Thursday, November 27, 2014

Commonwealth Historians, Jack Sen & Richard Dowden Explain How the Afrikaner is Unfairly Villified….Still!

Jack Sen, British Commonwealth Advocate, says that “The ludicrous Leftist notion that non-indigenous people have the right to be in the West because borders are a social construct, but not in South Africa, is utterly farcical and an egregious example of liberal hypocrisy. How can you be for one and against the other? Only a true racist could be so obtuse.

Besides-when it comes to Africa, not only does it run contrary to natural order, but counter to how the indigenous have been divvying up their land since time immemorial.
The tribes inhabiting southern Africa have lived by the spear for millennia-and I mean that with no disrespect, as Europeans have lived in a similar manner. Land has typically been held by the tribe wielding the biggest spear. Why should the European tribe that settled, conquered and developed that land not be afforded that same privilege? Besides, white Americans and the progressive Canadians that exterminated an entire race of people (native Americans) aren’t being told they have to go home. Why should Saffas?  Jack Sen, British Commonwealth Advocate
I hardly expected those astute words to come out of the mouth of an Englishman. Yeah, an actual Englishman! but they have….
Well sort of, the man spent a good part of his life in South Africa, where he undoubtedly grew jaded living under the anti-western Marxist ANC. He watched as the land he loved fall to Marxist rule, and fougth back-first as an activist and now, as a an outspoken critic of “the west’s hypocrisy when it comes to the genocide of minority South Africans.”
It is only a small victory, but a victory nevertheless.
When mainstream academics, politicians, pundits and/or historians start accepting that the white Western European man has been unfairly punished for his ability to conquer lands, solely because he is more successful at it than non-westerners, we are making MAJOR inroads into the Marxist establishment.
Chatting with British Academics Jack Sen and Richard Dowden
We had the privilege of speaking with two of the world’s leading experts on South African and colonial history this past week-firstly Richard Dowden of the Royal African Society, and Jack Sen, who’s written for South African Crisis and been a harsh critic of the West’s policy towards South Africans of Anglo and Afrikaner origin, seeking asylum in Europe and the New World.
A few months back I cold-called both men, who remarkably had their mobile phone numbers listed on their Linkedin profiles, and was pleasantly surprised they were open to speaking with me.
Firstly Richard Dowden, who was slightly curt with us, (he’s a liberal after all) when we communicated with him, admitted that South Africa is “a land the west would rather forget due to its own guilt surrounding colonialism and racism”.
He added that,
“To address what’s transpiring in South Africa, would require the admission of at least some level of culpability on Britain’s part. Guilt for creating the Apartheid state, then for abandoning the South African people once Apartheid fell and life for a large percentage of the population ended. Its easier to point fingers at the racist state and mess we left behind and blame whites the western world’s run from.
When I asked him how felt about the term white genocide, he hung up the telephone.
The Wikipedia entry for Richard Dowden reads. Dowden, (born 20 March 1949[1] in Surrey, United Kingdom) is a British journalist who has specialised in African issues. Since 1975, he has worked for several British media and for the past eight years he has been the Executive Director of the Royal African Society. He is the author of the book Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles(Portobello Books, 2008), which has a foreword by the Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe. Dowden lives and works in London.
So the man has some credentials, and although he is left leaning and hung up on me, it’s a start.
Then there were Jack Sen’s (not sure if he has a PhD) quite anti-Marxist pro South African comments. I cold-called him a few months back as well and although he was reluctant to speak with us at first, he did when I explained we are a reputable news source and nothing to be afraid of. In fact Sen has actually responded to my phone calls on several occasions since, due to the fact that he genuinely cares about both the British and South African people-claiming most Saffa’s of European origin can trace a relative or two back to Britain.
A little background on Sen, so you can get some understanding the importance of a mainstream pundit being so staunchly pro-Afrikaner.
Sen lists his affiliations as American Princeton & Syracuse Universities as well as a Commonwealth think tank in Pretoria, South African Crisis, a friendship with Jan Lamprecht and a background in South African minority rights activism. What it doesn’t say is that for all intents and purposes he grew up in SA.
Quite remarkably Sen and I now live but 30 miles away from one another in rural West Lancashire – a region ravaged by the effects of being run into the ground by the Labour party and one very hefty Labour member of parliament, Rosie Cooper. We wrote an article on Cooper’s wicked Muslim supporting, tax payer robbing ways last year actually due to a run in I had with her regarding her ANC level corruption.
Sen’s Linkdin profile also says that he is a UKIP supporter.
Growing up in SA and now living in British Labour Hell, that should come as no great surprise.  He had no comment when I asked him about UKIP and Cooper sadly, and only agreed to discuss South Africa and why he supports the European, Indian, mulatto and minority populations efforts to live free from violence, if I agreed to speak about SA, and only about SA. That I tricked him by telling him that we’d lined up about a dozen other academics might have had something to do with it as well….
From what I gathered during our conversation, he has no plans on visiting South Africa anytime soon, due to the health risks involved, as well as his involvement with local British politics.
At least he hasn’t forgotten the nation he still ‘holds dearly in his heart’ and “believes that Britain should open her doors to the Afrikaner people for humanitarian reasons.”
Although Sen “typically doesn’t give interviews to sites like ours” – something he joked about during our 20-minute phone call this past week, he was quite candid and passionate about SA and chatting about home was a most refreshing experience..
Look I really don’t have a dog in this fight, and I am in no way saying that the Afrikaner government of yesteryear doesn’t have some ugly skeletons in its closet, however, to allow one of the greatest humaitarian disasters of the 21st century to go unchallenged because of an ideological hatred of the Afrikaner people is wrong.”
He continued, “The internationalist left have a lot of blood on their hands-and much of it is in fact English blood. I say this due to the fact that most South Africans can trace their heritage back to one Englishman or another. My family in SA were proud of their Afrikaner, British and Anglo Indian roots. To know that so many good people are at risk troubles me a great deal.”
Sen then explained that his compassion for the Afrikaner stems from his dedication to truth, more than anything biological.
“I live for the pursuit of truth and justice.
That’s why it annoys me when people tell me white, Indian even mixed race South Africans have no business being in the country, let alone on the continent!
The ludicrous Leftist notion that non-indigenous people have the right to be in the West because borders are a social construct, but not in South Africa, is utterly farcical and an egregious example of liberal hypocrisy. How can you be for one and against the other? Only a racist could be so obtuse.”
Then there was Sen’s brilliant logic regarding South Africans inalienable right to remain and using the law to seize land is wrong.
“When it comes to Africa, not only does it run contrary to natural order, but counter to how the indigenous have been divvying up their nations since time immemorial.
The tribes inhabiting southern Africa have lived by the spear for millennia-and I mean that with no disrespect. Land has typically been held by the tribe wielding the biggest spear. Why should the European tribe that settled, conquered and developed that land not be afforded that same privilege? White Americans and the progressive Canadians that exterminated an entire race of people aren’t being told they have to go home. Why should Saffas?”
Then there were his thoughts on Britain’s legacy in South Africa.
“It’s a complicated issue. I’m torn on it for obvious reasons.
Although I in no way want to criticise my beloved Britain, or condone the oppression of indigenous populations on any continent, why condemn white South Africans for Apartheid, when it was in fact a British creation-one as English as afternoon Earl Grey tea and scones?
The great Winston Churchill and before him-Cecil Rhodes, were the men that sowed the seeds that were to develop into Apartheid. That’s historical fact we often ignore.  
These men believed that Britain had a divine destiny to rule the world. Pax Britannica-a modern day Roman empire led by Anglo Saxon men with a weltanschaunng penned by god himself, was the only way forward in their minds. That’s how men in the 19th and early 20th century thought…
And people often forget about Jan Smuts – the infamous Afrikaner supporter of the British Empire, who was instrumental in Apartheid’s development. Like Churchill, Smuts has a statue in London’s Parliament Square, not in Suid Afrika – where all three men will go down in infamy.
So, certainly I can see why the Afrikaner people get defensive when we Brits point our fingers at them.”
I’d suggest your readers have a look at historian Richard Dowden’s essay on the matter for an depth analysis on what Apartheid was and the men behind it. Dowden’s essay, originally published in the Telegraph I believe – on the origins of South African Apartheid-although somewhat biased, is as revealing as it is accurate.
When I asked him about his interest in British politics and how what he learned about people during his time in South Africa has influenced his world view, he laughed and said goodbye.
Taken from a phone interview we did with Commonwealth advocate, (former) South African minority rights proponent and current UKIP activist in Western Lancashire, Jack Sen. Neither Sen or Dowden are connected to the EKP in any way, shape or form. We thank them for their troubles. Please be sure to sign up for our newsletter at the top of the page if you enjoyed this story.
BONUS ARTICLE
Apartheid: Made in Britain
by Richard Dowden‏
IN THE days leading up to the South African election we will be told by journalists and commentators that democracy has finally arrived in South Africa and that black South Africans will be voting for the first time. Neither statement is quite true.
Democracy has a long, if contorted, history in South Africa. For nearly 100 years there was a non-racial franchise and the electoral role did not become exclusively white until 1956. The Coloured Vote Bill in that year was the final blow to a non-racial democracy which had been whittled away over the decades. Like many apartheid laws passed by the National Party government in the Fifties, it was not a radical departure from the past. The legislation which created apartheid was based on existing laws and in many cases simply tightened or tidied them.
The myth that there has never been democracy in South Africa is linked to a second myth. Most people think they know that apartheid was an invention of the Afrikaners and their belief that South Africa should be ruled exclusively by whites. Conversely, it is usually thought that the English tradition in South Africa was non-racial and democratic. In fact, the British tradition, as purveyed by both English-speaking South Africans and the parliament at Westminster, has played a less than glorious role in establishing democracy.
As Jack Sen points out, it was two renowned Englishmen, Cecil Rhodes and Winston Churchill, who at crucial moments in South Africa’s history, created the policies which deprived black people of democratic rights in South Africa.
Let’s take Rhodes first, the Bishop’s Stortford boy who wanted to build an African empire from Cairo to the Cape, who invented Rhodesia and left us with the De Beers diamond monopoly and 160 Rhodes scholarships at Oxford. A millionaire from diamonds and gold before the age of 30, Rhodes became Prime Minister of the Cape in 1890. For more than 40 years the Cape had had a non-racial franchise which allowed anyone, irrespective of race, with property worth pounds 25 or wages of pounds 50 a year to vote for representatives in an Assembly which made laws for the colony.
Rhodes believed that the world should be ruled by the Anglo Saxon and Teutonic races: one of his dreams was to force the United States of America back into the British Empire. Although Africans represented a minority of voters and did not vote as a block, Rhodes passed two laws simultaneously which caused large numbers of them to be struck off the electoral role. One, the Glen Grey Act, limited the amount of land Africans could hold; the other tripled the property qualification for the vote. Many Africans now had insufficient property to qualify and would find it almost impossible to get back on the list because of the legal limit on the amount of land they could hold.
The next blow to democracy came after the Boer war. Elsewhere in the world the imperial government in London exercised a veto over its colonialists to protect the interests of the native people of the colony from the settlers. In Kenya, for example, London blocked several attempts by colonists to make Kenya a ‘white man’s country’. Ultimately, in Rhodesia, Britain imposed sanctions to reverse Ian Smith’s Declaration of Independence. In South Africa, however, the veto was abandoned when the Union of South Africa Act was passed in 1910 and the man who played a vital role in its abandonment was Churchill.
If you read the debates that led up to the Act of Union, the most striking thing is that the words ‘racial conflict’ referred to the Anglo- Boer war. What we would call the racial issue was then ‘the native problem’. The British had fought the war partly, it was said, to protect the interests of the natives from the Boers, the Afrikaners.
During the war the British had encouraged Africans to work for British victory, which they did in large numbers. With victory, Britain might have been expected to extend the Cape non-racial franchise to the conquered territories of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony so that blacks would be represented in the whole territory the way they had been in the British colony. But not only did they not do so, they also limited the ‘native’ vote to the Cape. Africans were to have no say in the election of a national parliament, although they retained their voting rights to the Cape parliament.
The young Churchill, then Under-Secretary for the Colonies, had covered the South African war as a journalist and had been captured by – and escaped from – the Boers. His knowledge and influence in making the agreement after peace was signed was crucial. In a debate in July 1906 he called the peace treaty ‘the first real step taken to withdraw South African affairs from the arena of British party politics’. He argued passionately that the Afrikaners should be allowed self-rule, a self-rule which he admitted would mean that black Africans would be excluded from the vote.
In parliament he told those who pointed out that the treaty had enshrined the rights of Africans that the Afrikaners interpreted the peace treaty differently. He said: ‘We must be bound by the interpretation which the other party places on it and it is undoubted that the Boers would regard it as a breach of that treaty if the franchise were in the first instance extended to any persons who are not white.’
When South Africa was discussed four years later, Churchill’s successor tried to reassure parliament that the Afrikaners would come round to the view that it was wiser to include Africans in the franchise. A delegations of Africans from the South African Native Congress, the forerunner of the ANC, came to lobby parliament at Westminster, but to no avail.
Because of Churchill and his policy the British parliament had already washed its hands of responsibility for the rights of its black citizens in South Africa. When the new parliament in South Africa passed the Land Act, making it illegal for Africans to purchase land from Europeans anywhere outside the reserves, a delegation of Africans who came to London to protest were told that it was a matter for the South African parliament.
READ THE REST OF THE STORY ON - EUROPEAN KNIGHTS PROJECT
Jack Sen is a British Commonwealth advocate.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Johannesburg Filth and Health Troubles

 Johannesburg city center is a slum and it is nothing new. A bus trip through the city center to the Johannesburg General Hospital (now named Charlotte Maxeko) is indeed a reminder of how dreadful this city has become.
Image from Google
Johannesburg was not always as bad as this, and it is true – every picture tells a story –
The filth, overcrowding and noise factors are not the only major concerns. It is the health risks and spread of diseases that would raise a major concern. The rats and scavengers are equally a problem that needs attention. Alas it gets worse with each passing year.
Johannesburg City Center 2008 - Image from Google
Johannesburg 2008, 2013 and 2014, images from Google 
2013

August 2014
It is evident, that there is overcrowding, a rapid decline of service deliveries and an ultimate "I do not care," attitude.





 The above four photos were taken on Monday November 3, 2014, depicting the state of Johandesburg city center.

No for the real shocker! 
Johannesburg Hospital - November 2014
This picture was the only relatively decent one, although there are a few shrubs, the litter is evident.
Johannesburg Hospital - November 2014
This photo, is outside the main entrance to the hospital. The concrete slabs are loose and if a person is not careful, could easily fall and break a few bones. Of course the litter is the trademark.

Johannesburg Hospital - November 2014
This is a photo of a public toilet inside the hospital - broken, dirty and shameful. 

Johannesburg city center is no better than most of the major centers that experience the same overcrowding problems. Causing other issue to escalate and spiral out of control. Twenty years into democracy has done nothing to improve the living conditions of people.
At the rate of deteriorating, there is little hope for improvement, especially since all the money has disappeared. What a pity and what a disaster. South Africa has absolutely no survival structure of beating any outbreak of Ebola. 



Monday, November 3, 2014

South Africa Raising the Red Flag on Social Media

South Africa Raising the Red Flag on Social Media

South Africa

What is being seen by many as a possible racist war taking place on Social media may be raising a red flag for South African citizens. There has been an increase in posting of racist remarks inflamed with hatred toward the different cultures of the country. Social media platforms are popular among the diverse cultures that continually expand opinionated views often resulting in the perceived racial war.
There is a definite hint of hatred between the different cultures in South Africa. The minority white group promotes the slow genocide of whites, especially farm attacks. The crime is a reality, and several factual reports indicate that South Africa is on the stage six scale of genocide watch. The gross images of people murdered appear on social media sparking instant outrage.
Daily updates across social media of murders, robberies and attacks against whites are posted. Without insinuating who would be responsible for the horrendous crimes, social media will buzz with disparity of racial hatred. One post or one racial comment will spark the fury of war among the diverse cultures over social media.
There are many black cultures that still have the stigma of suffering under the white apartheid rule, creating a distinct element of division. The social media platform raises the hatred that burns deep within troubled minds. The open and blatant dislike of whites causes tensions to escalate among social media users.
The situation worsens every day, and there will always be someone waiting for the opportunity to cry ‘racist’. Arguments continue to claim how the apartheid government robbed the poor of a decent livelihood. Protest of wanting a better life and service deliveries and equality. Whining and openly displaying the frustration of fairness and rights not from the apartheid government but the ruling party of South Africa.
The chaos of the struggle against the apartheid government continues to dominate the racial hatred without any consideration of the new found freedom of democracy. The corruption, the arms deal, Nkandla and King Goodwill’s 18th palace spark racial hatred. The filthy state hospitals, continued protests over service deliveries and innocent people dying raise the red flag of war among the people of South Africa. It is the grumblings of frustrated citizens wanting land and the never ending struggle of farmers trying to survive all cast a gloomy outlook on social media.
Another article from the Guardian LV - read the entire story -

Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/11/south-africa-raising-the-red-flag-on-social-media/#2vElaEOr7G1J042E.99

South Africa Taxpayers Fund Government Laxity

South Africa Taxpayers Fund Government Laxity


South Africa

Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene of South Africa needs money, and it would ultimately be the taxpayers that would fund Government laxity. An amount of more than ZAR44 billion was required by government, and Nene has promised to raise taxes over the next three years. There is no indication of how taxes would be raised, and it is assumed that personal taxes, increase in Value Added Tax (VAT) and companies’ taxation would form part of the increased structure.
The Davis Tax committee would make recommendations before the February 2015 budget, and it is expected that the Finance Minister will consider proposals for tax increases. Earlier this year reports indicated that losses through VAT fraud amounted to almost ZAR24 billion annually. Raising the VAT amount would have a detrimental effect on the poor. A huge annual tax loss through corruption was highlighted.
VAT fraud remains a major concern and improving the structure would assist in funding the government’s budget plans. Informal traders, street vendors and taxi drivers rank among the highest VAT evasions. Crime, fraud and corruption within public and private sectors continue to dent the loss of revenue for state coffers. Perhaps the biggest loss of revenue for the state treasury is the wasteful expenditure within government departments. Astronomically high entertainment and travel claims account for the loss of income.
Opposition parties in South Africa commented on the mini-budget this week confirming that overspending is a cause of concern. The Democratic Alliance (DA) official opposition party stated that the higher rate of growth from other African countries outpacing South Africa tells the story of ineffectiveness. The DA expressed disappointment that no mention of reducing the current cabinet size was planned. Wasteful expenditure was ignored pointing to no cuts in government spending, thereby placing an additional burden on the taxpayers.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) wants the government to deal with tax evasion and improve on service deliveries. Capital shifting, base erosion and transfer pricing issues needed attention as the EFF said this caused millions to be lost in revenue.
The National Freedom Party (NFP) wanted Nene to address the service delivery protests presently destroying the country. The corruption and loss of ZAR30 billion unaccounted for and wasted was not mentioned. NFP wants investigations into wasteful expenditure, and corrupt officials dismissed and charged from crimes committed.
Academics indicate that tax increases should not be the preferred way to shore-up government finances. There is a call for spending cuts including reducing the Zuma cabinet that costs ZAR65 million annually. Curbing the growth of the civil service sector and controlling salary increases.
Creating jobs would raise revenue, and this would be an ambitious plan for government to indulge. The promise of creating employment by President Zuma never materialized as indicated in the election manifesto. Unemployment figures remain high and place an additional burden on government funding.
There is no money, and the government is scrapping the pot, it is indeed a worrying factor for taxpayers who foot the bill of wasteful expenditure. It is too little, too late for a decent recovery to expand on the growth.
New Guardian LV article - read the entire story -

Read more at
http://guardianlv.com/2014/11/south-africa-taxpayers-fund-government-laxity/#fupLjDCiIjZIaEEF.99

Saturday, November 1, 2014

South Africa No Place for the Minority Group

South Africa No Place for the Minority Group


South Africa

There is no place for the minority group of Afrikaners in South Africa. Over the past twenty years, the cultural and Afrikaner rights have been suppressed. Political isolation and the violent attacks against farmers in particular cause evidence of the diminishing rights of this minority group.
South Africa is a diverse country with over 11 official languages and defined as a rainbow nation. There is nothing more or nothing less than defining the nation along racial lines. Racial classification is experienced, and diversity is ignored. The promotion of minorities and rights for Afrikaners remains an inconvenient truth.
The majority of Africans believe that Africa is the home of Africans and not of white settlers. Afrikaners are not considered an African tribe. The indigenous African people believe that any white has never been denied the right of self-determination and oppression. It is an aim that the white settlers were never invited to South Africa and the rest of the African continent. The settlement of whites has caused this group of people to become a minority in the new South Africa.
It is another belief that the majority of white settlers in South Africa were a direct cause of the overcrowding, political intolerances, religious and economic reasons that drove the settlers to the African continent. The indigenous people believe with the white settlers came the dreaded same conditions that drove them away from original countries.
Many Afrikaners want a separate state within South Africa. The minority group wants a state where self-determination and the right to practice cultural rights without the continuous crime and discrimination. There is the conviction that Afrikaners are dominant and have exclusive rights to choose any area within South Africa. The majority proclaim the right of Afrikaners to continue exercising hatred toward Africans remains unchallenged.
The majority believe that South Africa is a country where all have rights to live free of racism. The issue of tribalism is no longer an issue as racism remains the greater practiced. Living alongside the diverse cultures is indeed a challenge. There is no freedom from racism, and this will forever remain problematic within the Rainbow Nation.
Every functioning democracy needs a balance between left and right and perhaps the idea of a separate state for the minority is not a recognized solution. More importantly is the protection of different cultures and the rights of minority groups. Without support, it is easy for the majority to bully the minority groups.
Racism works equally well on both the left and right side. It is the promotion of rights and protection of cultures of the minority groups that needs to be applied. The government supports unity and integration.
Another article published on the Guardian LV - be sure to read the entire report.

Read more at
http://guardianlv.com/2014/11/south-africa-no-place-for-the-minority-group/#pbv0C3WVBDSHm0fU.99

South Africa and the Draconian Laws of the Revenue Services

South Africa and the Draconian Laws of the Revenue Services


South Africa
The South African Revenue Services (SARS) have implemented draconian laws in an attempt to recover taxes from companies and individuals. The law gives SARS the right to take money from a bank account without permission from the account holder. It is a harsh code of laws that can have detrimental effects on people who already struggle to cope with the high cost of living.
South Africa has a population of approximately 53 million people, and it is estimated that 11 million people file tax returns annually. A staggering four million of the registered taxpayers are exempt from tax due to the tax threshold, leaving the burden of tax payable on nearly six million people. Of course, the collection tactics are severe considering the low number of taxable people in South Africa.
In South Africa, informal traders, such as street hawkers and taxi drivers evade the tax system. Although evasion is not limited to the informal sector, a moderate number of high-income earners and business owners have options to bypass the taxation. Small business owners claim that business and individual tax are one of a kind does span across both formal and informal taxpayers.
Jacob Zuma, the president of South Africa has mentioned that taxes will increase, and there are indications that high-income earners will bear the highest tax burden. The informal sector growth will continue to find a way of avoiding the rule of tax by neither breaking the law, but rather will use an intelligent attempt to circumvent the tax plan. The strict labor laws and lowering of personal taxes can close the widening gap between the formal and informal taxpayers.
The power of certain SARS officials allows for searches without warrants, collecting information from banks, estate agents, medical funds and lawyers. SARS can exercise an aggressive approach in dealing with tax avoidance or tax evasion. The amount of information SARS can demand are staggering since the new regulations have been passed. The dynamic approach used by SARS is to tighten the net of non taxpayers and tax evasion in South Africa.
New article posted on the Guardian LV - be sure to read the entire article

Read more at http://guardianlv.com/2014/11/south-africa-and-the-draconian-laws-of-the-revenue-services/#Cq04t75XZBpMroUE.99
There was an error in this gadget