Monday, December 30, 2013

A new job.




I remain Editor in Chief at SACNS News Service. I always believe in full disclosure, so I am noting that I am also now Les News South Africa correspondent.

This may be seen here: https://twitter.com/LesNews/lists/correspondants .

I am still working out a bit of it, but it is something I am welcoming at present. I will continue to report truth even difficult truth at SACNS. Hopefully I will also be able to do good through also reporting for Les News.

My first part, involved former president Mandela:



White Lions (Photo Credit SABC: Bloemfontein Zoo to breed the rare white lions http://ift.tt/19GDNts )

Sunday, December 29, 2013

New French 75% Tax... a disincentive to employees, or a strengthening of state power? Or both?

It was about a year ago... Francois Hollande's socialists were taken to court. The French Constitutional Council angrily struck down a law that would tax individuals 75% of their income above a certain amount. Hollande's Marxist core took a brief step back and puzzled on how to attack the wealthy. Not the wealthy independently this time, but employees.If a company paid their employees above a certain amount, Hollande would have the company taxed the 75%. His ingenious scheme has no parallel other than the Collins v Minister of Interior 1957 (1) SA 552 (A), which heralded apartheid by a similar such moving of semantics and maintenance of substance. The French Constitutional Council has validated this slightly different move that largely keeps substance.

The question must be asked then: won't such a move disincentivise French employees from working all the more to achieve a higher salary beyond a certain point? Will not the skills exodus from France increase by this taxing of those who work hard enough to earn that amount? How will something which contributes such a small amount to Gross Domestic Product but causes those wealthy enough and skilled enough to earn such an amount to leave France really benefit the people?

The simple answer is it won't by in large benefit the French people, but there are many examples in history of grand utilization to rely on.

When Apartheid came to dominate South African politics, Catholic schools lost their government funding. As a powerful force against disintegration, it was inevitable the church would be targeted. Communist China had university professors and the wealthy targeted and humiliated or dealt with in her early days. Stalinism took a similar approach.

The ancient Spartans ruled over a slave population. If a slave became too good at harvesting or too skilled, the Spartans would end the life of that slave with a knife in the night. It was an effective mechanism of control. A government or slave master who takes on the hardest working, most effective people, destroys the desire to be exceptional, and along with it most grand cultures in which competition to authoritarianism might covertly fester in an intelligent, or clandestine manner.

Zheng who would build the great wall of China and the Terracotta army, moved all the aristocratic families away from their fiefdoms into his capital in his Qin dynasty. It would fare him well as he taxed the Chinese to near extinction before his dynasty disappeared.

What better way to enforce socialism and the power of government than to disincentivise those who work the hardest for their companies, and cause them to either be taken down significantly, or move countries as many French entrepreneurial future leaders have?

People who make a lot of money are admired by others, listened to by others, unless they are demonised as many modern authoritarian regimes attempt to.

So why did the Spartans murder the best of their slaves? Mediocre workers are better than free workers to a slave-master. A mediocre worker does not challenge the slave-master. Even if one does, he is a mediocre worker, what does he know?

But, a successful hard working individual, a super-ultra-talent who warrants a massive salary... if they challenge the government? Well, the socialists demonise such a person, and when that is not enough they punish them for being exceptional, for not being the mediocre same that socialism requires of her adherents. When that is not enough, the socialist regime tries to take away the exceptional in the person by stealing their fruits of success. Driven by envy, others might relish in this taking down of the great. Others might believe the lies that those who work hard to etch out a future are the devil himself. The people on social welfare might be compared to angels... as they are in the modern world: the chief concern of the state.

Perhaps if instead of punishing ingenuity and expertise, governments such as in France were to incentivise such, the poor might be drawn out of poverty.

Unfortunately marxism creates the concept of inequality... that if the rich get richer it is a bad evil thing. Perhaps if rather than fighting inequality and making it in the best interest of exceptional individuals not to play the game, governments were to fight the real enemy of poverty with the aid of the exceptional... well then... perhaps there would be no place for Hollande's socialists to get votes...

Indeed, Hollande, France's least popular president has found a way to romanticise poverty... all as his economic incompetence insures all the more that France's poverty lines excel in expansion. Meanwhile those employees who are targeted for fulfilling expert work, shall likely find somewhere else to grace with the fruits of their labour, somewhere that values hard work, and those who conduct it and then spend their money from it in such a place.

This article originally appeared in the publication: Marc Evan Aupiais Professional, under the title: 'New French 75% Tax... a disincentive to employees, or a strengthening of state power?'.

A time of simple study

The following is taken from Marc Evan Aupiais Professional, a personal site of myself.

I have been spending my time reading. Reading different accounts of early French and Chinese history. I read of the great Charlamagne. I read of the terrible Xin dynasty, the brilliant dictatoriship of the Qin, and the brilliance of the Han (briefly interrupted by the terrible Xin).

For me the interplay of the path of Confucious with the relevent dynasties is amazing and momentous. From the burning of books by an anti-confucian Qin emperor (who built the Great Wall of China and the Terra Cotta army), to the Han Liu Bang who urinated in a scholar's possession to show disrespect to that profession while allowing confucian religion to flourish. Most notable to me is that the Xin dynasty sought to exactingly enforce confucian beliefs, to the destruction of the poor and the detriment of the wealthy.

So? How does this relate to the first Holy Roman Emperor?

For me it relates most ostencibly to the value of literacy and of education. Confucism is called the scholarly tradition by the Chinese. It seeks to promote the best from the past by study. It seeks to incorporate learning and spread literacy. Charlamagne sought something similar: an educated France which could be bent to his will. His greatness was in his cultural achievements, not his mass murders. His push for better education and restoration helped to regain western europe with the blessing of the weak and foolish papacy of the time.

They say museum visits make the poor and underprivileged more likely to succeed in life, and to pursue education. They being people who studied the matter in America. Education and not marxism is the great uplifter of humankind. Culture also is. It is by turning to culture and history and learning that we truly graduate in humanity.

So, I thought to take a short break from my enjoyable studies of humankind. Why? Because of what I learnt, what I always knew. Culture is the core of humanity.

See the original post here: A time of simple study...

Monday, December 23, 2013

Death of a gunmaker... Mikhail Kalashnikov has left humankind sometimes better... yet through loss!

Western media no doubt will bring up anything to discredit the man, I am sure there is much. The guns he made were incisive and changed the people and the landscape of the planet upon which we rest. Perhaps if he were an American he would be celebrated: The creator of the most deadly gun in history, the one that has killed the most people. That is a terrible title to hold. If he were Western though, they would praise him for it. Would the maker of the Sherman Tank or the Apache helicoptor be seen as a monster in Western worldviews?

Yet, what else can be said of the AK 47, the legacy of Kalashnikov? It is the gun on which most guns are based in the military world. It is the weapon of choice for revolutionaries and those who otherwise would be dead at government hands. It is a durable weapon. It is a great feat of engineering, just as diesel was. Both come from that unfortunate system which yes was a statist system which thrived on mass murder and government theft from the people the government pretended even to themselves that they served.

Does this make the USSR a good? No. It does make Kalashnikov a man who made an engineering feat, and a man who deeply changed history. The original guns are what caused the French Revolution and the American one. Both can be viewed as great evils or powerful forces for change and even eventually as goods. This might not have been so clear in the American civil war, as revolution turned brother against brother and cost many lives for the sake of a small, yet vital thing: principle. AK 47s made equal what was not... for but a short while. Those who used them were much as the early American rebels... these weapons are still used to slaughter masses and to protect many.

Are guns evil? No. They are a means to an end.

Was Kalashnikov an evil man?

A journalist from Russia Today thinks not: ' [I] interviewed Mikhail Kalashnikov 3 times over the last 10 years. He was such a humble and noble man. RIP,' Alexey Yaroshevsky mourned, 'I asked Kalashnikov if he felt jealous. He said, "I could've had billions, but I didn't want it. All I ever wanted is [for] my country to be safe."'

Saturday, December 21, 2013

A very suddenly dangerous, volatile firestorm erupts around businesswoman Justine Sacco.

A very suddenly dangerous, volatile internet firestorm erupts around businesswoman Justine Sacco.

It started as a whimper. A snide comment perhaps. There are many misperceptions of Africa. There are many perceptions of Africa. A white American woman associated with the left-wing of their politics, made an unexpected and controversial likely intended to be humorous statement. Certainly it must have been intended as a humorous statement. She said that she was going to Africa but that was okay, because according to her tweet white people cannot get AIDS in Africa.

Fate waylays the best intentions. A woman working for a company responsible for the left-wing rag The Daily Beast, a dating site for black people, dictionary.com, match.com, and so forth might be considered an extremely liberal left wing woman. She might be considered to have very good views of Africans or at least African-Americans. The same woman by the name Justine Sacco however made a comment very insulting to African-Americans and to Africans of an African ethnicity. Media have since discovered that the woman in question has made other jokes which might be considered highly inappropriate, such as about a sex dream about an autistic person.

‘Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!’ Went the anthem of her terribly inappropriate tweet.

There can be several ways to read this inappropriate tweet. She certainly is going to Africa. She says she hopes she doesn’t get AIDS. Then she says she was just kidding because she is white. This therefore can be interpreted in two ways: firstly that she doesn’t mind if she does get HIV Aids because she is white. In context this statement does not seem to make sense. The second way in which this can be interpreted is that a white person need not hope that they won’t get AIDS because they won’t get AIDS. Either way HIV AIDS is associated by the individual in question with Africa. The way I read the tweet the first time I read it: was that the author of the tweet was mocking social perceptions of Africa and of black Africans and African Americans. After all, black Africans are often portrayed in Western media as infested with HIV AIDS: perhaps she was mocking this perception. This would seem to fit with the ideological base seemingly represented by the company she worked for. That is not how most users of Twitter interpreted it.

So how much of her perception was true? The HIV rate in South Africa is quite high. Edward C Green of Harvard University stated a few years back that in Africa HIV AIDS is connected to a specific set of cultural behaviours. Where it was an epidemic was in the gay community as in the rest of the world. However where it was an epidemic among heterosexual adults, this was only within cultures, nations, and societies where the practice of polygamy was an accepted part of cultural practice. As white South Africans don’t tend to practice polygamy their exposure to HIV tends to depend on whether they are homosexual men or straight. Among heterosexual white South Africans the amount of them infected with HIV is almost identical to the amount infected with HIV among heterosexual white non-polygamists in the United States of America. This is not due to skin colour but to differences in cultural behaviour. In Uganda the spread of HIV was slowed down tremendously and way in advance of where it was slowed down anywhere else. This is because the practice of polygamy was opposed by the government vocally. Most new infections in Uganda occur among the older population which still practice polygamy.

Does this mean that no white South Africans have HIV AIDS? No. Does this mean that all ethnic Africans have HIV AIDS? No. Does this mean that the person in question had no chance of gaining HIV AIDS on a trip to Africa? No.

Whether she was well-informed or ill informed, the individual in question made a tweet which caused an unusual firestorm. In a seeming threat to her physical safety and a threat of lynching, a hashtag asked when she would be landing in Africa. Some say that the reaction proves that there are Africans on Twitter. Others consider it extremely concerning that a seeming threat of lynching was easily visible to the international community today. The vocal and sometimes terrifying statements on the Twitter social network brought up some bad memories of South Africa’s President being booed publicly at the funeral related memorial service in front of many world leaders.

If the person in question was in fact mocking perceptions of Africa, it certainly backfired. Her career might well be over. She might not be racist. She might be informed or ill informed. The braying for her blood however did not wait for her flight to land. The incessant shaming sparked an event which could end even worse. Is witch hunting those with unpopular views the best way to change those views? I think in fact quieting debate and turning to name-calling of those who may or may not be ill informed: only perpetuates ill opinions of Africa.

It is a mark of a civilised society that even those with the most unpopular views are debated rather than shamed. This is not what occurred today. A better response might have politely informed her that she was wrong in the opinion of the person saying so, and requested that she withdraw her comment, defend it, explain it, or otherwise draw attention to the reality on the ground.

Instead the world got to see: a group of angry African people threatening the safety of a westerner. The result is no doubt similar to the perception created by the booing of our president at the memorial service. Is this the perception any South African wants to create of their country…

Update: Justine Sacco has apologised to the Johannesburg Star, stating that the tweet was unnecessary and borne of lack of experience of the plight of people affected by the disease. She said she deeply wanted to apologise to South Africans first and foremost, hence the interview with the Star. She also shared this fact of the interview with an America based broadcaster.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

A disquieting scheme of deeds in the pope's name. #FFI

A scheme most disquieting is quietly a foot. Words like 'house arrest' and quieting of dissent have been uttered by some. There are serious questions asked by media honestly stating: does this represent a massive switch of Catholicism towards an ideological left wing? Media have portrayed a skirmish between left and right, with the pope's man clamping down extensively on conservative Catholics, but the Vatican giving a slap on the wrist to the left wing. Usually Catholics might lash out at media for such allegations, but when asked on the matter by SACNS, Rorate Caeli stated that allegations were 'very fair. We can't blame the media for our Church's faults!' With such a murky topic, with such a minefield of issues, an expert hand is required to ink a extensively versed response to these alleged goings on. I approached Stephen Korsman for just this purpose, his op/ed which I believe is balanced and expert, for the SACNS, follows.

Stephen Korsman is an expert on issues pertaining to the Extraordinary Form / Latin Mass, and has a good knowledge of the disputes involving traditionalist versus ideologically liberal extremes, as well as the approaches the Vatican has taken on both. He is considered to be an orthodox Roman Catholic, and to be knowledgeable about Catholicism. The SACNS believes him expertly versed in this matter at hand.

Op/Ed by Stephen Korsman

The Pope, the Latin Mass, and the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate

Over the past few months there has been a lot in the traditional / conservative Catholic news about the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (FFI), and Rome's handling of their internal crisis. Opinions have covered a wide spectrum, from accusations of persecution of the FFI for their growing attachment to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass, to condemnation of the FFI for "crypto-lefebvrian" anti-Vatican II tendencies, and, on the liberal side, to hope that Pope Francis will clamp down more universally on the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass.

The problem with working out where the blame lies is that Rome has not published all the documentation so that we, around the world, can all make up our own minds pending a democratic vote on the subject - this is not how internal investigations work. What clearly has happened is that Pope Francis became involved, the Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life appointed someone he deemed competent to sort out the problem (Father Fidenzio Volpi), and action was taken in order to prevent the problem from worsening.

What was the problem? The FFI was established in 1970, and, from its inception, used the Missal of 1970 (the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass). (Note: the ancient and original order of Franciscans, the Order of Friars Minor, formed in 1209 AD, is not involved in this situation.) Over time, several FFI friars came to prefer the Missal of 1962. Tension arose between the two groups. Why this happened is uncertain. Some have accused some of those using the 1970 Missal of liberal antagonism towards the 1962 Missal. Some have accused those who prefer the 1962 Missal of a growing anti-Vatican II outlook, as well as attempts to snuff out the use of the 1970 Missal, and a personality cult surrounding their founder. It remains unclear who was in the majority, and how widespread any antagonism was. It does seem certain that their founder, Father Stefano Manelli, preferred the 1962 Missal, and that initially the problem came to light when a petition was sent to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei requesting the establishment of a new institute using only the 1962 Missal. This movement apparently goes back as far as at least January 2012.

What action was taken? Apparently Fr Manelli was removed from active supervision of the friars, and contact with the outside world was forbidden. Several friars were relocated to other areas of the world. The celebration of the Extraordinary Form Mass was prohibited, unless permission was granted for pastoral reasons (and I believe that it has been granted in certain instances). At least one, but not all, of their websites have been taken down. More recently, their seminary has been suspended, with priestly and diaconal ordinations suspended for one year. Their missions in Italy and their Third Order have been suspended. And they will be required to take an oath formally acknowledging that the Ordinary Form is an authentic expression of the Catholic Church's liturgical tradition, and that they accept the documents of Vatican II.

Is this action justified? It's hard to tell. It all depends on who is in the wrong, and what the actual facts behind the situation are - and these are unclear. If there is theological strife within an order, temporarily closing a seminary is justified. If extremist views incompatible with the Catholic faith are held by some, similar action is justified. The oath - well, it is not unreasonable for Catholic orders to be expected to accept the normative liturgy of the Catholic Church has authentic, or for them to acknowledge an ecumenical council. And is it only allegedly "traditionalist" groups that are being supervised in this way? A similar process has been instituted for the liberal nuns in the USA. And the speed at which action has been taken? A single order with a well-defined crisis is far easier to act on than a large and more complex collection of orders and dissenting nuns.

Who is to blame? I don't know. It is clear that there are clergy who are antagonistic towards the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and those who prefer it. A group of Italian bishops approached Pope Francis and complained that the Extraordinary Form was divisive, and Pope Francis' response was that the old and the new both have their place. It is also clear that some who prefer the Extraordinary Form are antagonistic towards the Ordinary Form, and towards Vatican II. Whether one or both of these factions is the problem here is not clear. And how much Pope Francis knows is unclear - in the words of Fr Hunwicke, "I simply do not believe that our beloved Holy Father knows the half of what is being done in his name."

What does this mean for the Extraordinary Form's future? Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, and a previous Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, see no indication from Pope Francis that he opposes the Latin Mass - in fact, they have both heard his support for it. It is highly unlikely that Pope Francis would reverse decisions made by his two predecessors. He would gain nothing, and alienate many. He may not be as interested in the Extraordinary Form as Pope Benedict XVI was, but he's also not interested in restricting it. The situation with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is a limited dispute within a single order, and not a universal attack on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.


FFI websites:
http://www.franciscansoftheimmaculate.com/ (taken down, old material available via the Internet Archive here - https://web.archive.org/web/20130119171628/http://www.franciscansoftheimmaculate.com/)
http://www.immacolata.com/index.php/en/ (not taken down)

Opinion pieces:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/fr-z-on-fr-finigan-on-the-franciscan-friars-of-the-immaculate/
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2013/12/oath-to-be-administered-to-franciscans.html
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/franciscans-of-immaculate-more-oaths.html
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/popes-crackdown-order-alarms-traditionalists

Rorate Caeli opinion and traditionally biased information:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/12/for-record-situation-with-franciscans.html

Fr Volpi's recent decisions:
http://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Lettera-Volpi.pdf [Fr Volpi, Dec 2013]

Interview with FFI Procurator General, Fr Alessandro Apollonio:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/tradizionalisti-traditionalists-tradicionalistas-27026/

That the Latin Mass will not be suppressed:
http://youtu.be/Edq69fJLnXo?t=22m40s
http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.com/2013/11/pope-wont-stop-latin-mass-in-other-news.html


Editor's note: On the Extraordinary Form in South Africa a good resource, according to Stephen Korsman who is affiliated to such resource: is Una Voce Cape Town, available at:


Page: https://www.facebook.com/UnaVoceCapeTown Discussions: https://www.facebook.com/groups/unavocecapetown

Thank you very much Stephen Korsman for sharing your informed opinion with the SACNS. We very much appreciate your time and effort in bringing our readers an accurate picture of such a complex minefield of issues.

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Rebecca Black releases... 'Saturday'... on a Saturday!

'Musical genius' or bad annoyance: ... Rebecca Black releases... 'Saturday'... on a Saturday!



She symbolises the tool of annoyance utilised by many a two year old to annoy their parents... yes, she created the pop song Friday...

Now, Rebecca... the annoyance... Black has released a sequel which somehow has more likes than dislikes...

And more strange rapping, with the um semi-chorus: Yesterday was Friday... Today is Saturday...

Coming to an annoying kid near you soon... Sunday?

And yes... it is bad...

Warning... contains blasphemy and the phrase 'Where is the peanut butter'... I know... weird...



http://www.youtube.com/embed/GVCzdpagXOQ

And for the hard core fans... the type who can watch paint dry and smile...



http:////www.youtube.com/embed/kfVsfOSbJY0






Saturday, December 7, 2013

Mandela: 'If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is USA' #WhoWasMandela?

Nelson Mandela was a complex man, and undoubtedly left wing and generally opposed to American actions. I spoke briefly about Nelson Mandela for the SACNS, the real Nelson Mandela: how he introduced anti-white policies in 1997, expanded abortion, and how his ANC engaged in literal witch hunts etc. Russia Today has compiled fascinating quotes of the late South African stuggle leader. Think Progress, which I will note in quoting AP later notes Mandela's outrage that Osama Bin Laden was labelled a terrorist.

Nelson Mandela was a complex man who did great good but also some questionable or controversial activities. We should mourn the real Nelson Mandela, not a media myth.

On the Iraq war intentions of America, Mandela said:

'“If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings,”'

'“If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace.”'

Of Israel, a Western favourite, Mandela said:

'“Israel should withdraw from all the areas which it won from the Arabs in 1967, and in particular Israel should withdraw completely from the Golan Heights, from south Lebanon and from the West Bank,”'

and:

'“The UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system. But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”'

The Freedom Charter was not the only communism Mandela supported. Mass slaughter of opponents in Cuba ring a bell?

'“From its earliest days, the Cuban Revolution has also been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of the vicious imperialist-orchestrated campaign to destroy the impressive gain made in the Cuban Revolution….Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro.”'

Gaddafi was an enemy of the west, but not of Mandela:

'“It is our duty to give support to the brother leader…especially in regards to the sanctions which are not hitting just him, they are hitting the ordinary masses of the people … our African brothers and sisters,”'

Dec 6 | 'Mandela’s sharp statements rarely cited in mainstream media' | Russia Today
http://rt.com/news/mandela-sharp-quotes-media-860/

Think Progress noted this quote from Associated press:

'The labeling of Osama bin Laden as the terrorist responsible for those acts before he had been tried and convicted could also be seen as undermining some of the basic tenets of the rule of law,'

Jan 3 2002 | AP | 'MANDELA SOFTENS SUPPORT OF U.S.' | DINA KRAFT

And a fuller telling of Mandela's Iraq comments are:

'"It is a tragedy, what is happening, what Bush is doing. But Bush is now undermining the United Nations," Mandela told the International Women's Forum.

[...]

"What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."

[...]

"If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care."

[...]

"Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly?" he asked. "All that (Mr. Bush) wants is Iraqi oil," he said.

He accused Mr. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of undermining the United Nations and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who is from Ghana.

"Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man? They never did that when secretary-generals were white," he said.

He said Mr. Bush was "trying to bring about carnage" and appealed to the American people to vote him out of office and demonstrate against his policies.

He also condemned Blair for his strong support of the United States.

"He is the foreign minister of the United States. He is no longer prime minister of Britain," he said. That echoes a theme adopted by war opponents in Britain. Blair is to meet Mr. Bush for talks on Friday. '

Jan 30 2003 | CBS | 'Mandela Slams Bush On Iraq' | JARRETT MURPHY

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mandela-slams-bush-on-iraq/

And as I noted previously:

Nelson Mandela would be arrested and tried in relatively early days of anti-apartheid movement. I always find it strange that his lawyer became so famous and so acclaimed for intentionally losing a case. I would have tried to find some loophole. Instead the argument was that the court had no right to try Nelson Mandela. No wonder Nelson Mandela smiled after being convicted, that was exactly his intention. If Nelson Mandela had intended to be acquitted, his argument would have been one on technicality. Nelson Mandela himself was trained in law. Neither he nor his lawyer attempted to find loopholes which could have got him off.

Nelson Mandela thus went to jail and spent 27 years in jail. There are plenty of people who spent 27 years in jail who are not lauded for this. Likewise with Jesus Christ there were plenty of people who were crucified who were not lauded for being crucified. Nelson Mandela spending 27 years in jail is only an act of greatness if he did not deserve to go to jail in the first place. It is this perseverance for which Nelson Mandela has his fame. An ordinary criminal will persevere in jail however. It is Nelson Mandela’s loyalty to his cause however that is lauded by the world. Whether he persevered or not he would spend 27 years in jail.

Towards the end of apartheid African National Congress was becoming increasingly militant. A civil war was seen as almost certain. The movie Endgame details pre-negotiations organised by the mining industry in a hope of saving South Africa. As a result of these negotiations, something very unusual began to happen. Without consulting Parliament or anyone in his own political party, President FW De Klerk suddenly announced that Nelson Mandela would be released from jail. There is a reason why both FW De Klerk and Nelson Mandela gained the Nobel Peace Prize. It was not the creation of a new South Africa. South Africa had existed all along. It was negotiating to prevent a civil war which it seemed all but certain. This is why Nelson Mandela was great. Despite spending 27 years in jail, Nelson Mandela had enough of a good head on him: to avert a civil war and to aim at peace. Nelson Mandela could not have done this alone however, FW De Klerk is equally important in this regard.

In the year 1995 president Nelson Mandela attended the Rugby World Cup. Rugby remains a white sport in South Africa just as local soccer remains a black sport to this day. Nelson Mandela attended a white sporting event. Nelson Mandela penned beautiful speeches or at least spoke them: speeches about forgiveness and diversity and the unity of a nation which was one. These speeches caused the South African people to unite. It is because of the charisma of Nelson Mandela that South Africans became one nation through the Rugby World Cup victory according to multiple accounts on the matter. His speeches throughout the period in question were very charismatic and worked in uniting different race groups to a national ANC agenda.

In creating a new constitution however Nelson Mandela was less forgiving. The constitution itself was aimed at limiting the rights of white South Africans. To this day companies brag of being all black, of refusing to whites, any form of employment. If a white company were to do that in contrast they would be taken to court. Nelson Mandela also created a constitution in which the African National Congress specifically wanted to ensure that pornography would always be legal (On pornography the major case is, the child pornography case of: De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and Others (CCT5/03) [2003] ZACC 19; 2004 (1) SA 406 (CC); 2003 (12) BCLR 1333 (CC) (15 October 2003) http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2003/19.html). The constitutional court affirmed this: they permitted laws preventing child pornography viewing to stand as the government had followed the correct procedures which would allow any constitutional rights to be circumvented in the right scenario. The constitution was also specifically drafted with the intent of making homosexual marital like unions something which law would enforce, according to the case Fourie and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (232/2003) [2004] ZASCA 132; [2005] 1 All SA 273 (SCA) (30 November 2004), gay 'marriage' is demanded by the Constitution. Nelson Mandela also ensured a constitution which would legalise homosexuality, but also result in deep persecution of Christians who did not accept homosexual marriage, a persecution which is ongoing. The drafters intended to create a right to abortion it would seem. A new court was created to judge the constitution, a court which would be stocked full of liberals and ANC loyalists: the Supreme Court of Appeal could not be trusted to be loyal to the African National Congress agenda for the constitution and so a ‘constitutional court’ was created to ensure that the ANC vision of the constitution was maintained. And so in 1996 the African National Congress created a massive expansion of abortion from a rare grudgingly done and frowned upon action: to one of the most liberal abortion systems in the world, through the termination of pregnancy act, which also extensively limited the rights of conscientious objectors in certain circumstances and of those who believed abortion to be immoral and something to protest against. The majority of pregnancies in South Africa, at least about 57% inclusive of backstreet abortions: end in intentional induced abortion. A statistic available online lists abortions at 50% in 2007. The most recent poll available on the matter found that 90% of South Africans consider abortion always immoral. On abortion see: Christian Lawyers Association of SA and Others v Minister of Health and Others 1998(4) SA 1113 (T).

By 1997, the African National Congress realised something which the nationalist party had realised years ago. As presided over by president Nelson Mandela: the African National Congress created a policy paper that from now on the party would not promote a rainbow nation, but an Africanist worldview, which they hoped would gain them votes. You might have read of how the African National Congress every single election states that South Africans must vote for them because all that white South Africans want to do is bring back apartheid in their perspective. This is because of a policy paper the African National Congress created under the leadership of Nelson Mandela. Where there was risk of civil war the African National Congress pushed the idea of a rainbow nation which Nelson Mandela is most associated with. Nelson Mandela, and the African National Congress under his leadership also cancelled this rainbow nation policy.

The African National Congress would introduce black economic empowerment, punishing businesses for hiring white South Africans and punishing businesses which were owned by white South Africans. If an orphanage was in a majority white area it would risk being shut down as the government would punish companies who donated to charities which looked after white South Africans and charities which looked after white and black South Africans. Charities which didn’t look after a certain quota of black South Africans and turn away white South Africans to fill for this quota have to this day risked losing all corporate funding due to tax punishments from the government. This is the BEE policy. This is not a policy which Nelson Mandela has opposed. In fact Nelson Mandela was certain to include justification for it in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

In his later years Nelson Mandela joined a group of statesman called the Elders. Amongst other things this non-governmental organisation promotes far left policies and abortion. Nelson Mandela has also consistently campaigned for the African National Congress. He is known for putting the party first. Nelson Mandela has also been known for his close links to dictators such as Castro and Robert Mugabe. His descendants have been known for allegations involving tender improprieties, and for seemingly having charges dropped against them in court where prosecutors had previously claimed there was a case. Some of his descendants also have a reality show where they go about shopping.

Nelson Mandela did not create a utopia in South Africa. According to Agence France-Presse he leaves South Africa disillusioned and unequal (On this see: AFP "Mandela quitte une Afrique du Sud désenchantée et inégalitaire" Par Claudine RENAUD at 6 December 2013 http://fr.news.yahoo.com/mandela-quitte-afrique-sud-d%C3%A9senchant%C3%A9e-in%C3%A9galitaire-223926214.html ). So what did Nelson Mandela do which was so great? Nelson Mandela was a demagogue. His charisma was uniting. South Africa ended apartheid and South Africa created peace. The man that the United States of America listed as a terrorist many years after he became national President of the Republic of South Africa: played a large role in uniting South Africa. This is the Nelson Mandela who should be remembered: a very human man, a man who engaged in some questionable activities in his lifetime, but a man who in his actions helped unite the nation and to prevent a civil war. For that I am grateful to Nelson Mandela and FW De Klerk. However it is important to remember Nelson Mandela the man, and not Nelson Mandela the media created myth, who bears little resemblance to the real Nelson Mandela. It was the fact that Nelson Mandela was an ordinary South African, which so inspires the entire world, by what he did through perseverance!

Note from editor: much of the information in this article is from sources such as books, law cases, back copies of American and other newspapers and so forth. These are not always readily available to the average member of the public, but are also propietary. Should you struggle to find information sources online, please feel free to contact us, but do search firstly. One example of us responding to such a request is the placing of a link to a 2007 article relating to abortion within this article, which is why we are writing this editor's note. Most of the information herein should be available online, although we purposely chose to rely on more accurate non-online sources. What information is not available online should be easily found in a well stacked public library. The author of this piece writes from memory of studying the matters in law school, and the syllabus relating to Constitutional Law and Customary law, and Criminal law at the University of the Witwatersrand, which included little known information such as evidencing the ANC policy document, and other valuable documentary evidence which is rare enough to be available largely only to tertiary students who require the information. The history of witchcraft in South Africa likewise is based on historic research in an offline format. The early missionary accounts, and several offline accounts by experts, are particularly valuable as such, although obviously the missionary accounts have a Christian format to their language. The African National Congress witch trials are extensively recorded in historic material looking back at that precarious time. However, there are less complete online accounts of this fascinating subject, which no doubt should be available to the average reader. Any information you struggle to check or verify if you are that type, please contact us for.

Friday, December 6, 2013

The Man and the Media Myth: There are two Nelson Mandela’s who passed away.

There are two Nelson Mandela’s who passed away.

The one is the Nelson Mandela of media. He is a living legend who is owned by the ages, who no doubt will be worshipped and praised 1000 years from now. He is the Nelson Mandela who is Odysseus he is the Nelson Mandela who is Hercules. He is a deity who is unparalleled in all the world. Nelson Mandela was not Odysseus. Nelson Mandela was not Hercules. The greatness of Nelson Mandela was his persistence. He was not uniquely special but he persevered in pursuing what he wanted. That was his greatness. A great man doing something great is not something entirely notable: it is when an ordinary man does something exceptional that something is very worthy of noting. Nelson Mandela defied his odds, but his methodology, his life was all but ordinarily, we must not forget the perseverance by an ordinary man and not some myth. That is the greatness of Nelson Mandela. It was the South African people who ended what became known as Apartheid and it was the South African people who embraced peace. Nelson Mandela was one of the South African people. Understanding the TBVC system, this is an important statement. Nelson Mandela was one of the South Africans, when South Africa was five different nations. In mourning our Nelson Mandela, South Africa must not forget that one man did not defeat apartheid, or create peace, rather, a national effort of all of us did. For his role in preventing civil war in South Africa, Nelson Mandela is correctly credited as having done something great.

When the British marauding forces made conquest against South Africa, they retained the local system of chiefs, and the local customs and laws which applied to black South Africans. There was a difference between a colonist and a local. There was the belief that a local was inferior. While the Cape Colony allowed minor rights for black and coloured South Africans, the other three colonies were not quite as a liberal. It is the British who started the separation in South Africa.

South Africa was a founding member of the precursor of the United Nations. The United Party was loved across the world, and South Africa and its guidance, played a key role in uniting the nations of the world. At independence in 1961 however, it was the nationalist party, an Afrikaans party which began to gain such great influence. They decided to eliminate the vote for all coloureds and all Blacks. These were voting blocs which mostly supported the United Party. In that sense much of Apartheid started not as a diabolical scheme, but as a mechanism for gaining more votes. The two Collins cases and so forth are important in this sense.

You might have heard of passbooks during apartheid, you probably however do not understand why these books were issued. They were issued because the apartheid government decided to continue the British policy of separateness in South Africa.

In Canada the Canadian colonists created reservations for the native Indians. This Canadian policy was the foundation upon which apartheid was created. Black South Africans were placed in the TBVC states. Black South Africans were ruled by black South Africans of their own tribe. Does this not represent the American and Canadian system of reservations? Does this not represent the Australian system of reservations? In first-year English one of our lecturers at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg stated that when Westerners and Americans raised the issue of South Africa’s past relating to Apartheid this specific lecturer would ask which was worse: wiping out the native population of the land through smallpox, conquest and other means: or not wiping out that population but acting in an imperialist manner against them. Reservations still exist in the West, systems similar to apartheid still exist in the West. The native Indians of Canada and America who live in these reservations, are often associated with high crime rates, drug use and alcohol: but what is done against them is not considered to be apartheid. Apartheid in the true sense is the TBVC states. That is what apartheid was: the turning of South Africa into five different nations, each with its own government rulers, and its own legal system. A person from one state required a passport to enter a different state. The South African government required a migrant population to work the mines, and thus the pass system was born: that is a passport to enter the different countries which had formerly been South Africa. The world powers and the United Nations refused to accept this dividing of South Africa into five states, and many in international law claim that these states were never formed at all. This division is what apartheid was. Only members of the White Republic of South Africa could hold certain jobs in the white South African Republic, migrants from the other South Africas could only serve in certain jobs in their own countries.

This division into nations based on race, has been widely condemned across the world.

On 16 June 1976, African National Congress activists cajoled and intimidated schoolchildren into a march against learning in Afrikaans. According to eyewitness reports there was certainly a degree of intimidation into marching. Those who did march approached the police, there was violence and throwing of stones. In this new South Africa the police would have used tear gas and rubber bullets. But the police did not have these. Reports from the day suggest that the police lost their nerve: they opened fire on the children who were cajoled and intimidated into marching against them. In the new South Africa a similar incident occurred at Marikana, where protesters who had killed 10 people in the week before: charged the police line, where tear gas and rubber bullets had no effect. In this recent event at Marikana, 34 people lost their lives. On 16 June 1976 however those who lost their lives were children: cajoled and intimidated into marching against the police by the African National Congress. The tragedy of the deaths was not lost on the African National Congress who utilised this to arm opposition against apartheid with this powerful propaganda of the killing of children. The actions of the police were unjustifiable, but their actions were not something which it can be said the ANC did not expect would occur. When studying law at the University of the Witwatersrand, I came across the strange information in my syllabus for African Customary law that the African National Congress activists in the townships intimidated women into having babies to grow the revolution against the whites. There was much intimidation throughout the townships. Anyone suspected of being a white sympathiser would risk being necklaced. This entailed a tyre being put around a person’s neck. Petrol would be poured upon the person. The person would be burnt alive. This is how the African National Congress made South Africa ungovernable in the townships, through the murder of black South Africans who they accused of being white sympathisers. According to the syllabus at the University of the Witwatersrand, in the rural areas the African National Congress utilised the fear of witchcraft. In the early days of South Africa the chiefs were formed to persecute witches, and deny them land, and if necessary to kill witches. Unlike in North Africa were power gathered around witchcraft, in early South Africa power gathered around witch hunters. During the apartheid era the African National Congress activists were told to make the country ungovernable. In the rural areas, in Limpopo and Mpumalanga and the North West province: the African National Congress began witchhunts. They would use divination to find out which woman was a witch. The witch would be burnt to death. While most of the casualties of the African National Congress war against apartheid were black South Africans killed by African National Congress activists, the militant wing of African National Congress which Nelson Mandela led in its early days, would turn to bombings against white civilian targets such a train stations and shopping centres.

In South Africa’s criminal law there are many cases of ANC linked mobs or individuals committing atrocious acts against innocent people. The attempt of the government to combat this ungovernable situation where black people murdered black people purely to make the government unable to cope: resulted in many laws being formed in South Africa. This is perhaps why when I got to law school the history I had been taught of South Africa in school, I discovered to be pure propaganda and false hood. The University of Witwatersrand taught a very different history of South Africa.

Nelson Mandela would be arrested and tried in relatively early days of anti-apartheid movement. I always find it strange that his lawyer became so famous and so acclaimed for intentionally losing a case. I would have tried to find some loophole. Instead the argument was that the court had no right to try Nelson Mandela. No wonder Nelson Mandela smiled after being convicted, that was exactly his intention. If Nelson Mandela had intended to be acquitted, his argument would have been one on technicality. Nelson Mandela himself was trained in law. Neither he nor his lawyer attempted to find loopholes which could have got him off.

Nelson Mandela thus went to jail and spent 27 years in jail. There are plenty of people who spent 27 years in jail who are not lauded for this. Likewise with Jesus Christ there were plenty of people who were crucified who were not lauded for being crucified. Nelson Mandela spending 27 years in jail is only an act of greatness if he did not deserve to go to jail in the first place. It is this perseverance for which Nelson Mandela has his fame. An ordinary criminal will persevere in jail however. It is Nelson Mandela’s loyalty to his cause however that is lauded by the world. Whether he persevered or not he would spend 27 years in jail.

Towards the end of apartheid African National Congress was becoming increasingly militant. A civil war was seen as almost certain. The movie Endgame details pre-negotiations organised by the mining industry in a hope of saving South Africa. As a result of these negotiations, something very unusual began to happen. Without consulting Parliament or anyone in his own political party, President FW De Klerk suddenly announced that Nelson Mandela would be released from jail. There is a reason why both FW De Klerk and Nelson Mandela gained the Nobel Peace Prize. It was not the creation of a new South Africa. South Africa had existed all along. It was negotiating to prevent a civil war which it seemed all but certain. This is why Nelson Mandela was great. Despite spending 27 years in jail, Nelson Mandela had enough of a good head on him: to avert a civil war and to aim at peace. Nelson Mandela could not have done this alone however, FW De Klerk is equally important in this regard.

In the year 1995 president Nelson Mandela attended the Rugby World Cup. Rugby remains a white sport in South Africa just as local soccer remains a black sport to this day. Nelson Mandela attended a white sporting event. Nelson Mandela penned beautiful speeches or at least spoke them: speeches about forgiveness and diversity and the unity of a nation which was one. These speeches caused the South African people to unite. It is because of the charisma of Nelson Mandela that South Africans became one nation through the Rugby World Cup victory according to multiple accounts on the matter. His speeches throughout the period in question were very charismatic and worked in uniting different race groups to a national ANC agenda.

In creating a new constitution however Nelson Mandela was less forgiving. The constitution itself was aimed at limiting the rights of white South Africans. To this day companies brag of being all black, of refusing to whites, any form of employment. If a white company were to do that in contrast they would be taken to court. Nelson Mandela also created a constitution in which the African National Congress specifically wanted to ensure that pornography would always be legal (On pornography the major case is, the child pornography case of: De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and Others (CCT5/03) [2003] ZACC 19; 2004 (1) SA 406 (CC); 2003 (12) BCLR 1333 (CC) (15 October 2003) http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2003/19.html). The constitutional court affirmed this: they permitted laws preventing child pornography viewing to stand as the government had followed the correct procedures which would allow any constitutional rights to be circumvented in the right scenario. The constitution was also specifically drafted with the intent of making homosexual marital like unions something which law would enforce, according to the case Fourie and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (232/2003) [2004] ZASCA 132; [2005] 1 All SA 273 (SCA) (30 November 2004), gay 'marriage' is demanded by the Constitution. Nelson Mandela also ensured a constitution which would legalise homosexuality, but also result in deep persecution of Christians who did not accept homosexual marriage, a persecution which is ongoing. The drafters intended to create a right to abortion it would seem. A new court was created to judge the constitution, a court which would be stocked full of liberals and ANC loyalists: the Supreme Court of Appeal could not be trusted to be loyal to the African National Congress agenda for the constitution and so a ‘constitutional court’ was created to ensure that the ANC vision of the constitution was maintained. And so in 1996 the African National Congress created a massive expansion of abortion from a rare grudgingly done and frowned upon action: to one of the most liberal abortion systems in the world, through the termination of pregnancy act, which also extensively limited the rights of conscientious objectors in certain circumstances and of those who believed abortion to be immoral and something to protest against. The majority of pregnancies in South Africa, at least about 57% inclusive of backstreet abortions: end in intentional induced abortion. A statistic available online lists abortions at 50% in 2007. The most recent poll available on the matter found that 90% of South Africans consider abortion always immoral. On abortion see: Christian Lawyers Association of SA and Others v Minister of Health and Others 1998(4) SA 1113 (T).

By 1997, the African National Congress realised something which the nationalist party had realised years ago. As presided over by president Nelson Mandela: the African National Congress created a policy paper that from now on the party would not promote a rainbow nation, but an Africanist worldview, which they hoped would gain them votes. You might have read of how the African National Congress every single election states that South Africans must vote for them because all that white South Africans want to do is bring back apartheid in their perspective. This is because of a policy paper the African National Congress created under the leadership of Nelson Mandela. Where there was risk of civil war the African National Congress pushed the idea of a rainbow nation which Nelson Mandela is most associated with. Nelson Mandela, and the African National Congress under his leadership also cancelled this rainbow nation policy.

The African National Congress would introduce black economic empowerment, punishing businesses for hiring white South Africans and punishing businesses which were owned by white South Africans. If an orphanage was in a majority white area it would risk being shut down as the government would punish companies who donated to charities which looked after white South Africans and charities which looked after white and black South Africans. Charities which didn’t look after a certain quota of black South Africans and turn away white South Africans to fill for this quota have to this day risked losing all corporate funding due to tax punishments from the government. This is the BEE policy. This is not a policy which Nelson Mandela has opposed. In fact Nelson Mandela was certain to include justification for it in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

In his later years Nelson Mandela joined a group of statesman called the Elders. Amongst other things this non-governmental organisation promotes far left policies and abortion. Nelson Mandela has also consistently campaigned for the African National Congress. He is known for putting the party first. Nelson Mandela has also been known for his close links to dictators such as Castro and Robert Mugabe. His descendants have been known for allegations involving tender improprieties, and for seemingly having charges dropped against them in court where prosecutors had previously claimed there was a case. Some of his descendants also have a reality show where they go about shopping.

Nelson Mandela did not create a utopia in South Africa. According to Agence France-Presse he leaves South Africa disillusioned and unequal (On this see: AFP "Mandela quitte une Afrique du Sud désenchantée et inégalitaire" Par Claudine RENAUD at 6 December 2013 http://fr.news.yahoo.com/mandela-quitte-afrique-sud-d%C3%A9senchant%C3%A9e-in%C3%A9galitaire-223926214.html ). So what did Nelson Mandela do which was so great? Nelson Mandela was a demagogue. His charisma was uniting. South Africa ended apartheid and South Africa created peace. The man that the United States of America listed as a terrorist many years after he became national President of the Republic of South Africa: played a large role in uniting South Africa. This is the Nelson Mandela who should be remembered: a very human man, a man who engaged in some questionable activities in his lifetime, but a man who in his actions helped unite the nation and to prevent a civil war. For that I am grateful to Nelson Mandela and FW De Klerk. However it is important to remember Nelson Mandela the man, and not Nelson Mandela the media created myth, who bears little resemblance to the real Nelson Mandela. It was the fact that Nelson Mandela was an ordinary South African, which so inspires the entire world, by what he did through perseverance!

Note from editor: much of the information in this article is from sources such as books, law cases, back copies of American and other newspapers and so forth. These are not always readily available to the average member of the public, but are also propietary. Should you struggle to find information sources online, please feel free to contact us, but do search firstly. One example of us responding to such a request is the placing of a link to a 2007 article relating to abortion within this article, which is why we are writing this editor's note. Most of the information herein should be available online, although we purposely chose to rely on more accurate non-online sources. What information is not available online should be easily found in a well stacked public library. The author of this piece writes from memory of studying the matters in law school, and the syllabus relating to Constitutional Law and Customary law, and Criminal law at the University of the Witwatersrand, which included little known information such as evidencing the ANC policy document, and other valuable documentary evidence which is rare enough to be available largely only to tertiary students who require the information. The history of witchcraft in South Africa likewise is based on historic research in an offline format. The early missionary accounts, and several offline accounts by experts, are particularly valuable as such, although obviously the missionary accounts have a Christian format to their language. The African National Congress witch trials are extensively recorded in historic material looking back at that precarious time. However, there are less complete online accounts of this fascinating subject, which no doubt should be available to the average reader. Any information you struggle to check or verify if you are that type, please contact us for.

Original title: 'The Man and the Media Myth: There are two Nelson Mandela’s who yesterday evening passed away.' changed to 'The Man and the Media Myth: There are two Nelson Mandela’s who passed away. ' for republication on the 15 December in light of Mandela's burial. The first sentence is accordingly changed.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

'You're Just a Female Vagina' Justin Bieber says to woman customs officer at airport... begging the question of his knowledge of English or lack thereof



Justin Bieber allegedly said to a female customs officer at Brisbane Airport that she was: 'Just a Female Vagina'.

Is calling someone female, an insult? Does Justin Bieber know men with vaginas? Did he pass grade school? The alleged comment follows his belief that there was a Sixteen Chapel, when asked of 'Sistine Chapel' in Vatican... due to his seemingly religious tattoos... he clearly didn't know what the Sistine Chapel was.

The incident, involving a grievous insult to a woman occurred after a member of the Bieber entourage was sniffed up by sniffer dog(s), the canine(s) found dagga on the crew member in the Bieber brigade. Whether the crew member was arrested for the cannabis/Marijuana/Dagga is not mentioned by the Sun. What is mentioned is that Justin Bieber was threatened with arrest for insulting the customs officer, cautioned for refusing to remove hat and sunglasses, and was generally a 19 year old overgrown brat... by the sun newspaper wording of the incident...

Vaginas are female, so adding the word female is wholly unnecessary and it is not good etiquette to compare women to a female sex organ...





'JUSTIN Bieber was threatened with arrest when airport sniffer dogs found cannabis on one of his crew.
The pop brat, 19, allegedly insulted a woman customs officer at Brisbane Airport, telling her: "You're just a female vagina."
He was also given a verbal warning for refusing to remove his hat and sunglasses.
Police were alerted to the drugs as luggage from the plane was checked.'
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/5305996/biebers-entourage-in-airport-drugs-bust.html?CMP=SOC-Sun-Twitter-11_20_2013-191-0-0-0

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Audio: What The Roads Agency mean to say: Rich? White? Avoid the riff raff... Buy a SANRAL ETag... #ANC #Gauteng #sanral #Satire





"And while the riff raff may not buy their etag, we know you will..." - Quote from the audio.


And for a serious report on all this:

Audio: Etolls Take a Toll on Gauteng Motorists... could hurt Africa's powerhouse economy.



The freeways are no longer free. This was the realisation of many a Gauteng Province commuter upon awakening this morning. As a result a vast majority avoided the highways for byways and alternative routes. At peak hour traffic flowed unusually freely on tolled highways, reported the SABC. In contrast, I went out at midday or so, and Beyers Naude, whch usually flows freely at that period, was flooded with congested traffic. Everyone was attempting to avoid the double taxation of the etolled roads. I considered buying an etag, some I know have. 7 days notice then debt collectors, threats of court cases, who coud blame the compliant citizen? Either way, Etolls resemble very much the tax in britain, on daylight admitting windows, which became known by the slang: daylight robbery.

No doubt the economy may be hurt by lost time, due to traffic. Those who can afford the exhorbitant rate on the other side, have a private route to work with next to no traffic.

For more of an account, of this little publicised until a few years ago project, listen to my podcast on AudioBoo above.

Or see the satirical advert SACNS has created to show the injustice of SANRAl etag:

Popular Posts - This Week

Popular Posts This Month

Popular Posts | All TIme