Search This Blog

Monday, 29 April 2013

From The Mouths of Babes...

This simply says it all... My giggle for the day.

R455million Tender Given To Convicted Fraudster!

And again we have another perfect example of just how the ANC effectively gives us the finger while dealing with our tax funds. Shawn Mpisane, who was convicted of tax fraud in 2005, has been awarded a Tender to the value of R455 million for some kind of maintenance and cleaning work by the City of Durban - an ANC stronghold I might add.

Apparently there is legislation in Durban that allows the City to contract with convicted criminals? I highly doubt that would pass constitutional muster but then again how many in government in Durbs really care seeing as they will also be given their share of the contracts and have a chance to feed at the public trough and steal taxpayer money blindly... It works out great for the cadres deployed in Durban.

Wonder if I would still be allowed to contract with any government department if I had so much as an admission of guilt fine paid as a result of a bit of drunk driving?

And the last question to be asked is whether or not this kind of reporting will soon be a thing of the past when JZ signs in his lovely corruption hiding legislation...

But the good news really is that BEE is working - see how many black people have become fabulously wealthy as a result of the programs? Who really cares if they happen to be tenderpreneurs with criminal records as long as both my arms and no real interest in performing their obligations in terms of the tenders (definitely not those dishing them out anyway) as long as they get to have a massive chunk of public funds which will see them living the high life and shopping at exclusive store. It would be very bad press of the ANC bigwigs didn't have friends living at the same standard as them...

Shawn Mpisane - Timeslive

Shaun Mpisane scores tender worth R455 million

Sapa | 29 April, 2013 09:08

Durban businesswoman Shaun Mpisane was awarded tenders worth R455 million in terms of the of the city's controversial legislation that allows it to bypass the normal tender processes, the Mercury reported on Monday

According to the paper, a report tabled recently before the finance and procurement committee revealed Mpisane's company Zikhulise Cleaning, Maintenance, and Transport was awarded three section 36 contracts between July last year and March this year relating to an Umlazi housing project.
Ethekwini municipality treasure Krish Kumar said the contracts were as a result of an out-of-court settlement the city had with Zikhulise.
Mpisane took the city to court claiming that the project was stalled by city officials who questioned whether it should do business with a convicted person.
Mpisane has a 2005 conviction for VAT fraud.
The settlement allowed Mpisane to continue with the project, including new phases of construction.
Kumar said the city was entitled to award the contracts, as Zikhulise was the original contractor and a decision was taken that it was appropriate for the company to continue with the project.
In May Mpisane will stand trial for allegedly inflating invoices by more than R5m to cut her tax bill.
She also faces 53 charges of fraud, forgery, and uttering.
Mpisane is accused of submitting false documents to obtain Construction Industry Development Board gradings, which were then used to obtain public works department tenders worth R140m.
In another case she is charged with corruption for allegedly trying to persuade a state witness in one of her tax fraud cases to tamper with evidence.

Nelson Mandela and Freedom Day

Reblogged from - courtesy of John Clarke

Today the world celebrates Freedom day and respectfully worships its icon, Holy Nelson Mandela.

The moral lesson in the global Mandela-mania is, of course, that before Mandela became president of South Africa nobody was free, except for the minority White racists (who all hated Blacks and exploited them endlessly). After the second coming of Mandela that all changed and now everybody is free so logically we should all celebrate Freedom Day.

We are saved. Hallelujah !

Holy Nelson has entered the lofty ranks of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ and mere mortals such as ourselves should all genuflect and be grateful (and ashamed to be White... especially if you are a South African White.)

Just in case my subtle sarcasm escaped notice, it should in all honesty be stated that this blog has a different perspective on Holy Nelson and what constitutes "freedom".

Propaganda has it that the entire South African debacle was White-Black conflict caused by the Whites and their hateful Apartheid racist policies that impoverished the poor downtrodden Black majority.

Truth, so it goes, looks different when observed from different angles, at different times.

I, the author of this blog, was in the army during those Apartheid years. Three years I spent in the South African army, dedicated to fighting communists who were infiltrating our country's borders. The Soviet Union supplied neighbouring countries such as Angola and Mozambique with military hardware. Black recruits were trained in Russia, East Germany and other communist states.

White South African soldiers fought alongside Black volunteers who also desired to prevent a communist takeover of South Africa. We had all seen the terrible consequences of communism in Africa and had no desire to see it repeated in South Africa.

The astute reader will by now have picked up that the political situation was not a simplistic White vs Black problem. The majority of the Black population had no desire to embrace communism, as did the majority of Whites. Some Blacks and some Whites, however, supported Communism and embraced the ANC as the logical vehicle to implement communism.
"Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro" - Nelson Mandela
This implies that the ANC first had to persuade the peaceful, uninvolved Black population to support its cause. At last we are full circle back to Holy Nelson Mandela, who had co-created the terrorist organisation Mkhonto we Sizwe (MK).

During the Rivonia trials Mandela and his co-accused faced charges of sabotage, including deeds of sabotage, committing of illegal deeds, canvassing persons for training in warfare, manufacture and use of explosives with the aim to commit violence and cause destruction (altogether 153 acts of violence were listed) and conspiracy to engage in guerrilla-warfare with the aid of foreign armies. Plans included the manufacture of 48 000 land mines and large quantities of hand grenades, pipe, petrol and bottle bombs. These were to be unscrupulously applied; camouflaged in the most innocent packages like fruit boxes, coffee and jam tins and placed in soft spots like footpaths and entrances to gardens, with the aim to achieve maximum deaths, maiming and destruction.

These weapons were ultimately used in terror attacks where mainly Black people were killed or mutilated.

The most terrible intimidation against Black people was the "Necklace" murder, whereby a (non-ANC, invariably Black) victim was bound with a car tyre around his neck, doused with a flammable liquid (Diesel or oil burns longer and better than petrol) and set alight as a warning to others who opposed the ANC.
The child above (Black) was a "necklace" victim. This intimidation was wildly successful and the ANC top brass encouraged the practice, including Mandela's then wife, Winnie Mandela.

"With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country" - Winnie Mandela.
So much for Mandela the man of "Peace"
Rather we should today be remembering Mandela the violent communist rabble-rouser.

Church street bomb carnage - Nelson Mandela created the terrorist group called "Mkhonto we sizwe" (MK for short). MK murdered far more black people than white, and far more civilians than police or military, as in the Church street bomb shown above.

Holy Nelson's last act of overt violence came long after his release from prison, when he was already de-facto in charge of the political process and working from within parliament.

This child was an ANC landmine victim.
Smuggling in thousands of landmines was a Mandela initiative.

Zulus opposed to the ANC organised a protest march outside ANC headquarters "Shell House". Zulu tempers were aroused because more than 300 Zulu leaders had been assassinated by the ANC in the runup to the "free" elections.
Shell house was locked down. There were no windows at ground floor level and doors were bolted and protected by armed security guards. There was no conceivable danger to ANC personnel inside.

Nelson Mandela personally gave the order to "Shoot To Kill", as he freely admitted in parliament.

From windows high above the marching Zulus, the ANC "ex-terrorists" opened fire on the Zulu crowd below. This became known as the "Shell House Massacre", as ordered by that paragon of peace, Holy Nelson Mandela.

Wikipedia mentions the massacre in a subdued article as follows:
"ANC security guards opened fire, killing nineteen people. At the time, guards claimed that the IFP supporters were storming the building, or that they had received a tip-off that this was planned. The Nugent Commission of Inquiry into the killings rejected this explanation. The commission's conclusion was that the shooting by ANC guards was unjustified.
This incident reflected the rising tensions between the ANC and IFP, which had begun in the 1980s in KwaZulu-Natal and had then spread to other provinces in the 1990s. The IFP claimed that the ANC was intent on undermining traditional authorities and the power of Zulu Chiefs; the ANC saw it as a power struggle as the demise of apartheid was finalised"
The above cartoon is based on the fact that Mandela, when President of South Africa, was not permitted to enter the United States as they had declared him a terrorist. Amnesty International had done the same.
The following comment is from a neutral website:
"So there we have it. Mandela. Blew up a few buildings, went to prison for years, came out and destroyed his country's economy. Quite a record. Ironically, he was probably responsible for more deaths through his disastrous stewardship of the economy than Umkhonto we Sizwe ever managed to knock off during the armed struggle."

Apartheid existed in various forms throughout human history. The first "Blacks Keep Out" signs were drawn in hieroglyphics along Egypt's southern border with the Nubians (Blacks).

By the latter half of the twentieth century any fool could see that this would change. South Africa took a little longer than the USA to change and this provided the SA Communist Party with the edge it required. It also bestowed the convicted terrorist, Nelson Mandela, with de-facto sainthood.

Holy Nelson has now received over 250 awards, including the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Soviet Order of Lenin.

Meanwhile back in South Africa poverty and unemployment have skyrocketed. The corrupt ANC leadership have become rich beyond their dreams while more than a million Whites have fled the country. Thousands of White farmers have been tortured and murdered while Mandela and the ANC smugly claiom that their revolution song: "Kill the Boer, kill the Farmer" is not racist and does not condone violence against Whites.

Perhaps it is better that Mandela personally close the subject in this YouTube video:

Pardon us cynics if we do not celebrate Freedom Day. We have had more freedom than we can stand.

Sunday, 28 April 2013

Black Middle Class Packs A Punch

Well, here is my good freedom weekend news - apparently the black middle class in SA has outspent teh white middle class by R80BILLION. We have repeatedly been told that the economy of SA is in the hands of the whites - and therefore it is our fault that there is rampant poverty and corruption. This is also the reason touted for the increase in the rigidity of BEE and AA regulations.

But now we have credible news that the black MIDDLE class alone numbers 4,2 million - that is a middle class larger than the ENTIRE white population of SA. Now here is the kicker - if the black middle class is outspending teh white middle class and that entire population group is larger than our entire population, how the hell can whites still control the economy? How would it be possible for us to be holding back "economic freedom" from the masses?

And this is where I now expect an update from good old spin doctor Mac in which he will explain to us that even though black people in the middle class outnumber all of white people in the country and that they spend R80bn more, it is because the farm lands are still mostly owned by whites and this is the reason that the black masses are still poor - or we'll hear just how wrong those figures are in some way or another.

It great news that the educated black middle class is growing - this may just see a decline in the power of the ANC after the 2014 elections (I can hope right?) - maybe the clever blacks can help us scale back the ANC's race to ruin a little and in so doing show the masses just how they are being screwed over on a daily basis.

Great news is this: The arguments for AA, BEE and EE policies have just gone out the window! When you have a black middle class that outnumbers the white population and who can now afford t educate their children and contribute meaningfully to the economy why then do we need these policies? Is it not time to return to the idea of merit and therefore create competition which will further stimulate growth and competitiveness in all sectors? Then we can a massive increase in the educated middle class - and the fall of the ANC? (dreaming but let me dream). Surely those educated few will be able to see through the bullshit that is pushed down their throats at OBE schools? It could be the start of a lovely thing...

Black middle class packs a punch

Apr 28 2013 17:01 

Cape Town - The spending power of South Africa's black middle class has surpassed that of their white counterparts by R80bn, according to the UCT Unilever Institute of Strategic Marketing.

The rising black middle class has about R400bn to spend compared to the R320bn from the country's white middle class, according to the institute, who will be releasing its latest study.

"We could never have predicted that black middle class spending would have skyrocketed to a staggering R420 billion per annum – substantially outstripping white middle class spending power," Unilever stated on its website.

It added that the Black Middle Class doubled in size to 4.2 million from 1.7 million 2003. 

The adult population of the white middle class has grown to to 3 million last year from 2.8 million in 2004, reported Business Day.

The institute noted that the study, entitled 4 Million and Rising, offers interesting insights and exposes a vastly transformed consumer segment. 

“There’s a huge commitment to go to university. This group sees education as the stepping stone to everything,” Unilever Institute director, Professor John Simpson was quoted by the newspaper.
- Fin24

Friday, 26 April 2013

Oilgate 2 - PetroSA's Irregular R1bn Spending Spree

Now you really have to wonder, thanks to yesterday's news about the passing of the Hide The Evidence of Corruption Protection of State Information Bill would we have heard about this at all had the Act been in force? Would we even know that PetroSA - SA's NATIONAL oil company - had spent R1BILLION on shady deals? Not to mention the kickbacks that run rife through the entire saga? And all of this with STATE funds which means MY and YOUR tax money that is literally stolen from us seeing as we cannot agree to pay for no services and I did not decide to donate it. 

This is the kind of thing that has us worried - this is a huge chunk of public funds that has been spent recklessly by ANC deployed cadres and those closely connected to them Just look at the "success fees" paid - R187 million (reduced from R371 million) - and all paid to a small, relatively unknown and inexperienced local company after a contract with a widely respected international bank was cancelled? Lawyers "success" fees of R11,4 million? How do I get myself some clients like that?

The Mail & Guardian has been doing some very fine work exposing all of this corruption irregularity for the past few years and has been causing the ANC, their supporters, cadres and affiliate massive headaches for exposing their blatant looting of public funds. Since the ANC has come to power our tax rates have more than doubled and they have created no less than 15 (main) new taxes. And we get LESS in service delivery and competence. Anyone else noticing how this seems like scam to empty my wallet with consent?

I applaud the M&G for their outstanding work once again - but I wonder how long it will be before we see stories like these sending the journalists to jail for the full 25 years? Worrisome to say the least...

Oilgate 2: R1bn scandal rocks PetroSA
Whistleblowers and investigations reveal how bosses and well-connected service providers allegedly conspired to loot from the national oil company.

Top managers at PetroSA ordered irregular payments of R200-million during a feeding frenzy at the national oil company that involved a well-connected lawyer and a fund manager, detailed evidence suggests. 

They also appear to have risked another R800-million in potential liabilities, raising the total in questionable spending decisions to a ballpark R1-billion.

Allegations that some of the ­payments involved kickbacks remain unproven, but a former director has told the police he believes anti-corruption laws were broken, and ama­Bhungane has found evidence of a large, unexplained payout to an unidentified third party.

AmaBhungane has reconstructed the events, which focus on the 10-month tenure of acting chief executive Yekani Tenza, from interviews with well-placed individuals, copies of documentary evidence and the former director's affidavits to the police.


Police specialist unit the Hawks confirmed this week that it was investigating PetroSA, and a probe by the Central Energy Fund, PetroSA's holding company, is said to be complete. 

Implicated alongside Tenza, whose term at PetroSA ended last May, are Everton September, the company's head of new oil and gas ventures; George Sabelo, a Johannesburg ­lawyer tied to some Zuma family members; and Tshepo Mahloele, a fund manager who featured in a Mail & Guardian exposé last year about the ANC benefiting from a bank empowerment deal.

Mega deals

The bulk of the allegations involve two mega deals: PetroSA's trumpeted acquisition last year of a company with crude oil acreage in Ghana, and PetroSA's confidential plan to buy petrol stations across South Africa.

In the Ghana acquisition, Tenza and new oil and gas ventures head September negotiated "in reverse", agreeing among other things to pay an extra $20-million (R162-million then) for the target company.
On conclusion of the deal, Tenza had an R11.4-million "success fee" paid to Sabelo, the lawyer, who had accompanied him to final negotiations in London. Much of the success fee appears to have flowed onwards to an unidentified third party, raising corruption red flags.

In the petrol stations deal, transaction advisers HSBC were fired, incurring a R19-million cancellation fee; then Tenza replaced them with Mahloele's Harith Fund Managers, a much smaller local firm. On completion, Harith was to earn a success fee of R371-million or more - 10 times the R35-million HSBC apparently would have earned had it stayed on.

This was renegotiated to R187-million following Tenza's departure, but still dwarfed HSBC's fee.

Graphic: John McCann
Also on the petrol stations deal, Tenza signed off on another invoice from lawyer Sabelo the day before leaving office, this time for R3-million. Bizarrely, Sabelo's claim for payment was simply dropped after PetroSA staff queried it.

'Empty goalposts'

Protests by PetroSA staff and board members, including its internal tax specialist, chief internal auditor, board audit committee chair and then-chief financial officer, culminated in November with Rain Zihlangu, then a director, laying a complaint with the police. He eventually submitted three affidavits.

Zihlangu said in the affidavits, two of which amaBhungane has obtained, that he felt compelled to request an investigation as he suspected corruption. He declined to comment this week.

One affidavit said: "Having been a board member of PetroSA since 2006, I had never encountered such blatant abuse of public funds and the flagrant flouting of all procurement policies as was done by Mr Tenza whilst he was the acting … CEO of PetroSA."

Zihlangu likened Harith's appointment to placing a player "to simply kick the ball [through] empty goalposts", as HSBC had already identified a target company to acquire and done much preparatory work.

The same is alleged about Sabelo's appointment to advise on the Ghana deal - the bulk of the work had allegedly been done by PetroSA's legal department and a large firm of attorneys. The little work that remained Sabelo largely outsourced to another firm for a fraction of his fee.

Both appointments bypassed PetroSA's procurement rules, which appears to have been one of the matters that sparked the interest of the Central Energy Fund, as its holding company. In a statement last month, it said a preliminary investigation ordered by Energy Minister Dipuo Peters had "unearthed inappropriate executive override of internal control systems at PetroSA" and that it "makes serious allegations against certain ­current and former senior officials". On Thursday, Hawks spokes­person Captain Paul Ramaloko said: "I can confirm we are busy with an investigation that involves PetroSA, but cannot reveal the contents of that investigation."


PetroSA said this week that in its environment "swift decision-making and quick turnaround times are critical" but, "unfortunately, some deviations from our normal procurement processes have occurred".

It defended the terms of the Ghana acquisition, but said that the results of a board-commissioned review into the procurement deviations would be communicated to Peters, who as minister is the government's representative as shareholder. "To the extent that any impropriety has taken place, the board and, where applicable, the shareholder will take appropriate action."

At the time of going to press, Sabelo had not responded to detailed questions. Tenza defended his decisions at PetroSA, dismissing all claims of corruption or bribery. He said Sabelo's appointment was justified by reasons of urgency and the need for confidentiality, and that Harith's appointment had been approved by a board subcommittee on which other government stakeholders served.

Harith said in a statement that i was bound by confidentiality. "We are, however, confident that our appointment was concluded following a rigorous process ... As an entity, we operate our business within accepted ethical standards and are confident of our skills set and experience within the investment space not only in South Africa but also internationally."

Thursday, 25 April 2013

Silencing the Truth

Well guys, today has to be one of the worst days ever in the history of South Africa. The Protection of State Information Bill has just been passed and only requires to be signed into law by Jacob Zuma to become effective - and considering the extensive protection it gives him and his criminal associates in the ANC I highly doubt he will take his time. 

There has been some major opposition to the bill for many reasons, not least of which are the following:

  • The Secrecy Bill only has narrow protection for whistleblowers and public advocates (not a full Public Interest Defence) that excludes a range of matters in the public interest like shady tendering practices or improper appointments within key state agencies. This half-measure fails to acknowledge the urgent need to address South Africa’s whistleblower crisis — as well as the global abuse of national security laws to protect state interests against the scrutiny of citizens.
  • A whistleblower, journalist or activist who discloses a classified record with the purpose of revealing corruption or other criminal activity may be prosecuted under the “espionage” and other offences not covered by the proposed Public Interest Defence.
  • People can be charged with “espionage”, “receiving state information unlawfully” (to benefit a foreign state), and “hostile activity” without proof that the accused intended to benefit a foreign state or hostile group or prejudice the national security; only that the accused knew this would be a “direct or indirect” result.
  • While the Bill limits the number of agencies and people that can classify, it still gives powers of the Minister of State Security to give classification powers to other state bodies (and junior officials) without adequate public consultation.
  • The Secrecy Bill still lacks of a Public Domain Defence, effectively criminalising the population at large when classified information becomes public, rather than holding those responsible for keeping secrets accountable.
  • The Bill still contains draconian sentences of up to 25 years in jail.
  • The procedure permitting applications for the declassification of classified information is in conflict with the PAIA – despite commitments from the NCOP to the contrary. The body established to review this process – a Classification Review Panel – is not sufficiently independent and the simple possession of classified information appears to be illegal even pending a request for declassification and access.
  • Information that has been made secret in terms of old and potentially unconstitutional laws and policies will remain classified under the Bill pending a review for which no time limit is set. This includes information classified under the apartheid era Protection of Information Act of 1982 and the government policy adopted in 1996, the Minimum Information Security Standards.
  • If passed the Bill would add to the generalised trend towards secrecy, fear and intimidation that is growing in South Africa today. (

It is quite clear that this little piece of legislation will be used to cover up every little bit of corruption and malpractice, theft and graft which is happening daily in the ANC led, cadre depolyed government on every level.
We will never heard about corruption or maladministration or theft of tax money again. I'm pretty sure that even publishing facts which are contrary to the state led stats will be an offence too. 
Time to say goodbye to an independent media which was the last line of defense we had against the criminals holding our country hostage. RIP
The only bit of good news we have and the last hope for those of us not yet ready to tow the ANC line is the fact that this law can be attacked in the Constitutional Court on the grounds that it is not in line with the provisions of the Constitution. This is only a very small ray of hope seeing as the CC is now filled to the brim with ANC apologists and card carrying ANC members (so much for an independent judiciary huh?). We can only pray that the problems are so manifest that they cannot be argued away and they have to declare the law unconstitutiona. I'm holding my thumbs but not my breath... how about you?

Equality - SA Style

This is what equality in the New South Africa has boiled down to - if I can't have it then no one can. This is blatantly clear when you read about how residents of an illegal informal settlement in the Western Cape threatened to torch a crèche (and actually started the fire which was luckily extinguished) while there were children still inside!

This is where we can see just how much human life (especially the loves of children) mean to Africans - for explanatory purposes - they don't! 

The people were so upset that the crèche was not demolished by police like their half built, hazardous piles of cardboard that they threatened the owner and then actually set fire to the shack the following day. What I would really like to know is how many of the crowd that were pissed off enough to attempt killing a bunch of helpless CHILDREN were parents to any of the kids? Now that would show you just what "unbuntu" in S really is. And then I get called a racist for calling these "people" heartless savages? 

Crèche with kids inside set on fire

2013-04-25 09:10
Cape Town - Angry residents tried to set alight a crèche in Mfuleni even though there were still children inside.

The Cape Argus reported the community members were angry after some shacks were taken down by city officials but the crèche wasn’t.

“They started to burn it on Monday with the children still inside, but we managed to put that fire out, it just burnt a corner of the shack,” said Phandulwazi crèche owner Belinda Manakazi.

Manakazi said she had permission from the police to put up a shack but her neighbours didn’t.

 “They said that it was unfair that I was still left there.” 

She said one woman intimidated the children and threatened to burn the crèche down the day before. 

Mayoral committee member for human settlements Tandeka Gqada said Manakazi did not have permission to be there but officials couldn’t evict her as her structure was occupied. 

“The city is required to get a court order to evict someone once a property is occupied. The city’s Anti-Land Invasion Unit did, however, remove a number of partially built structures… This is allowed in terms of the legislation,” said Gqada. 

A police spokesperson confirmed that a woman was arrested for intimidation and threatening to burn down the crèche. 

The toddlers are now crammed into their Manakaza's living room.

Affirmative Coffee At UP

Well, I'm not entirely sure how this campaign was intended to highlight racial profiling and affirmative action at the university. As en ex-Tukkie myself I either had to laugh or cry when I read this and all I can say is that the white graduates will have to get used to paying more for their "coffee" when they hit the real world. 

Afriform has decided that they will run a campaign based on affirmative action at UP today in which whites will be charged R5 for their coffee, coloureds and Indians R3 and blacks R1. To round it off perfectly, ANC supporters will get free coffee provided they "donate" some cash.

You see, this really has very little to do with racial profiling and more to do with highlighting real world truths - like white people (because they are white) will always be paying the biggest chunk for the services/products they receive which automatically subsidises those paying less - if you assume that the people selling the coffee are at least trying to cover their costs.

So to explain it all, if the coffee retailer is government and the coffee represents services like water, roads, policing, electricity etc, then its obvious that the R5 being paid is tax which goes to cover those services. Now, when you provide the same services to others at a lower cost (ie: R3) then either their service has to be of a lower quality or money from the first class of payers must be used to pay the balance. The same goes for those who pay the least - if they receive the same service then it stands to reason that money must be used from the higher payers to provide that service. 

Interestingly enough they also have "free" benefits for ANC supporters who make donations to their "corruption fund" which is a very separate money collection method. This mirrors the ANC's current policy - support the ANC, give us a "donation" and you can receive the same benefits paid for by others while we pocket your donation.

Hope the kids are paying attention.

Apr 25 2013 12:08PM

AfriForum Youth will highlight affirmative action by charging students of different races different prices for a cup of coffee at the University of Pretoria (UP) on Friday.

White students would pay R5 a cup, coloured and Indians R3, and blacks R1, AfriForum Youth chairman Barend Taute said in a statement.

African National Congress supporters would be given a free cup of coffee if they dropped a donation into a box marked "Corruption Fund".

Taute said the campaign was being held to commemorate Freedom Day, and to draw attention to the impact of racial profiling.

"[Nineteen] years after South Africa was ostensibly freed from racial profiling, students at the UP are still admitted based on their race," he said.

"Students want to be free from racial profiling, and this action is a way to show how inane racial bias has become."

Taute said a recent referendum at UP indicated that 97 percent of students supported the abolition of racial profiling.

The coffee sales would start at 10am on Friday.



Wednesday, 24 April 2013

Heartless, Shameless and Depressing

Sometimes something comes to to light or hits the news that really makes my heart ache and inspires complete and unadulterated wrath. As much as this blog has mentioned the savagery of black men and how they are able to torture and rape at will seemingly without any remorse, sometimes you come across the same kind of white men. Men who seem to take joy in inflicting pain on others.

The story of Raymond Buys, 15 and the manner in which he was tortured over weeks and finally killed is as sad as any - I cannot even bring myself to repeat it. The men who perpetrated the evil that this murder involved are some of the lowest forms of life to ever breathe. If even half of what is alleged to have happened turns out to be true this has to be one of the most horrific instances of child abuse and murder we have ever seen. 

Court hears of teen's terrible torture

2013-04-24 08:42
Johannesburg - Shocking evidence was heard in the Vereeniging Regional Court about how a 15-year-old boy was tortured and abused prior to his death at a training camp for game rangers.

Gerhard Oosthuizen, 19, testified how his tent partner Raymond Buys, 15, was chained to his bed every night, was not allowed to go to the bathroom and was forced to relieve himself next to his bed, reported Volksblad.

Tears flowed in the court when Oosthuizen testified how Buys was too weak to work, walked hunched over and was once made to eat his own faeces when he was caught defecating in a field.

“His hands were tied and he was made to eat it,” said Oosthuizen.

Buys was allegedly beaten with pipes, planks and sticks if he made mistakes or didn’t do his work properly. He was also beaten with a whip made from a garden hose. 

He said Buys was once forced to eat washing powder than he had knocked over, resulting in the teen throwing up and having diarrhoea for two weeks.  

Oosthuizen said shortly before Buys was hospitalised, he saw how the boy was taken to a rondavel by the owner of the camp, Alex de Koker and Michael Erasmus. When he peered inside, he saw Buys tied to a chair, naked, with a pillow cover over his head and being shocked with a stun gun.

“He was screaming…I got scared and ran away.”

Oosthuizen said they received no training in this time and were made to do manual labour around the camp. 

De Koker, 49, and Erasmus, 20, are facing several charges including murder, child abuse, neglect and assault. 

Tuesday, 23 April 2013

Feminism and "Slut Shaming"

I personally am sick and tired of the pathetic feminist agenda that I am constantly being bombarded with on a daily basis. Gender equality in leadership was an issue that was under discussion on SAFM last night. The standard line is that girls should be given an opportunity to have leadership roles. This means actively overlooking men for such roles and placing women therein instead. Now this will get me many feminist haters but this is an utterly pathetic way of looking at things.
Why the hell should we force gender equality on everything? The whole point of pushing the feminist agenda in  the 50's was to gain equality for women - this we now have. I can vote, I can drive, I can study what and where I want, I can play whatever sports I want, wear what I want, come and go as I please, choose to keep my name after marriage, choose not to marry at all etc etc etc. Women now have exactly the same rights that men do. Pushing a "gender equality" agenda on us daily is less feminist than Jonny Bravo. By people advocating that certain positions should be made available solely to women or forcing an "equal" representation in every single aspect of daily life is the same on the sexist scale as BEE is on the racist scale - you are saying that women are not capable of getting to those places or achieving this kind of success on their own.
Why are feminists so damn insistent on pushing women into areas in which we do not belong? Why is the agenda always "women v men"? Why are men soldiers and fighters? Because they have the strength and physical attributes to do it. It became tradition (and naturally logical) that women stay home while men go to war because women were needed to help create and raise the next generation who would again go out and defend the town. It has nothing with "holding women back". Why are men usually judges and captains of industry? Because on average men are more logical and less inclined to be swayed by emotions than women - is that not what we want from our judges and business leaders? 
Why are male graduates paid more than female graduates? Its quite simple - male graduates/employees start a position that they can remain in for decades to come. What they will be taught, the skills they gain and the money spent on training them will be used to give companies value. Female graduates/employees are likely to go and get married and then start having children, and 90% of the time after the children arrive she starts looking for a less stressful job or even stops working altogether. This in turn means that the female graduate/employee ends up being a liability to the company. As an employer I understand this concept and am hesitant to spend money training a woman who is likely to get up and leave after a few years and I have no return on my money.
Why are women excluded from leadership positions? Well lets think about that for a second shall we? Do women display the determination, drive, skill, character, steadfast dedication that male leaders do on average? NO! Women become emotional. They hold grudges, take cheap shots and change their minds more often than they change their underwear - in everything except wanting to exclude men from everything.
Feminists push for women to be employed before men, to earn higher salaries (despite very seldom being the type of asset men are), to occupy high leadership positions. But the question none of these feminists can ever answer is "do women deserve it?" Do women deserve to be treated the same as men? And if a feminist answers "yes, I do deserve it" then why are they complaining and pushing so hard? If they are able to achieve what they have on MERIT then why do they need an agenda promoting "women's rights"?
As far as I am concerned the only rights that women should have that differ from those that men have is to be allowed to use menstrual cramps as a valid excuse to eat chocolate. Men do not skip work when they have a headache or cramps or are feeling depressed. Men do not expect 4 months off of work when they have children and to still be paid for that time off (medically necessary leave - 6 weeks - is distinguished from traditional maternity leave of 4 months). Men do not have the luxury of behaving in a manner which shows them to be a person of immoral values and then complaining when people treat them that way. And this brings me to my pet peeve for the day: feminists bitching about "slut shaming".
Its been in the news quite a bit in recent weeks this concept of "slut shaming."
According to Wikipedia Slut shaming (also hyphenated, as slut-shaming) is defined as the act of making a woman feel guilty or inferior for engaging in certain sexual behaviours that deviate from traditional gender expectations.
It is also used as a form of victim blaming for rape and sexual assault, such as claiming the crime was caused (either in part or in full) due the woman wearing revealing clothing or previously acting in a forward, sexual manner before not consenting to sex.
Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog has an entire FAQ  devoted to this concept of "slut shaming". The focus is naturally on the "double standard" of men being allowed to have several sexual partners or express themselves sexually without being judged by society whereas as soon as woman displays the same characteristics she is labelled a "slut". It will always boil down to women being "oppressed" by men and that this is simply one of the tools used to do that.
Now, before I go any further on this issue I have to state that I do not in any way condone rape or sexual assault at all. No man or woman has any right to violate the body of another and it is unforgivable when it happens. But having said that, women need to understand that how we behave influences how people treat us, especially men. In an ideal world women would be able to walk down a street in the middle of the night naked as the day they were born while being mindlessly drunk (another issue all of its own - women getting mindlessly drunk) and never fear that they will be molested. The reality is that we do NOT live in an ideal world.
If you walk around in a tiny skirt, with a thong or without underwear, in a skin tight shirt that barely covers the vital areas of your breasts you are doing so to draw attention. Any woman that says she dresses like a hooker for herself is lying - you dress that way because you are looking for validation. And the only way you can have the kind of validation you are looking for is by receiving sexual attention from the people around you. There is no other type of attention you are looking for regardless of what you say. The same goes for posting pictures of yourself in skimpy bikinis or underwear, of you engaged in any kind of sexual behaviour etc online. You want sexual attention.
And now here comes the problem: many of these women and girls react negatively and with anger when the receive exactly the kind of attention they were looking for! When men repeatedly try to get you to go home with them or constantly make sexual innuendos you get upset. When you have been dancing and grinding up against a man while barely dressed or flirting shamelessly with him you suddenly become filled with righteous rage the second he touches you? This is the behaviour that causes all kinds of problems. 
Am I saying that you should not dress up or look sexy? No, of course not. Am I saying that you should be mindful of how your appearance and actions make you appear? Hell yes! If you behave like a tramp and you look like a tramp you will be treated like one. The old saying of "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck then it must be a duck" is most apt. If you dress like a slut, behave like a slut, call yourself a slut then the overriding perception is that you must be a slut. You know this and so do the men out there. You have no right to complain when you are treated like one.
One of the biggest problems with this kind of mindset - where women expect to behave and dress in a way that is seen as immoral but then expect the men they meet to want them for their mind and/or personality - is caused by  feminists teaching children that women can do what they want, when they want and that they should stick it to men wherever possible and should never expect there to be any consequences.
When little girls were raised to be ladies, to dress modestly, to not engage in immoral sexual behaviour with all and sundry and to not broadcast it if they did men - had more respect for women. There was less rape and sexual assault. Girls who flaunted their bodies or sexuality were never the girls who achieved anything of note. Your reputation stays with you. First impressions of you as "easy", "available" and "sexually immoral" stay with you. They will affect the rest of your life. It will affect job prospects and may even get you fired. Professional companies do not want to employ women who do not give off the aura of being professional and discreet.
I hear the call "real men don't rape" repeatedly. Well real women do not give up their self respect! How can you expect men to not see you as a sexual object and to want more when you repeatedly show it off and behave as though you are willing to give it away? It is this entire culture of the feminist agenda that has stopped young boys from becoming men. You teach little boys that they oppress women, you teach young girls that men are not human and do not deserve to be treated with respect. How then do you expect them to interact when they grow up? This culture is to blame for a million and one societal ills that I could write a new post every day for 6 months and not cover the same topic twice.  
Is there a double standard? Yes there is. Should there be? No, of course not. But instead of teaching young girls and women that it is OK to appear as sexually available and to engage in risky sexual behaviour because men do it, we as a society should instead be teaching young boys the opposite. Why is it so important to you that you can do everything men can do? That you are willing to give up your femininity to show that you are just like men? To remove your identity as a women just to remove a man's identity as a man? The longer you try to blur gender lines in this way the worse things will get. Men are by nature driven by sex - its an animal instinct in them all. Women are nurturers - its instinctual too. 
It is time for feminists to accept that men and women are different in more ways than just physically and that those differences are not weaknesses or strengths but are rather complimentary. Men and women have always been equal - you simply fail to understand that equality is not always having everything the other has. What I have achieved I have done so without feeling that I deserve it. I was appointed on merit. I put in my hours and my weekends too just like my male colleagues. I did not complain that I have had to work with and around mainly men my entire career and that I have been met with some difficulty - mostly due to my age and NOT my gender. I have proved to my clients and colleagues that I deserve to be here. That I deserve the top spot and that I deserve the time and effort they have put into training me. If I can do it and a million other women can do it without looking for the handout why can feminists not just put their heads down and get the work done too?
Do we have the right to dress and behave the way we want? Of course. But by the same token understand that everyone else has the same right to judge you on that behaviour and to label you accordingly. By placing yourself in dangerous situations you should be aware that you could be in danger and when that danger materialises be prepared to admit that you could have done something differently which may have affected the outcome.
I am therefore fully in support of "slut shaming". If it makes a young girl or woman realise that her behaviour is potentially harmful to herself and/or her reputation then why not? But I repeat - I do NOT condone rape or sexual assault. That doesn't mean that there are not steps that we can take to prevent it happening - and part of that is taking respect in our own bodies and not dressing like prostitutes! And that is my rant for the day!