SOUTH AFRICA – A FAILED STATE

This is one of a series of articles in order to establish as to whether South Africa is a failed state and if so, then why.

Everybody has been speaking about democracy. The right to vote, the right to a better living!

South Africa in 2014 is everything but. South Africa has all the hallmarks of a failed state. Let us begin from the latest working backwards.

In the Sunday Independent of 7 December 2014 an article                         “Found in SA ….Libya’s trillions”. The article deals with the fact that Pres Zuma got involved in moving Libya’s riches out of the country and into South Africa. According to the report, several complaints had been raised with the UN placing Pres Zuma and the RSA government on terms for charges at the International Criminal Court. These charges would be followed through if the Libyan assets were not returned promptly.

The charges, which would be brought, would include charges of theft. These charges might even make the Holocaust thefts seem like small change.

These assets were bought in on 62 flights. Landed at Waterkloof? In addition, the Gupta plane that landed at Waterkloof. Is there a link?

South Africa  since 1994 has steadily started losing its lustre, today criminals zoom in on South Africa as it would appear that criminality rules. The President had/was/ is facing more than 700 charges of fraud. This is a man who has been implicated in nearly every dark deed that has come to the fore. This is the man to whom the African National Congress (ANC) bows and all his friends, such as the Gupta receive preferential treatment.

The Courts are a pitiful mess. The South African dream has been shattered. Will the Libyans proceed with these charges? If so, what value will any South African diplomatic passport hold? Since when can criminals be absolved by using diplomatic passports? Will South Africa find itself under United Nations administration?

Who pays for all this? Referring to so-called 62 flights on which these assets were transported, who paid therefore? Whose planes were used? All this whilst Gaddafi’s money man , Bashir Saleh was living it up in Nkandla with Khulubushe Zuma. Who by the way had received more than USD 200 million from Gaddafi in order to buy oil concessions in the Congo (DRC) according to various allegations.

However, can one work through the courts in South Africa?

Good luck! The courts in South Africa do not instil confidence. Pres Zuma’s legal advisors pursued cases, which were brought against him. It was in the Highest Courts where the President’s legal team was shown up by not having a case. Yet, the Court’s time was wasted, justice delayed and who pays? The poor taxpayer! Despite Laws such  as the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 as amended which spells out the issue of wasted coasts, nobody does a thing. The Office of the Auditor General does not seem to be able to comprehend  the fact of the wasted public moneys. The Auditor General himself has become the highest paid civil servant!

A failed state? What does it look like? There are no Constitutional guarantees and stealing, all the time. How does South Africa have 63 000 USD millionaires? What did they do to amass such wealth? On average more than USD 10 million each, this becomes a tidy sum.

Yet, they deem this to be a democracy? Like hell!!

This is legalized stealing, nothing else. Will Pres Zuma and his government be arrested on their overseas travels? Alternatively, will the Libyans send out death squads after them?

Next time, we look a bit deeper at the lack of democracy, the thieving shenanigans and the similarities to Pres Paul Kruger of the old ZAR.

NEWS24 ARTICLE – WORTH READING

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Hawks-not-commenting-on-Libya-assets-probe-20141207

 Read the following articles regarding Gaddafi and Zuma that reveal more about South Africa as a failed state.  

SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 2014

SOUTH AFRICA: THE EVIL EMPIRE?

 http://dillydee.blogspot.com/2014/03/south-africa-evil-empire.html

Therefore, Gaddafi’s money had gone missing in the RSA. Various Ministers have been implicated in this issue. Allegations also are that a vast amount of Gaddafi’s moneys had found its way to the South African Reserve Bank and that a substantial amount thereof went missing from here. This is encapsulated in a different letter to Pres Zuma from a different source.

SATURDAY, MARCH 29, 2014

South Africa Living in Cuckoo Land Part 5

 http://dillydee.blogspot.com/2014/03/south-africa-living-in-cuckoo-land-part.html

These are the same people whose names appear concerning the fact that the Gaddafi moneys have been dispersed in South Africa. The Reserve Bank plays a pertinent role in this matter. How much Gaddafi money transited and ended up in South Africa? USD 100 billion? More? If so there are movements which can lead to these actions being spotlighted. It’s most compelling that the USA by way of the Rockefeller Foundation had routed vast amounts of money to the RSA for structural development. This happened during the time of Thabo Mbeki as president. 

These funds had disappeared !! It’s gone missing!!!

The name of the FIVE STAR TRUST HAD COME TO LIGHT AND AN AMOUNT OF USD 25 BILLION is mentioned. This money went missing. Apparently due to a syndicate in the SA Reserve Bank channeling the money away. This happened during the time of Thabo Mbeki as President? The same syndicate is implicated in the disappearance of the Gaddafi money. Yet, has President Zuma been informed? What action has been taken? Clearly, Pres Zuma is being manipulated. He and his clan were fed chicken feed, the Nkandla debacle, whilst the very big transactions were manipulated without his or his government’s knowledge. However, he is continuously being fed aspects in order to divert his attention. His own Ministers in his Cabinet are involved.

  

SATURDAY, APRIL 26, 2014

South Africa Living in Cuckoo Land - Part 4

http://dillydee.blogspot.com/2014/04/south-africa-living-in-cuckoo-land-part.html

There is the rumor that the road built toward Nkandla, Zuma’s homestead could have been financed by Gaddafi money. Nobody talks about this money and it was during 2010 when Zuma and Gaddafi arranged a meeting. Apparently Gaddafi’s money was sent to South Africa. This secretative operation was headed by Defense Intelligence (DI) General Shilobane, who acted promptly under the authority and control of the ruling party, the ANC. US Dollars, gold and diamonds were part of the consignment entrusted to South African government.

Gaddafi is linked to the financing of the oil exploration operations which culminated in viable oil deposits being found in the following places – Malawi –In the lake, Tanzania – off shore and in the lake bordering Malawi, Kenya – off shore, Mozambique – north of Beira, Namibia – off shore, Ghana – off shore and doubling their capacity. The moments these fields would come into production it would have an impact on the regional political and economical aspects but also in the international sphere. Gaddafi would have had an exceptionally strong standing.

M0NDAY. APRIL 28, 2014

South Africa Living in Cuckoo Land - Part 7

SOUTH AFRICA – CUCKOO LAND: AN EVIL CESSPOOL?

http://dillydee.blogspot.com/2014/04/south-africa-living-in-cuckoo-land-part_28.html

In France at the time of the killing of Moumar Gaddafi, the local arms company in France belonging to the State, Nexter, gave then President Zarkouzy a Billion Euros in order to get rid of Gaddafi. The reason thereto that they would be in the forefront of new contracts with the new Libyan regime for massive orders. At this time, Gaddafi’s moneys were moved to the RSA, billions of dollars, hundreds of billions!!! Names such as Nissim Dangor, Jesse Duarte and her brother, as well as the Dockrats were mentioned, as to the truth thereto, who will know!! However, a certain Abrahams – working for the National Prosecuting Authority have been implicated assigning these moneys into South Africa, whence apparently a lot of it had gone missing. Allegations have surfaced that some of this money was used to build a highway to Pres Zuma’s compound at Nkandla in Kwazulu Natal. Also, an agent of the State Security Agency (SSA), a alleged Intelligence establishment of a decidedly dubious character whereby a majority of them has been compromised by foreign services or otherwise just sold their allegiance to whoever would give them money. 

FRIDAY, MAY 2, 2014

SOUTH AFRICA: THE SINS OF THE FATHERS – PART I
Despair

http://dillydee.blogspot.com/2014/05/south-africa-part-1-sins-of-fathers.html

The same people are also alleged to have been involved to a larger or a lesser degree in the vanishing of the Gaddafi money. The Gaddafi money was apparently handled under the AU’s (African Union) auspices. Personnel and consultants were provided with diplomatic cover from the AU according to reliable sources.

In this regard, it must be borne in mind that the British MI6 had always been extremely well entrenched in Libya. Many Libyans had been recruited as MI6 agents. Especially during the time of the Afghans fighting against the Russian invaders.

It is alleged that the rise of Gaddafi was due to the role of MI6. MI6 was also involved in the movement of the Gaddafi moneys as well as the financing of the oil explorations of the African continent. The Tar sands project in Canada is another project that was financed by Gaddafi. All of these investments were routed via British companies.

CORNELIA DE WET – THE TRUE STORY

Cornelia De Wet of Caroline, Mpumalanga, South Africa is a political prisoner on trial for possession of explosives. The nightmare began in April 2010 when De Wet joined the Leeuwag group, an operation that offered protection to farmers or anybody who needed such services. Before joining the Leeuwag group, De Wet and her family suffered several farm attacks and traumatized by the ordeal found peace knowing that the Leeuwag group offered protection.

De Wet undertook administration work for the group and as a caring patriot became involved in a school feeding scheme. The good work attracted people who wanted to contribute and a donation of R40,000 was received to expand the feeding project. De Wet was mysteriously banished from the group, without explanations. The persecution began and members of the Leeuwag group continue to terrify her into believing that the farm attacks were not ‘black’ South African. It is a known fact that most farm attacks have created the phenomenon known as “White Genocide.”

Instead, De Wet came to believe that the members of the Leeuwag, Panzer Protection, and BBF were responsible for the farm attacks. The group carried out farm attacks in the event of securing contracts for protection. A despicable and ruthless business terrorizing farmers to obtain protection contracts. De Wet, Johan Lubbe, and others belonging to these groups admitted the theory of members attacking farms and offering protection for a fee was real. According the Jan De Wet, brother of Cornelia, the South African Police refused to investigate these farm attacks.

An assault on the De Wet farm occurred on April 27, 2012. During this time, De Wet was continually threatened by members of the BBF, Panzer Protection, and Leeuwag groups. On May 20, 2012, Larry Swart (a member of the Leeuwag), threatened to kill De Wet, harassed her with phone calls and said that the arrest was imminent. Swart told De Wet to expect being assaulted while in prison and that the case to remove her children from their home would be implemented.

The South African Police raided the De Wet Farm on May 29, 2012. The police produced a warrant stating that four officers had the right to search the home, but ten officers undertook the task. Several different police units were involved in the raid, including the Hawks, Dog Unit, Bomb Unit and Task team. The farm consists of five houses and storerooms, but the invasion was apparently undertaken at the home that De Wet occupied. De Wet’s father asked the officers if they wanted to search the entire property and that stated that it was not necessary to do so. Many goods were removed from the De Wet home. It took almost eight hours for the officers, a total of fifty heavily armed to arrest De Wet. Apparently, there were only two white officers from the dog unit. The police did not read De Wet the rights and did not mention on what charges the arrest was made.

De Wet spent six months in prison and secured the services of an attorney who informed the distress De Wet that a charge of high treason and incitement were the two main accusations. Over 40 charges were drawn up against De Wet but were later thrown out of court. The Captain of the Hawks told De Wet that the children would be taken by the welfare if there were no co-operation. After one year and three months, the only charge against De Wet was possession of ammunition and explosives. Accordingly, the police did not have enough evidence to proceed with all other charges.

A certain Lt-Colonel Vregdenburg, a member of the South African Police, questioned De Wet and during the conversation mentioned that all right-wingers will go to jail for a long time. Vregdenburg said that he controlled the power to do so. A harassing time for De Wet by the captain and six other officers who made sure that De Wet would co-operate and answer all the questions raised.

Strikingly enough, De Wet was the only one arrested on that day and the members of the BBF. Leeuwag and Panzer Protection were not contacted by the South African police. It was noted that Frik Steenberg a member of the group indicated that there were plans to kill De Wet. Johan Lubbe, also a member of the group, implied that Steenberg was the snitch who reported De Wet to the police.

Life In a South African Prison

De Wet was transferred to a maximum security prison in Bethal on December 27, 2012. De Wet was placed into an overcrowded cell occupied by 25 blacks and was the only white person in the cell. The cell was full of insects including the beds. The cell had one toilet, one shower only. According to De Wet, it was hell being locked up in a crowded, dirty cell. It is expected to place women wardens on duty in the women section, but male guards were on duty during the night time shift.

On January 28, 2013, De Wet appeared in court on a bail application but was unable to testify as her personal documents were removed by the police officers. Bail was denied. With her hands handcuffed behind the back the police, attacked De Wet until blood ran down her body. De Wet was told that they will shoot her and tell the courts that she had tried to escape. With severe injuries, De Wet was placed in Intensive care at a government hospital and comatose for three days.

On February 11, 2013, De Wet was transferred to Pretoria Central Prison. Her family was not informed of the transfer. That day was a total nightmare for De Wet, who was handcuffed, chained from arms to the entire body and feet put in irons for the transfer.

De Wet was placed in section one, an isolated cell measuring 2.5 square meters by 3 meters. Locked up in solitary confinement for 24 hours a day with no rights, even disallowed from attending the church services. There was nothing, not a radio or television set, which apparently was supplied to other prisoners. During the night, there was no light only total darkness as wardens refused to switch on the light. For several days at a time, De Wet was denied the right to bath.

Spending time alone without the comfort of even a bible, De Wet began a hunger strike, refusing even liquids. Eventually, the police contacted De Wet’s family and told them that death was imminent. De Wet refused the medical help of the police and eventually was unable to walk. After a grueling nine days, De Wet’s family were allowed to visit and were informed by a prison doctor that De Wet could become comatose and die if no medical treatment were accepted. It was the crying of De Wet’s eldest daughter that brought the jailed mother to end the hunger strike. Weak and desperately ill, De Wet managed to survive the ordeal. Prison wardens showed some compassion toward De Wet and allowed a radio in her isolated cell.

March 15, 2013 De Wet was transferred back to Middelburg Prison. In only three months, De Wet had been transferred to different prisons six times.

What happens if you are white and arrested in South Africa

De Wet experienced traumatic times in prison and early one morning two black policemen opened the tiny cell door and found De Wet sitting on a cold cement floor. Commanded to stand up, and keep quiet or suffer the consequences of not listening. De Wet stood up and the one officer grabbed her hands while the other undressed her. Forcing her to lie down on the cold floor while one was holding her arms, the other officer raped her. Taking turns to rape De Wet, who was unable to mutter a word, but kept on praying that the nightmare would end and hoping to die. After ending the rape, the officers warned De Wet not to say a word and left her stretched out on the cold floor in tears. For several hours, De Wet remained on the ground crying unable to move, utterly convinced that life would never be more than enduring eternal suffering. Eventually, De Wet got up but unable to have access to water was unable to bath. De Wet got dressed and traumatized sat motionless trying to come to terms with the distress of being raped.

Life in a South African prison is hell for most, with a definite trend on traumatizing white prisoners. Black prisons have more options than their white counterparts do. Being allowed to keep money and use cell phones, deal with drugs and allowed certain luxuries are all part of their prison life. However, whites are not permitted these bonuses.

The prisons are overrun with rats and all types of bugs. Food often had rat droppings and dead flies on the plates. Whites were forced to take on cleaning work while black prisons were allowed the luxury of staying in their cells, listening to radios, watching television or simply doing drug deals.

During one night in the jail, De Wet was given heart medication that caused her to slump and unable to stand or walk. Feeling as if death was approaching De Wet asked to see a doctor and was refused and beaten by the wardens.

Cornelia victimized

June 19 De Wet had to reappear in court. It has been a traumatic two years. Most times a white prosecutor was assigned to the case but was replaced by a black prosecutor who had twenty people to testify on behalf of the state. The state is pushing for a twenty-year jail term. Twenty-three court appearances and each time the case was postponed.

De Wet is not the owner of the explosives and ammunition. Unknown to De Wet at the time, police informants planted these at her farm and then had her arrested. While a member of the Leeuwag, De Wet and Frik Steenberg (a prominent member of the group) started a relationship. De Wet fell pregnant and gave birth to a bonny little boy. The little baby was only five days old when the police raided the farm and arrested De Wet. Frik Steenberg has now become a state witness without having compassion on his own child.

Parted from a newborn baby was utter hell for De Wet. As De Wet said in her own words, “it was utter hell for me, as a mother, to be dragged away from my baby and children. I will never forget the suffering they had to endure for the two years I was in prison, fighting for my life.”

De Wet said the only consolation during her prison term was her children, spending nights crying and the trauma of visiting times. Seeing the children behind the glass, unable to hug them and pour out love was depressing. The children seeing their mother handcuffed at dragged as if a dog caused severe depressing and sadness within the family.

In Closing

De Wet has endured two years of utter hell appeared in court during October and November 2014 with a trial date set for January 2015 and again in March 2015. This case has now taken almost four years to reach a trial date and uncertainty surrounds the actual trial proceeding. Several witnesses have stated that they want to case to continue indefinitely and perhaps the reason for this is to ensure the suffering of De Wet carries on. Police informants, members of the BBF, Panzer Protection, and Leeuwag groups continue to harass De Wet, who constantly lives in fear.

Media reports have been negative for De Wet, who describes the mother as a public seeker who craves attention. These reports do not warrant any truth and rather create the wrong impression about the accused. While the trial does not appear to have an absolute end date, De Wet has secured the services of a high profile advocate ECHARD ROSEMANN with an instructing attorney to defend her.

Support groups have been set up to help De Wet through this traumatic time and the love and assistance have remained overwhelming.

Cornelia De Wet remains a strong and determined person who wants to live a normal life with her children and family. As a mother, De Wet wants to close this depressing chapter of her life and forget the trauma. However, the uncertainty of closure and the time it has taken to set final dates casts a shadow of gloom. We ask the question of whether South Africa does indeed have a failing justice system.

Read this article for more detailed information:

Cornelia De Wet wedged into a political triangle

http://dillydee.blogspot.com/2014/06/cornelia-de-wet-wedged-into-political.html

Vision for Africa

Vision for Africa

African History

Centuries ago, Africa remained a land unknown; the Europeans had a vague knowledge of this continent. Africa was always known as the dark, savage continent; a land unexplored. Africa, a continent ruled by indigenous tribes, scattered around the mainland. Africa derived the name from a tribe known as the Afri tribe.

Africans are mainly referred to as black, and this was a quick reference of describing dark skinned people. The Africans have a sense of pride of their skin color. Europeans were considered foreigners by the indigenous tribes. Modern times have changed this to a matter of personal preference.

Missionaries traveled to the unexplored land and described the inhabitants as beasts and savages, practicing human sacrifices. The engineering marvels of the pyramids of Egypt attracted foreigners seeking wealth and uncultivated land targeted for food supplies. In the early centuries, Rome captured North Africa for food and water.

Wars continued throughout the centuries; Arabs invaded countries, converting people to Islam. Rockets continue to blast Ethiopia in a bid to kill black Jewish people. Many indigenous people were defeated and are a lost civilization. Coastal cities were bombed violently with the direct intention of destroying the independence.

Africa consisted of kingdoms, and empires, the European amalgamation into colonies caused problems. Rivalry between ethnic groups began in earnest. European development remained slow in the early centuries, and the large entities built only began to rise at the beginning of the 1900s. After the second world war growth emerged industriously. Under the British and French rule, Africa had the potential of remaining one of the wealthiest continents.

During the 1905s and 1960s, many countries called for independence and this was structured to implement black rulers. Africa had huge foreign exchange reserves. New leaders were more interested in creating wealth for themselves than development. Political mismanagement and corruption caused a large drain on economic resources. It is estimated that 40 percent of wealth of Africa is held in foreign countries and not recycled back into Africa. Today Africa faces enormous problems.

Africa Today

The commodity boom of 1960 ended and instead of restricting the level of expenditure countries began borrowing money. The potential wealth of Africa has realized a sophisticated degree of development in Ghana while South Africa is a modern industrial country. The oil wealth of Nigeria, and Zambia rich in copper resources became the world’s third largest leader.

The overpowering debt of African countries caused problems, and debt relief measure was implements. During 2010, the debt was reduced.

Spotlight on Nigeria

Nigeria is one of the populous places in Africa, with the oil production causing the country to emerge as one of the largest economic base. One of the most major countries with potential of generating huge profits, Nigeria also has the highest number of poor citizens living below the breadline.

Political instability, drugs, corruption, terrorism and friction among religious groups are the causes of extreme poverty. The GDP of Nigeria continues to grow while the poverty level drops only a fraction.

Democratic Africa

Democracy is proclaimed in most African countries, yet the turbulent rumblings of corruption, resistance and war continue to ravage the land. The corrupt African leaders continue to blatantly mislead the people. Education standard have zeroed out while people remain ignorant and accept poverty as a choice of freedom. Problems continue to torment Africa.

What do Africans Want?

Several people were interviewed in an attempt to discover what ordinary people really want and to understand their vision for Africa.

What should be done to bring all land together in unity peace and prosperity?

To bring peace and prosperity to Africa there is no such thing. Attaining both peace and prosperity is impossible while the sins of corruption, crime and poverty remain unresolved.

Africa has never had peace, and there is prosperity but it serves the dictatorship regimes.

Stats - how popular is US agenda and brand in Africa?

America is no good; it is their interference and determination to eliminate the Africans with their continuous wars. Ebola is another USA product. Africans see through the ruse of getting any vaccination from USA doctors. USA doctors, Merc, Sharp, Dohme, Sabina, and Salf make vaccinations in USA laboratories to spread diseases, sicknesses, and fatal conditions.

That is the product America brings to Africa.

Do Africans like Americans and would like to be lead by them based on mutual respect towards a better future?

The Michael Brown riots, 25 November 2014, should indicate how the world views the USA.

Democracy is subjective and a self-serving concept. Partners of the western powers who are not democratic are coping merely because they serve the interest of western countries under the leadership of the United States. America topples democratic elected governments and replaces them with their own vassals Libya and other countries are the new democracies.

Is there any common force on the ground in Africa that can be trusted and respected in the whole Land?
What kind of force that could be and what type of value and vision represents?

The only collective force to bring stability is the hangman and gallows back. Robert Mugabe should have been hanged. All leaders are corrupt, and there is nobody to trust. The value is set and cannot be undone; Africa belongs to the Africans, and the land is ours.

Africa - all Africa needs: -

Security: Security is the government’s responsibility. Protecting our family is a matter of owning a gun. We have no fear.

From violence, Violence is part of the history and culture, and there is no direct intention to stop.

From sickness: Sickness can be cured, the culture of tribal medicines are favored.

For the prosperity: Everybody wants wealth and assumes the government must make amends by giving back his or her land. The resources must be shared among the people.

France, along with the US have in the past overthrown democratically elected governments in Africa and elsewhere just for being too independent and protecting their resources, which westerners believe they have a god-given right to. This is the primary cause of the retardation of growth and progress in Africa. This, of course, does not let off the hook the silk tie wearing ignoramuses who call themselves African leaders

What do Africans like and who is the most trusted?

A firm favorite is music; everybody loves the soulfulness of music. Food is another enjoyable love.

Zimbabweans do not feel safe under the Mugabe leadership and do not trust anybody.

South Africans love the African National Congress (ANC) governing party for the freedom they gave to the majority. There are no particular individuals trusted and most accept the failures of leaders based on the young democracy.

What can be done to improve Africa?

Immediate:  Giveback the land (this is the view from South Africans only.)

Middle: All fight for our rights, to have our land back and rule without foreign intervention. The only need for Africa to progress is social development and political stability, in that order.

Long term range of time: Raise our country into an indigenous land. Foreigners invaded Africa and must be deported. Africa must return to the original people.

What Africans really would like to do like average in the future in terms?

- Jobs, - fun time, - what are their dreams about future?

All Africans can think about and do, is sex. Have as many children as possible as soon as possible to win the elections and get a majority vote. African males hate work. Women, dagga, hunting and getting drunk are their fun and livelihood, and their dream. African females just want to get revenge what males do to them.

Countries like china have achieved a stable economy today, and if the Africans forget about corruption and work very hard, they would be able to eliminate poverty.

Making the world safe for corporate plunder does not pave the way for democracy; it opens the door to economic exploitation and subjugation.

Is there any form of society they would favor like: communism, capitalism, etc.?

Communism and Capitalism is the same thing. Both end up working oneself into the ground. Africans reject both. Who does the work? African women do the work. Males are lazy or pretend to work to get benefits. They love rewards!

In closing

African leaders want to manage their affairs without interference. The leaders will only ask for help from the west when they do not have solutions, like Ebola relief.

Blaming colonialism and apartheid for the current situation in Africa does not stop, and most people believe these are the main reasons for the slow development and stability.

African democracy is a new term for dictatorship. Democracy should allow the people decide; dictatorship permits a few people agree that everybody should do.

This article was published on 

http://itfeelsgood.info/africa-forever-.html

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

http://www.europeanknightsproject.com/apartheid-made-britain-richard-dowden-explains-churchill-rhodes-smuts-caused-black-south-africans-lose-rights/

Jack Sen is a British Commonwealth advocate.