Monday, March 13, 2006


Great White conservative hunter

The other day, someone at the office made a casual remark that, as these things do, held a lot of truth. He said: "There are two people in the world you cannot reason with, those who are insane and those who believe God is on their side."
I believe you can sometimes reason with insane people.
I've always looked askance at surfers who go out when they know the shark nets have been lifted and then get bitten. If you swim with sharks chances are you're going to get mauled. And I was fully prepared for that when I decided to find the White conservatives. It happened on the American site, but all that happened on the South African site was someone with enough power removed some of my postings.
Of course I had preconceived notions as to what I would find...Men and women living clean lives and wanting the rest of the world to do the same. I was prepared for the level of commie bashing - for no rhyme or reason as usual - and for a degree of religious fundamentalism. And yes, I found those.
I did not expect these people to laissez my fairs - I was not disappointed here too with a group calling themselves "women against feminism" who propagate the strange idea that women should be some sort of lesser human beings, good enough only to serve their men and raise their children.
One thing I will say in favour of is that they at least are honest enough to publish the criticism that floods into the site, with a few modifications to blank out bad language.
The same honesty could not be said of or
Members on the Free Republic site showed little, if any, actual knowledge of the facts surrounding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and seemed to promote the idea that these were all bad people and therefore deserved whatever was happening to them. Ironically we were on the same side with the idea that those who chose to go on a hunger strike should not be force fed. But for the rest of it... clueless is a kind adjective.
They also celebrated the drone attack by the CIA on Pakistan, figuring that if people were having dinner with known terrorists it was okay to kill them and their children. The issue of sovereignty didn't arise. When I pointed out the disturbing fact that basically it meant the US president could order the death of anyone in the world, and it would be carried out, and no one would so much as raise an eyebrow except the directly affected, I was banned for "trolling". Apparently to these people wholesale slaughter is just fine, as long as they're the ones doing it. When anyone else does it to them... then they weep.
African Crisis, run by former Rhodesian Jan Lamprecht was a bit more circumspect.
They support the "Ladies against feminism" website.
I visited LAF and posted this on African crisis: "This overt effort to control women through control of their sexuality, education, finances, bodies, ambitions and minds is abusive. Just because some women agree to this - like some agree to be hanged by their hands and whipped - does not make it right. What it does is just drag women back to being second class citizens. The rise of Christianity and Islam has resulted in misery for billions of women. It has been directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of millions more. Women should make up 50 per cent of earth's population. They don't because in some societies they are not considered worthwhile - to the point of female foetus abortion. Girls are being forced into having babies even though their bodies are too young. Others are being sold into marriage and passed around between brothers, sons and fathers. Toddlers are having their gentiles mutilated, little girls' throats are slit to "preserve the family honour" and even in modern western countries women suffer spousal abuse, rape and treatment as "lesser beings" before a law that should dispense justice as if blind. You might think that this is a far cry from the "ladies" in the website link. They are not. Because these women already have their freedom and choose to run away from it, they bring about the notion that it is not only acceptable but the ideal thing for a woman to have no identity. Their freedom was paid for by brave people who were imprisoned, tortured and died for it. How each individual lives their life is up to them. When women try to institutionalise slavery for other women they are judas goats, like those used to lead sheep to the slaughter in abattoirs. Men are not men by institution. No man who is secure in himself would ever want his partner to be a mindless baby-making machine. He would want her to be everything she can be. He would support her as she supports him, encourage her as she encourages him because that is nature. Only men who fear they are not good enough or unable to measure up would try to get ahead by keeping others down. This is against the law of nature where the strongest should survive and procreate. These are the spiritually, physically and intellectually bankrupt who will pass their defects on to their child."
No one answered, although the post did spark a few people's interest. Then it was taken down. Inquiries as to "why" have gone unanswered.
While it is hard to believe in this day and age, there are people still desperately clinging to the notion that whites are superior. All one has to do is be born with a creamy skin and you become endowed with an automatic right to have everything. It doesn't matter, it seems if things belong to other people. They can just go in and take them, probably slaughtering the rightful owners and then subjecting them to horrendous dictatorships - for their own good, of course.
These are the people who would dial back the clock for the whole world, crushing human rights and plundering the resources like pirates of old.
What is so sad, though is that for all their self proclaimed superiority the drooling right white of South Africa is only able to pound its fists in the air, squealing about how hard done by they are by the new government, making fun of silly mistakes, shouting the more serious ones from the roof tops.
I'm not saying they are not getting a raw deal. It would, of course, give them much more credibility if these same people had squealed about 80 per cent of the population were getting a raw deal when the whites had the power. But of course that didn't happen. That was perfectly okay.
Why do I bother with these folks? Apart from my basic need to watch a car wreck in progress - you know you shouldn't look but you can't tear your gaze away - they do actually have a bad effect on the more moderates.
The rantings do two things...
Firstly the choice of words used by Lamprecht and his followers would immediately switch off anyone who is not a hardened racist. The 1950s rhetoric of THE COMMIES ARE COMING and BLACKS ARE STUPID just draws away from the very real and very valid points he is making about the incompetence of the government and the horrific crime rate and the lack of response from the government.
Just as the LAF rants of FEMINISTS ARE SATANIC LESBIANS WHO FORCE ABORTION ON INNOCENTS draws away from their ideas that women have sacrificed the feminine mystique, the simple joys of motherhood and do feel that if they don't hold down a job and have someone else raise their children that they are somehow lesser human beings.
So they shoot themselves and others in the foot by making the fight about other things rather than the issues at hand.
And secondly they act as a "Wailing Wall" where people gather (okay, three that I counted) to whine about how bad things are and then DO NOTHING. And that is a huge indictment on the "mighty whites". Those pioneers who changed contininents, carved out destinies and brought the light of civilisation to the darkness can't organise sufficiently to take care of the weaker members of their society. They see this as something... beneath them. It's easier, I suppose, to live with the notion that suddenly things should be fair than to get your hands dirty tilling soil or building homes.
I don't always agree with your reasoning but you are a very interesting writer.

As to your previous comments on democracy and capitalism, I just don't see any better systems to replace them.

Both have their drawbacks but the alternatives are either worse or nonexistent.
Dear Old Gary

It's sad that you think there are no viable alternatives to capitalism and democracy. I understand where you're coming from. Communism does not come off looking good. This is especially true if people have a better than average lifestyle and feel they would have to surrender that so that the poor and weak might be given basic amenities.
Democracy is a very strange animal. I have come to the conclusion that it really doesn't work in its purest form because it does not protect the interests of minority groups. They are by sheer force of numbers excluded from the decision making processes. So democracy changes and reinvents itself into other forms more palatable for the minorities, which then runs the risk of being subverted by minority concerns.
We also see countries like South Africa where a large majority of the population vote not out of their best interests but out of loyalty to the ideal of a past leader.
Business, by its very nature is the enemy of the people and the environment. It is there to "make money" and this does not go hand in hand with good social or environmental practices. Very simply unless there is a means to force business to implement safety measures, better working conditions and environmental care programmes, it rapes and pillages like the marauders of old. You can see this happening in the rising eceonomies of the east. You saw it happen during the industrial revolution.
Fact is that it still happens in western countries. The feudal systems of old have just been replaced with the corporate systems of today. Slavery of body has been replaced by financial slavery.
Generally speaking, people are becoming poorer as land that used to be used for farming is taken over by conglonmerates for industrial purposes.
So I would say that there is a better way. We need to give communism in its purest form, a chance. Only when it's allowed to breathe and form properly will we be able to compare it as a system. And when we do, we need to judge whether or not the base line has improved.
By that I mean, don't hold it up to the already wealthy western countries. Hold it up to its own history. When you do that you'll find that the soviet union was a resounding success, all things considered. Yes, dictators rose, yes mistakes were made. At the end of the day life for the average Ivan was wholly better than it was before the revolution. And knowing what we know now, we should be able to put in place a system where those mistakes will not happen.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well I don't think the soviet union was a success because it collapsed after only 70 years. To me, communism is like a zoo.

People under communism are like the animals in a zoo, where the people are all taken care of (the basics at least) but have no incentive to better themselves.

What incentive is there to develop new drugs? To educate yourself? To help others in need since the government already does it?

Communism will collapse in Cuba also when Castro dies. Only he and his immediate circle of cronies are communist anyway.

Even China is moving towards more capitalism.
I don't think it's fair to say the soviet union collapsed because communism failed.
If it had not been an abused child it might have grown into a healthy system.
If it had not been isolated, attacked, put under a constant barrage of economic pressure, things could have turned out very differently. And we see exactly this happening in China, this huge expansion now the restrictions imposed by the capitalist countries have been lifted an the government is allowing more personal growth.
I do realise that China is choosing to be more and more capitalist, that people are losing the rights they have held, the gap between the rich and poor is yawning ever wider.
Don't tell me that communism kills people's ability to better themselves. Look at the huge advances in education and medicine that have taken place under communist countries. Look at the way Cuba is now exporting its medics into Latin America to set up clinics and bring the basics of health care to those who have been neglected by capitalism.
As I have said before, capitalism creates greed. It panders to our worst traits as humans. It creates "want" of things we don't need. No one "needs" a Lotus Esprit. No one "needs" to pay thousands of dollars for a few baubles to go around their necks, or on a bottle of fomented grape juice to pour down their throats. How fantastic it would be if the thought and engineering that goes into designing the "next big thing" could go into devising a way to bring water to communities that need it, or medicine to countries that need it.
Medicine is just a case in point. If we hold up America as the bastion of capitalism it does a poor job of looking after it's poor. Many have to go across the border to get affordable medicine. The medicine giants withhold the rights for poor countries to manufacture their life saving medicines, they would rather see people die than help them. What kind of system is that?
Look at how the oil companies in the US made out like bandits this year while the average Joe paid through the nose just for some heat during winter. Where did the relief come from? Not the oil giants, but communist Venezuela.
Look at what's happening in Nigeria, the rape of the land, the poisoning of the people and pollution of their rivers with nothing flowing back to them.
I guess the "success" of a system depends on which standards you use to measure it.
First of all, I agree with Inkonkoni on the topic of democracy and the resulting opression of minority groups. Nation states could very well be a solution to this problem but, as is the case with opressive regimes, they don't give a shit about solutions.

I must however disagree with him on the topic of communism. Firstly, the examples he uses to support his arguments are weak.

Cuban doctors are being exported because their tariffs are low. They are incompetent and they are prone to monumental fuckups. South Africa experimented with importing Cuban doctors, which resulted in a lot of SA doctors immigrating, but it proved to be a fatal mistake. SA is now begging its doctors to come back.

Secondly, China is not political eutopia you claim it is. Firstly, people are derived some of their most basic rights. For example: The Chinese gov struck a deal with Google to omit banned (political) sites from its search results for Chinese users. Furthermore, China is also the most populous country in the world. Their cheap labour would invariably lead to economic growth, but also results in gross human right infringements. (That also goes for Cuba with its underaged laborers)

Greed is not a byproduct of capitalism. It is a defect that is inherent to human nature. Furthermore, it is not exclusive to capitalism. This has been proven again and again by the luxurious lifestyles of communist leaders.

If communism improved the lives of "Average Ivan", then why did he revolt?

As for your comments on capitalism and businesses... how the hell did you get to that conclusions? There is a clear distinction between moral and immoral business practices. This is not the industrial era. Wake up. People actually do start and run businesses with the intention of delivering a value-added service to the community. The beauty of capitalism and of a free market system lies within the power of choice of communities. If they perceive a business to act immorally they may choose to not support it (as a result such a business will usually go bankrupt). Maybe you have not heard of the value-chain approach, which is pretty central to the idea of modern business.

My point is that capitalism rewards a persons contribution to society.

The two greatest dangers to a free market system are monopolies and unattended poor. The first can be prevented by the implementation of fair trade legislation and the second by a restricted form of socialism through the formation of state controlled industries to provide an income for the poor.

Although the internet was created by the US army, capitalism was the catalyst that supported it's growth and expansion. One of the benefits of the internet, is the role it has played in the research and development fields, including that of medical research. Just another example of how capitalism REALLY improves the lives of the masses.

Although I am no fan of America, I must ask you this. If they are such a failure, why do they have so damn much immigrants?

PS. You might experience this as an ad hominem attack, but in my experience communists are a bunch of fuckers who are in fact greedy and jealous of the success of others, but who are usually to lazy or stupid to do something about their own situation. I'm not saying that all communists are, just most of those that I have ever met.
To the author of this blog. Although I do not disagree with you on the african crisis and LAW blogs, I must say that your cross-section is really too small to base ad hominem criticism of the Afrikaners on.

You should extend your research a bit.

Keep blogging!
To the reader above. I consider the fact that I have lived among Afrikaners for 35 years to be a fair enough "example" of these people.
to the 301pm anonymous...
Wow, this is a really difficult medium to keep a conversation going. Thank you for your considered input. You raise good points. Let me see if I can answer them for you, from my perpective.
Cuban doctors: It really has nothing to do with traiffs or standards. South Africa used to have a very high standard of medicine, and so white south africans are used to having a high standard of treatment. For the poorest people in LatAm countries... any doc will do. And Cuba is supplying those.
China's political utopia I don't recall claiming it was a political utopia. Or any other kind of utopia. What I did say was that rights people had had under Communism are being eroded by Capitalism. Not political rights, but rights to land, work, food, etc etc.
Cuba and underage labour I take it the side swipe at Cuba was because it's communist? Let's take a look at where some of the world's worst sweat shops are... China...India (capitalist democracy), Thailand (capitalist democracy), Sri Lanka (capitalist democracy)
I'll be back
I had to chuckle when you wrote Dr. Makow that your health care was paid for with "other people's money". What happened to all that empowerment and control over your destiny?!

That dovetails with my observation about "rights" forcibly taken from one and given to another are not rights at all. When the taxman -- be he American or British or Asian or Russian -- steals the property of one so that another may enjoy -- oh, I don't know, freedom from cervical cancer -- we have not made a better world. We have just created another favored interest group.

As for the "passionate extremists" advancing causes like feminism, history is replete with passionate extremists dripping humanity's blood in the service of social movements. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin are three that come readily to mind who have the collective blood of 20+ million victims on their hands. They were also the main proponents of getting women out of the home and into the workforce, so they can be taxed and regulated like other wage-earners.

I think the best we can hope for in this mad insane world is that there may be men AND women of conscience and courage who will resist the evils engulfing humanity.

BTW, does "Inkonkoni" translate to "Susan" in English?
Dear Ikonkoni, I read yur comment and I wondered if you were married?
And what do you understand by freedom? I was working 12 hours a day for 7 years in a career in sales, I had a shop and worked there more than fulltime when my daughter was little, and now I am at home with my children, not becase anybody forced me to do so, but because I see it as the greatest career to raise my children. I do not talk about a system that forces women to stay home, but rather a system that also appreciates women who decide to spend their time raising the next generation. i feel that the oppsite is the case. There is an enormous pressure to go out and work, and hardly any recognition for staying at home.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?