Posts Tagged ‘south africa’

Which Way, South Africa?

Friday, November 3rd, 2017

South Africa finds itself at a crossroads. With the rise of relative isolationism through the Trump Doctrine, and the failure of liberal democracy as the West collapses inward, South Africa needs to decide which model of government it will follow.

Local scenario planners such as Clem Sunter, Frans Cronje and Jakkie Cilliers pitch South Africa’s future as a neo-liberal state, ignoring the monarchies owning roughly 20% of the country. Perhaps this basic model can work, but since neoliberalism is in decline and not working for South Africa, other paths beckon.

This decision comes at a time of great flux worldwide. At the international level, quantitative easing ruled the Western world since 2008. Where a proper depression would have resulted in a negative economic curve and depression, the failed quantitative easing policy resulted in a positive economic curve that meant rapid growth while lower classes remained relatively poor.

South Africa’s government went one further, and instead of joining the ranks of the slow speed first world, they pitched in with BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) operating at a higher speed, attracting more investments. However, the “S” part did not attract those investments.

It is not all doom and gloom however, since China provides an interesting alternative.  In 1820 China was the biggest economy in the world, but then lagged behind the West. Today they are the second biggest. The bulk of that improvement happened since 1978 over the course of four decades.

The international part of the question is easy: South Africa should stick with BRICS. The local part is tricky due to local infighting in government. This infighting endangers the politics of infrastructure.

An important – but often underappreciated – role of government is to choose the type of infrastructure that is destined to shape the country’s future development path.

The article describes how railroads were advantageous to the South Africa economy as a means to transport goods and raw materials such as minerals intended for export.

The lessons for today? Politics shape the type of infrastructure that’s built. And infrastructure shapes the direction of economic development.

If political infighting continues, the lack of a choice regarding an infrastructure plan will determine the direction of South Africa’s development. No political decisions by any party will change the outcome.

TBefore any infrastructure decision can be made, politics need to re-invent itself without the help of foreigners. One could almost point to a second “Peace-table” session.

Local history provides even further insight. The 1930 depression was by all accounts a terrible period, but having survived it, South Africa can surely find inspiration from how the poor were uplifted, as opposed to the rich being enriched.

The infrastructure referred to in this case is water and specifically the Boegoeberg dam project, in the Northern Cape Province, as was written in the book Boegoebergdam se Mense: ‘n Flukse draai van die Wiel. This book is available from the Water Department close to the town of Groblershoop.

The basic story is that the government at the time decided to improve conditions for that part of the country by using water from a fairly big river. The general idea was to build a dam while adding water canals to it for agricultural access.

Building a dam obviously requires manpower, but the bulk of the manpower was required by the canals. The only prerequisite to be accepted as a worker was that you had to “have nothing.” In other words, you were destitute with only the clothes on your back.

There were quite a number of people, enough to establish a little town, with church and school, which, in the beginning moved with the canal as it was built over time. The initial canal was a pure dirt canal and the people stayed in burlap tents, eventually replaced with military style tents as the project established itself.

Those workers were destitute, without proper clothes and without toilet paper, but they were promised eight hectares after project completion, which they then had to develop on their own, in three years.  One can almost say that Boegoeberg became a human fountain, by attracting poor people from across South Africa, where they developed agriculture in their own life times, but allowed their educated children to return substantial value to the wider country.

I am the grandchild of one of them. Perhaps South Africa should establish more human fountains as China is doing, instead of enriching foreigners. When it chooses its future path, it is best to remember that local productivity is more important than keeping pace with the trend-addled international political scene.

We Need a Worldview, Not a Universal Outlook

Monday, October 30th, 2017

Let’s assume that Realism is a worldview opposed to any rightist or leftist views. From there we can see that nature may have its own view and that a human Realism should not be seen in isolation. Given that nature likes to experiment where the “winner” does not need to be “good,” this presents humans with a dilemma, because religion always tend to style itself as the good, which places it at odds with nature.

Religion relies on a transcendental state for its meaning. However, transcendence is not of this world; it is abstract and intuitive. While it may calm and focus humans, it does not actually do anything tangible, like create spaceships. In fact it may make matters worse by telling people that they cannot die in an attempt to soothe our loss of family members. Even the Bantu do not believe their elders actually die.

When it comes to real world practicality of the kind that creates spaceships, we must accept that humans die as part of nature’s experiments. In order to understand our fate better, we need to understand the experiments of nature. This gives us a worldview that cannot be tainted by political outlooks, which tend to color our interpretation by making themselves the base assumptions through which we filter our perceptions.

That in turn clashes with politics, which seems to be based on lying. People lie because they think others don’t know they are lying (disregarding that truth itself is not the issue). It is therefore impossible for a politician not to lie. In fact the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa wrote, “if you want honesty, you start your own party.”

I agree with that sentiment, even if it is shocking. It is only shocking because I never realized it. But I have met representatives and some of them were obviously “salesmen” while others were apparently initially honest. My limited experience with these representatives shows that they spend a lot of time influencing people, but when they get the seat, they have no idea what to do, as Steve Bannon noted recently.

These parliamentarians are suddenly viewed with enormous respect, while they have no idea what their world view is or should be. They are therefore incompetent, all of them. Sometimes knowledgeable business people that understand “the way of the world” gets the opportunity to affect change, but even then their world view is limited by screeching of the proletariat.

One can almost say that even great leaders get distracted by their children, or in other words, their constituents. This applies to Trump as well. He was recently caught in an untruth when he said that G.W. Bush never called families of fallen soldiers. Once we get over moralizing about the tendency to lie, we can see that instead he is playing a game.

In his world, like the amoral and dispassionate worldview of nature, everything is a game and the best player wins. In the game of restoring America, Trump wants to put America to work which is probably not a lie, because as a developer and businessman he and his friends like workers, because workers are consumers.

The real lie is that Americans wants to work. They actually don’t. In fact they want to talk, a lot. Where at first they had to wait for the Sunday newspaper, they can now express their own views every weekday. You can see this in the rising social media industries now abbreviated as FANG. But you can also see it in American industry.

Returning to the world view discussion, one can say that Africa also like talking a lot. That put them at the lowest ranks of the Competitiveness Index. But it also puts them in a strong position as migrants to bring Western Civilization down to those same levels. Even though Westerners can and want to talk a lot, migrants have the upper hand genetically. They reproduce faster than we do.

A worldview, as opposed to a universal outlook which favors truth and goodness over effects in reality, dictates that Americans must start to work. To convince them will take some time because they have to understand that change is really necessary. The Mandela experiment is an example of where a Western oriented country realized they had to change, setting in motion a grand political effort driven by mass media and education.

The point in South Africa was to allow “acculturation” of all its peoples towards a Western type culture (democracy at the time), but back-fired, because it should have acculturated to the African culture (tribal at the time). Nature’s order wins out: we may think we are more “good,” but really, only what works is what is good, and so instead of projecting onto it, we must accept reality as we find it.

If America wants to make a change, it should acculturate to a tribal dispensation and in my view a semi-re-enactment towards a States’ Rights model prioritizing trade between States as opposed to global trade. This acknowledges the nature of America, instead of the universal morality that we try to convince ourselves is true.

The successor to Trump will have a world view, not a universal outlook, and as a result will be willing to re-write the founding documents to choose a system that works for what America is and has been. They will do this because other tribes are taking to the global stage first, which is putting America in the camp of political lies and not hard realism, which it needs in order to survive and succeed.

Making The Transition To Monarchy

Saturday, August 12th, 2017

The Alt Right has suggested that monarchies are better than current Western democracies. In an attempt to understand this in the real world as it is today, we can look at some statistics.

The Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) ranks more than a 100 countries on a scale depicting economic productiveness. What is interesting is the following group of countries:

  • Netherlands
  • Finland
  • Canada
  • Australia
  • Sweden
  • Denmark
  • Norway

They have been consistently ranked within the top twenty-two productive countries from 1999 to 2015. Viewed as a group, however, it can be said that there is a slight downward movement of their rankings over time, most likely due to the “two-speed world” where economic growth in emerging countries (like BRICS) are offset by stagnation in the erstwhile developed world.

However, there is another characteristic of these countries: they are monarchical in some form or other.

These monarchies have exerted tremendous influence on the rest of the world for a long time, where for them the economic imperative of growth or stagnation is not particularly interesting, because they are mainly interested in stability and not growth, which is like a treadmill in that when the economy comes to depend on it, it must constantly increase or the economy suffers. Monarchies are notorious for preferring stability, which also avoids the overpopulation, land overuse, and proliferation of cities that is common to growth-based economies.

They have made mistakes of course, but that doesn’t mean the alternative right is wrong with its assessment. The point is that monarchies have in some form or other been stable for a very long time. If anything, what these monarchies suffer from is paying too much attention to the will of the people, which always results in conjectural thinking.

The latest experiment implemented by the West is bringing democracy to the third world, which was rolled out after colonialism was systematically withdrawn. They do this because monarchs are now limited to enforcing democracy in their own nations because they are forced to coexist with this, and to fail to enforce it in the third world is a rejection of the notion that it is good.

Consider Nelson Mandela’s organization the African National Congress (ANC) which was classified as a terrorist organization by America at the same time it was funded by the European countries listed above. The people wanted equality; the monarchs did not want mass revolt and the horrors of the French Revolution or Bolshevik uprising in their countries, so they went along with it.

In the grips of democracy, these first world countries do not realize the productive decline they are suffering because they persist in supporting democracy, despite strong indicators that democracy in South Africa is literally failing by the numbers. Worse, they are doubling down like good SJWs by sponsoring the destruction of monarchies in Mandela-land.

The first world monarchies wants to destroy the concept of their own existence in the emerging world, while they themselves get destroyed back in the first world by the same democracy they are supporting. Where initially they sponsored terror, now they have become the terrorists aiming to destroy other monarchies. This is clearly not stable.

While we may be critical of colonialism in practical terms, our real assault on it comes from democratic notions of the equality of all people and therefore, a need to dedicate ourselves to questing for egalitarianism everywhere. This eliminates self-interest by the first world while encouraging the third world to assert its self-interest at our expense.

This shows us that monarchism and democracy cannot coexist. Democracy forms a mentally addictive pathology that then drives our countries to destroy ourselves at the same time they destroy third world monarchies in the same nations where democracy is entering its death-phase. Democracy has become our obsession, and it is working for neither first nor third world nations.

One way forward would be to do what every scenario planner has refused to do since 1992: implement a monarchy in South Africa. They fear this because traditionalism is viewed as anti-“reform,” but the Alt Right’s view is that the opposite is true. Reform has been proven to lower competitiveness down where traditional societies have been proven as stable.

Perhaps we are, like most groups of people afraid for the future, relying on what seemed to work in the past as crutches. Democracy seemed to win the world wars, and growth-based economies provide the way of life that seemed to make our people happy. As its instability threatens both third and first worlds, however, it makes sense to consider monarchy and stability instead of growth and democracy.

South Africa: The Fire Still Burns In Rainbow Nation

Sunday, April 16th, 2017

Apartheid ended. Nelson Mandela became President. The Springboks won the 1995 Rugby World Cup. The Golden Age had dawned and everyone in Sun City would now get a brand new pony. Oh, wait… The video below shows us how well the ANC seems to be running things.

When a nation’s leadership is unable to function, hell erupts across the countryside. Even South African President Jacob Zuma amuses himself by signing “Kill The Boer.” Genocide at least appears to have a government stamp of approval. It seems Rainbow Nation wants to become a touch more monochromatic.

Analysts of our data must consider that South Africa’s crime rates are uniquely high. Our murder rate, for example, is 500% higher than that of the United States and 3000% higher than parts of Western Europe such as the United Kingdom and Germany. This brings us to our fourth conclusion that all South Africans face an extraordinary criminal onslaught. People who have previously regarded farm attacks as a somewhat distant problem, nothing to do with them, must realise that they arguably live in as much peril as farmers do. It is clear therefore, regardless of how they rank compared to other citizens, that as a best-­- case scenario, farmers live a perilous existence in a largely lawless society.

To further the problems faced by isolated South African homesteaders, the ANC has instituted the following sets of policies to render rural South Africans less able to survive the ongoing wave of criminality.

  1. Gun control. The SA government is actively confiscating privately owned firearms.
  2. Reduced Policing. Police forces designed to protect rural residents have been reorganized and repurposed away from defending farms.
  3. Promises of Land Distribution. The SA Government has talked a lot about redistributing land and has not done so. Worse, they have blamed the farmers for the failure of the policy.

So this stuff is all theoretical evil. We don’t like theoretical evil. But if actual, real-life White Boys aren’t hurt in the making of ANC propaganda, what then is the issue? Let’s take a look at what happens when the raceturbatory rubber meets the road. Dr. Gregory Stanton studied the rural farm attack phenomenon in 2012 and reported the following under the aegis of Genocide Watch.

According to experts and estimates compiled by citizens who track the killing spree, at least 3,000 white farmers in South Africa, known as Boers (from the Dutch word for “farmer”), have been brutally massacred over the last decade. Some estimates put the figures even higher, but it is hard to know because the ANC government has purposely made it impossible to determine the true extent.

With the total number of commercial farmers in South Africa estimated at between 30,000 and 40,000, analysts say as many as 10 percent have already been exterminated. Even more have come under attack. It is worse than murder, though. Many of the victims, including children and even infants, are raped or savagely tortured or both before being executed or left for dead. Sometimes boiling water is poured down their throats. Other attacks involve burning victims with hot irons or slicing them up with machetes. In more than a few cases, the targets have been tied to their own cars and dragged along dirt roads for miles.

As I blogged earlier, Socialism can only lead to death. It always fails, it always tends towards totalitarianism and every INGSOC eventually needs a Goldstein. The more radical the socialists, the sooner it degenerates into a Winnie Mandela necklacing society.

The ANC under Jacob Zuma has every earmark of a political movement seeking to eschew any remnants of Nelson Mandela’s initially conciliatory tone towards the nation’s White minority. It is also obviously failing to provide stable governance as a unified empire instead of a warring set of tribal enclaves, even among the native Black Africans. Someone has to be blamed to continue the dance for a few more tunes. Someone must be pillaged to prevent the Marxian Visigoth Holiday from running out of beer. The peasants are weaponized. Their wrath falls upon the Boer. After the fire, the fire still burns.

When Can We Call It “Terrorism”?

Friday, April 7th, 2017

The decline of Western Civilization in South Africa has reached such epic proportions that it has even attracted the attention of the fake news media. Their stock answer is always to deride South Africa as a third world country with a nice mountain. They have to say this, since contemporary South Africa is a product of Leftist, Hollywood and media intervention.

After Mandela died the newspaper attention waned, but when affirmative action Trevor Noah replaced John Stewart as a comedian on American television’s Daily Show, a few commentators woke up and started to see some strange political adventures taking place. This is not to be confused with Hollywood’s routine derogatory inclusion of South Africans in its scripts as mercenaries and criminals.

The news glosses over inconvenient facts that contradict the Leftist narrative. It routinely avoids mention of the farm murders, wherein white farmers are killed by members of an African underclass which is supported by the ruling political party, thanks to the greater numbers of African voters.

One fact that cannot be debunked is that a United Nations representative established that Boers are currently subject to level six genocide. In other words, the Zulu nation is not under threat (at all) and neither are the British, German or Portuguese descendants living in South Africa.

The Boers face an escalating wave of violence, discrimination and government-mandated marginalization. We all know where this leads: to their elimination. For some strange reason genocide is not classified as “terrorism.” Even Rwandan genocide failed to rate a blip on American media screens. So what do you do when a South African asks for help?

Even here affirmative action plays a role, because black South Africans enjoy migrant status in Kentucky’s sanctuary cities while Boer migrants are refused.  Apparently American diplomats accept anyone, unless the South African Ambassador to America complains to the Secretary of State when “certain” people apply.

Clearly American Politicians are complicit in the Boer genocide as classified by the UN, which is acceptable because it is not terror. This is explained by arguing that, for genocide to be terror, there has to be a political intent. Since Mandela already ruled in South Africa, there can be no political intent for killing farmers.

But farmers, women, children and workers are indeed being brutally and tortuously killed. The trick is that it is not all at once.  Therefor some commentators call it a gradual genocide, which the UN seems to agree with. In fact Gregory Stanton agrees that the Bushmen are also being genocided at the same time. This has led to even more UN agencies getting involved such as (UNPO) “Unrepresented People”  in the World.

All of the UN involvement in response to requests for help has come to naught, meaning that “official” channels and the media those channels control, literally ignore the reported facts, despite acknowledging it.

Despite experts identifying gradual genocide, it is still required of the victim to prove that he is being terrorized, before asking for help. The proof experts refer to is the politically authorized dissolution of the regional security service structure in the entire country.

In other words, the police must become implements of the political policy of the regime, and not just law enforcement. Obviously this presents a huge logical hole because laws can be changed to prosecute or ignore the victimization of a target group.

After Mandela became President, thousands of terrorists previously trained elsewhere in Africa such as Tanzania, “returned” to South Africa in glorious fashion, to be designated as “veterans” while some of the experienced terrorists were employed in staff military and police positions. Since they were all trained in terrorist acts such as surveillance and weapons, those that did not receive jobs felt disillusioned and promptly started with advanced criminal acts such as hi-jacking money-in-transit vehicles very effectively.  Once bank security became more effective, they changed to the next low hanging fruit, such as remote farmers with safes containing money and weapons.

Heists and farm murders have been noticed by senior police officials, but they gloss over it as statistically insignificant when compared to blacks being killed. Unbeknownst to them, this is exactly where the political intent rears its ugly face. They are willing to ignore the greater percentages of whites being victimized to focus on the more numerous black citizens, whose victimization is not designed to eliminated them as a population.

A recent study by a civil activist group showed that when elected black officials go on television expressing hatred for whites or denouncing farmers in song or in verbal abuse, that farmer deaths increase afterwards.

This gives them a dual pronged strategy: in private ignore the crimes against whites, who being a smaller group face a greater threat from fewer crimes, and the political strategy behind them; in public, encourage these crimes with political rhetoric and the implication that these crimes will go unpunished.

In social media, hatred for whites is recorded virtually every day. This demonstrates that within the tribal black communities writing in their own languages, hatred for whites, specifically for the farmer is not only “allowed”, but also a popular topic, where it is tribally entrenched to kill whites, rape their women and take their goods/money. This is a cultural wave of ethnic violence.

This is a human rights violation being committed from one group unto another group. What makes it worse is that it is the majority discriminating against the minority. However, the more responsible officials will on this point say that it’s “only a few extremist individuals” who are not even an identifiable group.  One could answer that if it is only a few, why don’t they ever get caught?

White experts such as Gareth Newham of the Institute of Security Studies try to help the South African Government by proposing a “specialized police unit” and specialized courts to address the common triad of carjacking, house robbery and business robbery. What these experts are saying is that police efforts are being hampered by political interference.

This proves that there is intentional political causation of ethnic violence hidden within crime in South Africa, and while it is evident in all categories, the undeniable genocidal effect against white farmers is documented (not to forget the Bushmen tribe, who as an ethnic minority are also targeted). This is terror perpetrated on farmers and protected by the state.

That policy extends into the United States of America, where politicians also protect the criminals. They hide behind the thin distinction that genocide has to be officially ordered by a militarized, politicized police form, but forget that true ethnic violence is spontaneous and requires only a wink and a nod from those officials in a disorganized fashion.

The world has failed recognize the gradual genocide of farmers as terrorism and genocide. Despite the massive investment by Western politicians in fighting “terror” and “racism,” neither of these terms apply when white people are the victims. This invalidates the terms, and makes us wonder whether like terror, these terms are simply a political weapon designed to conceal ethnic crimes.

Western Civilization Has Doomed Itself By Choosing Affirmative Action

Wednesday, April 5th, 2017

Western Civilization has cursed itself by implementing affirmative action as part of its culture

It may have been adopted out of good intentions and warm feelings. The reality never changes, however. Affirmative action is inevitably used as a weapon by minorities to extract free benefits at the expense of Western civilization.

It can be equated to self-flagellation in Catholic terms, or psychologically to ad nauseum self-critique of the once proud European individual.

Instead of balancing imperfection, Western man strove for perfection and in the process realized deep down how imperfect he really is. The Germans are a telling example, where their incredible individualist achievements resulted in a deep self-critique type of unintended flawed, even dark organizational culture. All their efforts to regain some stature keep on failing i.e. the European Monetary Union and Volkswagen’s fraudulent exhaust systems.

Another example is the famous Boer nation in Africa. They conquered an arid country resulting in cross-border ambitions which included UN sanctioned administration of Namibia and a successful British de-colonialization project in the 1960s. But in the process they realized deep down that they were/are imperfect resulting in the failed, but valiantly flawed attempt to transfer power to Mandela.

Boers remained the skunk, just like the Germans remained the Nazi.

They say that intelligent peoples are subdued by their known lack of knowledge, while dumb people are enamored by the same.

This self-curse is of course widespread in American culture. It reached a pinnacle when America literally elected an Affirmative Action President riding on the progressive wave of a soon-to-fail Mandela. Just like in Germany and South Africa, Americans suffer the same self-critique continuing even after their capitulation to Obama.

This is evident in the failed election polls that predicted a landslide Clinton victory. The reason polls failed is that people lied.  And the fact is, despite getting their secret wish fulfilled, they keep on lying. Further evidence of this is found in the unusually confused fake news stories where journalists, previously thinking that they were the only ones lying, now have to depend on a lying public.

The American culture will always be called progressive and they will suffer the same outcome as a result that Germans and Boers are suffering.  If one takes that Germans had a massive production machinery resource and Boers had a massive gold resource, then it could be said that America had a massive human resource.

This means that changing our method of managing these resources will not help because affirmative action grows to consume all available resources. What we tolerate increases. When we create policies that encourage free riding, and do so on the basis of presumed racial guilt, the group of takers will increase to sabotage the makers just enough to create collapse conditions.

Our only way out is through nihilism: an end to the politics of human intent, and a beginning to leadership by results. Affirmative action is destructive and will never reach an end date, but will only expand. This means that affirmative action has failed in terms of results, and needs to be abolished.

Once that form of guilt-mongering is out of the way, we can re-balance our political dialogue to establish a realistic self-critique instead of an overly-emotional one. But for this to happen, affirmative action first must die.

Finding A Way Forward Past The Corpse Of The West

Saturday, April 1st, 2017

We stand at an interesting time in history. The accelerating idea of the past thousand years, individualism, has fallen. Something new will take its place. Visualizing this however proves difficult because the modern society mixture — democracy, consumerism, equality and diversity — is all that we have known, so we are treading in uncertain mental waters.

The past is just far enough away that we cannot resurrect it, and are not sure we want to go down that path again. Futuristic notions tend to be based in technology, which whether we follow Kaczynski and blame it for our situation or not, we tend not to see as a substitute for the workings of a functional society. And so, a void exists, and because we cannot see past it, we stagnate in indecision.

The problem with Western Europeans today is that they have no “branding”: a singular, simple and expressive notion of themselves which carries forward into the future. We do not know what defines us, and therefore, have no idea what parts of the present to keep and which to reject.

In other writings on this site, it has been proposed that Western Europeans have a defining trait in that we are reflective, or prone to contemplate the nature of the universe and measure our own acts against it. The problems with this approach are that it can lead to navel-gazing, and because it is solitary, it is easily subverted by social forces like peer pressure.

Western Europeans can recapture their sense of identity through this forward-looking notion. Those that reflect, refine, improve and seek to understand — the rage for order in our Faustian souls — created our civilization, and we can apply these principles toward the future. That is: we do not need a new theory, but a new start, and then to improve qualitatively.

We know we need an intermediate position between our present failure and whatever comes in the future, and that laws will not save us. Some have suggested forming corporate settlements, and others want strong governments.

Right now we struggle because we must ask which way is forward for “us” because the answer is not clear at all. There should be a long term plan but there is no such thing. The current time-frame is a good time to think about these things, where at least we can identify the goal as Civilization: a non-self-destructing society which advances past the capabilities of the individual human.

The example of South Africa may be instructive for future civilizations as seen in the light of populist changes. Western Man has accepted world wars, liberal academia, abusive corporations but only protested when finances got out of hand. This applies to America as well as to Europe.

In South Africa, money was not affected at all initially, which goes a long way to explain the “willing” apathy of local whites caught in the bourgeois dream of succeeding amongst a sea of others who do not. This situation did not last; as government failed, so eventually did the economy. Essentially this means we — South Africa and the West — are slowly being bundled into the same boat.

Going forward towards a civilization requires an organized and coordinated approach. In South Africa, the Boer elite pushed primarily for a legal system followed by a mother tongue system. They thought that the law would protect them against crime and corporations, but they were wrong. We had specialized white-collar-crime courts, which failed, and Corps & Municipalities which failed too, except the banks (of course).

For the American civilization, I would propose a re-focus on majority rights. It is possible to change the law so that only majority tax-payer people can vote (without affecting the Constitution). I would also propose a mother-tongue dispensation and English-language schools instead of defining an official language to the nation-state as a whole.

The difference between South Africa and this future USA would be law enforcement, which would be enhanced to include Corporations and Cities/NGOs, where no multinational corporations would be allowed. The US economy used to be 95% internal and 5% external. So what was the point of globalization, other than greed and arrogance? The Trump plan of “bilateral trade” is the opposite, namely an adjustment for cost of porduction.

In the near future, it may be possible to support a law which would limit who can vote. Many have suggested a vote only for those who pay taxes, but this favors the middle classes who often vote against their interests. Perhaps a return to those who own property free and clear is required to offset the democratizing force of usuary.

As far as a possible “war” in the sense of street fighting goes, it should not be opposed; it is a necessary stage in spurring the herd to want to actually fix problems. The swarm needs to resolve itself before it will accept culture as their guideline. Until then it will only desire more anarchy and lack of responsibility.

Black protests and demographic voting continue in South Africa precisely because there is no culture or identity “branding.” The rest of the West needs to learn from this example, and rush to brand itself as what it is, Western Civilization. With that being done, it can start acting in self-interest and avoid the chaos of the conflict of special interest groups that democracy creates.

The Law Is An Ass

Friday, March 10th, 2017

Sanity comes from thinking in cause/effect terms: if I do action X, I get result Y, so unless I want result Y, I should avoid action X. This becomes more complex when you have a whole Excel spreadsheet of X:Y pairs. When you want something done, you look down the Y column and pick the corresponding X to know what you should do.

However, this proves too complicated for most people, not so much because it is technically complicated but because it is emotionally (and through that, socially, since groups are basically emotional hives where people feel commonality for sharing emotions) complex, meaning that it makes life fairly simple and clear.

A life that is simple, clear and sane frustrates most people because it gives them no chance to grandstand, attention whore, dramatize, self-express and otherwise do what “talking monkeys with car keys” do when given a chance: self-aggrandize as a means of (in their view) raising social status. A field of primping, preening, and narcissistic Simians results.

As a result, they demand a duality: a platform through which to demonstrate their importance, and safety from any consequences that may arise from their actions. This is the eternal force in humanity that, in sane societies, is beaten down because it is recognized as massively destructive to civilization itself.

Among these platforms, one of their favorites is the proxy. A proxy is an achievement that symbolizes good or bad results through human rules. The classic example is the law: instead of doing what is right, you do what is legal, and society determines its baseline approval of you by whether or not you have broken the law.

The failure is that proxies — like symbols, boundaries or categorical logic — are not by themselves reality. They are substitutes for reality, and where they do not correspond to reality, they become agents of unrealism, opposed to reality. This makes them a threat to the organism which seeks to adapt to its external world.

Naturally, the first target of humans who wish to destroy things is the meanings of those proxies. And so, the law becomes perverted, and because people rely on it instead of understanding the cause/effect relationships that were responsible for the perceptions that made those laws in the first place, the law rapidly “inverts” or comes to mean the opposite of its original role.

Witness this utter confusing as people attempt to rely on the law to take the place of logical fact regarding diversity:

He told parliament this week that his party wanted to “unite black people in South Africa” to expropriate land without compensation.

…The Boer Afrikaner Volksraad, which claims to have 40,000 members, said its members would take land expropriation without compensation as “a declaration of war”.

“We are ready to fight back,” said Andries Breytenbach, the group’s chairman. “We need urgent mediation between us and the government. “If this starts, it will turn into a racial war which we want to prevent.”

Mr. Breytenbach is trying to do the good white person thing of using law and economics to apply order to a society which has lost order. We know that diversity does not work because each ethnic group possesses its own direction of self-interest, and for that reason, multiple groups cannot coexist in the same country.

The most important need of any group is identity, or a sense of who they are and the knowledge that they control their present and future fortunes. This cannot happen under diversity, and the resulting tension guarantees that crises will develop. Fools will try to penalize one side to save the other, and will only intensify the conflict.

The only solution in South Africa is a separation of the ethnic groups in all ways — socially, economically, politically, in law enforcement — so that each may live according to its own standards.

Leftists will cry foul about this because it will liberate the wealthy white section to continue to enjoy that wealth by itself. And yet, it will end the constant victimhood and retaliation. (Of course, an even more sensible move would be to relocate the white South Africans to Texas, and to leave Africa for the ethnic Africans).

However, forcing groups together and causing disharmony benefits no one but corrupt leaders. There is no solution to the situation in South Africa as South Africa is now. The farm murders will continue, the rampant crime will overboil, the parasitic government will grow, and no one will be happy.

The law is an ass. It cannot stop natural forces like the need for ethnic self-determination and the ethnic conflict caused by competing groups within the same country. The only solution is to stop relying on proxies like the law, and look at what works and what does not. Diversity and current South Africa will never work; separation will.

In the future humanity will no longer rely on these proxies. Civilization prospered, then failed from within, so we need to try again but with stronger internal discipline. This means that actions will be strictly measured by the effects they are likely to produce, and not through proxies. The law, the dollar, and the thronging crowd have tad their day and become obsolete.

A New Window of Opportunity

Tuesday, November 15th, 2016


In 1988 the possibility of the end of the Cold War loomed. This affected not only America and the Soviet Union, but triggered a series of ripple effects as other nations, preparing for the change in world order, reacted by altering themselves.

We can see these ripple effets in the end of Angolan War hostilities (1989), the independence of Namibia (March 1990), the re-unification of Germany (October 1990), the George H.W. Bush New World Order Declaration (11 September 1991) and the South African Peace Accord (14 September 1991).

Because other nations were taking advantage of this wonderful “Window of Opportunity,” it resulted in a flood of peace and prosperity washing over the world. In other words: “it was an opportunity for all parties to come together.”

The peace and prosperity part did not last long however, because the fall of a great power creates a power vacuum into which the previously-restrained uncertainty expands. Since that time, the Middle-East has been mired in various perpetual wars of “alliances” (sic). Currently the United States (and its “partners”) are involved in five undeclared wars and military actions in seven nations.

The utopia proclaimed by a Globalist New World Order lasted a mere 25 years, effectively a single generation.

The disaster caused by the resulting shift to a neoliberal dispensation is slowly being recognized by the man on the street. The same Western decadence that Russians hated from 1991 became the cancerous symptom now also recognized by realistic Western observers: the erasure of culture and its replacement with unrestricted commerce, managerial government, and Leftist ideology which because it reflects popular illusions is now following the Soviet path.

The flood of realism now stretching across the Western world started in France with the Front National political party, supported by the AFD German Party and was followed by the Brexit vote. The “danger” lamented by mainstream media of crashing markets due to a supposed return to fascism, came to naught, and instead, a ripple effect is driving right-wing parties into office as it becomes clear that Leftist policies have failed worldwide.

In fact the markets have been responding favorably, demonstrating the inherent failure of not only politicians, but of neoliberal-driven mainstream media too.

The discontent harbored by the average person on the street finally crossed the Atlantic where Donald Trump won the 2016 US Presidential election on a Nationalist ticket. There can be no doubt anymore that neoliberal policies are inherently flawed and that the majority choose Nationalism as a better option.

The international discovery of a better way proposes a “new” window of opportunity for all nations. The impact on each Nation is different because it is not prescribed. Although America is not prescribing Nationalism per se, by rejection anti-Nationalism it is taking the lead and could serve as an example.

The curious case of South Africa requires further investigation. Where Democratic protests in America use minority (black) players against a white Government, the same type of protests in South Africa is against a “black” Government. The interesting part is that whites in South Africa never protest but would rather “propose” alternatives in media forums.

This means that South African Nationalism is far from clear, because there is no “South African way” like Americans and Australians have. This is due to excessive foreign influence preventing South Africans from establishing their own unique identity.

The window of opportunity for South Africa therefore is not to find a new “sponsor” in some foreign land, but to act on its own. Because all “sponsors” are busy with their own affairs in the aftermath of the opening of a power vacuum, it will allow South Africans to sort itself out.

The first step would be to acknowledge that not only has communism failed, but that liberal democracy also failed.  This would re-open the 1991 Table of Peace, where real discussions can take place, instead of degrading bribery and corruption to manage childish rating agency threats.

This time the Zulu King could be the Chairman supported by a layer of knowledgeable South African aristocrats sworn in as Chiefs.

But what should not take place is some little palace revolution against the current President, just to perpetuate the failing status quo against a new “progressing” World.

Surely, South Africa should stay in touch.

Thus We Were Swindled

Friday, October 21st, 2016

Unauthorized translation of Sydney Gregan’s article in Praag on October 21, 2016.

Professor Sampie Terreblanche, a Professor in philosophy and confidant of the political elite during the democratization of South Africa, published the book Lost in Transformation: South Africa’s search for a new future since 1986 in 2012.

Terreblanche is a liberal who promoted the liberalization of South Africa, the experience of which now after twenty-five years would probably still not remedy his debilitating political condition. However, as an unintended consequence of the wealth of information about the “bloodless coup” in 1992, readers can see how clearly the Afrikaner population was swindled.

The writer identified the remarkable intensification of poverty, joblessness and inequality in the eighteen-year period directly from when Mandela became president in 1994 until the book was written in 2012. To this must be added the increase in violence, crime, instability and chaos concomitant with fear and insecurity. He directly attributes this outcome to the fact that the country’s new black elite was co-opted as a satellite of the neo-liberal American Empire.

This meant that in South Africa the black and white elite “integrated” into a single after-dinner club, to the exclusion of the rest of the country. Terreblanche instead scapegoats what he calls the “Corporatocracy” which caused “exclusion,” instead of the professor’s preferred dream, inclusion.

The writer asserts that the pre-South Africa Government was pressurized by the “mineral-energy complex” and coordinated by the US and UK Governments to establish a new dispensation that would accommodate American Empire requirements. This is grounded by 40,000 American (Western) multi-national corporations pushing the neo-liberal objective.

Apparently the “Corporatocracy” viewed Mandela as a risk due to his affiliation with a “socialist” freedom charter.  To mitigate this risk, secret negotiations were undertaken by Harry Oppenheimer with selected black elites at his home as well as at the local Development Bank.  This was the actual negotiations, while the public was distracted with media transmissions of a “light-weight” CODESA negotiation process that stalled the intended “bloodless coup” until the real economic solution was finalized.

At the time many people wondered how the principles of minority veto and power sharing suddenly vanished into the Mandela hubris.

The economic solution was intended to “corrupt” Mandela and his chosen ones, into accepting prescriptions of the Corporatocracy. And indeed, this meant that they were bribed. The writer states flatly that unholy participation would have taken place in order to ensure the change from black socialism to a neo-liberal dogma.

Based on acceptance of the neo-liberal dogma, the Interim Transitional Council that ruled the country from 1993 to 1994 was therefore “allowed” to approach the IMF for a loan of $850 million.  This is not something the people voted for. What the people heard were promises of investment, higher growth rates and more jobs as opposed to silent threats that if these neo-liberal wishes are not adhered to, South Africa’s economy will be disrupted.

Of course none of these promises materialized. The black elite completely capitulated by 1996 which the writer puts as follows:

…the ANC was deceived on such a massive scale by false prophets who led South Africa, not to the promised land, but into a desert in which the poorest part of the population was doomed to live permanently in a systemic condition of abject poverty.

Gob-smacking opportunities were developed for the Black elite to join them with white elite. This included affirmative action regulations that benefited the elite, unbeknownst to the poor. The outcomes of the secret negotiations (resulting in an elite cabal), were as follows:

  • Social grants to 14 million blacks (roughly 33% of blacks)
  • Joblessness increased to 33% (unrelated to above)
  • Poverty affects 50% of population
  • Top 20% population receive 75% of total income
  • Admittedly, black middle-class increased substantially (with caveat though)

Part of the economic agreement was that it would allow continuous foreign “consultation” to maintain this agreement. This allow the foreign ability to prevent the local President from taking actions that is viewed as unfriendly or incompatible with the neo-liberal desires (whatever that would be at the time). Should the President (for example) want to appoint the “wrong” Minster of Finances, economic pressure will be brought to bear on the country resulting in a substantially weaker currency.

The current situation in 2016 reflects the power struggle where the President wants to engage with BRICS, while his (own) Vice-President remains faithful to the Corporatocracy.

As far as the implementation of this Corporatocracy “democracy” is concerned, many books over the last twenty-two years have identified destructive outcomes of the American Empire, already starting under Reagan. The influence of the Corporacracy is undeniable and described in detail by John Perkins in his books Confessions of an Economic Hitman” and “Hoodwinked.  He states:

Almost no politician gets elected without money that flows through them and their stockholders. They control the mainstream media, either through direct ownership or advertising budgets.

There are about 3000 lobbyists in America being paid to influence public opinion to the benefit of the Corporatocracy. Their ability to effectively promote a mentally ill and physically drugged presidential candidate demonstrates their absolute untouchable power, but also the associated tragedy of that same power.

One wonders why the Afrikaner elite, with full knowledge of this situation from the start, in fact complicit, now keep quiet about its failure. This situation creates a lamentable destruction of the middle class, especially the vulnerable black middle class. If our nation is to survive, it requires that we take action against the Corporatocracy instead of internal enemies.

Recommended Reading