Red October, is a movement that marched in October against crime, and against race based politics and a race based mindset of the government in treatment of the citizenry of South Africa.
From unflattering pictures, to outright defamation against and mockery of this movement: South African media have not been honest or truthful.
These are the allegedly racist demands of the Red October bunch?:
'1 Urgent attention to the lack of security on South African farms and the lack of attention to farm murders in general
'2 Urgent attention to the continuing violence against women
'3 Urgent attention to police action regarding murder and crimes committed against the people of South Africa by foreigners streaming across our borders
'4 Urgent attention to the lack of quality education for all our children, respecting their culture, language, religion and heritage
'5 Urgent attention to the lack of service delivery, the preservation of our natural water resources and the lack of control over the theft of electricity
'6 Urgent attention to the legal processes and lack of justice with regard to the detaining of prisoners without proper due course
'7 Urgent attention to expedient trials and harsher sentences of criminals found guilty of violent crime, i.e. murder and rape
'Nothing racist in that lot – no calls for return to apartheid, no we’re better than you, no bigoted name calling, no incitement to violence, no mention that 'this should be limited to white people in any way, shape or form!' (Claire Smith 'An eye opener' in MyNews 24 11th October 2013
The actual truth about crime stats: And yes, the stats suggest whites are targeted for hate crimes!
When I passed Forensic Medicine earlier this year, I was informed by the Forensic Service, that race based statistics were not too easy to come by. Coloured people were more likely to kill and to be killed, then blacks... the least likely to commit crime were also the least likely to have crimes committed against them: wealthy white South Africans. This is not a numbers game: the proportion of black South Africans who commit crimes and are victims of crimes, both exceed the proportion of the country that is black, likewise with coloured people. Less whites commit crime and less whites are victim to crime.
The explanation of the Forensic Service, is this: poor people across the world are more likely to commit crime, and crimes are more likely committed against people you are acquainted with or know well. Most crimes are inter-personal crimes. Friends of criminals are their most likely prey. This is how crime statistics work.
The problem is where crimes are not crimes of opportunity, and are not inter-personal crimes. The type of crime I speak of is called the hate crime. This is where violence in a crime is not directly related to the profit of the crime. This is where people are murdered due to their skin colour, religion, political beliefs, or other such attributes.
In France there are the extreme right which opposes immigration, and the anti-fa or extreme left who claim to oppose the extreme right, but are just as rightly categorised as extreme, and violent.
In South Africa, when we look at crimes against whites, we need to factor in the wealth, home areas, security, etcetera of white South African citizens. Whites are more wealthy, and thus will be subject to and commit a disproportionately less amount of crime. If however, that lesser amount is more than the factoring of wealth would imply, then such crimes need to be accounted for by hate crimes.
Crimes against whites are often more violent, not committed by people who know them, and often result in rape and murder where these are not necessary for criminal profit.
A 4 year old statistic of media purporting to show the amount of crime against whites is as concerning as government claims that most South Africans die from gun violence. According to the Forensic Service, most murdered people die from KNIFE violence, except in areas such as Gauteng, which still do not make gun violence the national most popular form of murder. The reason these statistics relating crimes against whites are concerning, is both because they are out of date, and because they tend not to be the sort of thing that is in the public domain. Also, there is a big difference between people killed by acquaintances, and those killed for their skin colour.
Okay, so we have the background which media ignored.
Are Red October 'white supremacists'?
If they are, any such rhetoric is missing. Their website quoted Edmund Burke and Martin Luther King. They are concerned about BEE, but as I will demonstrate below they have reason to be.
One media response was this:
Christi van der Westhuizen of Eye Witness News compares Red October to white supremacists... Despite no link! pic.twitter.com/XaiweWU4bQ
— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) October 12, 2013
So based on research not available, we are to condemn a movement as racist? A movement which did not use the old South African flag (not that that implies racism, a flag is a flag), did not make racist statements, and were largely concerned with crime.
Media called them racist for focussing on crimes against whites, on hate crime: not just interpersonal or opportunity crimes. Firstly, this hate crime spree is real and costs the economy a lot. The same sort of hate crimes also are committed against foreigners in South Africa, although our major political parties also seem not to be too concerned over that. This hate crime costs our industry base and agricultural base also: many farmers have and will leave the country, meaning jobs lost and our trade deficit increased.
Secondly, the Black Lawyers Association, or Black Business Forum, are not subjected to the same scrutiny, when they do in fact focus ostensibly seems to be to purely, more or less, look out for: advancing people based on the colour of their skin.
Thirdly, is it not acceptable for demographic groups to combat hate crimes aimed at that group? Is that not allowed? Are we not allowed to speak if people who happen to share our ethnicity are attacked, and if by that same ethnicity we would be targeted if in same place, time as they were?
The BEE Problem
White South Africans don't carry around pass books. The pass book, though should more rightly be called a passport book. Black and white areas were not randomly selected. The South African government granted independence and 'independent' government to multiple states which it considered to be independent of South Africa: the TBVC states. People who lived in these states would thus by the logic of the government require passports to enter another country. The current belief is that the states in question, and their similar case of North Cyprus, were not really other states. However, the pass idea was not some special torment dreamed up, but rather an attempt to justify something which is now widely condemned: apartheid: the dividing of South Africa into about 6 or 7 countries, each purportedly governing their own land area.
The problem with this, is that the division of the land was race based. It was based on classing people by their race. Not their culture, not their efficacy, not their education level, not their likes, not their dislikes, not their morality: their race.
What was behind this is race-based judgement. What was behind this was a Maxist sort of workings. The Nationalist Party was a left wing Socialist party, just as Hitler's National Socialists (NAZI party) were left wing and Marxist. Just also as Starlin and Lennin were marxists.
BEE follows the same premise: that people are not the individuals who walk the earth, but must be judged based on their skin colour.
BEE as a tax.
I by no means mean to say that black people are less competent than white people at business. I do believe however that competent black people should in any case be able to get a job without government help: unless we are to consider every white person racist: which would frankly be a racist thing to attempt.
A white person who builds up their business, is taxed by the government, in that they have to give 50 % of that business or whatever the industry based demand is, to someone who did not work for, build, care for: that business, often someone who is not educated or skilled in running businesses, and often someone who is linked to the Ruling Party. A company must hire a black person even if they are incompetent to do their job, over a white person who based on their education level, efficacy, skills, person skills, etcetera: would certainly be profitable, and effective in bringing in money for a company? A person who is incompetent to do their job is a liability for a company, they cost that company money they would otherwise have made off a competent candidate. If a person must be paid and cannot do the job they are paid to perform, because the government wants them to have money, then likewise this is a tax. Also, this is marxism.
So, criticising BEE is probably a rational thing to do, given that rather than create true equality through better education, better policing, better infrastructure, which would allow black candidates alleged not to have an equal footing: the actual equality to get a job... government wants people who do not have the same footing or benefit to a company to be paid for the job which could have brought more profit for a company.
What happens if BEE is taken away? Will these people who are paid for jobs they did not earn on the merits ever be hired again? Can South Africa compete with countries who allow businesses to hire the best people for a job, rather than the one who happens by the 'accident'/'chance' of ethnicity to have darker skin?
Instead of letting Churches and temples and Mosques care for the poor: the people who for thousands of years have, we spend our taxpayer money on social grants. Infrastructure suffers, police are underfunded and often not hired on merit. Our judges are often not the best for the job but the right gender or colour to satisfy pea counters. We thus create that environment where more crime exists, and black people being often poorer, are hit harder by crime, because there is not policing to protect their communities. Without safe communities, schooling is more difficult. The cycle continues.
So what is the solution? The Lynching of scapegoats: foreigners burnt alive? Xenophobia? Blaming whites for things the whites you know probably didn't do?
Or is the solution to take recognizance of the truth: to realise that there is a problem: that racism, the blinding to truth due to skin colour, rules the system? To realise that BEE and socio-economic rights, and telling people the rich are bad: causes job losses through unreasonable strikes? Causes people to believe that they are 'economic freedom fighters'? Causes people to be prepared to die to gain a raise by force rather than by becoming a more profitable asset to a company? If I wanted a raise, should I not have wanted it because I earned it? Not because I won't work unless I am paid a massive raise that drives a company out of business? I would not be an asset to a company then, but a liability, a tax, enforced through a system that is not friendly to business, and thus not friendly to people who want to work.
So, what do Red October have to say?
To quote one of the protesters:
'So, let’s answer the criticisms leveled at Red October.
In 2009 white people represented 1.8% of murder victims, but make up 8% of the population.
By this statement E news is trying to indicate that white people, especially Afrikaners, are not victimized and are, in fact, nice and safe and complaining about nothing. Anyone fearing ‘white genocide’ is clearly a delusional fantasist.
Up until this point, any figures quoted by groups worried about the degree of violence focused on white populations were discredited as the South African Police Service does not routinely collect data on the ethnicity of victims and perpetrators of murder. Obviously that doesn’t make nice convincing TV news, so E has gone through the archives until they found a 4 year old statistic gathering dust in a corner. Want to disprove groups who spend an awful lot of effort trying to document murder rates through the devotion of their time to collating anecdotal reporting? Then where is your carefully researched analysis of murder over the past 19 years? Where is your statistical analysis of last year’s crime statistics that were released last month? Where is your evidence of the reliability of your single snapshot statistic from 2009?
So, let’s leave statistics aside – as Benjamin Disraeli reportedly said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
What is verifiable is the horrific brutality and savagery of farm murders in South Africa; if you have a strong stomach, Google it. Torture, rape, murder and mutilation are a legitimate and reasonable part of robbery or a wage dispute? I didn’t think so.
This march is ridiculous as it only focusses on crime against white people
I refer you back to the motivation for the protest above. This was against all crime, all murder, all rape, all violent attacks. No one in this country should have to live in fear. Yes, the focus shifted towards white victims of brutal farm attacks, but these were the people who could be bothered to get off their backsides and make a stand.
If all those who criticised the march on that basis stood up and arranged a protest against the complete lack of control that the ANC government has over crime in this country, then we’d attend that one too. But you haven’t, so we can’t.
The additional demand to scrap racial quotas such as Affirmative Action, Black Economic Empowerment, etc, etc, proves that Red October is a front for racists who wish to return to apartheid.
It has escaped reporting, but organisers and speakers took great pains to point out that this is by no means a call to return to apartheid and that the system was fundamentally wrong.
All forms of discrimination are fundamentally wrong. None of them are positive. The ANC, however, insist on applying racial quotas and conditions on all areas of commerce and employment. How will it ever be fair that someone has to hand over large percentages of the business that they have worked hard to establish and make successful, just due to their skin colour?
The motivation for this protest also highlights the issue of education, asking for quality education for ALL children in this country. The ANC has had 19 years to focus on education, ensuring that every person can compete for jobs based on their abilities and qualifications rather than the melanin content of their skin. They have failed spectacularly – the government can’t even get textbooks into schools for the start of the school year! In order to cover for their incompetence and lack of motivation in this area, they impose employment quotas to give a thin veneer of success.
In the face of a difficult and hostile job market, many white families have had to rely on their entrepreneurial abilities to make a living. If you can’t get a job, you have to work for yourself in order to survive. The new focus of the government has now been to attack white ownership of business, to demand that anyone who has worked hard to establish a successful, profitable company now hands over a percentage of what they built up to black ownership.
There is one group determined to keep race a flashpoint in South Africa and that is the ANC. The ANC are just as obsessed with race as apartheid was, possibly more so.
As the title of this piece indicated, this experience has been a real eye opener. Caricatures mindlessly spouted by the media are being used unfairly to silence people’s concerns. I guess there are none so blind as those that refuse to see, and deaf as those that refuse to hear.
From a Brit living in South Africa – Claire Smith'
Claire Smith 'An eye opener' in MyNews 24 11th October 2013