In 1873 Francis Galton said the Chinese would be more competent at developing Africa than Africans are.
AFRICA FOR THE CHINESE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
[Francis Galton, letter to the Editor of The Times, June 5 1873.]
Note that this letter is commonly dated incorrectly as June 6 1873.
A rejoinder to Galton's letter, by one Gilbert Malcolm Sproat, is also included.
Sir, - In a few days Sir Bartle Frere will return to England, and public attention will be directed to the East Coast of Africa. I am desirous of availing myself of the opportunity to ventilate some speculations of my own, which you may, perhaps, consider of sufficient interest to deserve publication in the Times. My proposal is to make the encouragement of the Chinese settlements at one or more suitable places on the East Coast of Africa a par of our national policy, in the belief that the Chinese immigrants would not only maintain their position, but that they would multiply and their descendants supplant the inferior Negro race. I should expect the large part of the African seaboard, now sparsely occupied by lazy, palavering savages living under the nominal sovereignty of the Zanzibar, or Portugal, might in a few years be tenanted by industrious, order loving Chinese, living either as a semi-detached dependency of China, or else in perfect freedom under their own law. In the latter case their would be similar to that of the inhabitants of Liberia, in West Africa, the territory which was purchased 50 years ago and set apart as an independent State for the reception of freed negroes from America.
The opinion of the public on the real worth of the Negro race has halted between the extreme views which have been long and loudly proclaimed. It refuses to follow those of the early abolitionists, that all the barbarities in Africa are to be traced to the effects of a foreign slave trade, because travelers continually speak of similar barbarities existing in regions to which the slave trade has not penetrated. Captain Colomb has written a well-argued chapter on this matter, in his recent volume. On the other hand, the opinion of the present day repudiates the belief that the negro is an extremely inferior being, because there are notorious instances of negroes possessing high intelligence and culture, some of whom acquire large fortunes in commerce, and others become considerable men in other walks of life. The truth appears to be that individuals of the mental caliber I have just described are much more exceptional in the negro than in the Anglo-Saxon race, and that average negroes possess too little intellect, self-reliance, and self-control to make it possible for them to sustain the burden of any respectable form of civilization without a large measure of external guidance and support. The Chinaman is a being of another kind, who is endowed with a remarkable aptitude for a high material civilization. He is seen to the least advantage in his own country, where a temporary dark age still prevails, which has not sapped the genius of the race, though it has stunted the developed the of each member of it, by the rigid enforcement of an effete system of classical education which treats originality as a social crime. All the bad parts of his character, as his lying and servility, spring from timidity due to an education that has cowed him, and no treatment is better calculated to remedy that evil than location in a free settlement. The natural capacity of the Chinaman shows itself by the success with which, notwithstanding his timidity, he competes with strangers, wherever he may reside. The Chinese emigrants possess an extraordinary instinct for political and social organization; they contrive to establish for themselves a police and internal government, and they give no trouble to their rulers so long as they are left to manage those matters by themselves. They are good-tempered, frugal, industrious, saving, commercially inclined, and extraordinarily prolific. They thrive in all countries, the natives of the Southern provinces being perfectly able to labor and multiply in the hottest climates. Of all known varieties or mankind there is none so appropriate as the Chinaman to become the future occupant of the enormous regions which lie between the tropics, whose extent is far more vast than it appears, from the cramped manner in which those latitudes are pictured in the ordinary maps of the world. But take a globe and examine it, and consider the huge but poorly-peopled bulk of Africa, by whose side the areas of India and of China look insignificant, and think what a field lies there for the development of a suitable race. The Hindoo cannot fulfil the required conditions nearly as well as the Chinaman, for he is inferior to him in strength, industry, aptitude for saving, business habits, and prolific power. The Arab is little more than an eater up of other men’s produce; he is a destroyer rather than a creator, and he is unprolific.
The history of the world tells a tale of the continual displacement of populations, each by a worthier successor, and humanity gains thereby. We ourselves are no descendents of the aborigines of Britain, and our colonists were invaders of the regions they now occupy as their lawful home. But the countries into which the Anglo-Saxon race can be transfused are restricted to those where the climate is temperate. The Tropics are not for us, to inhabit permanently; the greater part of Africa is the heritage of people differently constituted to ourselves. On that continent, as elsewhere, one population continually drives out another. Consider its history as it extends over successive centuries. We note how Arab, Tuarick, Fellatah, Negroes of uncounted varieties, Cadre, Hottentot surge and reel to and fro in the struggle for existence. It is into this free flight among all present that I wish to see a new competitor introduced-namely, the Chinaman. The gain would be immense to the whole civilized world if we were to out-breed and finally displace the negro, as completely as the latter has displaced the aborigines of the West Indies. The magnitude of the gain may be partly estimated by making the converse supposition –namely, the loss that would ensue if China were somehow to be depopulated and restocked by negroes.
The pressure of population in China is enormous, and its outflow is great and increasing. There is no lack of material for a suitable immigration into Africa. I do not say that it would be possible at any moment to persuade communities of men and women from Southern China to establish themselves in Africa; but I am assured, by excellent authorities, that occasions of political disturbances frequently arise when it would be practicable to do so by the promise of a free, or nearly free, grant of land. The Chinese have a land hunger, as well as a love for petty traffic, and they would find a field in which to gratify both of these tastes on the East African Coast. There are many Chinese capitalists resident in foreign parts who might speculate in such a system and warmly encourage it. If once successfully started, it ought to maintain itself. The colonist could not starve; and when they began to succeed they would send money to their relatives to enable them to follow, just as they now do from the many other parts of the world where they are located. For these reasons it is probable that the streams of emigration from China have sufficient "head" to enable them to reach and overflow the coasts of Eastern Africa if they were watched and judiciously diverted in that direction.
I have finally to speak of the political effort necessary to secure a free right of occupancy and of settlement at suitable points on the coast. No very serious obstacle seems to stand in the way; certainly none was met with when Liberia was founded. It is probable that as the success of such an enterprise would be of equally great value to all nations commercially interested in those parts, no national jealousy would be excited by its promotion, and the necessary territory could be obtained with little difficulty and at a small cost, to be advanced in the first instance as a charge on the land and hereafter to be redeemed.
Francis Galton
Source: http://galton.org/letters/africa-for-chinese/AfricaForTheChinese.htm
Via
End Cultural Marxism @genophilia : http://destoryculturalmarxism.blogspot.com/2013/01/what-is-cultural-marxism.html
Thursday, 8 May 2014
Wednesday, 7 May 2014
So What Happens Now that SA #Elections2014 are over?
Besides religion / church and sport, nothing else divides a nation more than party politics. By making empty promises political parties are able break and prevent national unity at all levels.
As long as party politics continue to exist there will be division and friction. It is the perfect "divide and conquer" system.
For the first time in SA history do we vote, not because we believe the nonsense promises made by Pied Piper political parties, but to break the majority power of the ruling communist regime.
The ONLY value your vote has in this election is the potential to reduce the parliamentary voting power of the ANC, yet, political parties are still able to cause the necessary arguments and to put people off from voting, because of all the dissension they cause based on lies and false promises.
Not a single promise made by any political party can or will be honoured and they know it. It is all a load of nonsense. Even if another party was to win these elections, they would not be able to fire everyone appointed in positions they do not belong in because they do not qualify for those positions. We are stuck with what has been created, like it or not.
Successfully running a province inherited by default from another political party does not mean you can run an entire country as effectively
So today we vote and tomorrow life carries on, but because of political parties, with their greed for money and power, based on immature idealism and dreams, the voters will remain divided and this country will remain divided.
We have never experienced the level of dissension we've seen over the past few months. The infighting is nauseating, to say the least, and one cannot really blame anyone for not wanting to vote, because I myself had to drive myself to do so, simply because of one single motivating factor, the sense of responsibility in attempting to break the ANC's majority.
I doubt very much if we'll achieve it. Too many people have decided not to vote, which has been proven as the primary reason for the ANC's repeated success in retaining their majority since 1994.
So what happens now? Nothing,
What happens tomorrow? We listen to the Oscar Pistorius trial that is being used to draw our attention away from the more important issues like 400,000 murders, millions of rapes, thousands of assaults, attacks and hijackings since 1994.
Do the political parties really care what happens? No they do not. They do not give a damn, because they achieved what they set out to achieve; making it to the news, getting some extra funds, ensuring their salaries and pensions, while you and I are still arguing about which party we should have voted for based on their empty promises.
In the end the only thing that could potentially make a difference is if the ANC loses its huge majority in parliament, Should they lose, perhaps they'll find it more difficult to push through some of the racist anti-white legislation, but unfortunately:
Voting ANC is voting SA Communist Party
Not voting is voting ANC
Voting DA is voting ANC
Voting EFF is voting to speed-up ANC/SACP polices!
So even if the ANC was to lose its majority, the EFF and DA will support them in many instances by voting along with them in parliament and we'll still be screwed. Yet one white far rightwing party this morning even advised their followers to vote DA at provincial level?
The secondary reason for voting this time around is for whites to get as strong a representation / voice in parliament as possible.
Thanks to the division caused by non-politicians founding their own little parties, whites will also not longer be represented in parliament. The Freedom Front Plus has had to resort to coalitions and liberalising their party just in an an attempt to retain some votes and hold on to their place in parliament, albeit for their salaries or pensions or not. This has been on the cards for a long time coming, but now, should the FFPlus lose support and seats, we'll be lost without anyone in parliament speaking up on behalf of whites. We also need to keep in mind that the FFPlus has now been infiltrated by liberals, which is like playing Russian Roulette with a pistol.
The bottom-line is that whites will after tomorrow probably be totally screwed. We shall not be hearing from political parties again until the next elections. We would also have lost our representation in parliament and all the Alice in Wonderland promises made by idealistic parties are now dead and buried in this so-called "constitutionally driven" country.
What will the never-stood-a-chance political parties claim in their own defence? "But YOU did not vote for us!" YOU did not support us!" "That is why we cannot honour our misleading promises to YOU!"
Whites will now have to beg overseas countries to assist us in our survival, but unfortunately history has proven that it will not happen. Because of all the dissension created by political parties, the chances of unity are now virtually destroyed.
Whites will now be forced to change their attitudes and shift into pure "survival mode", because that is all that will now remain.
The one thing that may just perhaps count in our favour is if a large number blacks really decided not to vote, but sadly this will probably be counteracted by the equally large number of whites so confused and so despondent that they did not vote either.
Should whites lose their voice in parliament and should the ANC/SACP/DA/EFF political grouping retain or grow their majority, whites will have to sit back and make some very important and serious choices, but first and foremost will be to come to the realisation that we are now living in a black anti-white African communist country where whites have no rights and where whites are unwelcome. Anti-white xenophobia will grow exponentially and we shall have nowhere to run.
Take your party-political loyalties and shove it down the nearest toilet as quickly as possible and get into survival mode and do it fast.
Further Reading
Afrikaner community of Kleinfontein chose not to speak (vote) - Now forever hold your piece
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/the-place-where-people-don-t-vote-1.1684698?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=dlvr.it
Idi Amin and the Asians - What lies ahead for Whites, and all other minorities, in SA under the ANC after Elections 2014
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=611032&sn=Detail&pid=71616
As long as party politics continue to exist there will be division and friction. It is the perfect "divide and conquer" system.
For the first time in SA history do we vote, not because we believe the nonsense promises made by Pied Piper political parties, but to break the majority power of the ruling communist regime.
The ONLY value your vote has in this election is the potential to reduce the parliamentary voting power of the ANC, yet, political parties are still able to cause the necessary arguments and to put people off from voting, because of all the dissension they cause based on lies and false promises.
Not a single promise made by any political party can or will be honoured and they know it. It is all a load of nonsense. Even if another party was to win these elections, they would not be able to fire everyone appointed in positions they do not belong in because they do not qualify for those positions. We are stuck with what has been created, like it or not.
Successfully running a province inherited by default from another political party does not mean you can run an entire country as effectively
So today we vote and tomorrow life carries on, but because of political parties, with their greed for money and power, based on immature idealism and dreams, the voters will remain divided and this country will remain divided.
We have never experienced the level of dissension we've seen over the past few months. The infighting is nauseating, to say the least, and one cannot really blame anyone for not wanting to vote, because I myself had to drive myself to do so, simply because of one single motivating factor, the sense of responsibility in attempting to break the ANC's majority.
I doubt very much if we'll achieve it. Too many people have decided not to vote, which has been proven as the primary reason for the ANC's repeated success in retaining their majority since 1994.
So what happens now? Nothing,
What happens tomorrow? We listen to the Oscar Pistorius trial that is being used to draw our attention away from the more important issues like 400,000 murders, millions of rapes, thousands of assaults, attacks and hijackings since 1994.
Do the political parties really care what happens? No they do not. They do not give a damn, because they achieved what they set out to achieve; making it to the news, getting some extra funds, ensuring their salaries and pensions, while you and I are still arguing about which party we should have voted for based on their empty promises.
In the end the only thing that could potentially make a difference is if the ANC loses its huge majority in parliament, Should they lose, perhaps they'll find it more difficult to push through some of the racist anti-white legislation, but unfortunately:
Voting ANC is voting SA Communist Party
Not voting is voting ANC
Voting DA is voting ANC
Voting EFF is voting to speed-up ANC/SACP polices!
So even if the ANC was to lose its majority, the EFF and DA will support them in many instances by voting along with them in parliament and we'll still be screwed. Yet one white far rightwing party this morning even advised their followers to vote DA at provincial level?
The secondary reason for voting this time around is for whites to get as strong a representation / voice in parliament as possible.
Thanks to the division caused by non-politicians founding their own little parties, whites will also not longer be represented in parliament. The Freedom Front Plus has had to resort to coalitions and liberalising their party just in an an attempt to retain some votes and hold on to their place in parliament, albeit for their salaries or pensions or not. This has been on the cards for a long time coming, but now, should the FFPlus lose support and seats, we'll be lost without anyone in parliament speaking up on behalf of whites. We also need to keep in mind that the FFPlus has now been infiltrated by liberals, which is like playing Russian Roulette with a pistol.
The bottom-line is that whites will after tomorrow probably be totally screwed. We shall not be hearing from political parties again until the next elections. We would also have lost our representation in parliament and all the Alice in Wonderland promises made by idealistic parties are now dead and buried in this so-called "constitutionally driven" country.
What will the never-stood-a-chance political parties claim in their own defence? "But YOU did not vote for us!" YOU did not support us!" "That is why we cannot honour our misleading promises to YOU!"
Whites will now have to beg overseas countries to assist us in our survival, but unfortunately history has proven that it will not happen. Because of all the dissension created by political parties, the chances of unity are now virtually destroyed.
Whites will now be forced to change their attitudes and shift into pure "survival mode", because that is all that will now remain.
The one thing that may just perhaps count in our favour is if a large number blacks really decided not to vote, but sadly this will probably be counteracted by the equally large number of whites so confused and so despondent that they did not vote either.
Should whites lose their voice in parliament and should the ANC/SACP/DA/EFF political grouping retain or grow their majority, whites will have to sit back and make some very important and serious choices, but first and foremost will be to come to the realisation that we are now living in a black anti-white African communist country where whites have no rights and where whites are unwelcome. Anti-white xenophobia will grow exponentially and we shall have nowhere to run.
Take your party-political loyalties and shove it down the nearest toilet as quickly as possible and get into survival mode and do it fast.
Further Reading
Afrikaner community of Kleinfontein chose not to speak (vote) - Now forever hold your piece
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/the-place-where-people-don-t-vote-1.1684698?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=dlvr.it
Idi Amin and the Asians - What lies ahead for Whites, and all other minorities, in SA under the ANC after Elections 2014
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=611032&sn=Detail&pid=71616
Friday, 18 April 2014
Does South Africa Really Have A Constitution That Protects Its Citizens?
The following is an extract from a previous article:
In a Constitution driven system, every Law has to be tested against the Constitution. This means that a Law, such as the new Employment Equity Bill, should be measured to determine whether it honours and respects the Constitution. What happens in South Africa is that the Constitution is measured to determine if it actually does respect the needs of blacks. The current regime, with the help of liberals and supported by large corporations, use creative interpretation to show that the Constitution actually does support inequality and racial discrimination in order to favour blacks against all other race groups.
The fact is that this country's Constitution does not protect its citizens and it does not make provision for self-determination that so many tend to claim. If that was the case, why have self-determination groups been running abroad for help?
If South Africa truly was a democracy and its Constitution really was as good as everyone claims, no one would have needed to go outside the country for help, now would they?
It is disappointing how many South Africans are still depending on their "Constitution" as the "protector" of their so-called "rights".
A Constitution does not protect people. It is up to the people to protect their Constitution so as to ensure that their rights under the Constitution are retained. This has never happened in this country. Here everyone uses the Constitution as a punching ball, testing whether the Constitution actually really does offer them the protection they seek. A Constitution does not need to be tested. A Constitution needs to be protected, period.
No one has yet stood up to protect this Constitution. 70% of this country supports this regime that has been raping this Constitution at each and every opportunity. Big corporations have been using the Constitution to their own advantage just as much as the regime has been doing. Never once has anyone demanded the Constitution be respected in terms of its provisions for equality. BEE and Affirmative Action have been openly and publicly raping the Constitution.
This regime views the Constitution as a pest hindering them in their path to destruction and plundering of this country. They have been using "creative interpretation" to implement racist legislation like land redistribution, Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment with the support of the appeasing large corporations.
Large corporations would much rather appease a corrupt regime than go up against it by demanding respect for the Constitution. There is much more money to be made, in the long term, from appeasing and bribing a corrupt regime than supporting a Constitution for the sake of the country. In the US the public have been fighting to protect their Constitution, while in SA people have been fighting for their rights by raping the constitution.
Under a real Constitution one declares and demands one's rights in terms of the Constitution. In the US, where they actually do have a real Constitution, no one would dare refuse someone anything specifically provided for under their Constitution. They demand their rights in terms of the relevant amendments under their Constitution. In South Africa you would have to go to court, so a bunch of liberal communists could decide whether you actually do have that right in terms of this so-called "Constitution”. This is not a Constitution, this is rubbish. You have no rights under this constitution unless a court says you do.
The AA, BEE, Employment Equity Laws, Land Redistribution and so many other laws and regulations, have proven that this constitution is not worth the paper it is printed on. Yet we are promised self-determination under this same Constitution that has not been able to protect any white person from being fired to make room for a black? The Constitution is not for South African citizens, but for blacks, period. No one is equal under this constitution, because blacks outclass and overrule all other races in terms of the way this constitution is being raped without opposition from anyone. No one can demand a job interview based on this Constitution. No one can demand their legal ownership of their own bought-and-paid-for land under this piece of toilet paper called a "Constitution". Do not even use the word, because there is no such thing as a Constitution in this country, let alone "guaranteed rights" promised by naive "leaders".
The NP promised a wonderful, safe, peaceful new South Africa with a rainbow nation and whites believed their empty promises of "checks and balances". Blacks keep voting ANC because the ANC keeps making empty promises and whites keep following self-determination groups, because those groups keep making empty promises based on "rights", supposedly "guaranteed under the Constitutional". And, we think we are "different"?
Before we can achieve anything in this country we would first need to learn what a Constitution really is. We would first need to decide whether this is a Constitution for us, and a Constitution that we could respect to such an extent that we would be willing to fight for it, just like the Americans are willing to fight for their Constitution. We need to make this Constitution our own if we feel it deserves it. We would first need to learn to fight for our Constitution. We would first need to learn to defend and protect our Constitution. Only once we have achieved that can we demand our rights afforded by the Constitution.
The problem is that this is not a Constitution of the people, because this Constitution was never approved by the people. It was drawn up and approved by politicians. It was never put to the test in a referendum to determine whether the citizens actually accept it as their Constitution. The citizens have never taken ownership of it, because it belongs to politicians, drawn up by politicians for use by politicians. This is NOT our Constitution. This Constitution does not belong to the citizens of this country, which is why the citizens cannot defend it. It is just another piece of legislation used against you, period.
The South African Constitution protects you and your rights only in as far as the Constitutional Court is able to prove that it does, and then only if you have the money to take your case to it.
Further Reading
The ANC constitution does not officially ban corruption
The ANC aims to amend the already fake Constitution and the official ANC constitution does not forbid or punish corruption. The term corruption is not listed or defined as a key term in the latest version of the official constitution of the ANC.
Zuma: Make ANC the govt of W Cape again
"Affirmative action is designed to protect and promote Coloureds as well, not just Africans.": Zuma
"Affirmative action is designed to protect and promote" blacks against whites? Because they fear having to compete on a level playing field?
Now this is done under the "Constitution" that is supposed to be the protector of all South Africans?
In a Constitution driven system, every Law has to be tested against the Constitution. This means that a Law, such as the new Employment Equity Bill, should be measured to determine whether it honours and respects the Constitution. What happens in South Africa is that the Constitution is measured to determine if it actually does respect the needs of blacks. The current regime, with the help of liberals and supported by large corporations, use creative interpretation to show that the Constitution actually does support inequality and racial discrimination in order to favour blacks against all other race groups.
The fact is that this country's Constitution does not protect its citizens and it does not make provision for self-determination that so many tend to claim. If that was the case, why have self-determination groups been running abroad for help?
If South Africa truly was a democracy and its Constitution really was as good as everyone claims, no one would have needed to go outside the country for help, now would they?
It is disappointing how many South Africans are still depending on their "Constitution" as the "protector" of their so-called "rights".
A Constitution does not protect people. It is up to the people to protect their Constitution so as to ensure that their rights under the Constitution are retained. This has never happened in this country. Here everyone uses the Constitution as a punching ball, testing whether the Constitution actually really does offer them the protection they seek. A Constitution does not need to be tested. A Constitution needs to be protected, period.
No one has yet stood up to protect this Constitution. 70% of this country supports this regime that has been raping this Constitution at each and every opportunity. Big corporations have been using the Constitution to their own advantage just as much as the regime has been doing. Never once has anyone demanded the Constitution be respected in terms of its provisions for equality. BEE and Affirmative Action have been openly and publicly raping the Constitution.
This regime views the Constitution as a pest hindering them in their path to destruction and plundering of this country. They have been using "creative interpretation" to implement racist legislation like land redistribution, Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment with the support of the appeasing large corporations.
Large corporations would much rather appease a corrupt regime than go up against it by demanding respect for the Constitution. There is much more money to be made, in the long term, from appeasing and bribing a corrupt regime than supporting a Constitution for the sake of the country. In the US the public have been fighting to protect their Constitution, while in SA people have been fighting for their rights by raping the constitution.
Under a real Constitution one declares and demands one's rights in terms of the Constitution. In the US, where they actually do have a real Constitution, no one would dare refuse someone anything specifically provided for under their Constitution. They demand their rights in terms of the relevant amendments under their Constitution. In South Africa you would have to go to court, so a bunch of liberal communists could decide whether you actually do have that right in terms of this so-called "Constitution”. This is not a Constitution, this is rubbish. You have no rights under this constitution unless a court says you do.
The AA, BEE, Employment Equity Laws, Land Redistribution and so many other laws and regulations, have proven that this constitution is not worth the paper it is printed on. Yet we are promised self-determination under this same Constitution that has not been able to protect any white person from being fired to make room for a black? The Constitution is not for South African citizens, but for blacks, period. No one is equal under this constitution, because blacks outclass and overrule all other races in terms of the way this constitution is being raped without opposition from anyone. No one can demand a job interview based on this Constitution. No one can demand their legal ownership of their own bought-and-paid-for land under this piece of toilet paper called a "Constitution". Do not even use the word, because there is no such thing as a Constitution in this country, let alone "guaranteed rights" promised by naive "leaders".
The NP promised a wonderful, safe, peaceful new South Africa with a rainbow nation and whites believed their empty promises of "checks and balances". Blacks keep voting ANC because the ANC keeps making empty promises and whites keep following self-determination groups, because those groups keep making empty promises based on "rights", supposedly "guaranteed under the Constitutional". And, we think we are "different"?
Before we can achieve anything in this country we would first need to learn what a Constitution really is. We would first need to decide whether this is a Constitution for us, and a Constitution that we could respect to such an extent that we would be willing to fight for it, just like the Americans are willing to fight for their Constitution. We need to make this Constitution our own if we feel it deserves it. We would first need to learn to fight for our Constitution. We would first need to learn to defend and protect our Constitution. Only once we have achieved that can we demand our rights afforded by the Constitution.
The problem is that this is not a Constitution of the people, because this Constitution was never approved by the people. It was drawn up and approved by politicians. It was never put to the test in a referendum to determine whether the citizens actually accept it as their Constitution. The citizens have never taken ownership of it, because it belongs to politicians, drawn up by politicians for use by politicians. This is NOT our Constitution. This Constitution does not belong to the citizens of this country, which is why the citizens cannot defend it. It is just another piece of legislation used against you, period.
The South African Constitution protects you and your rights only in as far as the Constitutional Court is able to prove that it does, and then only if you have the money to take your case to it.
Further Reading
The ANC constitution does not officially ban corruption
The ANC aims to amend the already fake Constitution and the official ANC constitution does not forbid or punish corruption. The term corruption is not listed or defined as a key term in the latest version of the official constitution of the ANC.
Zuma: Make ANC the govt of W Cape again
"Affirmative action is designed to protect and promote Coloureds as well, not just Africans.": Zuma
"Affirmative action is designed to protect and promote" blacks against whites? Because they fear having to compete on a level playing field?
Now this is done under the "Constitution" that is supposed to be the protector of all South Africans?
Wednesday, 2 April 2014
Apology to readers of ToxiNews blog
I started out blogging because I became so frustrated with the situation in South Africa, but I have to admit that I'm not a blogger. I am just another person in a regular day-job writing about things that bother and affect us, from my own personal perspective.
This morning when, I once again wondered why no one was commenting on my blog posts, I went to check my blogger settings. I then realised there were hundreds of comments lying awaiting my "approval"?
I do not believe anyone's comments should be "approved" first. Would you believe that there is a setting where a blogger can actually choose this?:
Comment Moderation ?
Always
Sometimes
Never
Well I never. If I am free to write what I feel, so should readers be free to comment, argue and debate as they wish.
It was set to "Always", but I have now changed it to "Never".
I apologise to all those who had commented and never saw their comments appearing beneath the articles. It did take me a few years to actually realise this error.
I really do enjoy your comments and please feel free to comment as you please.
Kind regards and thank you for the support.
ToxiNews
This morning when, I once again wondered why no one was commenting on my blog posts, I went to check my blogger settings. I then realised there were hundreds of comments lying awaiting my "approval"?
I do not believe anyone's comments should be "approved" first. Would you believe that there is a setting where a blogger can actually choose this?:
Comment Moderation ?
Always
Sometimes
Never
Well I never. If I am free to write what I feel, so should readers be free to comment, argue and debate as they wish.
It was set to "Always", but I have now changed it to "Never".
I apologise to all those who had commented and never saw their comments appearing beneath the articles. It did take me a few years to actually realise this error.
I really do enjoy your comments and please feel free to comment as you please.
Kind regards and thank you for the support.
ToxiNews
Saturday, 29 March 2014
Which are more dangerous, Guns or Prescription Drugs? Or perhaps not...
Prescription Drug Related Deaths
Drug overdose death rates in the United States have more than tripled since 1990 and have never been higher. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nationally, sales of prescription painkillers per capita have quadrupled since 1999 - and the number of fatal poisonings due to prescription painkillers has also quadrupled.
During 2010 (the year in which the latest national NVSS mortality data are available), a total of 40,393 drug-induced deaths occurred in the United States. The majority of drug-induced deaths were unintentional 74.3%; remainder: 13.1%; suicidal drug poisoning; 7.3% drug poisoning of undetermined intent; 5.1% mental and behavioral disorders from drug use; <1% homicide; <1% medical conditions from chronic drug use.
"The biggest problem is that people think it’s prescription medication that comes from a doctor — it’s OK,” “If you take all of the other types of unnatural death and put them together, they don’t equal the number of drug overdoses we had in 2013,” - Westmoreland County, Coroner Ken Bacha.
In 2010 West Virginia had the highest number of drug overdose deaths, at 28.9 per 100,000 people - a 605 percent increase from 1999, when the rate was only 4.1 per every 100,000. (based on data from CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, WONDER Online Database, 2010.) From 2009 to 2011, prescription drug deaths in Fayette County, West Virginia, had almost doubled, reaching 33.5 per 100,000 residents, much higher than West Virginia's average. With North Dakota scoring 3.4 per 100,00, the US average in 2010 came to 13.1 per 100,000.
Prescription drug abuse causes the largest percentage of deaths from drug overdosing. In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from drug overdoses, and most of these deaths were caused by prescription drugs.
Nearly three out of four prescription drug overdoses are caused by prescription painkillers—also called opioid pain relievers. The unprecedented rise in overdose deaths in the US parallels a 300% increase since 1999 in the sale of these strong painkillers. The misuse and abuse of prescription painkillers was responsible for more than 475,000 emergency department visits in 2009, a number that nearly doubled in just five years. These drugs were involved in 14,800 overdose deaths in 2008, more than cocaine and heroin combined.
The quantity of prescription painkillers sold to pharmacies, hospitals, and doctors’ offices was 4 times larger in 2010 than in 1999. Enough prescription painkillers were prescribed in 2010 to medicate every American adult around-the-clock for one month.
Almost all prescription drugs involved in overdoses come from prescriptions originally; very few come from pharmacy theft.
Most prescription painkillers are prescribed by primary care and internal medicine doctors and dentists, not specialists. Roughly 20% of prescribers prescribe 80% of all prescription painkillers.
People on Medicaid are prescribed painkillers at twice the rate of non-Medicaid patients and are at six times the risk of prescription painkillers overdose. One Washington State study found that 45% of people who died from prescription painkiller overdoses were Medicaid enrollees.
Gun-related Deaths
The difference between prescription drugs and guns is that people generally know that guns are dangerous, while they think prescription drugs are safe.
In the case of guns, rather than blaming the people who own and handle them, the guns themselves are blamed. In the case of prescription drugs, the vast majority, 74.3%, of drug-induced deaths were unintentional, because of the pervasive denialism in the medical fraternity, choosing to blame it on patient ignorance, rather than admitting just how dangerous most prescription drugs really are. For this reason, prescription drugs are much more dangerous than guns.
Prescription drugs are the second most commonly abused category of drugs, behind marijuana and ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs. Physicians are a leading source of prescription opioids for highest-risk users. Highest risk users get opioids through their own prescriptions 27 percent of the time, as often as they get the drugs from friends or family for free or buy them from friends.
Gun-related deaths
In a study on the statistics of guns per capita in relation to gun deaths, based on firearm injury data from the World Health Organization and guns per capita data from the Small Arms Survey, it was found that the U.S. population has 88 guns per 100 people, the highest gun-ownership in the world, and it has 10.2 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people — more than 27 other developed countries studied.
The study also found that Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100,000 of their population and 3.84 gun related deaths per 100,000. Now even if their gun ownership figures were to be doubled to 91,4/100,000 their gun related deaths would come to 7,68 per 100,000, not even close to that of the U.S.
France has 31.2 guns per 100,000, which is less than Sweden with 31.6 per 100,000, yet France has 3 per 100,000 gun related deaths, which is more than double that of Sweden with 1.46 per 100,000.
South Africa has only 12.7 LEGALLY OWNED guns per 100,000 of the population, but 9.41 gun related deaths per 100,000, because 90% of gun related deaths in South Africa are committed by owners ILLEGAL GUNS. Killings by legal private gun owners barely make it into the statistics as most killings with legally possessed guns are committed by SA Police officers, including the Marikana massacre and other killings.
Please bear in mind that in 2010 deaths due to drugs were 13.1 per 100,000 of the U.S. population, most of which were unintentional / accidental and most of which were caused by prescription drugs.
The standard approach to solving the problem of gun related deaths is to ban guns. By this reasoning it means that solution to the greater problem of prescription drug related deaths should then also be to ban prescription drugs. In the case of guns, the killing object, the gun, is blamed, while in the case of prescription drugs, the user / patient is blamed and not the source, the prescribing doctor, the pharmaceutical manufacturer or the killing object, being the drug itself.
Conclusion
From the above it should be quite obvious that in the case of prescription drug related deaths, the prescribers, the drug warnings, the scheduling and not appropriately informing the patients, are the problems. In the case of gun related deaths, illegal possession of guns is the main, primary, number one problem.
Killings by the police cannot be considered a problem, as it is part of their job to protect the public and to defend themselves, however warranted the circumstances may be. Static totals on gun related deaths, everywhere, always include Police killings, which occurs in their act of duty, and which involve criminals with illegal guns! In all cases, statistics on gun related deaths also include killings by carriers of guns in the various armed forces, which include family killings, partner killings, suicides and random killings committed by them. Statistics also include police officers killed in the line of duty by illegal gun-carrying criminals.
Anti-gun lobbyists always focus all their attention on private gun ownership, never on illegal guns, never on the criminals, which they can do nothing about. They also never focus on private off-duty killings committed by members of the armed forces, like the police.
In the case of the much more dangerous problem of drugs, both prescription and illegal drugs, which kill more people than guns, the focus is always on the potential abuser, the addict, the trusting, ignorant patient and very seldom, if ever, on the supply chain, the doctor, the drug itself; its scheduling, research fraud, related warnings and access to it.
In the case of deaths generally gun lobbyists and activists seldom, if ever, even mention that FACT that the weapons of choice, especially in South Africa, remain knives (the okapi, which is a lock, back or slip joint knife), pangas, axes, spades, hammers, rocks or any sharp object, to stab and injure or kill their victims with, all of which outnumber the use of guns by far. Both South Africa & The states have far higher incidents of death by knives & blunt objects than assault rifles.
Ultimately both guns and prescription drugs are dangerous, while guns are viewed as dangerous and drugs are not, while legal gun owners are viewed as criminals and drug manufacturers are not, but the most dangerous of all are people, especially criminally minded people, worst of all those criminals carrying knives and other sharp objects, and criminals carrying illegal guns.....
Further reading
If you have any doubt about the lethality of a blow to the head with a fist, please google “the knockout game”. Then go read these two blog posts:
http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/07/22/the-danger-of-fists/
http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/02/28/lethal-response-to-an-unarmed-attack/
References
Policy Impact: Prescription Painkiller Overdoses
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/
Prescription Drug Abuse: Strategies to Stop the Epidemic
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/drugabuse2013/
The truth about prescription drug abuse
http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/prescription/abuse-international-statistics.html
Drug-Induced Deaths — United States, 1999–2010
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6203a27.htm
Policy Impact: Prescription Drug Overdose State Rates (2010)
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/rxbrief/states.html
Overdose deaths from prescription drug abuse skyrocketing in southwestern Pennsylvania
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2014/01/23/Overdose-deaths-from-prescription-drug-abuse-skyrocketing-in-southwestern-Pennsylvania/stories/201401230018
Physicians are a leading source of prescription opioids for the highest-risk
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0303-prescription-opioids.html
Prescription Drug Abuse And Addiction
http://www.crchealth.com/addiction/prescription-drug-addictions-2/
Prescription Drug Abuse
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/prescriptiondrugabuse.html
U.S. Has More Guns – And Gun Deaths – Than Any Other Country, Study Finds
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/
Facebook post says the U.S. is No. 1 in gun violence. Is it?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/the-us-is-no-in-gun-violence-is-it/
List of countries by firearm-related death rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Assault or Homicide
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Khayelitsha's kid gangsters
http://www.groundup.org.za/con.../khayelitshas-kid-gangsters
We need more gun owners in South Africa, not less
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/readerblog/2014/03/24/we-need-more-gunowners-in-south-africa-not-less/comment-page-2/
Drug overdose death rates in the United States have more than tripled since 1990 and have never been higher. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nationally, sales of prescription painkillers per capita have quadrupled since 1999 - and the number of fatal poisonings due to prescription painkillers has also quadrupled.
During 2010 (the year in which the latest national NVSS mortality data are available), a total of 40,393 drug-induced deaths occurred in the United States. The majority of drug-induced deaths were unintentional 74.3%; remainder: 13.1%; suicidal drug poisoning; 7.3% drug poisoning of undetermined intent; 5.1% mental and behavioral disorders from drug use; <1% homicide; <1% medical conditions from chronic drug use.
"The biggest problem is that people think it’s prescription medication that comes from a doctor — it’s OK,” “If you take all of the other types of unnatural death and put them together, they don’t equal the number of drug overdoses we had in 2013,” - Westmoreland County, Coroner Ken Bacha.
In 2010 West Virginia had the highest number of drug overdose deaths, at 28.9 per 100,000 people - a 605 percent increase from 1999, when the rate was only 4.1 per every 100,000. (based on data from CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, WONDER Online Database, 2010.) From 2009 to 2011, prescription drug deaths in Fayette County, West Virginia, had almost doubled, reaching 33.5 per 100,000 residents, much higher than West Virginia's average. With North Dakota scoring 3.4 per 100,00, the US average in 2010 came to 13.1 per 100,000.
Prescription drug abuse causes the largest percentage of deaths from drug overdosing. In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from drug overdoses, and most of these deaths were caused by prescription drugs.
Nearly three out of four prescription drug overdoses are caused by prescription painkillers—also called opioid pain relievers. The unprecedented rise in overdose deaths in the US parallels a 300% increase since 1999 in the sale of these strong painkillers. The misuse and abuse of prescription painkillers was responsible for more than 475,000 emergency department visits in 2009, a number that nearly doubled in just five years. These drugs were involved in 14,800 overdose deaths in 2008, more than cocaine and heroin combined.
The quantity of prescription painkillers sold to pharmacies, hospitals, and doctors’ offices was 4 times larger in 2010 than in 1999. Enough prescription painkillers were prescribed in 2010 to medicate every American adult around-the-clock for one month.
Almost all prescription drugs involved in overdoses come from prescriptions originally; very few come from pharmacy theft.
Most prescription painkillers are prescribed by primary care and internal medicine doctors and dentists, not specialists. Roughly 20% of prescribers prescribe 80% of all prescription painkillers.
People on Medicaid are prescribed painkillers at twice the rate of non-Medicaid patients and are at six times the risk of prescription painkillers overdose. One Washington State study found that 45% of people who died from prescription painkiller overdoses were Medicaid enrollees.
Gun-related Deaths
The difference between prescription drugs and guns is that people generally know that guns are dangerous, while they think prescription drugs are safe.
In the case of guns, rather than blaming the people who own and handle them, the guns themselves are blamed. In the case of prescription drugs, the vast majority, 74.3%, of drug-induced deaths were unintentional, because of the pervasive denialism in the medical fraternity, choosing to blame it on patient ignorance, rather than admitting just how dangerous most prescription drugs really are. For this reason, prescription drugs are much more dangerous than guns.
Prescription drugs are the second most commonly abused category of drugs, behind marijuana and ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs. Physicians are a leading source of prescription opioids for highest-risk users. Highest risk users get opioids through their own prescriptions 27 percent of the time, as often as they get the drugs from friends or family for free or buy them from friends.
Gun-related deaths
In a study on the statistics of guns per capita in relation to gun deaths, based on firearm injury data from the World Health Organization and guns per capita data from the Small Arms Survey, it was found that the U.S. population has 88 guns per 100 people, the highest gun-ownership in the world, and it has 10.2 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people — more than 27 other developed countries studied.
The study also found that Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100,000 of their population and 3.84 gun related deaths per 100,000. Now even if their gun ownership figures were to be doubled to 91,4/100,000 their gun related deaths would come to 7,68 per 100,000, not even close to that of the U.S.
France has 31.2 guns per 100,000, which is less than Sweden with 31.6 per 100,000, yet France has 3 per 100,000 gun related deaths, which is more than double that of Sweden with 1.46 per 100,000.
South Africa has only 12.7 LEGALLY OWNED guns per 100,000 of the population, but 9.41 gun related deaths per 100,000, because 90% of gun related deaths in South Africa are committed by owners ILLEGAL GUNS. Killings by legal private gun owners barely make it into the statistics as most killings with legally possessed guns are committed by SA Police officers, including the Marikana massacre and other killings.
Please bear in mind that in 2010 deaths due to drugs were 13.1 per 100,000 of the U.S. population, most of which were unintentional / accidental and most of which were caused by prescription drugs.
The standard approach to solving the problem of gun related deaths is to ban guns. By this reasoning it means that solution to the greater problem of prescription drug related deaths should then also be to ban prescription drugs. In the case of guns, the killing object, the gun, is blamed, while in the case of prescription drugs, the user / patient is blamed and not the source, the prescribing doctor, the pharmaceutical manufacturer or the killing object, being the drug itself.
Conclusion
From the above it should be quite obvious that in the case of prescription drug related deaths, the prescribers, the drug warnings, the scheduling and not appropriately informing the patients, are the problems. In the case of gun related deaths, illegal possession of guns is the main, primary, number one problem.
Killings by the police cannot be considered a problem, as it is part of their job to protect the public and to defend themselves, however warranted the circumstances may be. Static totals on gun related deaths, everywhere, always include Police killings, which occurs in their act of duty, and which involve criminals with illegal guns! In all cases, statistics on gun related deaths also include killings by carriers of guns in the various armed forces, which include family killings, partner killings, suicides and random killings committed by them. Statistics also include police officers killed in the line of duty by illegal gun-carrying criminals.
Anti-gun lobbyists always focus all their attention on private gun ownership, never on illegal guns, never on the criminals, which they can do nothing about. They also never focus on private off-duty killings committed by members of the armed forces, like the police.
In the case of the much more dangerous problem of drugs, both prescription and illegal drugs, which kill more people than guns, the focus is always on the potential abuser, the addict, the trusting, ignorant patient and very seldom, if ever, on the supply chain, the doctor, the drug itself; its scheduling, research fraud, related warnings and access to it.
In the case of deaths generally gun lobbyists and activists seldom, if ever, even mention that FACT that the weapons of choice, especially in South Africa, remain knives (the okapi, which is a lock, back or slip joint knife), pangas, axes, spades, hammers, rocks or any sharp object, to stab and injure or kill their victims with, all of which outnumber the use of guns by far. Both South Africa & The states have far higher incidents of death by knives & blunt objects than assault rifles.
Ultimately both guns and prescription drugs are dangerous, while guns are viewed as dangerous and drugs are not, while legal gun owners are viewed as criminals and drug manufacturers are not, but the most dangerous of all are people, especially criminally minded people, worst of all those criminals carrying knives and other sharp objects, and criminals carrying illegal guns.....
Further reading
If you have any doubt about the lethality of a blow to the head with a fist, please google “the knockout game”. Then go read these two blog posts:
http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/07/22/the-danger-of-fists/
http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/02/28/lethal-response-to-an-unarmed-attack/
References
Policy Impact: Prescription Painkiller Overdoses
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/
Prescription Drug Abuse: Strategies to Stop the Epidemic
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/drugabuse2013/
The truth about prescription drug abuse
http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/prescription/abuse-international-statistics.html
Drug-Induced Deaths — United States, 1999–2010
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6203a27.htm
Policy Impact: Prescription Drug Overdose State Rates (2010)
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/rxbrief/states.html
Overdose deaths from prescription drug abuse skyrocketing in southwestern Pennsylvania
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2014/01/23/Overdose-deaths-from-prescription-drug-abuse-skyrocketing-in-southwestern-Pennsylvania/stories/201401230018
Physicians are a leading source of prescription opioids for the highest-risk
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0303-prescription-opioids.html
Prescription Drug Abuse And Addiction
http://www.crchealth.com/addiction/prescription-drug-addictions-2/
Prescription Drug Abuse
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/prescriptiondrugabuse.html
U.S. Has More Guns – And Gun Deaths – Than Any Other Country, Study Finds
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/
Facebook post says the U.S. is No. 1 in gun violence. Is it?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/the-us-is-no-in-gun-violence-is-it/
List of countries by firearm-related death rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Assault or Homicide
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Khayelitsha's kid gangsters
http://www.groundup.org.za/con.../khayelitshas-kid-gangsters
We need more gun owners in South Africa, not less
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/readerblog/2014/03/24/we-need-more-gunowners-in-south-africa-not-less/comment-page-2/
Sunday, 2 March 2014
Whites Murded in South Africa During 2013 and to Date 2014
Why do we compile and publish these lists whites murdered in South Africa under ANC rule since 1994?
Because we care!
Because we actually have people who care so much that they go to the trouble of doing this for our people!
Because no one else would do it on our behalf!
Why only the names of whites?
So where are the blacks, Coloureds and Indians doing the same for their people? If they do not even bother doing it for their own people, why should they bother doing it for whites?
UPDATED LIST OF WHITES MURDERED IN SOUTH AFRICA - UNDER ANC RULE - DURING 2013 AND THUS FAR IN 2014
TOTAL – 212
MALE – 158
FEMALE – 54
AGED OVER 60 - 107
Because we care!
Because we actually have people who care so much that they go to the trouble of doing this for our people!
Because no one else would do it on our behalf!
Why only the names of whites?
So where are the blacks, Coloureds and Indians doing the same for their people? If they do not even bother doing it for their own people, why should they bother doing it for whites?
UPDATED LIST OF WHITES MURDERED IN SOUTH AFRICA - UNDER ANC RULE - DURING 2013 AND THUS FAR IN 2014
TOTAL – 212
MALE – 158
FEMALE – 54
AGED OVER 60 - 107
Thursday, 27 February 2014
Could Voting Have Avoided The ANC's Land Grabbing Legislation?
Judging by comments to my previous article "Should we or should we not vote... and why?", apparently, it is not necessary to vote, but one has to ask, had everyone voted, for whichever political party other than the ANC in order to reduce the ANC's majority in parliament to the least number of seats needed for a party to rule, would these pieces of legislation still have been passed?
Of course it does not change the fact that we have two ANC's in parliament, being the ANC and the ANC disguised as the DA. It also does not change the fact that, soon, we'll also have the EFF, the militant (bad-cop) wing of the ANC entering parliament, which will of course make things even more difficult to control.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." (Winston Churchill) and in the meantime the liberal denialist appeasers are panicking, because now their sins are starting to catch up with them personally. The crocodile is hungry and they are next on the menu.
Of course it does not change the fact that we have two ANC's in parliament, being the ANC and the ANC disguised as the DA. It also does not change the fact that, soon, we'll also have the EFF, the militant (bad-cop) wing of the ANC entering parliament, which will of course make things even more difficult to control.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." (Winston Churchill) and in the meantime the liberal denialist appeasers are panicking, because now their sins are starting to catch up with them personally. The crocodile is hungry and they are next on the menu.
Monday, 24 February 2014
Should we or should we not vote... and why?
There are only two reasons we should vote, one of which is particularly important, but we'll get to that.
Besides the fact that choosing which party to vote for in 2014 must be the most confusing and difficult voting decision in the history of South Africa, the pressure is also upon us to not vote at all.
No We Should Not Vote or Yes We Should Vote?
"Having regular, free and fair elections is one of the cornerstones of democracy. This goes together with other important democratic principles such as the right to vote, to choose which party you want to belong to and to accept the results of an election."
What 'n load of nonsense. The word "democracy" is so overblown, because "democracy" is a farce. Democracy means having the right to make a cross like an illiterate on a piece of paper once every five years. Before that and after that, you have no rights no say and, no input anywhere or, in any way whatsoever. So please do not be fooled by this nonsense about voting for the sake of "democracy".
Besides the fact that choosing which party to vote for in 2014 must be the most confusing and difficult voting decision in the history of South Africa, the pressure is also upon us to not vote at all.
No We Should Not Vote or Yes We Should Vote?
"Having regular, free and fair elections is one of the cornerstones of democracy. This goes together with other important democratic principles such as the right to vote, to choose which party you want to belong to and to accept the results of an election."
What 'n load of nonsense. The word "democracy" is so overblown, because "democracy" is a farce. Democracy means having the right to make a cross like an illiterate on a piece of paper once every five years. Before that and after that, you have no rights no say and, no input anywhere or, in any way whatsoever. So please do not be fooled by this nonsense about voting for the sake of "democracy".
Wednesday, 29 January 2014
The Grooming Of A Capitalist SA President
The game of Politics surely is the most interesting game there is. So unpredictable, yet so intriguingly predictable from a bird's-eye view.
An amazing political plan comes together, putting Mamphela Ramphele against Jacob Zuma for South African presidency.
It should be obvious that Agang SA was purposely founded to introduce and sell Mamphela Ramphele to the public, grooming her for the DA as their presidential candidate.
Agang SA is a South African political party, formed by anti-apartheid activist Mamphela Ramphele only on 18 February 2013. Before Agang SA she was virtually unknown as a public figure and particularly as a political figure. Obviously funded from abroad, she founded the new political party Agang SA.
It was a party that was going nowhere and it had virtually no followers, but as leader of this dead-duck-party she was afforded a platform and the opportunity to make the news headlines. Small a party as it was, the media gave her huge exposure, beyond anything seen before with any brand new insignificant little party.
The merger between the DA and Agang is announced and almost immediately she gets presented as the DA's presidential candidate?
An amazing political plan comes together, putting Mamphela Ramphele against Jacob Zuma for South African presidency.
It should be obvious that Agang SA was purposely founded to introduce and sell Mamphela Ramphele to the public, grooming her for the DA as their presidential candidate.
Agang SA is a South African political party, formed by anti-apartheid activist Mamphela Ramphele only on 18 February 2013. Before Agang SA she was virtually unknown as a public figure and particularly as a political figure. Obviously funded from abroad, she founded the new political party Agang SA.
It was a party that was going nowhere and it had virtually no followers, but as leader of this dead-duck-party she was afforded a platform and the opportunity to make the news headlines. Small a party as it was, the media gave her huge exposure, beyond anything seen before with any brand new insignificant little party.
The merger between the DA and Agang is announced and almost immediately she gets presented as the DA's presidential candidate?
Saturday, 4 January 2014
"Assessing Democracy in the New South Africa" by Robert Hamerton-Kelly
For those really interested in a reasonably objective piece on the New SA, this should be worth reading.
It is a pity the author passed away last year (July 7, 2013) as I would have loved to have a chat to him. I actually set out to find his contact detail and in my quest I discovered that he had passed away.
He presented a paper on SA in February 2002 and I would have loved the same author to update this 12 years on.
"Assessing Democracy in the New South Africa" by Robert Hamerton-Kelly
About the Author
Hamerton-Kelly was born in Cape Town, South Africa, on Dec. 26, 1938. He was a theologian, who spent more than two decades working at Stanford, including 13 years as dean of Stanford Memorial Church and 10 years as a senior research scholar in ethics.
It is a pity the author passed away last year (July 7, 2013) as I would have loved to have a chat to him. I actually set out to find his contact detail and in my quest I discovered that he had passed away.
He presented a paper on SA in February 2002 and I would have loved the same author to update this 12 years on.
"Assessing Democracy in the New South Africa" by Robert Hamerton-Kelly
About the Author
Hamerton-Kelly was born in Cape Town, South Africa, on Dec. 26, 1938. He was a theologian, who spent more than two decades working at Stanford, including 13 years as dean of Stanford Memorial Church and 10 years as a senior research scholar in ethics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)