Black Rule Brings Inevitable To South Africa

Fourteen years and approximately 300,000 murders after black rule devastated my homeland, the New York Times is shocked to discover that South Africa is fast disappearing down the same hole into which Rhodesia, rest in peace, was dropped. ["Post-Apartheid South Africa has entered an Anxious Era," by Barry Bearak , October 5, 2008)

I guess some latitude is in order. It took decades and piles of dead bodies before Robert Mugabe lost luster in the eyes of the American MainStream Media [MSM]. By the time the megalomaniac Mugabe was conferred with honorary doctorates (1984 and 1986) and a knighthood (1994), he had already done his "best" work: slaughter an estimated 20,000 innocent Ndebele in Matabeleland (1983), with whose leader, Joshua Nkomo, he refused to share power.

Western conventional wisdom was, well, no wiser.

Soon the sainted Nelson Mandela was released from jail. (I was on Cape Town's Parade on that day; it was a riot, literally.) Madiba's posse—the African National Congress [ANC]—were now the West's new pet revolutionaries, and their next best hope for an African Renaissance.

Sideshow Bob Mugabe's epic villainy to date was, evidently, nothing but a detail of history. An anomaly in the annals of Africa south of the Sahara. There were no lessons to be learned relevant to averting the destruction of another—this time the last—western outpost in Africa.

These days the NYT agonizes over the "regicide" "the governing African National Congress" committed by "deposing one of its own, President Thabo Mbeki, and replacing him with a stand-in for Mr. Mbeki's archrival, Jacob Zuma."

The ANC may have behaved abruptly compared to the gentlemanly manner in which the Afrikaner National Party ceded power to it. "Surrender without defeat" is how (liberal) historian Hermann Giliomee termed that extraordinary leap of faith. The same people, in the same spirit, peacefully dismantled the six nuclear devices they had built at Pelindaba. (My good friend Afrikaner intellectual Dan Roodt analyses that magnanimity in his closely-argued, deliciously titled, "You Can't Have Your Banana and Eat It.")

But otherwise, the ANCniks are living up to their reputation—and that of all other strongmen in strife-torn sub-Saharan Africa.

The NYT's Bearak calls Jacob Zuma, who is about to usurp Mbeki as president, "polarizing". He hasn't seen anything yet. This from the introduction to my upcoming book, Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa:

"Having spent most of his adult life abroad in exile, Mbeki's mannerisms are those of an English gent, [Vdare.com note: Specifically, he graduated from Sussex University, the same one Peter Brimelow went to.] not a man of the people. But the baton has been passed from the pukka proper Mbeki to the populist polygamist Jacob Zuma, who dances half naked in tribal dress. In one of his Noble-Savage moments, Zuma promised, disarmingly, after forcing sex on an HIV-positive acquaintance, that he took a shower as a prophylactic against AIDS."

The NYT claims that "The country's power company unfathomably ran out of electricity and rationed supply." (My emphasis)
Not quite. I've lived through Highveld thunder storms and Cape, South-Easter, gale-force winds. Few and far between were the blackouts. (I purchased a generator in the US, after experiencing my first three-day power outage.)

No, Eskom, the utility that supplied most of the electricity consumed on the continent, did not run out of juice. It just ran out of experienced engineers, expunged pursuant to Black Economic Empowerment policies. (Known in South Africa as "BEE," these are the equivalent of the racial quotas Barack Obama champions, only with many times the sting.)

Another "unfathomable" occurrence that helped disrupt South Africa's electricity supply: the decision to buy coal from the spot market. Driven by BEE policies, here's the sequence Eskom buyers followed: buy first from black women-owned suppliers, then small black suppliers, then large black suppliers, and only after all of these options had been exhausted (or darkness descended, whatever came first), from "other" suppliers.

The NYT reporter is half-right about one thing: "Since 1996, the black population has risen to a projected 38.5 million from 31.8 million." Unmentioned is the fact that the same population has been increasing since Europeans settled South Africa. Then again, "the crucial factor in South African politics was a much more rapid black population growth than anyone had anticipated," writes (liberal) historian (Hermann Giliomee, The Afrikaners , p. 519).

Indeed, demographics were the raison d'être for apartheid. Demographics and a fear of communism and crime. (At least two of which have come to pass; Africans have overwhelmed Europeans numerically and criminally. Does that mean the Afrikaners were prescient?)

These, so far, are some of the NYT's half truths. Now to the outright lies:

"The white population," writes Bearak, "has dropped to a projected 4.5 million from 4.8 million," since 1996. This is an astonishing underestimate. In my book, I report the estimate of the ultra-liberal South African Institute of Race Relations: the white population had shrunk from 5,215,000 in 1995 to 4,374,000 in 2005. Almost a fifth

Chief among the reasons cited for the exodus is violent crime. South Africa has one of the highest murder rates and lowest conviction rates—the latter has risen recently to approximately ten percent—in the world.

Not that you'd know it from Bearak's report, but even though whites make up less than ten percent of the total population, Afrikaner farmers (Boers) are being culled at the genocidal annual rate of 300 per 100,000 inhabitants. "Four times as high as is for the rest of the population," attests Dr. Gregory H. Stanton of Genocide Watch.

Yes, professional racism spotters like the NYT are ever so cavalier about this scandal, reporting amusedly that all that "people here one-up each other with tales of scalding and shooting and slicing and garroting."

The MSM is equally cavalier about the culprits: a thriving black criminal class and a corrupt black government.

And, of course, their enablers in the West.

Remember that when the MSM endorses Obama.

©2008 By ILANA MERCER

VDARE.COM

October 20

Source:ilanamercer.com
http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=461

Erasing The Afrikaner Nation

CNN’s Kyra Phillips has led her viewers to believe that dangling a noose—an impolite and impolitic form of expression—is a hate crime; a black man beating a white man to a pulp—not so much. Being maimed or murdered, evidently, doesn’t compare to being insulted. Phillips and the feminized establishment media have difficulties differentiating a felony from an affront to feelings. No wonder these wonder men and women are mum about who’s killing whom in the democratic South Africa, the pride of the liberal press.

While black South African criminals are not neglecting other blacks, they are, overwhelmingly, targeting Indians and whites. According to the South African Institute of Security Studies, “Only 32 percent of all blacks questioned knew someone who was a victim of crime,” compared to 66 percent of Indian adults and 56 percent of white adults. The color of crime and its casualties both in America and South Africa is the proverbial elephant in the room—to be touched upon only if the victims can be vilified as racists.

The BBC as well as New Zealand and Australian television news-networks have covered the racially motivated killing campaign Africans are conducting against the Afrikaner farmers of South Africa. Not Kyra and her colleagues at Fox, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS. No wonder, then, that the orchestrated ethnocide against the entire Afrikaner people has not been brought out into the open, as they like to say on CNN.

Ethnocide, as defined by Michael Mann, a leading historical sociologist, is “state-induced cultural assimilation, through hegemony and suppression.” The warmed-over Marxists governing South Africa with the West’s blessing are leading the charge against the country’s Afrikaner past, patriotism, and institutions.

Afrikaans, in particular, has come under the ANC’s attack, as the government attempts to compel Afrikaans schools to adopt English. Afrikaans-speaking universities, for example, have been labeled racist in the New South Africa and have been forced to merge with “third-rate black institutions so that campuses may be swamped by blacks demanding instruction in English,” to quote the Afrikaner intellectual, Dan Roodt.

The ANC’s attempts to tame and claim South-African history have been extended to landmarks in the annals of the founding people—these are being slowly erased, as demonstrated by the ANC’s decision to give an African name to Potchefstroom, a town founded in 1838 by the “Voortrekkers” (Dutch pioneers). The leader of those pioneers, Marthinus Pretorius, founded the capital, Pretoria. It is now Tshwane! Durban’s Moore Road (after Sir John Moore, the hero of the Battle of Corunna) is Che Guevara Road; Kensington Drive, Fidel Castro Drive. The cherry on the cake is Yasser Arafat highway, down which the motorist can speed on the way to the Durban airport.

As a subject in the school curriculum, history was initially neglected during the transition to majority rule. The establishment of the “South African History Project” changed that. The Project’s aim, according to Sasha Polakow-Suransky of the Chronicle of Higher Education, has been “a resurrection of the subject as a prominent field of study in the national school curriculum.” Unfortunately, following the American academy’s example, the trend has been away from “the pursuit of objective historical truth,” toward a postmodern, politically correct reconstruction of historical events, with the aim of fostering “certain values,” in the words of Kader Asmal, the minister of education in 2000.

“You have books appearing that interpret the history of South Africa only according to the perspective of the liberation struggle,” avers Pieter Kapp, a retired professor of history at Stellenbosch University. Indeed, “Since 1994, tales of European conquest are slowly beginning to disappear from the nation's classrooms, giving way to epic accounts of black anti-apartheid heroes,” writes Polakow-Suransky.

Like it or not, the modern marvel that was South Africa—with its space program and skyscrapers—was not the handiwork of the black nationalist movement now dismantling it; but the creation of those persecuted, pale, patriarchal Protestants.

©2007 By Ilana Mercer
WorldNetDaily.com
November 23

Source: IlanaMercer.com
http://www.ilanamercer.com/ErasingTheAfrikanerNation.htm

More articles by the author:
http://mercer.dienuwesuidafrika.com/

Self-defense: A universal right

By Ilana Mercer.

Posted: June 25, 2004

1:00 a.m. Eastern

My mother in-law, a fierce and fiery South African, has a gun and keeps it loaded and close to hand. This is the only sensible course in a country considered one of the most dangerous outside a war zone. But in the "new" South Africa, self-defense has become a crime against the state.

President Thabo Mbeki has no patience with Western notions of "individualism." This Marxist has explicitly rejected what he calls the ideas of the Right: the paramountcy of private property and public order, and the remedial value of punitive justice. He has sworn renewed fealty to the paramount idea of the Left: the elevation of the state above the individual.

Mbeki speaks of the Left's vaunted tolerance and respect for minorities, but one South African minority has been excluded: the nearly extinct white farmer. Well over 1,200 Boer Afrikaners have been butchered in more than 6,000 attacks since Mbeki's democratically elected African National Congress (ANC) took power in 1994. Despite the threat of systematic extermination, farmers are forbidden automatic weapons. So they must battle their ubiquitous assailants with only a shotgun, a handgun and a limited number of rounds at their disposal.

In "free" South Africa there is an official blackout (or shall I say whiteout) of national crime statistics. When they are divulged, officials prefer to use difficult-to-understand ratios. In many instances, data have been doctored. Government sources claim there were 21,553 murders in 2002. The Mail & Guardian estimates that between January 2000 and March 2003 there were almost 48,000 murders in South Africa (population 44.6 million). In comparison, the "high crime" United States (population 288.2 million) suffered 16,110 murders in 2002.

I used to rest easier knowing that if a thug entered the Western Cape home of my relatives (where the murder rate is a staggering 84 per 100,000, compared to 5.6 per 100,000 in the U.S.) my elderly mother in-law could easily dispatch him with her six-round .32 Special. It was comforting to know that in the unlikely event she required further firepower, my father-in-law could weigh in with his .38 Special. But that was the old South Africa. The ANC, like all leftist governments, is determined to disarm law-abiding individuals and criminalize their naturally just actions.

As first reported in the Cape Times, the grotesquely mistitled Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula has unveiled "an arsenal of stricter gun-control laws." "Gun-toting cowboys" will no longer be tolerated and thus "non-threatening" home invaders will no longer face on-the-spot justice. In "liberated" South Africa, being a robber and being "non-threatening" are no longer mutually exclusive existential conditions.

Should my in-laws awake to find a malefactor beating down the door, short of conversing in Xhosa to put him at ease, they shall have to hold their fire and attempt to ascertain his manifestly acquisitive – and almost certainly murderous – motives. "Molo Butte (Good morning, brother), your plans don't happen to include slitting my throat, do they?" The same rule now applies to "visitors" already in the house. If they greet your polite inquiries with gun or knife, well, perhaps you can say a prayer to Nelson Mandela.

Safety and security in South Africa now means that self-defense may be defined as assault or murder. If the victim of a break-in shoots to kill, the intruder can kill him and claim justification. As Barry Ronge of the Sunday Times points out, this "effect[s] a switch that makes the victim of the crime the felon and turns the felon into the victim."

In a country where, as Ronge notes, husbands and children are routinely forced to watch while mothers are raped, victims must now "calibrate the extent of the menace" before defending loved ones. Even for giving chase, victims may now be prosecuted as aggressors.

And in a wicked sleight of hand, applicants for firearm licenses must now prove their need. "Being resident in South Africa," a spokesman for the opposition New National Party retorted, "is just the reason why any law-abiding citizen would require a gun." South Africa is, after all, a country where almost everyone knows someone who has been raped, robbed, hijacked, murdered or all of the above.

It remains to be seen whether existing gun owners such as my in-laws will be exempted from reapplying every few years for a new license, which would require an "assessment" by the incompetent – often criminal – gangs that pose as policemen, or whether they will be forced to undergo "competency training."

Of one thing we are certain. The right to defend one's life (even Hobbes was for it) and property are worthless in post-apartheid South Africa.

Of course, a person's right to own a firearm is not contingent on whether he lives in a "safe" community. The right to self-defense, implicit in the right to life, belongs to every non-aggressor, imperiled or not. Natural rights are not subject to the vagaries of crime rates. Or, for that matter, to the whims of the state (or Rosie O'Donnell). Natural rights are not for governments to grant but to uphold.

Despite being safely ensconced in a very low-crime American neighborhood, and after maneuvering through the labyrinthine bureaucracy, I shall soon be sleeping with a silver-plated, five-round .357 Magnum revolver by my side. I am grateful I no longer live in South Africa.

Ilana Mercer is the author of "Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture." She is an analyst and blogger-at-large for Free-Market News Network and a media fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an independent, non-profit economic policy think tank. To learn more about her work, and to contribute to Barely A Blog, visit IlanaMercer.com.

Source:WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39139

Mugabe, Mbeki, Maliki: They’re Our Boys

By Ilana Mercer.

“Zimbabwe’s Opposition Leader Is Seized,” blared the New York Times. “Zimbabwe's police have launched a new crackdown on the opposition,” the BBC chimed, decrying the arrest of Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of Zimbabwe's Movement for Democratic Change, and the stepped-up “campaign of violence and intimidation undertaken by the Mugabe government in recent days.” Earlier this month the unfortunate Tsvangirai and other opposition politicians were beaten in police custody.

Politicians and pundits alike, in policy papers and assorted disquisitions (including a State Department Human Rights Report), expound on the tragic tribulations of Zimbabwe. They use strong language and active verbs to implicate Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party henchmen for banning political protest, suppressing “freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and academic freedom,” rigging elections, rounding up and torturing opposition leaders, to say nothing of detaining them without trial; displacing over 700,000 people by turning them out of their shanties; seizing the commercial white-owned farms which fed the country and generated its exports, causing widespread starvation, and making Zimbabwe aid dependent.

Mind you, the commentariat hasn’t protested the evils of property confiscation so much as it has bemoaned the fact that the land ended up in the hands of Mugabe's cronies, rather than being redistributed “fairly” to all black Zimbabweans. The process “lacked transparency,” one pointy-head complained, as though theft, transparent or clandestine, is ever aboveboard.

Mugabe, we are told, instituted a Soviet style command economy. He nationalized large sectors of the economy and fixed prices. His actions killed off the little economic activity still taking place. As the economy contracted, he continued to promiscuously print money. The result: hyperinflation approaching 2000 percent and predicted by the International Monetary Fund to reach 4,278.8 percent this year. The infrastructure is collapsing. The smell of sewerage hanging over Harare is more than metaphoric—the treatment facilities, like the grid, are not maintained.

At some point in the reams of repudiations and recommendations American writers issue authoritatively about Zimbabwe, they shift mysteriously to the passive voice. Allusions are made to a Zimbabwe where all was sweetness and light. One is told that once-upon-a-time, this helter skelter of a country used to export food. That not so long ago, life expectancy, now 33 years, was 60 years; that in that bygone era, unemployment, now over 80 percent, was extremely low; that Zimbabwe had the “best health care system in Africa,” and the highest literacy rates.

Mugabe reversed all this. That much we know. But who was the Prince among Men responsible for the good times? We are never told. The phantom was Ian Smith, prime minister of Rhodesia, RIP. Smith was ostracized by the international community which refused to recognize his minority rule, and treated him like it treated Saddam Hussein, with boycotts and sanctions. The British would not rest until Smith ceded power. When Mugabe was elected Leader for Life in 1980, he celebrated the West’s stupidity by committing his first major massacre in 1983. While Dr. Robert Mugabe was eliminating 20,000 innocent Ndebele in Matabeleland, his pals in the US were busy bestowing on him honorary doctorates. By the time the Queen of England knighted Sir Robert Mugabe in 1994, he had already done his “best” work.

Yes, Mugabe is plenty cruel. Always has been. At least as cruel as the Iraqi Shiite security forces we’re training and sponsoring, which double up as death squads in their spare time. The “humanitarian disaster” of their making—and ours—is everywhere apparent in Sunni neighborhoods.

The American Founders may have attempted to forestall democracy by devising a republic. Contemporary Americans, however, refused to rest until South Africa too became a democracy. It’s a funny thing, then, that President Thabo Mbeki hardly ever protests Mugabe’s undemocratic antics. But then Mbeki himself is extremely busy—busy implementing a slow-motion version of Mugabe’s program. As columnist Andrew Kenny has observed:

In South Africa, the main instrument of transformation is Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). This requires whites to hand over big chunks of the ownership of companies to blacks and to surrender top jobs to them. Almost all the blacks so enriched belong to a small elite connected to the ANC. BEE is already happening to mines, banks and factories. In other words, a peaceful Mugabe-like programme is already in progress in South Africa.

“Peaceful” is not the right word. The career criminals pillaging, raping and massacring their way across South Africa are certainly in the same league as the Iraqi Shiite death squads and the Zimbabwean state terrorists. My point? Mbeki (South Africa), Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Maliki (Iraq): they’re our boys. We put them there.

The US’s policy toward Rhodesia was slightly more nuanced, given that it equated African majority rule with Marxism. But once Jimmy Carter came to power, Marxism was no longer an impediment to mobocracy. The US joined the UN, Britain and the rest of the international community in a commitment to ensconce that sexy freedom fighter, Mugabe. The rest is history—as is post-colonial Africa.

The peanut gallery’s messiah du jour is Morgan Tsvangirai of the Zimbabwean Opposition Party. They delude themselves that if not for the megalomania of one man—Mugabe—freedom would have flourished in Zimbabwe, as it has in the rest of Africa.

Source: www.ilanamercer.com
http://www.ilanamercer.com/MugabeMbekiMalikiTheyreOurBoys.htm
More articles by Ilana Mercer: http://mercer.dienuwesuidafrika.com

Mbeki Puts On Thinking Cap To Wrestle With Crime

©2007 By Ilana Mercer
WorldNetDaily.com
February 23

My apologies; I’ve misled readers about my native South Africa. I called it the most violent place on earth outside a war zone. I was wrong. BBC World recently—and reluctantly—disclosed that South Africa jostles with Iraq and Colombia for the title of most violent country in the world, war zones included.

In a short segment, correspondent John Simpson reported that in South Africa, on average, 50 people are murdered every day (population: 47 million), 3 times that number are raped; and 300 are violently attacked and robbed daily. And these are the official, likely filtered, figures. They say nothing about the seldom-reported, hundreds of muggings carried out in broad daylight and captured by security cameras. According to Robert McCafferty of the United Christian Action, moreover, the South African Medical Research Council tallies 89 daily deaths; Interpol’s statistics are double those released by the police—a bent and brutal outfit whose chief has been linked to the mafia but has yet to be suspended.

When my family and I presciently left South Africa in 1995, it was still a country with a space program (on which my husband worked), “gleaming skyscrapers,” and department stores that rivaled Macy’s. The Central Business District in Johannesburg bustled. Crime was well controlled. When mobs stoned cars en route to the DF Malan Airport in Cape-Town (geographical names across the country have since been changed to expunge Afrikaans history), a tough and competent police force sprung into action. An equally impressive Western system of Roman-Dutch law dished out just deserts in response to "muti-murder" (ritual killing) or “necklacing” (placing a car tire around a putative offender’s neck and igniting it with gasoline).

A decade hence, the city of Johannesburg, renamed Egoli, looks like Mogadishu—streets strewn with garbage, many spectacular skyscrapers overrun by squatters, vandalized, or boarded up with brick by desperate owners. The five-star Carlton Hotel closed in 1997. The safety of its guests could no longer be guaranteed. Ditto other landmarks such as the Great Synagogue and the green glass Garden Court Hotel.

The specter is repeated across South Africa. Gun battles are commonplace on city streets. Shopkeepers often sit behind iron bars. Stories abound of soccer moms and dads being robbed during a game. As the Christian Science Monitor’s South African correspondent put it, “Nothing says ‘Home Sweet Home’ like 10-foot walls, electric fencing, burglar bars, and at least one panic button wired directly to an armed-response team.” Recent prominent victims of criminals include Nobel Prize-winning author Nadine Gordimer, assaulted in her Johannesburg home, and Anglo-Zulu War historian David Rattray, murdered in his Northern-Natal lodge.

So, to spare myself a future mea culpa, be advised that the BBC’s crime statistics were, in all likelihood, obtained from the police who’ve been less than frank about the scope of the carnage. Malfeasance, graft and corruption are all in a day’s work for a force hollowed out by affirmative action. If you object to this unflattering characterization observe them in action on YouTube. The BBC has filmed a fairly typical crime-scene intervention during which the police “think about” arresting a man who had stabbed another in the face, but … “change their minds. He is allowed back on the streets again.”

“Think,” of course, is the wrong word—especially when it comes to the brain trust of the ruling African National Congress. President Thabo Mbeki ignored the BBC’s otherwise incontinent exhilaration about everything else South-African, choosing instead to frame as racism the network’s newfound realism vis-à-vis crime. Mbeki wields this ad hominem like an assegai. He is, however, much less adept at logic.

“Nobody can show that the overwhelming majority of the 40-50 million South Africans think that crime is out of control. Nobody can, because it’s not true,” he admonished. Thabo “thinks” truth is decided by majority vote; Thabo “thinks” that if he could get a representative sample of South Africans to agree crime was insignificant, then that would settle the matter.

It so happens that South Africans are fed up (“gatvol” in Afrikaans) with crime. Why else would communities across the country be staging marches in protest? The futile purpose of these events is to present Mbeki with a petition. The premise for such folly being that the ruling kleptocrats are not only competent, but well intentioned and caring too. Thabo will take note, mind you, if the once-mighty Afrikaners take to the streets with their weapons, not with petitions and scented candles.

Mbeki’s ministers share his oil-and-water relationship to the truth. One of them told itvNEWS that when adjusted for population, levels of crime in the Unites States approximate those of South Africa. Lies. Going by the underreported police numbers, the murder rate in South Africa is 10 times worse than the US. According to the MRC figures, it’s 14 times worse.

At least the Safety and Security Minister is honest; he doesn’t conceal his racial hostility. “Only whites complain,” he smirked, adding that “they can continue to whinge until they are blue in the face, or they can simply leave this country.”

Source:IlanaMercer.com
http://www.ilanamercer.com/MbekiPutsOnThinkingCap.htm

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 damning—and contrary to the pro-forma denials issued by the ANC’s oleaginous officials—The 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

WorldNetDaily.com

January 19

Source:IlanaMercer.com
http://www.ilanamercer.com/TheGenocideInDemocraticSA.htm

About Ilana

ILANA Mercer is a US-based, classical liberal (or libertarian) writer. She pens a weekly column - “Return to Reason” - for WorldNetDaily.com, an independent website. WorldNetDaily is rated by Alexa as the most frequented “conservative” site on the Internet. Mercer is also an analyst and commentator for Free-Market News Network, founded by the late Harry Browne, one-time libertarian presidential candidate. Mercer contributes to other well-known websites, and has written weekly columns for the conservative Calgary Herald and Vancouver's North Shore News. Read more here.

The ugly truth about democratic South Africa

By Ilana Mercer

Posted: December 15, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

I sincerely hope that events in Iraq have inched Americans toward a less Disneyfied view of democracy. It is a mistake to doggedly conflate democracy with freedom, and "the freedom to vote" with liberty. Majority rule, especially as it applies in Middle Eastern and African countries, doesn't always empower the right people.

Which brings me to another, less-than Magic Kingdom: my old homeland, South Africa, RIP.

The irony of President Bush's Dec. 8 meeting with Thabo Mbeki, South Africa's president, went unnoticed. Democratic South Africa is yet another spot where the rule of the demos has turned a once-prosperous, if politically problematic, place into a lawless ramshackle.

South Africa is now the most violent country outside a war zone. The country, writes Scott Baldauf of the Christian Science Monitor, has "the highest recorded per capita murder rate in the world – with 59 homicides per 100,000 people. … The U.S., by comparison, had six." So violent is the "free" South Africa that, for a period, the freewheeling African National Congress government imposed an official blackout on national crime statistics. It now releases them once yearly.

In 2003, South Africa had 21,553 murders (population 44.6 million). In comparison, the "high crime" United States (population 288.2 million) suffered 16,110 murders in the same year. According to Baldauf, the number of homicides in South Africa dipped to 19,824 in 2004. The U.S., with 293 million at the time, had 16,150.

The last statistics available, courtesy of the CBS, "showed that between April 2004 and March 2005, 18,793 people were murdered in South Africa, an average of 51 a day in a nation of 47 million." There were 24,516 attempted murders, 249,369 assaults with grievous injury, and 55,114 reported rapes. (And by rape we don't mean what American women consider rape: waking up the next morning after a romp between the sheets with a hangover and some regrets.)

As ghastly as the official figures are, they're most probably doctored. Rob McCafferty, author of "Murder in South Africa: a Comparison of Past and Present," notes that "Interpol have South African murder statistics that are roughly double the official South African state statistics, while the South African Medical Research Council claims there are approximately a third more murders in South Africa than the official police statistics reveal." A discrepancy of over 10,000 murders is, shall we say, more than a margin of error.

Yet Westerners, conservatives included, praise the new dispensation in my old home. According to a columnist for the American Conservative, South Africa represents "the greatest triumph of chatter over machine-gun clatter." "It's not perfect," this flaccid fool effuses, "and crime is at an all-time high in South-African cities, but at least the massacres are a thing of the past and life goes on much better than before."

False. Few people know that during the decades of the repressive apartheid regime, only a few thousand Africans perished as a direct result of police brutality. A horrible injustice, indubitably, but nothing approximating the carnage under "free" South Africa, where thousands of Africans perish every few months. (Let us not beat about the bush; crime in South Africa is black on black and black on white.)

Take the travails of my extended family. Ordinarily, a one-case study does not a rule make. But not in this instance – you'd be hard pressed to find a family in democratic South Africa whose members have not been brutalized by barbarians. Mine includes a sister-in-law suffering permanent neurological damage after being assaulted by five Africans; a brother burglarized and beaten in his suburban fortress at 2 a.m. by an African gang (wife and infant son were miraculously spared). My father's neighbor was shot point-blank in front of his little girls, as he exited his car to open the garage gates. My husband's cousin and uncle were hijacked; aunt beaten within an inch of her life and raped. Two of his colleagues (that we know of) were murdered; one shot by African taxi drivers in broad daylight, as he left his girlfriend's apartment.

Despite the oppressive, undesirable, political aspects of apartheid, law and order was maintained and common criminals were pursued and prosecuted, to the benefit of all. To appropriate the gallant words of Gen. Sir Charles Napier: Before 1994, when African men raped infants because the "practice" is considered a traditional salve for AIDS, South African policemen followed their custom: They tied a rope around the rapist's neck and hanged him.

Since the near-total collapse of law and order, the conviction rate hovers at 2.96 percent!

Much the way Americans dismantled Iraq's law and order apparatus, the democratically elected ANC retired most of the old South African Police and set about reconstructing a politically correct – and representative – force. The demotic orgy of crime reflects the capabilities of the renamed South African Police Services – it is mostly an illiterate, ill-trained force, riven by feuds, fetishes and factional loyalties. In Africa, moreover, as in the Middle East, the extractive view of politics dominates – people seek personal advantage from positions of power.

Corruption is thus the rule, not the exception.

Readers will often admonish me for dismissing those ink-stained Iraqi fingers. I tell them I've lived under a relatively peaceful dictatorship and was fortunate to escape a violent mobocracy. I tell them that voting is synonymous with freedom only if strict limits are placed on the powers of elected officials and only if individual rights to live unmolested are respected.

In South Africa, as in Iraq, these conditions do not apply.

Source: WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53375