Friday, February 29, 2008

The Genocide In Democratic South Africa

They are conservative, Christian Caucasians, a fact that might help explain why the fashionable left in the West doesn’t much care that they’re being exterminated.

The Boers—or farmers—of South Africa have tilled the land for generations, on small holdings or on large commercial farms. But orgiastic killing sprees by The People, in combination with a Stalinesque land grab by their representatives, is threatening this minority’s survival.

Not to mention making life an inferno for farmers across the county.

Journalists for "Carte Blanche," the South African equivalent of "20/20," conducted a six-month investigation into what has become known as farm murders, or "plaasmoorde" in Afrikaans. The short documentary opens with a funeral, Elsie Swart’s. Elsie was one of three farmers killed in the span of only seven days. She died after being “severely tortured, burned with an electric iron, beaten, and strangled to death.”

The victims of this ongoing onslaught, we are told, are invariably elderly, law-abiding, god-fearing whites, murdered in cold blood, in ways that beggar belief. For the edification of racism spotters in the West, "Carte Blanche" ought to have pointed out that their assailants are always black.

Typically, the heathens will attack on Sundays. On returning from church, the farmer is ambushed. Those too feeble to attend Sunday service are frequently tortured and killed when the rest are worshiping. In one crime scene, Bibles belonging to the slain had been splayed across their mangled bodies. In another, an “old man’s hand rests on the arm of his wife of many years.” She raped; he, in all likelihood, made to watch. Finally, with their throats slit, they died side by side.

Beatrice Freitas has survived two farm attacks. Her equanimity belies the brutality she has endured. She and her husband immigrated to South Africa from Madeira 40 years ago. They built a thriving nursery near the Mozambiquean border. It supplied the entire region with beautiful plants. Some people build; others destroy. Beatrice tells her story as she drifts through the stately cycads surrounding the deserted homestead. There’s an ephemeral quality about her.

When the four men attacked her, Beatrice says her mind “disappeared.” She and her permanently disabled husband, José, were tied up while the home was ransacked. When the brutes were through, they wanted to know where she kept the iron. They then took her to the laundry room, where two of them raped her, coated her in oil, and applied the iron. They alternated iron with boot. When they were through, 25 percent of Beatrice’s body was covered in third-degree burns. They suffocated her with a towel, and left her for dead, but she survived. She says the Lord saved her.

No one was ever arrested—not then, and not after the couple was attacked three years later. This time Jose died “in a hail of bullets.” Arrests and convictions are rare. "Carte Blanche" tells of Dan Lansberg, shot dead in broad daylight. Members of his courageous farming community caught the culprits, but they “escaped” from the local police cells. As I’ve explained before, the newly configured South African police is a corrupt, illiterate, and ill-trained force, “riven by feuds, fetishes, and factional loyalties.” The South African justice system has collapsed, confirms Professor Neels Moolman, a criminologist. In democratic South Africa, a person has over a 90 percent chance of getting away with murder. Or as Moolman puts it, pursuing “a criminal career without fearing the consequences.”

Sky News sent its correspondent to the northern province of South Africa, where the viewers are introduced to Herman Dejager. (CNN’s Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper and his pal Angelina Jolie were nowhere in sight.) Before retiring every night, Herman prepares to fight to the death to protect what’s his. He checks his bulletproof vest, loads the shotgun, and drapes ammunition rounds on the nightstand.

Herman’s father died in his arms, shot in the face by intruders. Kaalie Botha’s parents were not so lucky: “You can’t kill an animal like they killed my mom and father. You can’t believe it.” Kaalie’s 71-year-old father’s Achilles tendons had been severed so he couldn’t flee. He was then hacked in the back until he died, his body dumped in the bush. His wife, Joey, had her head bashed in by a brick wielded with such force, the skull “cracked like an egg.”

Dr. Gregory H. Stanton heads Genocide Watch. He says the slaughter of 2000 Boers is genocide. (One wonders why "Carte Blanche" drastically underreported the number of murdered Boers, pegging it at 1400 all told, when back in January of 2006, Genocide Watch reported a total of 1820 murders.) The rates at which the farmers are being eliminated, the torture and dehumanization involved—all point to systematic extermination.

“Genocide is always organized, usually by the state,” Stanton has written on Genocide Watch’s website. Indeed, according to Sky News, the farmers believe “these attacks are an orchestrated, government sanctioned attempt to purge South Africa of white land owners, as has already happened in Zimbabwe.” Consequently, Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of Africa, is now its dust bowl. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s Marxist President, is greatly admired by Thabo Mbeki, South Africa’s strongman, and head of the African National Congress.

That certainly would explain why the ANC plans to dismantle the Commando System, a private Afrikaner militia that has existed since the 1770s, and is the only defense at the farmers’ disposal. More damningand contrary to the pro-forma denials issued by the ANC’s oleaginous officialsThe Daily Mail reported, in February 2006, that the government is dead-set-on forcibly seizing the land of thousands of farmers. By the year 2014, a third of the Boers’ property will have been given to blacks.

In democratic South Africa, dispossession is nine-tenths of the law.

©2007 By Ilana Mercer

Child throttled during robbery: witness

'Please leave my daddy's things alone." This was what a tearful five-year-old girl begged robbers before they allegedly throttled the child and left her for dead.

Ntombini Mweli, a domestic worker, was testifying against David Papi Matladi, 37, who stands accused on charges of attempted murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, two counts of kidnapping and charges of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.

He has pleaded not guilty.

In his plea explanation, Matladi told the Johannesburg High Court he was standing outside the complex in Senderwood, Bedfordview, and was waiting for someone to offer him a piece job. He said he did not enter the complex but was incorrectly arrested as one of the perpetrators.

However, Mweli testified that, during the robbery on March 22 2006, Matladi and his accomplice, who is still at large, choked her employer's five-year-old daughter, Lee van der Merwe, and, believing she was dead, bundled her into a wardrobe.

Mweli told the court that she knew Matladi.

"I first met Matladi on December 5 2005 during my first day as a domestic worker for Susan van der Merwe.

"He and other people were employed by Susan van der Merwe to install a shower in the flatlet. I saw the other man for the first time (during the robbery) in my life," Mweli testified.

She gave the court a detailed account of how robbers came to her employer's house and told her that they were there to put on tiles in her employer's en-suite bedroom.

She allowed Matladi into the house because she knew him.

She said she was surprised minutes later when Matladi and his friend tied her hands with cable ties.

"They then started to pack clothes, a safe and tins into a bag … I managed to free myself and went to the dressing table with the hope of getting a key to the door leading to outside the house.

"Matladi saw me before I could reach the dressing table. He came rushing to me and scolded me for loosening myself.

"He threatened me. He fastened me again with the plastic handcuffs and ripped apart my overall and then used a piece to gag my mouth and hands.

"Matladi further then saw Susan's hairdryer lying on the floor and he picked it up and then used its electrical cord to tie my hands," Mweli recalled.

She added that they also choked the child, who was crying and asked them to stop taking her father's things.

Mweli said Lee begged as they choked her: "Please leave my daddy's things alone."

According to her evidence, Matladi and his friend then bundled the girl into a wardrobe before disappearing with the goods.

Mweli said she managed to release herself and then went on to rescue the child.

Matladi was caught by security guards outside the complex.

The trial continues.

  • This article was originally published on page 3 of The Star on January 29, 2008
Published on the Web by IOL on 2008-01-29 03:09:00
The Failure of Democracy in Africa

The ongoing violence in Iraq has caused observers to reflect on the challenges of bringing democracy to tribal societies. Before the Iraq War was launched in 2003, the Bush administration assured Americans and the world that the removal of Saddam Hussein would result in the creation of a peaceful, well-governed, and democratic society.

But it is now becoming clear that building a successful democracy is not as easy as many Americans had assumed. Pure democracy is a system that works well in particular cultures, and not all cultures are equally capable of building harmonious democratic societies.

If the Bush administration had been interested in studying the track record of democracy-building efforts in tribal cultures, they should have studied the experience of Sub-Saharan Africa, where the introduction of pure democracy 50 years ago resulted in disaster for the people of the region. For the purposes of this article, I am defining ‘pure democracy’ as majority rule under universal suffrage, in which all citizens of adult age are guaranteed the right to vote in national elections.

In 1957, Ghana became the first black African country to gain independence from European colonial rule (Sudan gained its independence in 1956, but it regards itself as part of Arab Africa, rather than black Africa). The Prime Minister of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, had won an election in 1956, campaigning on a platform of attaining immediate independence from British colonial rule. Nkrumah had served as Prime Minister from 1951 to 1956, a period in which Ghana enjoyed internal self-government, under the supervision of the British colonial governor in the country. The governor had the power to veto decisions by Nkrumah that he felt were harmful to the interests of the colony. This was the period in which Ghana enjoyed the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity in its history.

Two conservative Ghanaian politicians, J. B. Danquah and Kofi Busia, opposed Nkrumah’s campaign for immediate independence. They wanted to preserve the status quo, because of the stability and prosperity which Ghana was enjoying. They preferred a more gradual path to independence, in contrast to the campaign for rapid decolonization. Both men realized that without the supervision of the British colonial power, Nkrumah would turn Ghana into a dictatorship, and impose his deeply-held Marxist beliefs on the Ghanaian people.

The opposition political party that was supported by Danquah and Busia lost the 1956 elections, and Nkrumah was able to lead his country to independence on March 6, 1957. The dire predictions of Danquah and Busia came true, and in a couple of years, Nkrumah established Africa’s first post-colonial dictatorship. Danquah was subsequently arrested and jailed as a political prisoner, and he eventually died because of the terrible prison conditions in which he was held. Busia fled the country in fear of his life, and he returned to the country only after Nkrumah was overthrown in a Western-backed military coup in 1966.

Most of the Black African nations that gained independence after Ghana followed its path by establishing one-party dictatorships. Observers soon began to describe the practice of democracy in Africa as ‘one-man, one-vote, one-time’. In many of the cases, the winning political party at the independence elections used its majority in the national parliament, to pass legislation outlawing the existence of opposition political parties. This left the ruling party with a monopoly of power. This trend challenged the widely held notion that pure democracy leads to more freedom. If anything, in many countries, Africans enjoyed greater personal freedom and prosperity under colonial rule, than they do today under independent governments. While opposition parties have been permitted to exist in some countries in the last few years, the oppressive habits associated with one-party dictatorial rule have been hard to break.

In the 1960s, American conservatives were outspoken against the wave of decolonization and democratization in Sub-Saharan Africa, that was being pushed by the United States and the former Soviet Union. William F. Buckley, in his book, Up From Liberalism wrote:

“We see in the revolt of the masses in Africa the mischief of the white man’s abstractions: for the West has, by its doctrinaire approval of democracy, deprived itself of the moral base from which to talk back to the apologists of rampant nationalism….Democracy, to be successful, must be practiced by politically mature people among whom there is a consensus on the meaning of life within their society….If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be the indicated, though concededly the undemocratic, course. It is more important for a community, wherever situated geographically, to affirm and live by civilized standards than to labor at the job of swelling the voting lists”.

Buckley tried to make the distinction between universal suffrage and freedom, in his analysis of the conditions in the American South before the passage of Civil Rights legislation, which he compared to colonial rule in Africa:

“Does the vote really make one free? I do not believe it necessarily does….Being able to vote is no more to have realized freedom than being able to read is to have realized wisdom. Reasonable limitations upon the vote are not recommended exclusively by tyrants or oligarchs (was Jefferson either?). The problem of the South is not how to get the vote for the Negro, but how to train the Negro – and a great many whites – to cast a thoughtful vote”

Buckley was however careful to distinguish his position in opposing universal franchise in the American South, from that of the southern segregationists who advanced genetic arguments in opposing black voting rights in the South:

“There are no scientific grounds for assuming congenital Negro disabilities. The problem is not biological, but cultural and educational”

Today, if one was to argue in favor of restrictions to the right to vote, one would be labeled as an enemy of freedom. But, as we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and in much of Black Africa, democracy does not necessarily lead to freedom. With hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fleeing their country as a result of the violence that has engulfed that nation, can anyone seriously suggest that Iraqis are freer today than they were under Saddam Hussein? Are the nations of Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo freer today, than they were under colonial rule?

The state governments that existed in the American South during the Jim Crow era discredited the respectable and honorable Western tradition of placing reasonable restrictions on who to allow to vote. Putting restrictions on the vote using poll taxes, literacy tests, and property ownership qualifications, has helped many Western nations to preserve liberty and order for centuries. But Southern state governments in the post-Reconstruction era applied such restrictions unfairly, in a manner which was blatantly discriminatory on the basis of race. In the early part of the 20th Century, Booker T. Washington called on black Americans to work hard to improve their educational and economic status, in order to more fully participate in the American political process. But by denying educated and financially successful Blacks access to the ballot, the state governments of the South destroyed Washington’s vision of building racial harmony in America. As a result, divisive demagogues like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have risen to prominence, and shape the agenda on race relations in America today.

Universal suffrage is a very recent development in the West. Britain attained universal suffrage only in 1928, when all adults over the age of 21 were allowed to vote. A century earlier, voting in Britain was limited to a tiny percentage of the adult male population. The Tories held power from 1783 to 1830, a 46 year stretch that was only briefly interrupted in 1806-1807. Charles Grey finally took over as a Whig Prime Minister in 1830. He passed the Reform Act in 1832, which significantly expanded the percentage of male citizens who were allowed to vote. The 1832 reforms gave one in five adult males the right to vote. The property qualifications for voting were gradually lowered over the decades, enfranchising more and more people, before they were finally abolished in 1928. During this time, the educational, social, and cultural level of the British masses was gradually raised, which enabled a successful transition to majority rule without destabilizing the social order.

In the United States, the founding fathers set out to create a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. At the time the Constitution was adopted, half of the white adult male population could not meet the property qualification for voting in elections. Because women could not vote, that meant that only 25 percent of the white citizens of the US were entitled to vote. The U.S. finally gained the universal franchise in 1965, where adult citizens of both genders and all races were given the right to vote. By this time, the majority of American families were middle-class people who owned their homes—and therefore, such a measure did not threaten the stability of the market economy. Given that Britain and the US took so long to build well-functioning democratic systems, it is unrealistic to expect African nations to have set up successful democratic societies, given the high poverty rates and the low levels of civilization of most of the population.

Classical liberals have long said that one cannot build a free society without putting in place a political system that protected property rights. The 17th Century English philosopher, John Locke, asserted that the prerequisites for a free society were the protection of life, liberty, and property. Locke did not limit his definition of property to material goods, but included as a form of property the ownership of one’s labor. Twentieth century Communists understood that, by abolishing private property through nationalization, they would completely strip private citizens of their means of self-support and independence, reducing them to the status of slaves. This led to a situation where people living under Communism were completely dependent on the government for their very survival, which allowed the government to control every aspect of their lives.

With this understanding of liberalism, Ian Douglas Smith, the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, can be rightly regarded as Africa’s first classical liberal revolutionary. In 1965, he led a revolution for freedom, when he initiated the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) of Rhodesia from Britain. The UDI was intended to preserve Christianity, freedom, and civilization. For that courageous action, Smith became one of the most vilified men in history, and his country was subjected to comprehensive United Nations economic sanctions in 1966. He was falsely labeled as a racist and white supremacist. But, unlike the architects of apartheid in neighboring South Africa, he has never supported claims that blacks are inherently inferior. However, like Buckley, Smith recognized that the low levels of education and cultural development of most of the blacks, made the establishment of a successful pure democracy a difficult undertaking.

In addition, there were numerous previous examples of failed attempts to establish pure democracies in Africa, from Guinea and Ghana, to Nigeria and Uganda, and there was good reason to expect that Rhodesia would follow a similarly tragic path if the universal franchise was extended. Facing a possible future of either a Marxist dictatorship or anarchy, the Rhodesian leadership declared independence and prevented Britain from imposing majority rule in the colony. The lives, liberty, and property of people of all races in Rhodesia were preserved.

Smith was motivated by the desire to uphold the historical Anglo-Saxon tradition of limiting the vote to that segment of the population that would be able to use it responsibly. The Rhodesian UDI of 1965 was modeled on the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Rhodesians had great respect and admiration for America. However, the Rhodesian admiration for America was not reciprocated, and the U.S. joined the rest of the world in denouncing and isolating a friendly country.

The Rhodesian government was unfairly compared to the segregationist state governments of the American South, and to South Africa under apartheid rule. However, Rhodesia did not have the rigid racial segregation that characterized those two other systems of government, and Blacks were allowed to vote in Rhodesian elections. Blacks were allowed to have 16 seats in the 66 member Rhodesian parliament, while whites held 50 seats. Voting was limited to those who could meet the literacy and property ownership qualifications, just like in Britain and the United States in the relatively recent past. Rhodesia was a limited democracy, not a pure democracy.

It was expected that, with time, as black Rhodesians became better educated and more prosperous, they would gradually gain greater representation in the Rhodesian Parliament. Eventually, white and black Rhodesians would share power in the Rhodesian Parliament, under a 50-50 arrangement. This position fell short of majority rule. But since the whites had created and built the country, and were expected to pay a disproportionate share of the taxes even in the future, this arrangement seemed to be fair. Many white and black Rhodesians felt that this power sharing model would prevent Rhodesia from becoming a Marxist dictatorship like Nkrumah’s Ghana, or deteriorating into the chaos of the democratic republics of Congo and Somalia. But the international community would not accept anything less than black majority rule.

By the mid 1970s, Rhodesia had, proportionally, the largest black middle-class in Africa, and it was growing rapidly. This was despite the fact that Rhodesia was under U.N. economic sanctions, and the government was spending vast sums of money waging a war against Marxist terrorists, who were based in neighboring Mozambique and Zambia. Despite those challenges, Rhodesia was a successful limited democracy, governed by the rule of law, having independent courts, and a multiparty system of government. The leader of the official opposition in parliament was black, and he and other black members of parliament were able to openly criticize Prime Minister Smith and his government for what they felt were their shortcomings. This was in stark contrast to the situation in the rest of Africa, where one-party dictatorial rule was the norm, and criticism of the president was equated with treason.

In 1979, a power-sharing agreement between white Rhodesians and their moderate black allies was arrived at. Free and fair elections were held under universal suffrage, which led to black majority rule, but there were strong guarantees put in place to protect white minority rights. The new government was headed by the moderate black clergyman, Abel Muzorewa, and he was committed to maintaining Rhodesia’s capitalist system and its economic prosperity. However, Muzorewa’s government was denied recognition by the West, and Rhodesia remained under U.N. economic sanctions. U.S. President Jimmy Carter and British Prime Minister James Callaghan, demanded new elections that would include the participation of terrorist leaders who did not believe in the democratic process.

New elections were held in 1980, and the Maoist terrorist Robert Mugabe won the vote through appeals to tribal sentiment and by intimidating rural voters in the Shona-dominated provinces. Mugabe was a devoted student of Kwame Nkrumah, having lived and worked in Nkrumah’s Ghana in the late 1950s, where he closely observed how his mentor managed his government. Since 1980, Rhodesians (now called Zimbabweans), have had less freedom than they ever had under Smith.

The economy of Zimbabwe gradually declined from 1980 to 1999. In the year 2000, the Mugabe regime launched the infamous invasions of white-owned farms that completely destroyed the country’s agriculturally-based economy. Ironically, the Zimbabwean government already owned millions of acres of land, which it could have re-distributed to poor blacks, without touching the white-owned farms. But Mugabe did not want a sensible solution to the land question. He was driven by the desire to punish white Zimbabweans for supporting the emerging opposition party, known as the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). As anyone with knowledge of the situation in Zimbabwe knows, Mugabe never had any intention of helping Zimbabwe’s poor, despite his rhetoric on the issue. The black middle-class, which had thrived under Smith, has now been almost completely wiped out. Just as the Bolsheviks of the former Soviet Union enslaved the Russian people by abolishing private property, Mugabe is now in the process of seizing privately-owned business enterprises, just as he seized the white-owned commercial farms. Instead of condemning Mugabe, corrupt African politicians view Mugabe as some sort of hero, for his defiance of the West.

Out of concern for Africa’s future, I founded the African Conservative Forum (ACF) in May, 2007. My organization seeks not just the downfall of the Mugabe regime, but the complete dismantling of the disastrous Marxist legacy that Nkrumah and Mugabe have bequeathed to Africa. One of the major tasks that I plan to undertake is the distribution of 10,000 copies of Ian Smith’s autobiography, The Great Betrayal, to African legislators, civil servants, academics, journalists, university students, diplomats and others. Individuals or organizations that may be interested in assisting in this important task, can contact me.

Reading Smith’s memoirs changed my life. His book helped to make me a conservative. If African intellectuals were to get an opportunity to read his autobiography, they would realize, as I did, that the true freedom fighter from Rhodesia is Ian Smith, not Robert Mugabe. Once they learn about the link between property and freedom, and how pure democracy and political independence do not necessarily translate into freedom, then they would get a true idea of what freedom is all about.

If there is any African leader who deserves a presidential library, it is Ian Smith. His memoirs spell out how Africa can move forward to a future of liberty and prosperity. It is often said that prophets are not honored in their home countries. Smith can accurately be described as a prophet, because he predicted disaster for Rhodesia once it came under the control of the communist terrorist, Robert Mugabe. Many people who opposed Smith in the past are finally coming to realize how right he was. In the British Sunday Times newspaper of September 23, 2007, Judith Todd, a left-liberal human rights activist who was one of Smith’s most outspoken opponents in the 1970s, now admits that “Mugabe was rotten from the start”.

Not surprisingly, the Marxist government of Zimbabwe viciously attacks Smith’s legacy in the history books and in the state-controlled media. But what is more difficult to understand is the reaction of the brave men and women who make up the opposition to the Mugabe regime, whenever the UDI era is mentioned. Zimbabwean opposition activists, both white and black, make strenuous efforts to distance themselves from Smith, out of fear of being labeled lackeys of the colonialists by the Mugabe regime.

The minds of the Zimbabwean people have been so poisoned against Smith, that it seems highly unlikely that he will receive the honor he truly deserves, even if the opposition comes to power in the next general elections scheduled for 2008. I often dream about building an Ian Smith Library here in Nairobi, where I would be able to educate future generations of African leaders about Smith’s admirable legacy. But I guess, given the high cost of such a project, it will remain an impossible dream.

In 1980, when Mugabe came to power, Rhodesia had a GDP per capita that was comparable to that of Malaysia. Today, Malaysia is hailed around the world as one of East Asia’s great economic success stories, and is a newly industrialized country that manufactures goods of all sorts. Yet, in 1980, Rhodesia had economic policies that were more business-friendly than those of Malaysia, and a civil service that was far more honest and efficient than Malaysia’s. Both nations are former British colonies, and have a public service modeled on that of Britain.

Where would Rhodesia be today, if Ian Smith’s vision of power-sharing rather than majority rule, had come to pass? I will try to hazard a guess. Rhodesia would have experienced an economic boom without precedent in Africa’s history, with impressive double-digit growth in the 1980s, 1990s, and beyond. The white population would probably be double what it was in 1980, growing from 250,000 to 500,000. This would have been partly as a result of natural increase, because of the lower costs of raising children in Rhodesia. Many of the hundreds of thousands of Portuguese settlers who fled from the Communist revolutions in Angola and Mozambique would have moved to Rhodesia. There would also have been some immigration from South Africa, as well as from many Western nations, attracted by Rhodesia’s pleasant climate and promising economic future. All those whites would have brought useful skills that would have benefited the country immensely.

Interestingly, the dynamism of the free market would have reduced the racial disparities in land ownership in a fair and transparent manner. This is because the rapid growth in manufacturing, tourism, and other industries, would have led to many black workers abandoning their jobs in the white farms for better economic opportunities in the cities. The resulting rise in average black agricultural wages would have put many white farms out of business, and some of the farmers would have been forced to sub-divide and sell their farms. The newly economically empowered blacks would have purchased plots of land for residential use, or for small-scale horticulture.

If Smith’s vision had prevailed, Zimbabwe would have had a GDP per capita equal to, or higher than, that of Malaysia. But the sad reality is that Zimbabwe’s GDP per capita today is lower than that of Haiti. The Caribbean nations of Barbados and the Bahamas are majority black former British colonies, and they can provide us with a model of what the future could have been in Rhodesia, if the Communists had not taken over. Both nations have maintained the colonial tradition of providing strong protections for property rights, and, today, both nations have a GDP per capita higher than that of Malaysia.

My British and American friends often ask me to predict the future of South Africa, and whether that nation will go the way of Zimbabwe. I am often tempted to tell them what they want to hear – the politically-correct answer that the situations in Zimbabwe and South Africa are different, and that all is well in South Africa. But the past record of the ANC does not give me much cause for optimism. During the days of white rule, the ANC worked to mobilize black support by stirring up anti-white hatred. The late ANC activist, Peter Mokaba, is credited with creating the infamous chant, “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer”. Not to be outdone, the main rival of the ANC among the black radicals, the PAC party, had its own rallying cry, “One settler, one bullet”.

As one can expect, the anti-white hatred that the ANC and PAC stirred up during the era of white rule, did not dissipate with the coming of majority rule. The ANC leadership blames all its failures on whites and the supposed ‘legacy of apartheid’. There has also been an explosion in the rate of violent crime, in which whites have been disproportionately targeted, and which the ANC has shown an unwillingness to deal with. Some 210,000 blacks and 40,000 whites have been murdered since 1994. When he was challenged on his failure to tackle violent crime, the South African Security Minister, Charles Nqakula, told his critics that if they were unhappy with the conditions in South Africa they should leave the country. His statement was widely understood as being targeted at South African whites.

Blacks in South Africa enjoy one of the highest standards of living in Africa. Yet the ANC blames whites for the poverty and landlessness of much of the black population. The government of South Africa owns millions of hectares, and is the largest land owner in South Africa. Instead of offering this land to South Africa’s poor people of all races, the ANC focuses on making the blacks envious of the white land owners who produce most of South Africa’s food. The ANC plans to maintain its hold on power for decades to come, by inciting racial resentment against the white minority. There is a real danger that the country may join the long list of failed democracies in Africa. Unless a new generation of enlightened black leaders emerges in South Africa, committed to promoting Christian values, property rights, and free market economic policies, South Africa’s future looks bleak.

By Mukui Waruiru

Mr. Waruiru, a native of Kenya, is the founder of the African Conservative Forum, a Christian human rights and public policy organization based in Nairobi.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

How safe will you be in South Africa in 2010?

Durban - At least 830 of KwaZulu-Natal’s law enforcement officers are under investigation for a host of crimes ranging from assault through to rape and murder, figures released by the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) on Wednesday revealed.

Of the 830 law enforcement officers - which include members of the SAPS, eThekwini Metro Police and other municipal police services - only one officer was convicted.

This was a police officer from the High Flats police station who was sentenced to 30 years for murder.

The crimes for which the officers were under investigation included death in police custody or as a result of police action, misconduct, neglect of duties, rape, domestic violence, assault to do grievous bodily harm, murder and corruption.

KwaZulu-Natal provincial head of the ICD, Tabisa Ralo, on Wednesday told Sapa that of the 830 law enforcement officers being probed, 174 were being scrutinised for deaths in police custody or as a result of police action.

Another 289 were being investigated for misconduct while 351 were under investigation for failing to carry out their duties.

She said misconduct cases included assault to do grievous bodily harm, rape, indecent assault, extortion and corruption.

Up to 16 police officers had domestic violence cases filed against them by their own family members.

In the 2003/2004 financial year ending March 31 2004, figures on the ICD website showed that the directorate in the province had dealt with 725 complaints.

Most cases in Western Cape

This increased to 728 complaints by March 31 2005 - at least 102 cases less than the 830 cases Ralo said the ICD had on its books for the year ended 31 December 2007.

According to the website, the Western Cape had the biggest number of cases filed against its law enforcement officers in the year ending March 2004 with 1 289 cases. This decreased the following year to 1 257.

The second highest was Gauteng while the Northern Cape province was the lowest with only 292 complaints being investigated in the year ending March 2004.

This, however, increased a year later to 439 cases. The total number of cases investigated nationally by the ICD for the 2003/2004 financial year stood at 5 903.

A year later, it dropped slightly to 5 790.

More people died at the hands of KwaZulu-Natal’s law enforcement officers than any other province.

In the financial year ending March 31 2005 there were 175 cases filed against law enforcement officers for deaths in police custody or as a result of police action (a Class 1 offence).

Not much change in 2007

Ralo’s figures released on Wednesday revealed that in 2007 not much had changed - 174 officers were being investigated for the same offences.

Of the 174 officers being examined, 146 were SAPS members while 28 were municipal or metro police officers.

“The role of the ICD forms part of an ongoing commitment to transform policing in South Africa ,” said Ralo.

“The ICD is an independent mechanism established to ensure that policing in our country takes place within human rights and that those officers who do not uphold the rule of law, are held accountable for their actions,” she said.

However, she said there was a need to keep good relations with other state organs in order to preserve peace.

“There is a need to forge and maintain good relations with other state organs in a quest to preserve peace, national unity and the indivisibility of our country and secure the well-being of the people of South Africa ,” Ralo said.


eThekwini Metro Police spokesperson Superintendent John Tyala said he believed that less then ten metro officers were under investigation by the ICD.

“Our management has committed itself to clamp down on corruption and this has served as a deterrent to other members.”

Tyala urged members of the public not to attempt to bribe his officers.

“Don’t bribe our members because you will be enticing them … they too have families and if they lose their jobs what will be their future?” he said.

“They will be unemployed.”

Tyala encouraged members of the public to report cases because: “We are servants of the public and you invest in us to do our job - so please come forward and report crimes committed by our members”.

Provincial police spokesperson, Director Phindile Radebe, said: “I’m not aware of this (the figures released by Ralo)…I’ll come back to you.”

Ralo said her team was committed to curb acts of criminality and misconduct.

Source: “830 KZN cops investigated”, News24, 14 February 2008

A wounded Nation

(An article from the Scottish Sunday Herald on 10 February 2008.)

The lights are literally and figuratively going out all over South Africa as crime, corruption and mismanagement push the rainbow country towards becoming another failed african state.

By Fred Bridgland in Johannesburg

AFTER BATHING in the warm, fuzzy glow of the Mandela years, South Africans today are deeply demoralised people. The lights are going out in homes, mines, factories and shopping malls as the national power authority, Eskom - suffering from mismanagement, lack of foresight, a failure to maintain power stations and a flight of skilled engineers to other countries - implements rolling power cuts that plunge towns and cities into daily chaos.

Major industrial projects are on hold. The only healthy enterprise now worth being involved in is the sale of small diesel generators to powerless households but even this business has run out of supplies and spare parts from China.

The currency, the rand, has entered freefall. Crime, much of it gratuitously violent, is rampant, and the national police chief faces trial for corruption and defeating the ends of justice as a result of his alleged deals with a local mafia kingpin and dealer in hard drugs.

Newly elected African National Congress (ANC) leader Jacob Zuma, the state president-in-waiting, narrowly escaped being jailed for raping an HIV-positive woman last year, and faces trial later this year for soliciting and accepting bribes in connection with South Africa's shady multi-billion-pound arms deal with British, German and French weapons manufacturers.

One local newspaper columnist suggests that Zuma has done for South Africa's international image what Borat has done for Kazakhstan. ANC leaders in 2008 still speak in the spiritually dead jargon they learned in exile in pre-1989 Moscow, East Berlin and Sofia while promiscuously embracing capitalist icons - Mercedes 4x4s, Hugo Boss suits, Bruno Magli shoes and Louis Vuitton bags which they swing, packed with money passed to them under countless tables - as they wing their way to their houses in the south of France.

It all adds up to a hydra-headed crisis of huge proportions - a perfect storm as the Rainbow Nation slides off the end of the rainbow and descends in the direction of the massed ranks of failed African states. Eskom has warned foreign investors with millions to sink into big industrial and mining projects: we don't want you here until at least 2013, when new power stations will be built.

In the first month of this year, the rand fell 12% against the world's major currencies and foreign investors sold off more than £600 million worth of South African stocks, the biggest sell-off for more than seven years.

"There will be further outflows this month, because there won't be any news that will convince investors the local growth picture is going to change for the better," said Rudi van der Merwe, a fund manager at South Africa's Standard Bank.

Commenting on the massive power cuts, Trevor Gaunt, professor of electrical engineering at the University of Cape Town, who warned the government eight years ago of the impending crisis, said: "The damage is huge, and now South Africa looks just like the rest of Africa. Maybe it will take 20 years to recover."

The power cuts have hit the country's platinum, gold, manganese and high-quality export coal mines particularly hard, with no production on some days and only 40% to 60% on others.

"The shutdown of the mining industry is an extraordinary, unprecedented event," said Anton Eberhard, a leading energy expert and professor of business studies at the University of Cape Town.

"That's a powerful message, massively damaging to South Africa's reputation for new investment. Our country was built on the mines."

To examine how the country, widely hailed as Africa's last best chance, arrived at this parlous state, the particular troubles engulfing the Scorpions (the popular name of the National Prosecuting Authority) offers a useful starting point.

The elite unit, modelled on America's FBI and operating in close co-operation with Britain's Serious Fraud Office (SFO), is one of the big successes of post-apartheid South Africa. An independent institution, separate from the slipshod South African Police Service, the Scorpions enjoy massive public support.

The unit's edict is to focus on people "who commit and profit from organised crime", and it has been hugely successful in carrying out its mandate. It has pursued and pinned down thousands of high-profile and complex networks of national and international corporate and public fraudsters.

Drug kingpins, smugglers and racketeers have felt the Scorpions' sting. A major gang that smuggle platinum, South Africa's biggest foreign exchange earner, to a corrupt English smelting plant has been bust as the result of a huge joint operation between the SFO and the Scorpions. But the Scorpions, whose top men were trained by Scotland Yard, have been too successful for their own good.

The ANC government never anticipated the crack crimebusters would take their constitutional independence seriously and investigate the top ranks of the former liberation movement itself.

The Scorpions have probed into, and successfully prosecuted, ANC MPs who falsified their parliamentary expenses. They secured a jail sentence for the ANC's chief whip, who took bribes from the German weapons manufacturer that sold frigates and submarines to the South African Defence Force. They sent to jail for 15 years a businessman who paid hundreds of bribes to then state vice-president Jacob Zuma in connection with the arms deal. Zuma was found by the judge to have a corrupt relationship with the businessman, and now the Scorpions have charged Zuma himself with fraud, corruption, tax evasion, racketeering and defeating the ends of justice. His trial will begin in August.

The Scorpions last month charged Jackie Selebi, the national police chief, a close friend of state president Thabo Mbeki, with corruption and defeating the ends of justice. Commissioner Selebi, who infamously called a white police sergeant a "f***ing chimpanzee" when she failed to recognise him during an unannounced visit to her Pretoria station, has stepped down pending his trial.

But now both wings of the venomously divided ANC - ANC-Mbeki and ANC-Zuma - want the Scorpions crushed, ideally by June this year. The message this will send to the outside world is that South Africa's rulers want only certain categories of crime investigated, while leaving government ministers and other politicians free to stuff their already heavily lined pockets.

No good reason for emasculating the Scorpions has been put forward. "That's because there isn't one," said Peter Bruce, editor of the influential Business Day, South Africa's equivalent of, and part-owned by, The Financial Times, in his weekly column.

"The Scorpions are being killed off because they investigate too much corruption that involves ANC leaders. It is as simple and ugly as that," he added.

The demise of the Scorpions can only exacerbate South Africa's out-of-control crime situation, ranked for its scale and violence only behind Colombia. Everyone has friends and acquaintances who have had guns held to their heads by gangsters, who also blow up ATM machines and hijack security trucks, sawing off their roofs to get at the cash.

In the past few days my next-door neighbour, John Matshikiza, a distinguished actor who trained at the Royal Shakespeare Company and is the son of the composer of the South African musical King Kong, had been violently attacked, and friends visiting from Zimbabwe had their car stolen outside my front window in broad daylight.

My friends flew home to Zimbabwe without their car and the tinned food supplies they had bought to help withstand their country's dire political and food crisis and 27,000% inflation. Matshikiza, a former member of the Glasgow Citizens Theatre company, was held up by three gunmen as he drove his car into his garage late at night. He gave them his car keys, wallet, cellphone and luxury watch and begged them not to harm his partner, who was inside the house.

As one gunman drove the car away, the other two beat Matshikiza unconscious with broken bottles, and now his head is so comprehensively stitched that it looks like a map of the London Underground.

These assaults were personal, but mild compared with much commonplace crime.

Last week, for example, 18-year-old Razelle Botha, who passed all her A-levels with marks of more than 90% and was about to train as a doctor, returned home with her father, Professor Willem Botha, founder of the geophysics department at the University of Pretoria, from buying pizzas for the family. Inside the house, armed gunmen confronted them. They shot Professor Botha in the leg and pumped bullets into Razelle.

One severed her spine. Now she is fighting for her life and will never walk again, and may never become a doctor. The gunmen stole a laptop computer and a camera.

Feeding the perfect storm are the two centres of ANC power in the country at the moment. On the one hand, there is the ANC in parliament, led by President Mbeki, who last Friday gave a state-of-the-nation address and apologised to the country for the power crisis.

Mbeki made only the briefest of mentions of the national Aids crisis, with more than six million people HIV-positive. He did not address the Scorpions crisis. The collapsing public hospital system, under his eccentric health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, an alcoholic who recently jumped the public queue for a liver transplant, received no attention. And the name Jacob Zuma did not pass his lips.

Last December Mbeki and Zuma stood against each other for the leadership of the ANC at the party's five-yearly electoral congress. Mbeki, who cannot stand again as state president beyond next year's parliamentary and presidential elections, hoped to remain the power behind the throne of a new state president of his choosing.

Zuma, a Zulu populist with some 20 children by various wives and mistresses, hoped to prove that last year's rape case, and the trial he faces this year for corruption and other charges, were part of a plot by Mbeki to use state institutions to discredit him. Mbeki assumed that the notion of Zuma assuming next year the mantle worn by Nelson Mandela as South Africa's first black state president would be so appalling to delegates, a deeply sad and precipitous decline, that his own re-election as ANC leader was a shoo-in.

But Mbeki completely miscalculated his own unpopularity - his perceived arrogance, failure to solve health and crime problems, his failure to deliver to the poor - and he lost. Now Zuma insists that he is the leader of the country and ANC MPs in parliament must take its orders from him, while Mbeki soldiers on until next year as state president, ordering MPs to toe his line.

Greatly understated, it is a mess. Its scale will be dramatically illustrated if South Africa's hosting of the 2010 World Cup is withdrawn by Fifa, the world football body.

Already South African premier league football evening games are being played after midnight because power for floodlights cannot be guaranteed before that time. Justice Malala, one of the country's top newspaper columnists, has called on Fifa to end the agony quickly.

"I don't want South Africa to host the football World Cup because there is no culture of responsibility in this country," he wrote in Johannesburg's bestselling Sunday Times.

"The most outrageous behaviour and incompetence is glossed over. No-one is fired. I have had enough of this nonsense, of keeping quiet and ignoring the fact that the train is about to run us over.

"It is increasingly clear that our leaders are incapable of making a success of it. Scrap the thing and give it to Australia, Germany or whoever will spare us the ignominy of watching things fall apart here - football tourists being held up and shot, the lights going out, while our politicians tell us everything is all right."

Living The Nightmare - Which is South Africa!!

Living in South Africa has become extremely unsafe!
Citizens of ALL races live in constant fear.

Below are some links to websites describing the problems we live daily in South Africa:

(Gatvol is a South African slang term which roughly translates as "Fed Up or Had Enough")

Genocide Being Committed Against South African Whites

Following is an article currently circulating the country (author unknown):

(Just to add, crime is effecting ALL races in South Africa - not only whites)

very day hundreds of mails are sent around the world, asking for help to save some animal species.

Is it not very strange how the whole world is ignoring the apparent Genocide being committed against the white people in South Africa?

This slaughter of whites by blacks is being portrayed in the media as - "merely crime related"

If the motive of the crime is theft, why is it necessary to take the life of the person that has already handed over their cell-phone or wallet?

If the motive for the crime is hijacking, why take the woman with them, gang-rape her and then slit her throat?

If the motive for house-breaking is petty theft, why throw boiling water over the farmers before killing them, - after forcing them to watch their wives being gang-raped and tortured in front of them?

Were the mass murders in Bosnia "merely crime related"?

Were the mass murders of Jews in Germany during WWII "merely crime related"?

Are the daily murders of various tribe members in Kenya "merely crime related"?


BUT... Why is it that the police can spend hundreds of thousands of Rands, and thousands of man-hours hunting down the one white that opened fire upon blacks in Skielik, whilst they cannot find any murderers of innocent, white children, women and men?

In any other countries a mass extermination of any tribe on such a scale would be considered Genocide, a crime against humanity, and an international outcry would follow.

Hundreds of peace keeper would be sent to South Africa .

The United Nations would hold a special sitting.

Headlines in the mass media would be screaming blue murder. The television channels would be filled with scenes of the dead bodies, and their grieving families.

Yet in South Africa , the murder of the white tribe by the blacks is reduced to a statistic and labelled "crime"

The state sponsored media hardly spares their murders a few lines.

The police refuse to release statistics on the extent of the murders.

What must we do to focus the world's attention on this GENOCIDE---disguised as crime?

If you're a concerned citizen, whether in South Africa or internationally, you are morally bound to act---NOW!!

Get letters published in your local media highlighting the plight of the white tribe in South Africa .

Ask why the ANC led South African Government is suppressing crime figures.

Ask why the murders of white citizens in South Africa are not being solved.

If, as the media are quick to proclaim "WHITES CONDUCTING A RACIST CAMPAIGN AGAINST BLACKS" why do you not hear hundreds of reports of whites killing blacks for their cell-phones?

Why are the whites not killing blacks for their cars?

Why are the whites not breaking into the upper class black neighbourhoods, raping and murdering the women, before making of with their TV sets?


Do your bit to help the White citizens of South Africa NOW!!

Send this mail to everyone you know throughout the world!! Alert the world to the mass extermination taking place right in front of their eyes. Alert all white tourists that are considering a visit to South Africa of the perils they will face. Criticize the international mass media for their failure to report on the daily occurrence of murder and rape.


Genocide' was coined by a jurist named Raphael Lemkin in 1944 by combining the Greek word 'genos' (race) with the

Latin word 'cide' (killing). Genocide as defined by the United Nations in 1948 means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, including: (a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

..any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

If you feel this is true for your situation, you have rights to be protected by the UN, you may have to leave SA and return another day...use them