometimes using vigilante groups to try to counter the criminals.”
It doesn’t really equate to form to say that just because South Africa has a repressive and violent government that the floodgates on crime open when that power is removed: the reunification of Germany would prove that. And the East Germans were subjected to an extremely brutal regime that had killed an estimated 61,000,000 people before it was collapsed.
But, ironically, on the other hand you appear to be saying that crime was under kept control under the apartheid regime.
You say that public corruption is not endemic but present no evidence, presumably because the evidence does not support you’re contention. Here is just a small sample of the real picture:
“One of South Africa's most notorious criminals has said that police helped him in running a vast car hijacking syndicate.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/195828.stm
Many South African government posts are held by people who took their jobs with the sole intention of stealing, according to Deputy President Thabo Mbeki{…}
Some of them, he went on, are campaigning to be governors of the country to perpetuate their corruption
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/210140.stm
“The law enforcement official leading the investigation into corruption allegations against South Africa's police chief has been arrested on graft charges, a police official said on Wednesday.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010900664.html
SA is not in the first throes of transition but 15 years into it – and things are no better at all.
More insidiously, you deliberately avoid the fact that white farmers are being tortured and murdered in very large numbers – you just refer to the problem as that of land theft – as if that was all there was to it. As you claim expertise in SA issues, clearly you know that this is not the case – but watch the video in the link in any case and then tell me it’s all about land.
And as I have already mentioned, the worlds foremost expert deems this to be genocide so I will take his vast experience and independent opinion over you’re political motivated one.
Considering I live andwork in London as well as working and associating with many, many SA and Zimbeaweans, I just might well placed to comment on the numbers of SA and Zimbabweans in London and their proportion but as you say that ‘overflowing’ is not an accurate description of the numbers involved, why don’t you tell us the actual numbers of SA and Zimbabweans in London, and you’re criteria for ‘overflowing?’
(And the reason it matters is because they are fleeing their homelands to due to fear of rape, robbery and murder – nothing to do with politics.)
As for my anecdotal comment on what many SA believe will happen when Mandela dies, it is matter of record. Try speaking to some who have fled SA and try googling it – you will then find, as I said, many believe it.
You say that {my} ‘personal attacks on Zuma and Winnie Mandela are a mix of fact and utter, hateful fiction’ but that’s all you say – you don’t say which part. Everything I have said about both is true and verifiable – and you can add this completely shocking ignorance to Zuma’s lack of good character too:
“Mr Zuma said in court on Wednesday he had left his bedroom after having sex with the woman and taken a shower because this "would minimise the risk of contracting the disease [HIV]".”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4879822.stm
You then go on to tell me that it was silly for me to say that Zuma is a friend of Mugabe’s before conceding that he is, in fact, a friend of Mugabe’s.
You end you’re first comment with the statement ‘that the land was never theirs in the first place’ (as if it can somehow justify the torture and murder of white farmers) but I’ll be willingly to bet a fair few quid that you wouldn’t accept that same argument from Europeans who feel that their lands are now being overrun and dominated by foreign groups.
And you’re second comment is pure hyperbole as never once have I mentioned any such notion as ‘racial’ purity and the like – that is you’re very own inference. You go on to use that first resort, the ever prevalent PC ‘racist’ label but fail to mention that just a couple of posts back I was defending Gurkha rights and calling for them to have equal pay and British citizenship,
And finally you elude that maybe comments from people that you disagree with and label shouldn’t be accepted in an open forum, on this blog, but, conversely, feel no problem with posting you’re comments on my blog.
(Of which I have answered.)
Poverty in SA (and in general) is caused by lack of money which is caused by lack of jobs which is caused by lack of investment which is caused by undesirable conditions which is caused by crime.Are you attempting to blame poverty on crime even though most criminologists and sociologists blame crime on poverty (e.g. unemployment and income inequality causes people to resort to crime)?
Pagan:
My new picture is far better but I wouldn't expect you to know that as you have no knowledge of the industry and no knowledge of me. Already had a raft of auditions and things are going well. Also, that's what I look like, your headshot needs to be a likeness of what you actually look like.
Cool.
As for racist, you should read his blog, real nasty puesdo science supported bigotry.
Your comments on South Africa and class perhaps show how little you know about it, it has an infrastructure and an economy, the best in Africa i think, 25th largest in the world?
Ren:
Clear on that now but South Africa does need a genuine party of the poors.
Sentinel:
I can tell you have little first hand experience of South Africa because of what you've written.
I'd love to leave yo with my friends over there for one evening, you'd come out a changed man.
And you are not reading well, the point is, poverty is the problem not the crime, you seem to have ignored the issues raised on that and the history of South Afirca.
Again, the term genocide is being thrown around and badly, this is not based on who aid it but on the actual conditions in South Africa.
The idea that the crime situation denies investment is flawed, investment goes where it can go, see Iraq for reference, danger is of little impact to such fiscal decision making.
Crime is an issue but not the core issue, it is a by product.
"SA current woes started with the ANC government"
So the horror of apartied was just a blip?
Oh dear, have you studied any African nation development and can I recommed the writings of Craig Murray to widen your knowledge base of African issues?
Handover was and is complex as is transition but I suppose you'd rather subscribe to the idea that blacks can't rule themselves? Is your solution white rule again perhaps?
I love how me challenging your views means I am not a fan of free speech. Terrible logic! And what is your experience of South Africa?
"Poverty in SA (and in general) is caused by lack of money which is caused by lack of jobs which is caused by lack of investment which is caused by undesirable conditions which is caused by crime."
Bob has taken this nonsense apart already but really, you must try harder, this is a basic error.
As for your constant mis=quotes of me, I will not spend my time on them, to have to read not mis-read and use my word, twisted, to make your prejudiced points.
In summary Sentinal, your ignorant, flawed attack on South Africa is a typical bigots view of the nation, based on sleective reading which builds on personal prejudice.
But, the true test of you is, what is your solution Sentinal? See if you can do more than just flasely pick apart a nation based on your ignorance.
I await with baited breath...
I agree with Sentinel. Daniel is NOT a friend of free speech, never was and never will be. His only contribution to any and every thread are charges of racism.
And I suppose that by Danny's very own reasoning process, that since I agree w/Sentinel, his own "wrong again" last word opinion isn't worth the time it takes to read. Q.E.D.
An in true Last word Danny fashion, let this comment stand in anticipatory response as my reply to his next twenty protestations and rebuttals, a simple authoritative and definitive statement...
"You're wrong. Cool."
Daniel-
"Your comments on South Africa and class perhaps show how little you know about it, it has an infrastructure and an economy, the best in Africa i think, 25th largest in the world?"
The only reason I made the remark about the South African infrastructure and economy was to highlight the recognition on my part that the vast majority of South Africans doubtless do not have the option of cutting back on their personal spending, and things like boycotts, as a tactic, as that only works for those who have money to spend to start out with.
South Africa might not be as destitute as a good many other African nations, but I have an idea that the only people with any appreciable money to spend are those for whom things are fine the way it is, pretty much.
Ren,
If only the "real socialists" had been in charge of the ANC all along instead of the "greedy capitalist-leaning sell-outs", South Africa would be the socialist land of milk and honey now.
Daniel,
Yet again, you post no substance.
In fact you're 'retort' is nothing short of bizarre.
It was carefully explained to why crime was stunting growth in SA and showed that even the ANC agreed (if you actually read the post.)
But maybe the for SA Finance minister himself might help out here:
"So let me reiterate what every official from the President down has said on innumerable occasions: Government knows that crime rates in South Africa are unacceptably high.
We know that far too many ordinary people across South Africa suffer at the hands of murderers and rapists, robbers and child abusers. We understand the implications that crime has for their quality of life. We understand the implications it has for the social fabric and for the health of our communities.
Another reason we must redouble our efforts to bring down crime is almost as important as the need to give people the security that they deserve. This is that crime is affecting our economy.
No-one can say precisely how great a drag on economic growth our present levels of crime are. It is not unreasonable, however, to think that the effects are big enough for the Minister of Finance to worry about and to take seriously.
We know, for instance, that crime imposes costs on business. Insurance premia, security costs and losses to thefts and robberies, to say nothing of the reduction to productivity that follows whenever an employee is victimised … these are all costs that businesses incur. Each of them makes our businesses less competitive in the global market place..."
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page86?oid=83185&sn=Detail
And also corruption:
"It is not just corporate South Africa and the business community more broadly about whose compliance culture I am concerned. In government, too, we have too many officials whose decision-making is skewed by their pursuit of personal gain.
In a 2005 survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers of 100 firms (69 of which were listed companies), 36 per cent reported corruption or bribery offences, in contrast to 24 per cent globally, and 21 per cent in South Africa two years earlier. The survey found that 5.6 per cent of South Africans had been asked for a bribe, favour, or gift from a public official in exchange for a legally required service over a one-year period. A total of 4.6 per cent had been asked specifically for cash, up from 2 per cent in 1998."
I could post many more authoritative example like this.
Additionally, the impressive credentials of the main expert calling the white farmer murders in SA a genocide were also carefully explained to you: Dr Gregory Stanton is President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars and also the president of Genocide Watch etc as above.
But then you're whole integrity is shot to pieces by the comment you left on my blog.
You say that you call white SA farmers you're friends and that they say 'they are fine' and also claim to be an expert on SA too - but clearly you are no more then a politically motivated liar as the truth is an astounding 3,037 white farmers have been murdered so far in SA since majority rule - and many, many of those were horrendously tortured first.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267463
3,037 murdered is a war - no wonder it was described as a genocide
In 2005 the BBC reported this:
"More than 1,500 white farmers have been murdered over the past decade {...}
"The two elderly people were literally chopped up," he says. "The old man was stabbed 38 times."
Other victims the captain has seen have been burned with smoothing irons, poisoned, raped, or had boiling water poured down their throats.
"You can't rest," he says, traumatised by what he has witnessed. "How can you put your head to a pillow and sleep? Why the brutal killing?"
White farmers say that more South African farmers have died in the last 10 years, than in the rest of the African continent during the wars of independence."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4630665.stm
For many real life accounts, see this:
http://afrikaner-genocide-achives.blogspot.com/
Clearly you have no idea of the reality for white farmers in SA and no idea of what you are talking about.
And it was because of you're blatant allusion that I should be prevented from commenting on this blog because you don't agree with me that led, quite obviously, to the charge that you are not a fan of freedom of speech.
But then I think that is obvious to most who read this and my previous comment - you were asked to substantiate some bold statements in you're first 'retort' but simply ignored that and went on to make some more.
Liberally peppered with you're PC tourettes of 'racist' of course.
You even come up with this bizarre sentence:
"As for your constant mis=quotes of me, I will not spend my time on them, to have to read not mis-read and use my word, twisted, to make your prejudiced points."
When clearly anyone can see that I answered all you're points in detail, provided evidence and asked a few pertinent questions.
But all in all Daniel, you are not clearly neither a man of substance nor a man of integrity and this is a rather fruitless circle to turn in.
Hey Sentinel! My favorite White Supremist. Hope you have no hard feelings after our little go-to a year ago. You and Farm Boy should be real buddies, but I think your sense of humour is much better than his.
Wow, Pagan, you've really moved up. You don't get clumped in with the "mere racists" anymore. Way to go!
Time to end the war. Well, maybe cease-fire is a better term. I'm still the same independent-minded person as always, and when the situation warrants, I'll be ready to rock-and-roll.
I just got through listening to Eminem's We Made You on YouTube. People might think I'd hate that song. Actually, I liked it so much I listened to it five times in a row, and can't figure out why people like O'Reilly get so up in the air about it. The only thing that bothers me about it is embedding has been disabled so I can't post it on my blog. I have my views, but I just don't take a lot of this shit that seriously. Some things just ain't worth fighting about.
Bob: I agree.
Sentinel: When the ICC was gathering evidence against Bashir of Sudan, they were unable to prove the charge of genocide. That term is thrown around in a manner that mocks it. If Dr Gregory Stanton is part of the Save Darfur crowd, he is on thin ice. He is on more thin ice, using that term for South Africa.
If you accept crime as the cause of social problems in South Africa, it can only lead to good races or nationalities and bad ones. I think Bob said what was correct and to the point.
I don't deny crime is a serious problem. Just like in the UK, if you are in dangerous neighborhoods or leave yourself vulnerable, you can become a crime victim. I was once mugged outside my own house.
The ANC has been under neoliberal leadership. We will see how Zuma rules. His win was a throw the bums out thing.
When you attack the rule of the ANC for the last several years, between the lines is nostalgia for the white rule.
FJ: The revolution was stymied by the Stalinist two stage revolution theory. Instead of finishing the revolution, the leadership of the ANC did a Truth and Reconcilliation Commission. Bottom line is that the white people have the wealth still. Apartheid is an inefficient capitalism.
Pagan: Sometimes a neutral mediator is needed.
Larry G: It's never dull.
Daniel: I agree with your main points. To disagree could only lead to a good race/nation or bad race/nation.
FJ:
I see you now come here after I refused to continue your silliness in the other threads and, to follow form, I will refuse to play the game with you here.
Have you read any of Sentinal's blog posts perhaps, or even his reposte here regarding South Africa? The man is a racist, unless you think that saying one race is lesser or greater than another is not racist, in which case you don't know what racism is. That isn't anti-free speech, am I to sit and read racism but not call it such for fear that the person will feel their free speech has been attacked?
I'm not telling him to not speak but rather commenting on what he speaks, which is racist. The BNP in the UK use a similar tactic, as have bigots throughout history.
Pagan:
You are correct, the vast majority of South Africans do not have the option of cutting back on their personal spending, and things like boycotts would not work. I agree with you on that front all together.
South Africa is indeed not destitute but there is an issue with the gap between haves and have-nots getting ever wider, the so-called black middle-class is shrinking not growing and the methods to ease suffering and poverty have not been enacted by the government, mainly becuase of a selling out of the socialist roots of the ANC. Not that socialsim is the answer but more elft-wing policies, regarding a grander public sector and support networks for the poor would do no harm.
Having said that, many of these initiatives are coming from the ground up but lack the funding to maintain their work, as is the problem in many a voluntary sector.
Having said that, the inherited problems were vast, kept in check only by a facist regime
Sentinal:
A ha! Larry knows of your bigotry! You have past form it seems?
No substance? You think that by trotting out lengthy, selective picks of news stories you can prove that one race is more superiour to another?
I could do the same with Uzbeks or Brits or Jews or the French or whatever.
The fundemental issue is, you think that races are in a pecking order, do you not?
As I've said, crime is a by product of poverty, the idea that crime is somehow inherent in South Africa, along with lack of leadership is the part where you spout racist nonsense.
I know crime is high in South Africa, that isn't the point.
As for my experience of South Africa, don't call me a liar when you know nothing of me.
The figure you bandy around of the number of white farmers been murdered is a distortion, it's a death rate and one I've seen used before but upon closer inspection, this number has not only got dubious sources regarding how it was generated, it also includes death by other causes, it is not a murder rate.
Also, how many black poor people have been murdered? Your figure generates a 200 a year white farmers since the end of apartied, the murder rate amongst black people in poverty is no somewhere around 300,000 since the end of apartied. Add this to deaths from poverty and poverty related illness we can safely add another 200,000 to make that some half million dead compared to your 3,000 dead. They have the same value as human life but you seem to put one above the other.
Do you care about that as much as you seemingly care about the white farmers? Both sets of deaths are of equal value, yes?
And I have plenty of an idea what reality is for white farmers, have you ever been on a South African farm? I thought not and indeed, if you read my comments, it was I that brought up the terrible issues facing South African farmers in SA but it is you that have plumbed the white farmers only, as if perhaps, their lives are worth more to you?
It is you who have no idea. You somehow think that this is all that defines them or what they do, you take a raft of stories and present only that, nothing else of farming life or what is happening.
And stop with the freedom of speech stuff, I've never said you can't speak, just that what you say is racist. There is a difference.
I have two questions for you but I don't think you'll answer them, as you ignored it last time:
1) What is your solution for South Africa?
2) Do you think that one race is more superiour to another?
FJ:
I see you now come here after I refused to continue your silliness in the other threads and, to follow form, I will refuse to play the game with you here. Really? I ended the silliness at those threads, not you, "last word Danny".
Have you read any of Sentinal's blog posts perhaps, or even his reposte here regarding South Africa? The man is a racist, unless you think that saying one race is lesser or greater than another is not racist, in which case you don't know what racism is. That isn't anti-free speech, am I to sit and read racism but not call it such for fear that the person will feel their free speech has been attacked?Yes, and I'm the biggest racist on the planet too, because I believe that group differences in abilities, physical and mental, ACTUALLY exist (I've never said they were immutable and I've never valued mental abilities over physical ones). And since I DON'T value one ability OVER the other, I don't meet you criteria for consideration as a racist YET you call me one at EVERY turn.
I'm not telling him to not speak but rather commenting on what he speaks, which is racist. The BNP in the UK use a similar tactic, as have bigots throughout history.No, you're not preventing his speaking, you preventing OTHERS from weighing his arguments. In THAT regard you are nothing but a jack booted NAZI thug and NO friend to freedom of speech. The world doesn't need your inept and indescriminating "protection" that attacks appearances vice FACTS. WE are smart enough to detect RACISM on our own.
Crime is a problem in South Africa. Corruption is a problem in South Africa. It is NOT racist to point these facts out. It is not racist to point out that socialist expropriation on the basis of race is wrong.
FJ: The revolution was stymied by the Stalinist two stage revolution theory. Instead of finishing the revolution, the leadership of the ANC did a Truth and Reconcilliation Commission. Bottom line is that the white people have the wealth still. Apartheid is an inefficient capitalism.Your a racist Ren. Why is okay for black politicans to grow rich and corrupt on political graft and corruption, yet it is unconscionable for a white farmer to retain even a nickle over the national poverty level?
You socialists ARE WORSE than racists. You demonize and attack the socially successful at every turn, regardless of how well of the poor are surviving within that society. You're nothing but a bunch of looser resentful "discontents" who are capable of doing nothing other than foment MORE discontent. And once attaining political power, socialists have NEVER realized the lofty objectives they claim necessary for social contentment and harmony. Face it, your a bunch of poseurs.
FJ:
Please stop doing this FJ, don't spoil this thread, that's the whole reason I'm not involving myself in the other ones, the point has been made, job done, game over, finished.
Stop spoiling for a fight all the time. And I think you'll find that you're the one having and obsessed with the last word. But as I haven't seen those threads I presume you haven't had the last word? Right?
I'm not going to fill this comment section with wasted comments arguing this point with you, just as I haven't in the other threads. This is my final word it.
And now, slightly back onto topic...
FJ, do you think that one race is better than another? A yes or no answer please. Actually, why do I care, this isn't about you or Sentinal's views on race it is about South Africa.
I'm gald you admit I'm not preventing him from speaking but I am not preventing anyone from weighing his arguments, people can do as they see fit, as many here have done and feel, roughly, the same as me. I have no control over what they think, they have weighed up his arguments and found them wanting.
Stop name calling and using terms such as Nazi, it is deeply offensive.
As for being smart enough to detect racism on your own, this I doubt very much, based only on your contributions to this blog in the comments. I believe, sometime back, you denied it existing and that it was no longer a problem in the US.
And at last, we get onto something related to the blog post in question. Which is all I will deal with from now on.
I never said crime was not a problem, I have never said the treatment of white farmers was not a problem, I have never said that South Africa doesn't suffer from corruption and I have never said that saying these things makes you a racist. Ever.
FJ:
Ren never said those things, you take something he says and then twist it, making him defend something he never said.
You know that Ren is a reaosnable person, he would want no one growing corrupt and exploiting the people, no matter what their skin colour.
And I have no idea where your closing rant comes from, it drops out of thin air and has no bearing on the discussion of South Africa.
Where have people in this thread demonized and attacked the socially successful?
FJ, do you think that one race is better than another? A yes or no answer please. Actually, why do I care, this isn't about you or Sentinal's views on race it is about South Africa.
I'm gald you admit I'm not preventing him from speaking but I am not preventing anyone from weighing his arguments, people can do as they see fit, as many here have done and feel, roughly, the same as me. I have no control over what they think, they have weighed up his arguments and found them wanting.
Stop name calling and using terms such as Nazi, it is deeply offensive.No, I don't think one race is BETTER than another.
I'm a a "classical liberal" ala Isaiah Berlin who believes that many values are incommensurable and this leads to the "tragic nature of choice", but also that even nature makes "tragic choices" that cause/ favor certain genetically based environmental adaptations.
But back to the point, I find it curious that you find it 'deeply offensive' for me to call you a Nazi, but you do NOT find it similarly offensive for you to call me a racist? Why's that? Tit-4-tat imho.
Does me calling you a Nazi make you think that perhaps I'm trying to "shift" or divert the argument and attempt to shoot the messenger at the same time? Because THAT is what you calling ME a racist does. And then NOBODY weighs the original argument, it's been shifted onto a STUPID long-settled and annoying posturing CRAP ARGUMENT. Got it?
Where have people in this thread demonized and attacked the socially successful?Ren, "FJ: The revolution was stymied by the Stalinist two stage revolution theory. Instead of finishing the revolution, the leadership of the ANC did a Truth and Reconcilliation Commission. Bottom line is that the white people have the wealth still. Apartheid is an inefficient capitalism."
White people have wealth still.
Oh, the INJUSTICE of it! It must be "DEMON CAPITALISM".
You guys sound like the "abolutionists" of the twenties. All you need now is hatchet and a large bass drum...
As I've said FJ, this isn't about mine, yours or Sentinal's views on race but I am glad to see that you have provided a clear and straight answer on the matter.
I've not called you a racist, I called Sentinal a racist, based on the writings at his blog and to a lesser degree, the writings in this comment post.
May I also point out that Nazi and racist on not on the same level so to speak, nazi is a politcal ideology which you know full well I am not a subscriber too and nothing I write here makes me a Nazi.
However, racism is far more common than being a Nazi is, and racism is not a political ideology but a common problem with all humans.
Furthermore, Sentinal has provided rich evidence both on his blog and here that he is a racist, a tone that has been picked up by Ren and Larry also.
Thus, it isn't tit for tat and also, tit for tat is not a way to act, behave or live.
You using Nazi was name calling based on no eivdence, to try and prove a point, Sentinal being a racist is clear in the tone fo his blog and the tone of his comment. There is a big difference.
Your evidence was not evidence FJ, it is you interpreting something Ren said and then saying it is evidence. It is your interpretation, which you then attack Ren with, knowing full well he does not hold those views but time is wasted and hot air blown out fighting them.
You have done the same with me but have called me a Nazi instead, when you know full well I do not subscribe to the views on the Nazi party.
Funny, I'm a marxist, socialist, lefty liberal when it suits you and know, to make a flawed point, I am a Nazi.
You, like Sentianl, take elements and then push your own agenda and fears on it. The way you talk it is as if everyone is against you, no doubt here, you are in the minority but your fear is mis-placed.
And once again, this has nothing to do with the thread at all.
A waste of time.
As I've said FJ, this isn't about mine, yours or Sentinal's views on race but I am glad to see that you have provided a clear and straight answer on the matter.Yet you ONCE AGAIN managed to DIVERT the subject of this entire thread to baseless charges of racism against someone simply trying to contribute to the discussion of South Africa. THANKS FOR NOTHING. Now leave and STOP wasting EVERYONE'S time with your idiotic pet peeve.
No FJ, your personal issues with me are clouding your judgement and I would ask you, politely, to drop them and to approach this thread with some sense of clarity and dignity that it deserves.
I have not diverted the thread, I have unpicked the racism in Sentinal's views on South Africa. It is not baseless, unless you share Sentinal's views which you do not it seems.
I will not debate with you on issues other than South Africa and it would be best if you did the same.
What Sentinel writes on his blog is immaterial to this discussion or the points he has made HERE. IF you were in any way sincere in your hatred of racist comments made at THIS thread, you would be attacking YOURSELF and REN for what was said above about "whites" and that I've pointed out... BUT NO, YOU DON'T because you and I BOTH know Ren is not a racist. I do not believe you to be a racist. So why do you treat Sentinel any differently? Because Sentinel isn't part of your little "in" group who only speak "affirmatively" of matters "socialist" and "minority?"
And I find it curious that you pretend to understand "my judgement" better than I am capable of determining for myself. What's "cloudy" to you is NOT a reflection of MY judgement.
And while your first comment on Sentinel's post was for the most part, topical, your second was a complete shoot the messenger diversion. Sentinel brought up "white fears" (which are not entirely unfounded), and you immediately brand him a "vile racist," run to his blog to confirm, and begin the diversion of this thread around the subject of your favorite pet peeve in order to force him to defend himself and personal views on race rather then address the issues at hand and points you've made.
All you do thereby is prevent a reasoned discussion, and I ask you to stop doing it. You waste everyones time.
It is not immaterial, it is context FJ, relevent context, just as your quotes are. And the content of his comment was enough to deduce that he holds prejudiced views, which was proven by a thorough reading of his blog.
I have not seen any anti-white racism in the comments here and what Ren said was clearly not racist.
Again, what you have just left as a comment has no bearing on this thread and the personal nature of it means that, once again, you threaten to destroy the comment form here with tit-for-tat comments about who said what and so forth.
I have answered it as best I can, but we will have to agree to disagree on the nature of racism, this is not what this thread is about, so this is my final comment on the issue.
I will only comment here on this thread based on the thread topic itself.
The truth is FJ, your vendetta against me is personal and blinding you to the issue at hand. I have come to see though that by ignoring you (whilst off topic), it is perhaps for the best.
The argument goes in circles because it is personal, not factual, you dislike me and take every opportunity to make that clear but I will not feed the troll any longer.
As I said above:
"I will not debate with you on issues other than South Africa and it would be best if you did the same."
Well, Daniel, it is mighty ironic that you find the label Nazi 'deeply offensive' but have absloulty no problem casually throwing around you're own equal footed labels.
But in any case you are more a 'fascist' then a Nazi - you think you can shout people down and dehumanise them with hysterical labels and incite others to censor them.
(Incidentally, my collision with Larry was actually two years ago and reached just as bizarre fascistic depths over the expression of a differing opinion.
In fact when I dared to say that AIPAC were pushing for a US led attack on Iran and linked key officials involved to AIPAC, Larry completely ignored the evidence, and instead decided to repeatedly claim that I had been incestuously sexually abused (to explain my opinion, presumably) and then went on, for no apparent reason to say that he 'turns and spits on my f****ing white race' whilst calling me a racist. Extraordinary by any standard - but I hold no hard feelings, I expect extreme behaviour from extremists.)
Daniel, it is in fact you and only you that has decided to factor race into every facet of this debate. I mentioned the plight of the white farmers as it is a huge issue and the worlds foremost expert describes as a genocide.
And as for the posts on my blog, you have not been able to counter one fact.
You are most certainly a liar Daniel, and again it is fascinating that you find any slight against you outrageous but feel you have the god given right to dole them out at leisure to anyone you fancy.
First you claim the attacks on white farmers are no more then land theft. Then you claim that you are an SA expert and that you have spoken to friends who are white farmers and 'they are fine.' Then you are presented with the real picture of over 3,100 murders. Then you claim the figure of murdered white farmers is a distortion, but offer no evidence of this whatsoever, despite the fact that I have provided ample evidence that it is a fact.
And then in true alice-in-wonderland fashion you go on to say the figure includes natural deaths too!! Though quite how the police, the courts and the press could have got so wrong is amazing. Perhaps you have missed you're calling as an ME-by-proxy.
No, not only is the figure genuine but the other fact that you keep ignoring is the horrendous torture that accompanies most of these murders too. That is the main reason it has been described a genocide: Because these sustained and targeted attacks are clearly far from just about land.
Then as a cheap distraction and some sort of moral high-ground attempt you bleat on about how many blacks are murdered and ask if they're lives are not worth as much as the white farmers, when quite clearly you couldn't give a rats arse about the white farmers plight - because they are white.
I can tell you that the absolutely overwhelming majority of blacks murdered are murdered by blacks - there is no other element to it then petty crime. No racial targeting, no hidden agenda, no genocide.
As I have said, you're integrity is appalling, and you're substance is nill.
And as for the issue of crime being a racial one, it is in fact you that implicitly claimed that it was the majority in SA who committed crimes - the majority being black - and also that the apartheid regime had managed to contain crime much more effectively:
"Crime was always going to rise with the handover to the ANC, because the poors had been repressed under a violent and despotic regime"
Clearly you also have problems with the contrived concepts of 'racism' and 'racialist' - a 'racist' dislikes people from outside his own gene pool without qualification whereas a 'racialist' (a new term for you) believes in the varying attributes of a race and favours one over the other.
I am neither. I recognise that race is a reality and that people have varying attributes but, like FJ, I do not choose one set of attributes over another. I question the synchronise compatibility.
That freedom of speech 'stuff' is just as valid as the rest of my comments because you had this to say in response to my first comment:
"I would watch out for your blog being used as a forum for racist views"
Clearly you were implying, inciting and making inference that these 'racist' - aka, as different from you're - views should be suppressed.
Finally, it is again very revealing that you feel able to demand that I should I answer you're questions when you completely ignore mine, but I think it was obvious to everyone reading this thread that my answer to Q1 is to combat crime as a priority: This will bring in mass tourism. Business investment. Employment. Social cohesion.
And I have already answered Q2.
The only thing I agree with you on is that this thread is about SA. I am not in the least interested in playing silly, childish name calling games with you.
I have an opinion, and that was presented with reason and evidence.
South Africa is no different than most other places in many regards. You have to crack down on not just violent crime, but all crime, but it should be within the framework of insuring a just and cohesive society. Otherwise it will amount to little more than just mass roundups of people on the streets with many serving long stretches of jail time without ever being charged with a crime or even being able to see an attorney. In the meantime, the crime statistics might stay relatively stable, but they will still be inordinately high.
Also, there must be some investment and building of infrastructure, encouragement of business investment and job creation, and some kind of minimal educational system and requirements. Some kind of housing and medical programs would also be a plus as long as it is done right, with a minimum of red tape bureaucracy and an eye to guarding against furthering the spread of corruption. This leads to what is probably the main problem. I have an idea corruption is probably rampant in South Africa, which means there is not liable to be any meaningful change any time soon.
And that's too bad, because a simplistic approach that focuses on one problem is really missing the boat. The problems here are just too profound for that.
But, infrastructure and job creation will help to "spread the wealth around", to use an overused and sometimes abused term, without redistributing it artificially based on some ill-advised social priority.
Once the economy grows, this will help alleviate the crime problem, but only if there is a corresponding push to prosecute and punish crime. Without this, all that happens is there is more money floating around for the ne'er-do-wells to target their attentions on, and it would definitely be a brake on further economic growth, which would stay fairly flat after leveling off at some juncture.
By the way, racialism is racism with a smiley face, sort of like that little yellow smiley face with the Hitler mustache the folk-duo Prussian Blue used to wear. They believe in separation of races, but not oppression of peoples based on race or ethnicity. Many claim they are doing no more than promoting pride in the white race amongst whites, just as some black activists, for example, might promote black pride amongst blacks. Of course many of them are racialists as well. Racists too.
In South Africa I think its gone well beyond that and into the realm of concerns for personal survival. Even if it is exaggerated to an extent, I am sure the concerns are nevertheless valid ones. It goes beyond worries over survival though. An entire way of life is on the line for these people, a way of life that was by the way not all bad.
Sometimes I have to wonder how many South Africans secretly wish things could go back to the way they were. I bet the numbers would be surprising.
Sentinal:
It is not ironic, as I said to FJ, there is a big difference between the word Nazi and the word racist, surely you can see that?
And I see you have no intention of outing yourself as a racist, even though your views, esp. on your own blog are racist and are frequented and supported by far-right bloggers who hold racist views, I see you have a fan of the BNP over at yours.
I am not shouting down, you seem to eager to play victim here, which is a classic tactic used by racists.
Please don't take this thread any further off topic than it already has. I have no interest in your past with Larry.
I also have no interest in much of the rest of your comment, which seems from speed reading to be a mix of personal attack and hyperbole.
To cut to the quick, please answer the questions posed you, which you have not at all in the previous comment left.
Pagan:
The prisons in South Africa are full. Punishment does not work when poverty runs so wild that crime is an option to all.
As for people in South Africa wishing things could go back the way they could, perhaps, but that is natural, such change takes time, patience and hard graft.
I've just realised how far this has gone off topic.
Sentinal, you claimed the two top issues in South Africa are crime and the deaths of white farmers, this is not the case, because both of these issues, as many of us said some time back before it all got lost, is poverty.
Reading back, my racist alarm went off because in a thread about South Africa, you choose to highlight the plight of the white farmers, who make up a sliver of the population (of equal value by the way), you also bang on about the crime as if that is a defining factor of the nation itself and then you suggest that there will be a genocide once Nelson Mandala dies.
Then I went to your blog and found more racist tripe. Putting the two and the two together, it was clear you hold racist views regarding.
This has been further proven by your additional comments, my mention of the volume of black deaths due to crime and poverty, you dismiss as black on black (which seems odd considering most people in South Africa are black) and not genocide, when one could argue that black South Africans are committing an act of atrocity on themselves.
But I get the feeling that you care little for humans with non-white skin and you value them less.
Also Sentinal, you confuse links to stories as providing facts, you'll have to read Midlands by Jonny Steinburg to understand that the figure you talk of is not based soley on murders but deaths by other causes, the figures come from and are manipulated by a group of far-right leaning farmers looking to generate a certain heat from the plight of farmers in South Africa.
I also wonder how the "police, the courts and the press could have got so wrong is amazing." when these are the same institutions you say or so corrupt. Clearly they provided good work here but not on bits you disagree with.
You robsession with the torture of the victims is also odd, are you as obsessed by the torture of the far larger number of victims of crimes based on sexuality?
The number of gay and lesbian victims of corrective crimes, who are also tortured and killed, numbers well over the 10,00 mark since 94. Are they of value to you also?
Also, to be clear, all human life is of equal value, I am not as hung up on skin colour as you are it seems.
I also need to point out to you that the attacks based on the white farmers are based on race.
They are based first and first most on poverty, then they are based on the idea that the land belongs to those that commit the terrible acts in the first place.
Funnily enough, what I learnt from my time on the farms was that the local community want and need a successful farm, the attacks are either carried out by city dwellers looking for easy, isolated targets and money and goods are taken, or the attacks are by those who believe that the land is theres in the first place but rarely do they come from the farming community itself.
You should read more Sentinal and perhaps go visit, I have a friend out there who could do with a hand come harvest and the fences all ways need mending.
Danny, please refer to my comment dated 29 April, 2009 @ 15:54 above. Thankyou.
Daniel, as much as I am loathe to respond to you and you're argumentum ad hominem, you insist on adding further facile barbs that should not remain unchallenged.
Make no mistake Daniel, you are a fascist who is incapable of any reasoned and linear commentary.
You're comments are spewed out with as much dysfunction as your confused and disjointed thinking.
FJ is spot on, the only thing you have to say is 'racist' - like some kind of PC tourettes syndrome - to any comment you do not agree with or like. You're entire approach is based upon incessant labels and defamation, not substance and evidence.
Just a couple of points prove this:
On Larry you say "A ha! Larry knows of your bigotry! You have past form it seems?" at first, and then when the true nature of that "past" is detailed you then say "I have no interest in your past with Larry."
Well clearly you was!!! You brought it up!!! But you was ONLY interested when it was to MY detriment. Like I have said you have no integrity.
You also waffle on about my 'racist' blog - even though you was unable to counter one contention - and say that is "frequented by far-right" bloggers who "hold racist views" / "BNP supporters" . You can only be referring to 'Britain Awake' who has posted ONLY TWO comments in over 200 POSTS in OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS of blogging!!! Like I said, you are a liar too.
And the only thing for debate in this thread is my comment on this thread - the rest is of complete irrelevance. You and you alone have dragged it so far off topic and into such nasty tones.
You ask why I am "obesssed" with the torture of white farmers after you have spent the entire thread trying to ignore or downplay the torture aspect (and even the murder element) - and I have already answered WHY it is SO significant:
"No, not only is the figure genuine but the other fact that you keep ignoring is the horrendous torture that accompanies most of these murders too. That is the main reason it has been described a genocide: Because these sustained and targeted attacks are clearly far from just about land."
You then go on to dispute the veracity of the reports of these murders and the overriding torture element of them, yet again providing no proof or even rationale as to why these reports would be faked (or could be if you like at the actual reports, footage and photographs) whilst I have provided ample evidence that they have occurred. Again, you have no substance, just baseless bold statements.
You say that they are not racially motivated when the overwhelming majority of white farmers in media responses think they are, as does the WORLDS FOREMOST EXPERT on genocide, as does most of the media - hence the very reporting of the fact that they are WHITE farmers.
You say that you have spent time in SA and on farms and have friends who are white farmers but none of that has any ring of truth to it, given you're extreme ignorance. You are simply not to be believed.
I have been around this globe independently many times Daniel, and I have served in some of the worst places on earth, including Bosnia and Rwanda, and I really do not need the blowhard likes of you telling me that I need to read a book to know about violence, killing, torture, crime or genocide.
You are a dishonest time thief with no substance and no contribution to rational debate and you have managed to drag this debate and thread into a personal slinging match.
There have been innumerable poor countries during the course of world history filled with poverty and tremendous wealth disparities between the various races and social classes. The USA in the 30's comes to mind. Why wasn't crime such a huge problem for Americans then?
Could it be that back then the criminals just didn't get much encouragement from a vocal group of deranged apologists willing to "justify" their criminal behavior in the name of "correcting the historical injustices of colonialism" and a renewed commitment to "social justice"?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The paving company is "the Socialist International".
I think a lot of the crime is a natural outgrowth of the sudden release of people's previously contained frustrations. It's like putting a pot of beans on to boil in a pressure cooker. If you leave it on for too high for too long, it will explode. Or, if you take the lid off too quickly, it will spew up all over you. I think that's exactly what's going on here, and that is why I can readily believe a lot of the stories about the targeting of white farmers based on race. It's not acceptable or certainly not admirable, but it is certainly understandable. The perpetrators (the ones who are actually acting out of a sense of grievance, not the ones who are just making excuses to pillage and plunder, which would also be a considerable number) are not seeing these as fellow South Africans who just happen to also be white. They are seeing them as the remnants of a class of people that once exploited them and lorded it over them in a cruel fashion. I would be surprised if there weren't some reprisals. It was actually to be expected.
Add to all this the fact that there is still a great deal of poverty amongst South African blacks, while many of the white victims are yet seen as prosperous holders of a great portion of the nations wealth, and you have gasoline flung onto the fire as from a hydrant.
The miracle is there are any whites left alive at all.
o/t - Ren,
I'm likely to be rather too busy celebrating on the 1st of May tomorrow, so I'll perform my annual celebratory dance today. Have a wonderful May Day.
"Song for St. Tamminy s Day.
"The Old Song."
Of Andrew, of Patrick, of David, & George,
What mighty achievements we hear!
While no one relates great Tammany's feats,
Although more heroic by far, my brave boys,
Although more heroic by far.
These heroes fought only as fancy inspired,
As by their own stories we find;
Whilst Tammany, he fought only to free,
From cruel oppression mankind, my brave boys,
From cruel oppression mankind.
"When our country was young and our numbers were few
To our fathers his friendship was shown,
(For he e'er would oppose whom he took for his foes),
And made our misfortunes his own, my brave boys,
And he made our misfortunes his own.
"At length growing old and quite worn out with years,
As history doth truly proclaim,
His wigwam was fired, he nobly expired,
And flew to the skies in a flame, my brave boys,
And flew to the skies in a flame.Kawania che Keekeru!
Sentinel: There is a thread from the Moasley Movement, to the National Front to the BNP. The BNP made a strategic move, to change its language. It even picked some Jewish supporters.
Just like the opposition to Chavez in Venezuela, crime is brought up. I've even talked to Venezuelan officials about that problem. When I talk about crime, I'm talking about reforms to curb crime. When the Venezuelan opposition talks about crime, it's to destabilize the government.
Crime is a real issue in South Africa. When Daniel or I, talk about crime in South Africa, it's different than the BNP that uses it as code. It means a racialist definition and codewords.
I'm expecting my next Middle East post will be a fight. I don't support Zionism, but I don't believe there is a strong "Jewish lobby" either.
FJ: Happy Mayday.
I didn't support Mugabe's expropriation of white farmers.
Could it be that back then the criminals just didn't get much encouragement from a vocal group of deranged apologists willing to "justify" their criminal behavior in the name of "correcting the historical injustices of colonialism" and a renewed commitment to "social justice"?The ANC gains nothing with a high crime rate. They have even under Mbeki increased their budget to fight crime.
The reference to white fears, is code for nostalgia for apartheid.
Daniel: I'm sure you are aware of what the BNP means when it talks about crime in UK.
Crime is code for race and destabilizing the ANC. Even if it's a real problem.
Pagan: Overall you are correct. I read in a UK paper, interviews of various white people about crime in South Africa. The views were mixed. Some said they thought London was more dangerous.
I think people can add a final thought. Carrying on this post, can only get circular.
Renegade:
You are right, this is my final thought, as a circular debate is pointless, no minds will be changed, nothing won or lost.
It's funny, reading 'Mein Kampf' I discovered that Hitler had no time for economics and poverty as factors in the state of a nation, he demoted such things to fourth place behind the nation in questions morals, their racial purity and military ability, the economic situation and level of poverty came for him behind all those.
Whereas for most of us here, we see economic factors as the initial push behind the fall of dominos, which in South Africa's case is crime and corruption BUT I must stress, there is so much more to that fine nation and I fear in the West we have got to open our minds to the many other factors and elements it contains.
Either that or visit and volunteer time there, get to know the people, lose the fear so to speak.
Indeed, I hope to do some work in Pollsmoor prison there next year.
And I agree whole-heartedly that the reference to white fears, is code for nostalgia for apartheid. Who would have nostalgia for such horror? A racist clearly.
As for the BNP Ren, you should see the joke that is their policies, it amounts to complete economic isolation, an end to aid, a building up of the military, complete self-reliance and sending everyone not British back 'home' (maybe that might include me as a German lapsed Jew?). They would be a greater joke if so many people didn't buy into their racist madness in the UK, something I am deeply ashamed of.
Pagan:
Much of what you say makes sense, the crime in South Africa comes from where all crime stems from, poverty, nothing to lose and hopelessness.
Please do remember that most crime is black on black, the self-genocide I referred to, not a great phrase but it does have a ring of truth to it.
The other crimes are not racially motivated, I know that may seem surprising but the handover to power and the truth and reconcilliation process was a noble effort to stop revenge attacks and this has been the case.
It is just that many of the 'haves' in South Africa are white (having said that, the haves I know over there are actually mixed race or coloured as the South African's term is) so if you are a have-not wanting to steal, mostly your own community can only handle so much theft and crime before it is bare, thus you turn to the source of income, the haves.
"The miracle is there are any whites left alive at all."
A tough statement. It is not a miracle, it is the joy of humanity, even with the level of poverty and unemployment, not all turn to crime, some turn to means of scraping a living together, of decency, that is the inherent goodness in humanity Pagan. I have worked with these people over there, it prompts the entrepeneur in them, in some it takes them to greater heights to feed the family, in others they resort to crime, many, actually, do nothing at all.
If you became very, very poor Pagan, your moral character would fight with the urge to survive, you may not turn to crime; this battle goes on every day in poor nations, not all are swamped with crime that reflects the high level of poverty. It is not an excuse but a reason.
Perhaps it is a miracle but a very human one and one that offers South Africa it's glimmer of hope.
And on that, my final word as promised.
Take care all and if you ever get a chance to visit South Africa, jump at it.
Peace.
Yes, and who would have nostalgia for such things as Dixie and the Confederacy. A racist, clearly.
You're so full of SH*T, it's dribbling out your mouth.
Grow the f*ck up!
How's this for "code talking:"
UP THE BRITISH!
You are right; this is getting kind of circular so thanks Renegade Eye, I think I will make have more final thought.
Considering that the current demographics place SA at over 90% non-white, it would seem quite obvious that the overwhelming victims of crime- those who bear the brunt of this onslaught of terror- are non-white. They are the real losers here.
Given that it is hard to see how you can equate people highlighting the issue to some kind of hidden ‘racist’ agenda.
From a purely clinical perspective, as ‘Pagan Temple’ pointed out, with what is known now, it would be very interesting to see just how many people of all races in SA would want a return to the pre-ANC days, akin, I guess to the plight of Iraq: There may have been anti-freedom despots in power but at least if people eschewed politics they had relative security and personal freedom. ‘Sometimes freedom is just freedom to starve.’
Who, knows. But either ways there will be no return to apartheid, and, for the record, nor do I think there should be. But I still do think crime is the number issue facing SA.
So I vehemently disagree with you’re contention that yourself and Daniel are somehow in special category of people that you set up for yourself above another category of people that you have also set up – that only you’re group has a honest voice and a legitimate concern.
I also vehemently disagree that in raising the issue of rising crime means that some kind of code is being invoked. In fact it is an extraordinary contention. It means effectively means that anyone outside the left should not be taken at their word, that their expressed opinions on subjects like crime are worthless.
It also raises a few other interesting questions, the main one being that if you truly believe that for anyone outside the left to raise the issue of crime is actually invoking code for an attack on non-whites then that would preclude the fact that you presume crime to be a largely or a disproportionately non-white problem.
That must lie at the root of you’re thinking.
And if this is really the case then do people of any political persuasion not have the genuine right to be concerned about it and raise the issue?
The fact is that ‘western’ government do their best to conceal the demographics of crime, but it does slip through on occasion and that the worst types of crime in the ‘western’ countries ARE both largely and disproportionately committed by non-whites.
I will give just a few examples:
In the UK it was leaked that 73% of those charged with knife crime were non-white (whist the victims made up the largest group) Over 70 per cent of London’s gun suspects were black, as were 50 per cent of the victims. In 80% of gang rape cases, the defendants were black. There are five times more young blacks in prison then whites.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036833/Over-half-young-knife-suspects-black-Scotland-Yard-figures-reveal.html
http://www.itv.com/PressCentre/InTheLineOfFire/Ep1Wk07/default.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/199811200011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/black_crime.shtml
In Denmark non-whites committed 68% of all rapes, and it was revealed that non-whites were over-represented in all crime by an average of 46% and in Copenhagen 47.5% of prisoners on remand for serious crimes were non-white. In Norway it was found that two out of three charged with rape in Oslo were non-white, whilst in Sweden it as found that a rapist was four times more likely to have been born abroad – with Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominating the group of rape suspects and that non-whites were responsible for 25% of all crime in Sweden A survey in Australia found that in Melbourne magistrate’s courts, offenders from the horn of Africa and the Middle East were 20 times the representative proportion of their population…
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/27877.html
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/1-latest-news/28210.html
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article327666.ab
http://www.thelocal.se/2683/20051214/
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,21166482-661,00.html
I could go on and on, and include the US too, but I think the point is made that there is a serious issue with crime and yes, race too, that needs to be addressed.
I really cannot see how raising the subject can make anyone ‘racist’ by any definition of the word, as long as only facts are dealt with.
But I can see how invoking that word ‘racist’ – the very epitome of a neo-witch accusation – can make people very afraid to raise the issue and their legitimate concerns over it, for once that powerful contemporary accusation is levelled the accused is usually tarred for life. Which is pretty much the point, I suspect.
As Orwell said: ‘In times of tyranny, telling the truth is an act of rebellion’
It's a descriptive variable, Sentinel. Now we know you are "afraid of the dark", if you get my drift but why not revise the stats with poverty as the controlling variable and see what you get?
All very predictable excuses offered up by the pseudo science of the Marxist "criminologists / sociologists" set but in reality, complete crap.
It may have applied to some degree in the US which is why I didn't mention the US, but in the European countries I have mentioned and Australia it is total crap. Denmark, Norway and Sweden didn't have "ghettos" until very recently, and they are not areas of actual poverty but voluntary enclaves of ethnicity. The Nordic bloc never imported foreign workers to make up a deficit, all of their immigration has come from purely "humanitarian" motivation and they have been well looked after.
In the UK as well, not only do non-whites have laws that discriminate in their favour for employment along with race quotas everyone has equal access to social security, and so in the worst case, the poorest non-white is as poor as the poorest white.
Your excuses do not hold water.
And since when was rape and gang rape a crime of "poverty?"
Dear all, some facts:
1. South Africa has the biggest poverty/wealth gap in the world.
2. This was achieved through a sellout between the petite bourgeois nationalist black leadership of the ANC and predominantly white mining capital. The pact between them is called the Mining Charter.
3. The majority of desperately poor people are black. The minority wealthy ruling class is now non-racial although still predominantly white.
4. Poverty spawns crime.
5. The majority of poor people (the working class and the lumpen proletariat) happen to be black. Thus it is only logical in a society structured on private property and reflecting a definite racial hue, the majority of criminals against property will be black and poor.
6. Most of the most heinous criminals of Apartheid are living the high life having structured black economic empowerment deals with the Black petite bourgeois leaders of he ANC. Non of these fascist Nazis have ever been brought to book for their crimes.
7. I live in South Africa, not behind a wall of a gated community with private mercenary security but in a very non-racial former white working class suburb.
8. Unfortunately crime in South Africa is very violent, reflecting the desperation of those who commit it, and crime is a reflection of the failed leadership of the liberation movement in dealing with the key questions that confront the society as a consequence of more than 300 years of colonial abuse and exploitation.
Post a Comment