Thursday, October 07, 2010

Impoverished Boers Arrested in Illegal Police Raid.

From Censorbugbear Reports.

Hat tip: Islandshark.

Impoverished Boers arrested in illegal police raid.

Peaceful Boer-Republican leader Willem Ratte also arrested – without any legal warrants.

---------------------

Friday, Oct 1 2010. WITBANK. Some ten police-vehicles with heavily-armed officers arrived at high speed at the historic farm Eenzaamheid near Balmoral, Witbank on Thursday-morning - and roughly arrested ten impoverished Boers living there.

RATTE Willem arrested Oct 1 2010 EENZAAMHEID BOERGENOCIDE MUSEUM BALMORAL
RATTE Willem arrested Oct 1 2010 EENZAAMHEID BOER GENOCIDE MUSEUM BALMORAL Picture: Oct 1 2010 – BEELD: teacher Willem Ratte, 62, arrested during the SAPS raid at the Boer-Genocide Museum, Eenzaamheid Boer-concentration camp, Balmoral near Witbank.

----------------------

The farm Eenzaamheid is hallowed ground for Boer patriots: it houses the (now badly-delapidated) Boer Genocide Museum and the gravesites of the many Boer civilians who were murdered in the British-colonial concentration camp there (1899-1902). Some of the disabled Boer-era weaponry put on display by the SAPS propagandists include valuable artifacts such as an antique cap and ball pistol and a ‘front-loader’ Boer-era gun after the raid on the museum. The SAPS propagandists also displayed a military-assault weapon which the arrested men said had been planted there during the disorganized, violent raid. Their application for bail is scheduled for Monday in Pretoria High Court, reports SAPA.

Read the full report.

Comment. Looks like the legendary Willem Ratte [ whose peaceful protest & occupation of Fort Schanskop in 1993 the press distorted ] might be the focus of the raid.

68 Opinion(s):

Jim Beam said...

Truth be told I trust Censorbugbear's stats and news even less than the mainstream media.

Islandshark said...

@ Jim - care to elaborate on that broad statement?

The ministry of lies very rarely produces anything remotely identifiable as truth. Are you saying their reporting is more accurate than that of AS?

Anonymous said...

I met Major (at the time) Willem Ratte when he was trying to secure a homeland for San (Bushmen) in Northern Namibia as the CIA/MI6 were ONLY interested in getting as many Ovambos into Namibia, just prior to the elections, as they could, in order to get the Negroid puppet government they needed to secure maximum profit at minimum outlay!

In this Western World of profit seeking super corporations (Banks), Ratte was one of the few who was interested in the well-being of the common people.
No wonder he refused the mercenary route while his sub-ordinate, Barlow, went on to become head of Executive Outcomes!

It is so sad that in order for the NWO to survive, the "few good men" of the Western World MUST be eliminated!

Ex-Comops Soldier

Jim Beam said...

@Islandshark

I note with interest how her writing has changed over the past 2 years. In this point in time I also note how she starts talking about 'internal white refugee camps' when we all know that is not so. Once people start to blout the truth then that is where objectivity is left behind.

South Africa has ALWAYS had a poor white problem. Before under the NP they would create jobs and townships for the poor whites to absorb them. Today the blacks are not going to do that as there are loads who need housing an jobs. Think Ruyerwacht in Cape Town. That villiage was created to provide housing for the poor whites in Cape Town.

It seems today reading her blog that AA and BEE has suddenly created poor whites. It has not.

Piet said...

"It seems today reading her blog that AA and BEE has suddenly created poor whites. It has not."

Well, it certainly has exacerbated the problem.

Adn don't worry AA and BEE will soon also cut into the "learned" and "small business" whites : their sons will find it harder and harder to get into university and get an education (it will either get so expensive whites will have even less children or their children will need much higher marks to get into some professional schools, see UCT and their medical school).

Anonymous said...

@ Jim Beam: Point is that when SA was a homeland for whites, browns and indians, there was enough usually government jobs, to keep everyone employed, while the different Nguni and Sotho groups had thousands of jobs in their own homeland government employment.

The key difference is that, post seperate states for seperate peoples (Apartheid), ALL jobs in the new multi-national state are reserved for Nguni, Sotho or even Negro people from elsewhere in Africa, with some positions reserved for indian and brown people in the areas where they live. Boers are singled out for exclusion from such positions in order to prevent their creating any regional success story!

If only we could see the oft so spoken of "Reverse Apartheid" which would see a Boer State where there used to be Tswana, Xhosa, Zulu, Venda States!

Since 1994 therefore, the Censorbugbear Site is accurate, in that all the previously employed (by parastatal) Boers are indeed now sitting in refugee camps. If, like the different Negro groups they just arrived in an area and squated, they would be removed (probaby violently). Thus there onl hope of being located on church or private property.
To consider your so-called "poor white problem" in a pre-1994 sense, you need to go back 108 years to when the Boers lost their last Republic to Britain and, under broken peace treaties, found themselves without the land they had farmed and were forced into the mining industry. The first "poor white" problem began with the 1920's strikes, when the Boer Miners were were refused a living wage and the mining house owners (who controlled the Union Government of the day) brought hundreds of thousands of Negroes into the Union of SA, to fill mining jobs at less than a South African living wage!

I'm sorry but "always been a PW problem" just doesn't cut it with me, OR with the facts!

Common Sense

The Rooster said...

Some advice guys. The firther you distance yourself from this woman (censorbugbear), the more credibility you will have. She lampoons your right wing movement ands make you all look dishonest and crazy.

Her list of "3000 white farmers who have been murdered since 1994" is a total joke. It's made up of whites, blacks, colourds,people who live in cities and "peri urban" areas. It's also since 1987. That's her claim to fame though.

Frankly this whole anti the new south africa thing is all stale. Everything is improving in south africa compared to apartheid. How much longer can you lot manage to pretend it isn't ? Don't you get tired of this spiel ?

Jim Beam said...

@Piet

Yes you are correct it does nothing more than to exacerbate the problem. You are however forgetting that it was Afrikaner businesses who pushed for BEE. The reason was simply to offload their toxic assets such as those mines with high public liabilities. Pamodzi was a good example of this.

@Commonsense

There are no refugee camps in South Africa. Stop drinking that Coolaid provided by that silly blog. There was always a poor white problem after the Anglo Boer war as I have said before the British did not want them as labour as then they would hold the means of production of the mines to ransom. Leverage in the hands of the Boers was not good as they might have demanded their Republics back. Go back into the history of the trade union SACTWU and you will note that it was made up of Boer women. Even though today they talk about --- Afrikaners.

Jobs pre-1994 was created to absorb the labour out of the mines. By your own admission on your post since the 1920's being the last 90 years South Africa has had a poor white problem. The poor white problem did not arrive with the ANC. It arrived with the British!

Viking said...

Is that right, Jim? Haven't heard that before. But it wouldn't be the first time monopolists have screwed over their own people.

The 'poor white' problem, according to my history reading, was always there, being a feature of all colonial societies. The earliest settlers had very little, which is why they went abroad in the first place, and many subsequent European arrivals arrived with the shirts on their backs..

Piet said...

" Her list of "3000 white farmers who have been murdered since 1994" is a total joke. It's made up of whites, blacks, colourds,people who live in cities and "peri urban" areas. It's also since 1987. That's her claim to fame though.

It is true that she adds small (hobby) farmers to her list and that she could be more rigorous in her tally. But, I really think there is a movement to kill or chase white farmers and small farmers away from the land to settle the land issue in a "subtle" violent way. A fringe of the ANC actually approving this white flight as it will liberate land and cost less to buy back.

I personally think the future of whites in SA is very bleak : they will be tolerated as a quasi expat community. They will have to prove their lack of racism in all kind of ways : first keep quiet, second integrate linguistically (bye bye Afrikaans) and even thirdly by mix mariages (what? You are against, you are racist!)

I have quite a few Afrikaans friends in SA, father was a diplomat. All the children went to university, all spoke Afrikaans (English, German, 2 French).

What are they now?

2 are unmarried and in their fourties (no children coming there). One in NZ (could not make a living in SA as a wildlife vet).

3 are married. 1 in Australia.

2 married in SA, both to English speakers.Each two children. English first language in the home.

And I see on Facebook one of the grand-children in High school is now "engaged" to a Coloured or a Black (photograph is available) in Natal.

Five afrikaans children, four children all English speakers soon may be mix raced.

Does that bode well for Afrikaans and Afrikaners survival you think?

Piet said...

I wrote :

"Five afrikaans children, four children all English speakers soon may be mix raced."

it might have been clearer if I had written :

"Five afrikaans children, four GRAND-children, all English speakers, soon maybe some mix- raced English speaking great-grand-children."

Yvon said...

Jim,

You wrote :

"You are however forgetting that it was Afrikaner businesses who pushed for BEE. "

Would you have any proof of this?

1) Considering the low percentage of businesses or mines belonging to Afrikaners...

2) Do you mean whites in general or really only Afrikaners?

3) No dissent? No white/Afrikaner businessmen who disagreed with BEE.

I do understand *foreign* mine owners actually used BEE as a way to sell non profitable mines and repatriate the money overseas, while claimed they were generous I'm not too sure about this being something the *Afrikaner* business did more than others.

In any case, I believe BEE was accepted under duress: this or nationalization (just look at Zimbabwe, white boys).

Jim Beam said...

@Viking

Yes Viking, even Moeletsi Mbeki brought that up a few years ago. If you go into the draft documents of the ANC's RDP plan you will note that it reads much like that of the DA today. Persoanlly I think we are all being played by both sides.

@Piet

Its not racist to say what you just said. You are correct. Mixed race children destroy society as we know it. It destroys thier identity and destroys thier parents existing culture and traditions. I have nothing against people getting married across the colour lines however creating cross bred children is destructive by nature. It does more harm than good.

The Rooster said...

What are they now?

2 are unmarried and in their fourties (no children coming there). One in NZ (could not make a living in SA as a wildlife vet).

3 are married. 1 in Australia.

2 married in SA, both to English speakers.Each two children. English first language in the home.

And I see on Facebook one of the grand-children in High school is now "engaged" to a Coloured or a Black (photograph is available) in Natal.

Five afrikaans children, four children all English speakers soon may be mix raced.

Does that bode well for Afrikaans and Afrikaners survival you think?

-----------------

Firstly, I can't believe someone couldn't makew a living as wildlife vert. There are like a thousand more game farms here than before.

Secondly what's wrong with people mixing ? It's actually beneficial to the gene pool. I'm from a "mixed" family and my Afrikaans is just fine. I am almost 100% sure when old enough my kids will speak Afrikaans whether I teach thme too or not. Don't be so precious about your culture and scared of change. Change is a good thing in so many ways. If we all remained rigid we'd still be in caves.

Islandshark said...

@ Piet - of course the ANC is behind farm murders. How many farmers have been arrested when trying to protect themselves against invaders?

The SAPS can find resources to arrest a group of poor Afrikaners, trying to learn a trade to make a living, on trumped-up charges, but can't do anything about farm murders.

And before some feathered idiot yaps his beak off - I know Willem Ratte's history, have close family who knows him from 32BN days and what he has done since then. He has been locked up on trumped-up charges before, because the govt is shit-scared of his abilities.

Why do you think the commando system was abolished? That was the first line protection for rural areas.

Piet said...

"Firstly, I can't believe someone couldn't makew a living as wildlife vert. There are like a thousand more game farms here than before."

He is doing fine as the head Vet of a Zoo in NZ. But he could not make a living in SA (Pretoria area).

"Secondly what's wrong with people mixing ?"

Diminishes diversity (all the same, all mixed), while diversity is *supposed* to be valued. Diversity can also exist when you limit general mixing (panmixia/panmixis).

"It's actually beneficial to the gene pool."

Humbug (except maybe for very close cousins, and even then history is full of geniuses which are inbred cousins, Darwin is one, for instance).


"I'm from a "mixed" family and my Afrikaans is just fine."

Well, I'm sorry I know a lot of mixed families where the children don't speak as well Afrikaans as their parents. We know for a fact what happened to the Afrikaners in Cape Town across history, many anglicized. Not anecdotal evidence, just history. There is no way with schools and university being more and more in English, jobs requiring more and more English, more marriages with English speakers, Church affiliation waning or becoming more "evangelical", less and less services being provided in Afrikaans (less laws are published in Afrikaans, less customer service provided, less signage, less and less bilingual civil servants), etc. There is simply no way Afrikaans will not suffer.

"I am almost 100% sure when old enough my kids will speak Afrikaans whether I teach thme too or not."

Hmmm. Possible. I don't know your situation. Maybe their grand parents will teach them, perhaps they will attend one of the rare Afrikaans medium schools left by then, miskien most of their friends will be Afrikaners.

Otherwise growing all the time in English, Afrikaans will be a foreign tongue, okay for chitchat, making a few jokes, but not for reading serious books or dreaming in.

But in general, this is simply less and less true. Also, BTW, the fertility rate of Whites (and Afrikaners) is well below the replacement level (around 1,6 children/women). And don't believe the Coloureds will save Afrikaans, their fertility rate is now just below replacement rate and their rate of assimilation to English is greater than that of White Afrikaners.

The white population will decrease relative fast whether lots of people emigrate or not.

How can you be so optimistic?

"Don't be so precious about your culture and scared of change. "

You are funny.

"Change is a good thing in so many ways."

It can be bad in just as many ways. Why this blind optimism?

"If we all remained rigid we'd still be in caves."

Early death (physical, cultural, ethnical) is also a change.

Mugabe was also a change in Zimbabwe. Nice change, he?

Piet said...

@The Rooster

"Firstly, I can't believe someone couldn't makew a living as wildlife vert. There are like a thousand more game farms here than before."

Well, it's a fact. He is now the head vet in a NZ zoo (was in Dubai before), could not really get a living in the Pretoria area.

Piet said...

@The Rooster :

"Secondly what's wrong with people mixing ? "

It destroys diversity, which people say is valuable.

You cannot preserve diversity when every one (in fact minorities) mix a lot (panmixis/panmixia).


"It's actually beneficial to the gene pool."

Humbug.

Except maybe for inbred mariages between cousins. And even then, Charles Darwin's family was inbred.

Deleterious recessives diseases habitually due to inbreeding can be purged by selection (in traditional societies, fools and sickly people rarely marry and have a lot of children).

But again these deleterious recessives diseases are only found in very close inbreeding, not when a German marries a French... The genetic diversity is very high in Europe (they were already 6 millions people in Gaul in Caesar's time).

Piet said...

@The rooster

"I'm from a "mixed" family and my Afrikaans is just fine."

Possible, but anecdotal.

"I am almost 100% sure when old enough my kids will speak Afrikaans whether I teach thme too or not."

Again possible, it all depends on your family situation. Maybe their grand parents will speak to them in Afrikaans all the time, perhaps they will attend one of the dwindling Afrikaans medium school, miskien most of their friends will be Afrikaners. Otherwise, I think not.

But in any case, history is their to show that your optimism is groundless.

Lots of Afrikaners in cities like Cape Town anglicized in the past.

And I can't see how today with less schools in Afrikaans, less universities, more and more jobs requiring English, with globalization, less services in Afrikaans, less signage, packaging in Afrikaans, more mixed marriages, Calvinist faith having less importance, less and less bilingual civil servants how Afrikaans will not slowly disappear.

Ah, forgot, emigration and low birthrate.

You know of course, that the White birthrate is very low (around 1,6 children/women), same for white Afrikaners. This does not bode well. The white population will diminish in absolute numbers, and even more in relative terms, whether a lot of them emigrate or not.

Ah, and don't believe the Coloureds will help preserve Afrikaans, their birthrate is now slightly below the 2,1 children per women (the replacement level) and their assimilation rate to English is higher than the rate of White Afrikaans speakers.

Piet said...

@The Rooster

" Don't be so precious about your culture and scared of change."

You are funny...

" Change is a good thing in so many ways."

It can be a bad thing in just as many ways.

For a peaceful country, early death, war, plague are just "changes".

Now you may categorize the disappearance of the Afrikaners and Afrikaans as changes, and applaud these changes, but please don't say that diversity is good then.

(And BTW when diversity disappears, who do you mix with then? Mixing is so nice according to you...)

"If we all remained rigid we'd still be in caves."

Yes, yes, of course.

Changes is always good of course: look at the nice changes introduced by Mugabe.

Jim Beam said...

@Piet

Could I ask you why it is always the liberal whites who are not miscegnated who are always advocating race mixing and mixed race children?

Could we not have the same argument and say that the killing of all liberals is good for the gene pool?

The Rooster said...

@Piet

Could I ask you why it is always the liberal whites who are not miscegnated who are always advocating race mixing and mixed race children?

Could we not have the same argument and say that the killing of all liberals is good for the gene pool?


--------------

I'm not liberal. But damn have you seen some of those Japanese women ?


And I know 3 Afrikaans people personally who are dating coloured girls in Safferville. I know plenty more who dip in that pond once in a while too. It's a bioligical fact that the Afrikaaners are a mixed "race" anyway (and a big part of that mix has some colour in it.) So why be so precious about it ? The Afrikaaners haven't even been a group for 200 years. Try define yourself as an individual. I mean there's so much about Afrikaans culture I think worth actually letting go of. The Ng kerk, the verkrampt 19th century mindset, the racism etc. Rather that helps or makes anything better , it holds Afrikaans people back from their personal potential.


Come on. We all know 99% of the people on the "hate south africa" circuit are Afrikaaners of a certain age.

Leon said...

"But damn have you seen some of those Japanese women ?"

No breast and no butts and even less children than White women.

But in any case you don't have to hate others to prefer your own.

Piet said...

@The Rooster

"It's a bioligical fact that the Afrikaaners are a mixed "race" anyway (and a big part of that mix has some colour in it.)"

No, a few percentage points and that part is larger in poorer whites and relatively minimal in richer Afrikaners. I know of families with nearly all ancestors all traced back to Germany or Holland in the last two centuries. Yes, it is true that it is fashionable these days to find a Hottentot in one's family tree (a book came out a few years ago about such a women).

I have a friend who raves about it. So that makes him around 1/512th-1/256th Hottentot, he seems to forget the other 511/512 or 255/256 European parts...

But again, you cannot say diversity is good and want the demise of a distinct (and you can't deny it is distinct ethnically and linguistically) ethnic group.

"So why be so precious about it ?"

What is so precious with any ethnic group? Why not assimilate all of them into... let's say the Han Chinese. After all, native English speakers only represent around 5% of the World population, while Mandarin is spoke by around 20% of the World's population...

"The Afrikaaners haven't even been a group for 200 years. "

You should laud the fact that new cultural groups appear and increase diversity.

But you see: you admit yourself the disappearance of Afrikaans is of no consequence to you and you would have us believe:

1) that your children will not assimilate to English rather than know that inconsequential only 200 years old language of Afrikaans.

2) that everything is for the better in SA while and ethnic group and its language are slowly disappearing making a farce of its 11 official language constitution.

"Try define yourself as an individual"

Yes, yes. Only the individual. No community, no language, no culture. All these don't exist or don't matter. In other words, some of the things that really makes people human (their culture, their language, their sense of togetherness) is of no consequence, what is important to you is the bare individual, the anatomical being deprived of all its cultural traits.

It is the usual discourse of the victor to the vanquished: just assimilate and become like me, see I don't care about language (oh, it's true my language is being imposed upon you, sorry forgot about that.)

Piet said...

@The Rooster

"It's a bioligical fact that the Afrikaaners are a mixed "race" anyway (and a big part of that mix has some colour in it.)"

No, a few percentage points and that part is larger in poorer whites and relatively minimal in richer Afrikaners. I know of families with nearly all ancestors all traced back to Germany or Holland in the last two centuries. Yes, it is true that it is fashionable these days to find a Hottentot in one's family tree (a book came out a few years ago about such a women).

I have a friend who raves about it. So that makes him around 1/512th-1/256th Hottentot, he seems to forget the other 511/512 or 255/256 European parts...

But again, you cannot say diversity is good and want the demise of a distinct (and you can't deny it is distinct ethnically and linguistically) ethnic group.

Piet said...

"So why be so precious about it ?"

What is so precious with any ethnic group? Why not assimilate all of them into... let's say the Han Chinese. After all, native English speakers only represent around 5% of the World population, while Mandarin is spoken by around 20% of the World's population...

"The Afrikaaners haven't even been a group for 200 years. "

You should laud the fact that new cultural groups appear and increase diversity.

But you see: you admit yourself the disappearance of Afrikaans is of no consequence to you and you would have us believe:

1) that your children will not assimilate to English rather than know that inconsequential only 200 years old language of Afrikaans.

2) that everything is for the better in SA while and ethnic group and its language are slowly disappearing making a farce of its 11 official language constitution.

"Try define yourself as an individual"

Yes, yes. Only the individual. No community, no language, no culture. All these don't exist or don't matter. In other words, some of the things that really makes people human (their culture, their language, their sense of togetherness) is of no consequence, what is important to you is the bare individual, the anatomical being deprived of all its cultural traits.

It is the usual discourse of the victor to the vanquished: just assimilate and become like me, see I don't care about language (oh, it's true my language is being imposed upon you, sorry forgot about that.)

Piet said...

@The Rooster

"Come on. We all know 99% of the people on the "hate south africa" circuit are Afrikaaners of a certain age."

Is this supposed to prove something?

1) Those that leave SA are on the average younger than those that stay: the younger ones find no work, don't want their children to live in a violent country, etc. The older ones have made their life, have investments a house that they could not buy back overseas, etc.

2) Does that mean that the young expats hate the new SA more than their parents ones?

3) It is normal that older people are more nostalgic: they have lived in a better SA, less people, less crime, better education for their children, an easier life altogether, their language valued, etc.

4) Apartheid was the only way for the Afrikaners to survive and it lifted many out of poverty. It was the only solution for a minority to survive the demographically odds.

5) The English "Whites" who naively believe that they should only think in terms of personal enrichment may soon realize that their have no collective voice or weight (demography, BEE, AA are all playing against them).

And when some non-White leader will enforce some ethnic policies, to placate for instance the millions of its constituents who still linger in poverty, they will be the next scapegoat and their status no better than that of expats and worst for the growing poor white population, too poor to emigrate.

The White population will continue to decrease rapidly and its relative wealth will diminish (I know that in absolute terms it went up. but only as SA caught up with the World as sanctions were lifted).

The Rooster said...

Regarding your defending of Afrikaans culture etc, I don't begrudge anyone their culture. I have a culture I hold precious too. If I must call it something I suppose it's something like the "post modernist deconstructionist western culture". My culture makes me introspective and self critical, but not self loathing. It makes me see myself as an individual defined by my personal responsibilities. I hold precious my rights to personal freedom so long as I can tow the line of personal repsonsibility. I feel it is my duty to not impose myself on others, and theirs not to impose themselves on me.

Which is where my culture collides with aspects of Afrikaans culture. Where certain assumptions are made regarding a sense of entitlement over people of colour etc. But so long as nobody is forcing their culture on others I will defend its right to exist. Diversity gives the world flavour. But let's be honest, the Afrikaans culture has a poor history of not enforcing itself on other people (hint : apartheid).


Other than that you make some valid points. I still don't think anyone should get precious about their ethnicity. In post modern relativism we're all equally crap. Our subtle differences and quirks should never lead us into conflict. But far too often when people get ideological and hyper nationalistic it leads to big fuck ups. i think the world could do better without this gunk.

The Rooster said...

1) Those that leave SA are on the average younger than those that stay: the younger ones find no work, don't want their children to live in a violent country, etc. The older ones have made their life, have investments a house that they could not buy back overseas, etc.


---------------------

Not many people leave these days. And the majority that do come back tails between their legs. The white population grew last year by 100 000 people very dissalusioned to find how the grass isn't greener.
---------------------

2) Does that mean that the young expats hate the new SA more than their parents ones?

---------------------

No. Young people aren't that hung up about South Africa unless their parents socialised them to be.

-------------------
3) It is normal that older people are more nostalgic: they have lived in a better SA, less people, less crime, better education for their children, an easier life altogether, their language valued, etc.

------------------------
Better education and less crime for who ? Certainly not the majority of South Africans. You saee what your "culture" is doing to your brain? It's making you see other people as less human.

------------------
4) Apartheid was the only way for the Afrikaners to survive and it lifted many out of poverty. It was the only solution for a minority to survive the demographically odds.
---------------------

Well it was a very badly thought out plan. How hard would it have been for the nats to do what the A.N.C is doing ? Build people houses, educate them, give them electricity etc ? Slowly integrate other people into modern westernb values ? But oh no ! they were too busy thinking in terms of "differences" rather than similarities. Too busy being groot baas Piet Khaki Broek to realise how absurd the notion is that 10% of people could rule in their own interests over the other 90% forever.
------------------
5) The English "Whites" who naively believe that they should only think in terms of personal enrichment may soon realize that their have no collective voice or weight (demography, BEE, AA are all playing against them).

------------------

No, as soon as people get over their cultural differences a new struggle with emerge. A class struggle. And we've all seen who wins those. The rich.

-------------------
And when some non-White leader will enforce some ethnic policies, to placate for instance the millions of its constituents who still linger in poverty, they will be the next scapegoat and their status no better than that of expats and worst for the growing poor white population, too poor to emigrate.
------------------------------

Growing poor ? I have said before , if you are white and coulnd't get rich under apartheid, you would probably be poor anywhere in the world anyway. Dropping out with a standard 6 etc was far too easy and option in the old South Africa. Blame that for the poor whites. Believe it or not the world doesn't owe you a high income because you're white.


----------------------

The White population will continue to decrease rapidly and its relative wealth will diminish (I know that in absolute terms it went up. but only as SA caught up with the World as sanctions were lifted).

-----------------

Nope as I said it's increasing. And getting richer. The average white person earns over 150% (inflation taken into acount) more than they did in 1994.

The Rooster said...

shit. I answered a long winded post to the rest and it got lost in cyber space. Can't be bother to repeat it now, but will offer highlights later.

A few points.

- S.A whites grew by 100 000 last year. (ask for a link if you don't believe me).
- S.A whites earn 150% (inflation taken into acount) more than they did in 1994.
- Poor S.A whites are simply uneducated, unskilled people who would not be fit to be anything more than garbage collectors pretty much anywhere. The world doesn't owe you a high income just for having white skin.

Anonymous said...

Rooster, "The white population grew last year by 100 000 people very dissalusioned to find how the grass isn't greener.". So no whites had any babies last year? Did it also occur to you that most did not have a choice to come back since they could not find work abroad? (which is not the same thing as coming back because you want to).

"S.A whites earn 150% (inflation taken into acount) more than they did in 1994.", do you have proof of this?

"Poor S.A whites are simply uneducated, unskilled people who would not be fit to be anything more than garbage collectors pretty much anywhere. The world doesn't owe you a high income just for having white skin", how do you know for certain they are uneducated, unskilled? Or this just another one of your amazing assumptions? PS, allot of white people cannot get a job in their field because of the colour of their skin. But I suppose you are more than happy for this to happen, since you are unaffected.

Islandshark said...

@ Anon 3:49 - the chicken providing proof? Don't be silly now.

Leon said...

@The Rooster :

« Not many people leave these days. And the majority that do come back tails between their legs. The white population grew last year by 100 000 people very dissalusioned to find how the grass isn't greener. »

Please, please the Rooster don't extrapolate from a single year or even a couple of them. Some come back not ALL.

The White population in 1994 was around 16% of the opopulation (around 23% in the 60s), it is now less than 9%.

The average birthrate of Whites is around 1,6 children.

AS I SAID, even without immigration the White population share of the total population will decrease rapidly (relative importance) and so will their absolute numbers.

Now, emigration will resume, Australia is doing quite well, so is Brazil or Canada. Just don't emigrate in Europe (Eurabia), it's plain silly.

Leon said...

@The Rootser


"No. Young people aren't that hung up about South Africa unless their parents socialised them to be."

Pffff. The same can be said in the opposite, young people are ignorant and like the New South Africa if they have been so "socialized" (endoctrinated).

Leon said...

@The Rooster trying to be thick :

"Better education and less crime for who ?"

Do you crime numbers during Apartheid ? They weren't so bad.

But in any case, you are being of bad faith we were speaking of the old South Africans overseas who don't like the New South Africa.

It's normal, they had better education and live in a less crime-ridden country than what SA has become.

I know, I lived in SA in the 1970s-1980s, it was heaven for me. Towns were peaceful, clean, Church street in Pretoria deserted for miles on Sunday.

"Certainly not the majority of South Africans."

Pfff. The matrics result in the last 7 years in a row for all SA went down.

You are just biased and uninformed.

"You saee what your "culture" is doing to your brain? It's making you see other people as less human."

You know of course that this kind of talk is so cliché. You have been brainwashed.

Treating everyone the same way, ceding to majority with racial instincts (the ANC and its BEE, AA) is -- despite its discourse -- the worst way of handling people and their diversity.

"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" as they say in French (The better is the ennemy of good).

Piet said...

To The Rooster

>"Well it was a very badly thought out plan. How hard would it have been for the nats to do what the A.N.C is doing ?"

You mean the incompetence, the corruption, the violence, the racial discrimination (BEE, AA)?

>" Build people houses,"

Did, and a lot. You should read reports (or watch the Carte Blanche report of Black Nostalgia).

>" educate them, give them electricity etc ?"


Did, and a lot.


>"Slowly integrate other people into modern westernb values ? "

What do you think happened?

>"But oh no ! they were too busy thinking in terms of "differences" rather than similarities."

Because similarities are uninteresting. (Do you realize just how very predictable you are? The standard "arguments". You learned your lesson, well. A good little liberal who probably thinks he is clever).

When we speak of Napoleon, we are not going to speak about his similarities with us: 2 legs, 2 hands, 2 eyes, had tootaches, headaches from time to time, liked women, his mother, etc. We are interesting in what distinguishes him. The same is true in human societies, what is interesting is what distinguishes them not that they all go to the toilet a few times a day.

(Yes, by focusing on similarities, you tend to debase the human experience and refuse what makes people unique : culture, language, race, etc.)

"Too busy being groot baas Piet Khaki Broek to realise how absurd the notion is that 10% of people could rule in their own interests over the other 90% forever."

(Sigh)

Again, you are just repeating clichés and caricatures. Yes, some whites were playing "baas", so are some blacks today.

Personally, I lived in SA and was just an employee and never a "baas" to anyone but white junior employees. (Okay, there was a tea boy, did not report to me, but really I could have lived without him, it was just one of those many small jobs to curb unemployment in the unskilled black labour)

You know (or you should know since you come across as quite arrogant) that Apartheid's goal was for Bantus to rule themselves in their homelands.

Now, at least four things played against this:

1) Black demography (the Blacks reproducing much faster than first thought (Old Census data was wrongly extrapolated, read Gilliomee) and much faster than the Whites.

2) (Afrikaners) Farmers and (English) industrialists wanting to use cheap labour close to white centers.

3) The difficulty of establishing new industries in remote homelands.

4) The lack of white emigration for many decades due to the bilingual nature of SA, emigrants privileging English, Afrikaners feared opening the flood gates. Had SA been unilingual (like Brazil, Australian, Uruguay, Argentia), white emigration might have been much higher at the end of XIXth Century and early XXth century. And this would have changed a lot of things. Whites could have been a majority in the first half of XXth century.

Piet said...

To The Rooster

>"Well it was a very badly thought out plan. How hard would it have been for the nats to do what the A.N.C is doing ?"

You mean the incompetence, the corruption, the violence, the racial discrimination (BEE, AA)?

>" Build people houses,"

Did, and a lot. You should read reports (or watch the Carte Blanche report of Black Nostalgia).

>" educate them, give them electricity etc ?"


Did, and a lot.


>"Slowly integrate other people into modern westernb values ? "

What do you think happened?

>"But oh no ! they were too busy thinking in terms of "differences" rather than similarities."

Because similarities are uninteresting. (Do you realize just how very predictable you are? The standard "arguments". You learned your lesson, well. A good little liberal who probably thinks he is clever).

When we speak of Napoleon, we are not going to speak about his similarities with us: 2 legs, 2 hands, 2 eyes, had tootaches, headaches from time to time, liked women, his mother, etc. We are interesting in what distinguishes him. The same is true in human societies, what is interesting is what distinguishes them not that they all go to the toilet a few times a day.

(Yes, by focusing on similarities, you tend to debase the human experience and refuse what makes people unique : culture, language, race, etc.)

Piet said...

To the rooster


"Too busy being groot baas Piet Khaki Broek to realise how absurd the notion is that 10% of people could rule in their own interests over the other 90% forever."

(Sigh)

Again, you are just repeating clichés and caricatures. Yes, some whites were playing "baas", so are some blacks today.

Personally, I lived in SA and was just an employee and never a "baas" to anyone but white junior employees. (Okay, there was a tea boy, did not report to me, but really I could have lived without him, it was just one of those many small jobs to curb unemployment in the unskilled black labour)

You know (or you should know since you come across as quite arrogant) that Apartheid's goal was for Bantus to rule themselves in their homelands.

Now, at least four things played against this:

1) Black demography (the Blacks reproducing much faster than first thought (Old Census data was wrongly extrapolated, read Gilliomee) and much faster than the Whites.

2) (Afrikaners) Farmers and (English) industrialists wanting to use cheap labour close to white centers.

3) The difficulty of establishing new industries in remote homelands.

4) The lack of white emigration for many decades due to the bilingual nature of SA, emigrants privileging English, Afrikaners feared opening the flood gates. Had SA been unilingual (like Brazil, Australian, Uruguay, Argentia), white emigration might have been much higher at the end of XIXth Century and early XXth century. And this would have changed a lot of things. Whites could have been a majority in the first half of XXth century.

Piet said...

To the rooster

"No, as soon as people get over their cultural differences"

Speak about racial differences, the Blacks are racial or tribal if you prefer that euphemism.

"a new struggle with emerge. A class struggle."

Funny. When will that happen? Before the whites are no longer of any importance?

By the way, never in Africa has this happened.

"And we've all seen who wins those. The rich."

Let's imagine this happens.

How can you be so sure the Whites will not be poor by then? (Some lingering racism, old boy?)

I think many more whites will be poor, some may enrich themselves, but there is such a thing as nationalization you know.

Piet said...

I wrote:

>>"The White population will continue to decrease rapidly and its relative wealth will diminish (I know that in absolute terms it went up. but only as SA caught up with the World as sanctions were lifted)."

The Rooster answered:

>"Nope as I said it's increasing."

(Sigh)


I said it did in absolute terms (please read again above).


"And getting richer. The average white person earns over 150% (inflation taken into acount) more than they did in 1994."

Now four things:

1) It is an argument in favour of Apartheid: you see the whites were not gaining financially through that exercise (of course because of sanctions largely). Not greedy thus.

2) Those are *average* earnings, in no way *median* earnings. I note also your contempt for poor whites (Could not even get rich under apartheid!) as if apartheid made everyone rich! It's plain silly. Average salary differences between whites and blacks had been decreasing constantly from the 1960s to the 1990s.

3) What is the average earning gain for Blacks, Coloured and Indians? I think today the average earnings of Indians is higher than the ones for whites, or at least they are better placed among the wealthy (forgot which percentile)

4) It is easy for white earnings on the average to increase given the increasing age of Whites in SA: older people earn more on the average, young people flee and the average increases even more. This does not say, however, that the future is getting any rosier for the few remaining young whites, quite the contrary.

Rooster, it would be simpler if you simpler said you did not give a damn about the whites in SA.

Dime of Wealth said...

@The Rooster


Wrote A few points.

"- S.A whites grew by 100 000 last year. (ask for a link if you don't believe me)."


Yes, please a link.

How is this credible? Is there a census every year in SA now? Otherwise I don't see how these numbers could be credible (there are no exit/entry number for ZA citizens).

"- S.A whites earn 150% (inflation taken into acount) more than they did in 1994."

And Blacks? And the median earnings?

"- Poor S.A whites are simply uneducated, unskilled people who would not be fit to be anything more than garbage collectors pretty much anywhere. "

Please prove this (once again).

A lot of white civil servants, electricians were relatively well skilled but dismissed because White and some of their positions are vacant (Escom) or filled by people even less educated (you know Bantu education was terrible under horrible Apartheid and all that stuff).

You seem to be full of prejudice, The Rooster.

Islandshark said...

The chicken seems a bit worse for the wear after the recent barrage of truth chucked at him...

The Rooster said...

White population increases in both number and as % of the total population..

http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022010.pdf

Whites income raises in real terms 154%. Black income 180% since 1994. I have many more links for that one if you'd like. But feel free to search fin24 before I run your noses in it.

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-11-24-white-south-africans-still-top-of-the-income-pile

As to the Apartheid nostalgia rubbish. I won't debate someone who tries to tell me with a straight face the nats did anything but the odd token thing for the blacks. They probably spent 1000 times more on the army than they did on doing anything for black people. You can sing that bogus tune all day to you me and I won't hear a note. It's fucking bullshit and you know it.

The Rooster said...

Piet don't repeat your replies 50 times in diffrerent ways. I mean I don't care that much about the issue to waft through all of that gunk. Here's a go at these 4.

Now four things:

1) It is an argument in favour of Apartheid: you see the whites were not gaining financially through that exercise (of course because of sanctions largely). Not greedy thus.


-------------------------

Rubbish. Whites gain as much as they could get away with.

-------------------
2) Those are *average* earnings, in no way *median* earnings. I note also your contempt for poor whites (Could not even get rich under apartheid!) as if apartheid made everyone rich! It's plain silly. Average salary differences between whites and blacks had been decreasing constantly from the 1960s to the 1990s.


---------------------------

I don't hate poor whites. I just don't care about them more than other poor people. I don't feel any kinship for people because of skin colour. I relate to people who are similar to me in interest and social circumstances.

------------------------
3) What is the average earning gain for Blacks, Coloured and Indians? I think today the average earnings of Indians is higher than the ones for whites, or at least they are better placed among the wealthy (forgot which percentile)
--------------------

Go see the link. They all gained massively. (To nearly double the average income relative to inflation in 15 years is an amazing achievement).

And no, the average earnings for whites is still tops.

---------------------
4) It is easy for white earnings on the average to increase given the increasing age of Whites in SA: older people earn more on the average, young people flee and the average increases even more. This does not say, however, that the future is getting any rosier for the few remaining young whites, quite the contrary.

-----------------------


He he. Seriously though, few remaining young whites ? Lol. All my friends and myself who went to work overseas after university for kicks and are back in South Africa now with the exception of literally one or two girls who married someone there.
---------------

Rooster, it would be simpler if you simpler said you did not give a damn about the whites in SA.

------------------

Whether I care about everyone or not has nothing to do with their melanin levels in the skin. Why do I have to cheer for whites especially ? I hate this social identity bullshit whether it's blacks doing "black pride" or whites doing it. While most of my friends and those in my social circles just happen to be white due to hisorical circumstances, frankly I have more in common with some educated blacks than with some white trash I know.

The Rooster said...

Piet don't repeat your replies 50 times in diffrerent ways. I mean I don't care that much about the issue to waft through all of that gunk. Here's a go at these 4.

Now four things:

1) It is an argument in favour of Apartheid: you see the whites were not gaining financially through that exercise (of course because of sanctions largely). Not greedy thus.


-------------------------

Rubbish. Whites gain as much as they could get away with.

-------------------
2) Those are *average* earnings, in no way *median* earnings. I note also your contempt for poor whites (Could not even get rich under apartheid!) as if apartheid made everyone rich! It's plain silly. Average salary differences between whites and blacks had been decreasing constantly from the 1960s to the 1990s.


---------------------------

I don't hate poor whites. I just don't care about them more than other poor people. I don't feel any kinship for people because of skin colour. I relate to people who are similar to me in interest and social circumstances.

The Rooster said...

------------------------
3) What is the average earning gain for Blacks, Coloured and Indians? I think today the average earnings of Indians is higher than the ones for whites, or at least they are better placed among the wealthy (forgot which percentile)
--------------------

Go see the link. They all gained massively. (To nearly double the average income relative to inflation in 15 years is an amazing achievement).

And no, the average earnings for whites is still tops.

---------------------
4) It is easy for white earnings on the average to increase given the increasing age of Whites in SA: older people earn more on the average, young people flee and the average increases even more. This does not say, however, that the future is getting any rosier for the few remaining young whites, quite the contrary.

-----------------------


He he. Seriously though, few remaining young whites ? Lol. All my friends and myself who went to work overseas after university for kicks and are back in South Africa now with the exception of literally one or two girls who married someone there.
---------------

Rooster, it would be simpler if you simpler said you did not give a damn about the whites in SA.

------------------

Whether I care about everyone or not has nothing to do with their melanin levels in the skin. Why do I have to cheer for whites especially ? I hate this social identity bullshit whether it's blacks doing "black pride" or whites doing it. While most of my friends and those in my social circles just happen to be white due to historical circumstances, frankly I have more in common with some educated blacks than with some white trash I know.

The Rooster said...

No, a few percentage points and that part is larger in poorer whites and relatively minimal in richer Afrikaners. I know of families with nearly all ancestors all traced back to Germany or Holland in the last two centuries. Yes, it is true that it is fashionable these days to find a Hottentot in one's family tree (a book came out a few years ago about such a women).

-----------

Very unlikely, some French or english genes got in their too (plus all the moxing they had done). And like it or not the gross majority of Afrikaners have some black genes mixed in. Not to mention the almost 7 million coloureds didn't get there by magic.

Besides even if they can trace their ancestors back to the dutch, even the Dutch were mixed into various ethic groups. So too the Germans. This thing about not mixing races is so idiotic given how the races are all so already mixed.

Angulus Calx said...

To the braai hoender, and all who is commenting…..

So what....?

I sit and read the comments, started to type a lengthy one myself, and then at some stage realized I am stepping into a debate that has no winners, only losers.

Nobody is as blind as those who do not want to see….

I still don’t like him.

Anonymous said...

Piet 1, Rooster 0

A4

Anonymous said...

As for the Afrikaners being race mixed.

Look at this scientific study.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W7W-4RWB12H-1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2008&_alid=1493433037&_rdoc=7&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_cdi=6637&_sort=r&_st=4&_docanchor=&_ct=689&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5766ffb5119e39742ef6aecdfa6349a9&searchtype=a

At first glance the study above seems to indicate that the Afrikaner has some black heritage, but that is only the way in which the study was presented. The way it is presented is intended to mislead.

What the study actually does when you examine it more closely is to proof that the Afrikaner has no black African heritage, although the Cape coloured does have some Afrikaner heritage.

In other word their is a genetic link between the two, but the study tries to deceive in that implies that the Afrikaner is genetically linked to black Africans, when the study only shows that coloureds are genetically linked to Afrikaners/Europeans.

What you have to do to eliminate the deceit, is to identify the origin of each of the haplotypes that are found in the study.

The study lists the following Y-STR loci (DYS19, DYS389-I, DYS389-II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393 and the duplicated locus DYS385).

tyhese are the only haplotype groups that were found with the same frequency between the Afrikaner and the coloured. (thus a family connection)

Here are the origins of these haplotypes....

DYS19=16 haplotype. Scandinavia based
DYS389-I haplotype. European based
DYS389-II, European based
DYS390, Southern European
DYS391, Scandinavia based
DYS392, Western European origin
DYS393, European in origin
DYS385, Asian in origin

As can be seen there are no AFRICAN origin haplotypes in this study.

LET ME REPEAT THAT.
THERE ARE NO AFRICAN HAPLOTYPES IN THIS STUDY.
So this study proves two things.

1) That some of the Afrikaners have a very, very small Asiatic haplogroup contribution.

2) THAT THE COLOUREDS ARE RELATED TO THE AFRIKANERS, but the Afrikaners are NOT related to the coloureds.(Because no African haplotypes are found, one cannot claim the reverse and say that the Afrikaners are related to the coloureds.)

This study shows no African genes in the Afrikaners and that some the coloureds have an European genetic contributor.

African4

Anonymous said...

As for the Afrikaners being race mixed.

Look at this scientific study.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W7W-4RWB12H-1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2008&_alid=1493433037&_rdoc=7&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_cdi=6637&_sort=r&_st=4&_docanchor=&_ct=689&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5766ffb5119e39742ef6aecdfa6349a9&searchtype=a

At first glance the study above seems to indicate that the Afrikaner has some black heritage, but that is only the way in which the study was presented. The way it is presented is intended to mislead.

What the study actually does when you examine it more closely is to proof that the Afrikaner has no black African heritage, although the Cape coloured does have some Afrikaner heritage.

In other word their is a genetic link between the two, but the study tries to deceive in that implies that the Afrikaner is genetically linked to black Africans, when the study only shows that coloureds are genetically linked to Afrikaners/Europeans.

What you have to do to eliminate the deceit, is to identify the origin of each of the haplotypes that are found in the study.

continued.....

Anonymous said...

The study lists the following Y-STR loci (DYS19, DYS389-I, DYS389-II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393 and the duplicated locus DYS385).

tyhese are the only haplotype groups that were found with the same frequency between the Afrikaner and the coloured. (thus a family connection)

Here are the origins of these haplotypes....

DYS19=16 haplotype. Scandinavia based
DYS389-I haplotype. European based
DYS389-II, European based
DYS390, Southern European
DYS391, Scandinavia based
DYS392, Western European origin
DYS393, European in origin
DYS385, Asian in origin

As can be seen there are no AFRICAN origin haplotypes in this study.

LET ME REPEAT THAT.
THERE ARE NO AFRICAN HAPLOTYPES IN THIS STUDY.
So this study proves two things.

1) That some of the Afrikaners have a very, very small Asiatic haplogroup contribution.

2) THAT THE COLOUREDS ARE RELATED TO THE AFRIKANERS, but the Afrikaners are NOT related to the coloureds.(Because no African haplotypes are found, one cannot claim the reverse and say that the Afrikaners are related to the coloureds.)

This study shows no African genes in the Afrikaners and that some the coloureds have an European genetic contributor.

African4

Anonymous said...

Genetics proves that the coloureds have some Afrikaner heritage.

We know that the coloured also have African heritage, but no common haplotype frequency was found between the Afrikaner and the African genes found in the coloured.

Thus the Afriknaer does not have a genetic connection to the African, but the coloured has Afrikaner/European heritage.
..............

The myth that the Afriknaer is racially mixed is propaganda to promote multiculturalism.

People should stop believing what the marxist propanganda machine says. They should rather hang them.

It's all lies.
..............

Fact is that in a country filled with a kazillion blacks the Afrikaner would rather marry his cousin than to race mix.

In this regard the Afrikaner is a lot like the Jew.

A4

Anonymous said...

Rooster once again, great link: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P030220 IT DOES NOT WORK!!!

"Rubbish. Whites gain as much as they could get away with.", oh sorry I forgot my folks are rolling in the money that they made from apartheid. Or was it they actually got off their arse and did some work! By the way, they are in no way financially well off, so there goes that argument of yours. Do you honestly believe half the crap that comes out of your mouth?

But you know what, live in your cozy dream world. Reality will come knocking some day.

Piet said...

The Rooster said...

"Whites income raises in real terms 154%. Black income 180% since 1994. I have many more links for that one if you'd like. But feel free to search fin24 before I run your noses in it."

You are funny.

1) I never never denied the average of White income had raised. (In absolute terms)

2) I hinted to you it had less than Blacks (that why the increase its relatively less).

3) It has mostly to do with the lifting of sanctions and joining the world economy and profiting from massive exports to countries (viz. China) hungry for SA ore and minerals.

4) These are average earnings, not median ones. You know the difference, don't you? In other words, lots of whites could get poorer.

5) You have not answered the remarks about the average gains going up mechanically when young white people leave SA (in all economies young people earn less than they better established and more experienced elders).

Throwing a pointer to an article does not an argument make, mate.

Piet said...

The Rooster said...

"White population increases in both number and as % of the total population..

http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022010.pdf"

I have read that report before.

Would you care to elaborate?

1) "White population increases" is not found in the document. What are you quoting?

2) Did you see (table 11) that they are far more 50-65 years old whites than 0-15? This is of course not the case for all other races.

3) "This release assumes an inflow of 1,3 million for the Black/Africa population since 1996. For the same
period it assumes an out-migration of 440 000 whites."

Which is a net out-migration of whites. And in any case both figures (inflow of Blacks and outflow of Whites) are very disputible. (Some people say there are 3-4 millions Zims in SA alone!)

4) You forget the big picture: whites 23% or so of the population in the 60s, 16% in the 90s, 9% in 2010...

Piet said...

The Rooster thought

"Rubbish. Whites gain as much as they could get away with. "

You are contradicting yourself.

You say on the one hand that since the end of Apartheid whites have grown richer (true on the average and for those left in SA) and on the other hand you say that the motivation for Apartheid was to gain as much as possible.

Its plainly wrong.

But you don't see it because you cannnot imagine that Apartheid was not first about making more money.

In fact, greed ("being the baas" as you said) was the reason why it failed: English industrialist wanted cheap labour, real apartheid meant getting rid of it to institute geographical separation.

Apartheid was not about money, but about about survival of a minority in Africa by separating from an ever increasing majority, that's why in its policies it was prepared to take actions which were not optimizing the financial earnings of South Africans.

Now, I would grant to you again that both farmers and industrialist had goals (cheap labour in white areas) which contradict the Aparheid ideal which was nothing more than what so common an idea in Europe in the XIXth century: a state for each people (you know the Wilson principles and all that).

These contradictions between the Nation-State (VolkStaat) aspirations of its base and the weight of industrialists meant that policies in the 1960s were often contradictory: claiming that the goal was separation but relying more and more on black labour, building more and more black housing in white-designated areas, etc.

Exzanian said...

Piet, you passed all your tests with flying colours! When can you start blogging on ILSA?

Piet said...

The Rooster :

>"Go see the link. They all gained massively. (To nearly double the average income relative to inflation in 15 years is an amazing achievement).

>And no, the average earnings for whites is still tops."

Average again.

Your figures are apparently from a survey from the South African Institute of Race Relations... A survey?

Do you have a good pointer to this survey?

(I have some doubts about it: the GDP growth divided by the population growth does not seem to make this figure credible:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=ZAR

rom 1993 until 2010, South Africa's average quarterly GDP Growth was 3.29 percent.

Population: 40 millions in 1994, 50 in 2010.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/population-imf-data.html

And this is reflected here:

"The average real GDP growth rate for the decade since 1994 (i.e. 1995 – 2004,
inclusive) was 3,0% and in per capita terms 1,0%."

So only 1% gain per capita for a 3% in GDP.

"The 3 percent average growth rate for the first ten years after apartheid was also a disappointment relative to the expectations of many; and substantially below what was deemed necessary to support a lasting transition to democracy in South Africa."

http://www.ber.ac.za/downloads/2006/working_papers/WP-01-2006.pdf"





And, I'm nearly sure that Indian surpass Whites now in some percentiles (like the richest), but nervermind. Again the problem of your average statistics (per capita) based apparently on a survey.

Also, the per capita earnings for whites are pretty low, below Portugal. Okay, purchasing power may be higher with all that cheap black labour (did it disappear after Apartheid?).


http://www.realestateweb.co.za/realestateweb/view/realestateweb/en/page310?oid=52286&sn=Detail

Jobless whites move into shacks faster than blacks

Again, see the trend :

in 2008 : "White workers on average still earned 5.5 times more than black workers"

"Two years ago whites earned about six times more than blacks. "

The Rooster said...

1) I never never denied the average of White income had raised. (In absolute terms)
------------------

good.

-----------
2) I hinted to you it had less than Blacks (that why the increase its relatively less).
---------------

Blacks are off a tiny base. You would expect it to be much lower than blacks if whites had some kind of bias against them. Instead despite whites earning way more than blacks the difference in increase is only around 30%.

------------------
3) It has mostly to do with the lifting of sanctions and joining the world economy and profiting from massive exports to countries (viz. China) hungry for SA ore and minerals.
------------------

Yeah. So ? Apartheid kept us from dealing in the world economy. Stupid Nats!

---------------
4) These are average earnings, not median ones. You know the difference, don't you? In other words, lots of whites could get poorer.
-------------------


Yes, I know the difference. Certainly some rich whites got richer and some poor whites got poorer. What did you expect when priveledge was taken away ?

------------------
5) You have not answered the remarks about the average gains going up mechanically when young white people leave SA (in all economies young people earn less than they better established and more experienced elders).

-------------------------

Actually remember reading that people earn the most in the age group 30-45. Given that's the age of most long term leavers you'd expect this to harm the average income of whites. It hasn't.
----------------------

Throwing a pointer to an article does not an argument make, mate.

------------

Agreed. But there's no article that disputes people are richer now of all races than before.

Piet said...

Sorry, I could have been clearer while quoting this:

Again, see the trend :

in 2008 : "White workers on average still earned 5.5 times more than black workers"

"Two years ago [viz. 2006] whites earned about six times more than blacks. "

The Rooster said...

The Rooster said...

"White population increases in both number and as % of the total population..

http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022010.pdf"

I have read that report before.

Would you care to elaborate?

1) "White population increases" is not found in the document. What are you quoting?
-----------------

Yes it does. But let's wait till the official number are in next october and revisit the issue. Certainly I know more people coming back than leaving.

----------------
2) Did you see (table 11) that they are far more 50-65 years old whites than 0-15? This is of course not the case for all other races.
----------------

Duh. Aids ?

-------------
3) "This release assumes an inflow of 1,3 million for the Black/Africa population since 1996. For the same
period it assumes an out-migration of 440 000 whites."

--------------------------

Uhuh. The white part sound fair to me as many whites used to leave. Harly any these days though. I'd say more Africans though.

-------------------
Which is a net out-migration of whites. And in any case both figures (inflow of Blacks and outflow of Whites) are very disputible. (Some people say there are 3-4 millions Zims in SA alone!)
----------------

see my last point.

----------------
4) You forget the big picture: whites 23% or so of the population in the 60s, 16% in the 90s, 9% in 2010...

---------------

Again , there was a black population boom. This is not news. I think aids and education will level this out eventually.

Yvon said...

I think Piet has basically destroyed that survey result from the SAIRR about the 154% income gain by Whites since 1994 (and more by other races).

It just doesn't tally.

Per capita income is calculated by taking the GDP of a countrty and dividing by its corresponding population.

And as Piet shows :

"http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=ZAR

From 1993 until 2010, South Africa's average quarterly GDP Growth was 3,29 percent."

while its population grew by 25%.

That means that in real terms per capita the increase must be around 2%... Not bad for Europe or Canada, but not enough for a country that has a lot of catching up to do.

So I really wonder how the "survey" by the SAIRR was done.

Did it really take into account inflation? (proof please)

How was it conducted? Phone people and ask them, were you working in 1994? If so, how much more do you make today?

If that's the case, it is of course ridiculous, I earn 300 % more than 16 years ago. And infinitely more than when I was in high school.

Piet said...

The rooster insisted:

>Yeah. So ? Apartheid kept us from
>dealing in the world economy.

No, the Western world imposed it because it felt guilty. It had not done so before for centuries and the situation was basically the same before the 1960s when people started speaking of sanctions.

>Stupid Nats!

No, the economy was simply not the sole priority as it seems to be for you. It is folly on the long term, no nation lets only the economy determine its future.

Now, as I said there were contradiction and had SA being monolingual (Dutch ;-)) immigration from Europe in the 19th century and early 20th century would have settled the matter completely differently.

>"Yes, I know the difference.
>Certainly some rich whites got
>richer and some poor whites got
>poorer. What did you expect when
>priveledge was taken away ?"

You simply mean replaced by other privileges (BEE, AA)... Please speak plainly. The poor white was definitively exacerbated by BEE and AA. There is no doubt on that point and, no, all these White people were not illiterate. You have to stop saying such silly things.


>"Actually remember reading that >people earn the most in the age >group 30-45. Given that's the age >of most long term leavers you'd >expect this to harm the average >income of whites. It hasn't. "

Pointer (I have my doubts I would say end 20-early 30s) and why the "long term"? Even the absence of short term leaver whites skews the numbers (the capita goes down, the average goes up).

>"Agreed. But there's no article
>that disputes people are richer
>now of all races than before."

I actually think your SAIRR survey is seriously wrong.

See the Stellenbosch study (book) I pointed to, the real per capita gain are closer to 1 to 2% per year.

It's just not possible otherwise: the GDP (3-3,5%)has simply not grown fast enough given the population growth (1-2%).

Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not that good.

Not bad for a mature economy like France or the USA, but pretty weak given the end of sanctions, the massive help from the West (the EU will give hundreds of millions for SA education this year!), the possibility to invest without any political backlash, the huge urge for resources in China (in fact Botswana I think is doing better, so is Brazil), etc.

Soory, Rooster, you are simply not going to convince things are marvellous in SA today. I know things are not apocalyptically bad, that I grant you (I have been back several times, I have family you know), but simply not as tiptop as they were for me in the 70s or the early 80s.

You may be surprised, but during all my youth in SA (I left in my twenties in the 80s) I felt no hatred for Blacks (maybe a sense of annoyance that things could be simpler if we lived in different countries), and I had in fact very little dealings with Blacks as I lived in Pretoria. That was Apartheid after all. Never felt the nasty "baas", no black was my “underling”, I just studied, did my office work and enjoyed the sun, pretty girls, the laid-back style, sports, the cleanliness and pleasant people.

Piet said...

I'm getting service unavailable (503), when I post.

Piet said...

@The rooster again
I asked :
>>1) "White population increases"
>>is not found in the document.
>>What are you quoting?
>-----------------

Simply says :
>Yes it does.

WHERE? Second time I ask.

I wrote :
>>2) Did you see (table 11) that
>>they are far more 50-65 years old
>>whites than 0-15? This is of
>>course not the case for all other
>>races.

The rooster wrote :
>Duh. Aids ?

No, simply not good enough.

1) We know the birth rate of whites is vastly below the replacement level.
2) Have you looked at the differences? Although Aids can explain part of the gap, how does it explain it also in the Indian population?

And the difference between young (0-15) and older (50-65) in Blacks cannot only be explained by Aids and the terrible state of the Health services since the end of Apartheid (they are other diseases than Aids!), but also by the higher birthrates of Blacks (again this is a given).

In any case, I mentioned this to say that the future for Whites is all too plain:

13,169 million Blacks aged 0-15
1,217 million Coloureds
0,290 million Indians
0,822 million Whites
Total : 15,503 million aged 0-15 (diff due to rounding off above)

viz. Whites make up 5,3% of the 0-15 population. That's the future, without emigration of whites or immigrations of Africans. Which seems to be unrealistic.

Piet said...

Small addition then I quit this thread I think.

The Cock wrote:

>"Actually remember reading that >people earn the most in the age >group 30-45. Given that's the age >of most long term leavers you'd >expect this to harm the average >income of whites. It hasn't. "

Pointer (I have my doubts I would say end 20s-early 30s, you don’t leave when you have everything: position, house, business, a good reputation, children in high school, it's much tougher) and why the "long term"? Even the absence of many short term leaver whites skews the numbers (the capita goes down, the average goes up since the missing have little income).

Islandshark said...

@ Yvon & Piet: The reason I don't even bother to "debate" with the demented chicken anymore is precisely what Exzanian described - the best he can come up with, is strawman arguments.

Frankly I don't see the point of his presence here and I don't bite on the free speech motive. This is a blog built on individuals contributing private time to enlighten the world about the true state of affairs in South Africa, as opposed to the left-wing propaganda which drowns the world of mainstream media. Having said that, it has also been proven that the average contributor here isn't right-wing.

If I wanted delusional left-wing propaganda crap, I would switch on CNN, MSNBC or BBC. I see no point in spending my valuable time in contributing factual posts for them to be flooded by BS, which is precisely what the chicken achieves. Like I said, BC2. We all know how it ends - a waste of time for everybody interested in serious debate and probably another poor uninformed soul lost in the maze of fallacy-enshrouded BS spewed by those with hidden agendas.

The fact that this racist bastard attempts to downplay farm murders (of which there are cases almost every week and multiple cases in some), says enough to me.

Their proof? Censorbugbear supposedly keeps inaccurate stats. Because blacks have on occasion been the target in farm murders too - I remember a specific one where the gardener attempted to assist his employer when he was attacked. There was also a case of numerous black victims in a single attack of a farm.

And if you happen to live on a smallholding when you are murdered, these bastards would have you believe that those don't really qualify as farm murders, even though the modus operandi of the perpetrators are exactly the same.

Having these idiots on a blog supposedly exposing the evil axis of ANC / SACP / Cosatu is like CNN frequently interviewing the KKK to appeal to their right of radical-left crowd.

I don't categorise left-wing propaganda and anti-white liberalism as free speech. I class it as a mental disorder. Now research that - there are actually books written on that subject by psychiatrists.