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.
