The criminals at Madnela's funeral

I don't think that the density of evil has ever been so great as it was on the 11th of December, 2013, at the stadium-funereal of Nelson Mandela.

The funeral courted dignitaries and leaders the world over, who dredged up story after story on the great Madnela's struggle against apartheid, which everyone agreed was one of the most despicable , repugnant and oppressive regimes to ever govern man.

Lost in the gushing sentimentality is the cynical truth that most of the leaders and dignitaries in attendance at Mandela's funeral are responsible for more deaths, more suffering and more oppression that little apartheid south Africa ever was.

Over apartheid's reign, 1948-1989 (41 years) the state was responsible for the deaths of 7000 people (black and white). That's  170 deaths a year.

In so far as the Nobel Peace prize is indicative of peace, the apartheid regime is more deserving of the accolade than Obama, for one. Barrack Obama's drone war in Pakistan has killed 2600 people since 2008. That's 520 deaths per year.

Both men combined have killed more people than Aparhteid

What about Tony Blair? This man's endeavor to bring democracy to the Iraqi people has cost the lives of hundreds of  thousands. On what moral ground does Mr. Blair feel righteous in condemning apartheid? A ground under which hundreds of thousand lie dead. That is all.

The political struggle that broke out between competing African political parties in the period 1989-1994 cost the lives of 14,000 people. In only 5 years, black Africans in their struggle for power managed to kill twice as many people as Apartheid killed in its 41 year reign.

I believe in truth and justice. As such, I defend the right of peoples to live under their own terms, to have control over their own destiny. This is all apartheid was, far from the monstrosity it is construed as.

I think we would all be better off if a terrorist had obliterated that entire stadium. Come to think of it, it would not have been that hard to do given the incompetency of SA's police force and military. But this is another story for another post.

The New South Africa is Indefensible

Every scholar agrees that both blacks and whites were economically better off under apartheid than under the the ANC. However, that blacks were better off under apartheid cannot justify apartheid because apartheid is racist, so the argument goes.

This is problematic. If a policy is indefensible because it is racist, then how can liberals support affirmative action? In south Africa, black economic empowerment is american-style affirmative action on steroids. It's obviously racist, yet the policy is defended as a means of 'bridging the economic gap between whites and blacks.' But hold on, was it not already established that a policy is indefensible if it is racist, despite whatever economic advantages it confers on the beneficiaries?

The logic is water-proof. Modern day South Africa is indefensible.

The despicableness of the Executive Council of Austrlaian Jewry

Since the unremarkable Nelson Mandela is in the news, let's start with him and his relationship with the ECAJ. The ECAJ is gushing with praise for Mandela in its recent press release on his death. Why the ECAJ feels it necessary to release a press release on the death of a South African leader is bizarre. My guess is that many of the non-black activists who fought against apartheid ended up immigrating to Australia; and since virtually all of the non-black activists were Jews, it's probably the case that some of them ended up working for, and members of, the ECAJ.

Why the ECAJ follows the world in elevating Mandela to sainthood; and at the same time going against the world in reducing Arafat to the dustbin of history seems a contradiction. Both men led similar lives. So similar, in fact, that at the height of their fame and power they met and embraced in mutual respect.

Mandela and Arafat had a common enemy: a racialist state that imposed totalitarian measures to counter the demographic reality on the ground. Poor Israel and poor South Africa under the Nationalist Party found themselves submerged by an alien and hostile people, who, if given voting rights and full integration into society, would change the culture and politics of the nation through sheer demographic strength alone. 

So why the contradiction? Why is it true and just of Israel to maintain its Jewish identity and way of life but not true and just of the Afrikaner to do so? 

Unfortunately, I can only come up with one explanation: a bias against gentile-whites, and a bias in favour of Jews. This contradiction is not explicable by the old saying 'it it good for the Jews?', since the Jews gained nothing by ending apartheid (despite being virtually 100% of its opponents). The Afrikaner, however, did lose something. And it is the loss of the Afrikaner that motivates these people. 

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry: why anti-semitism is somewhat justified

 The the newly elected Abbott government seeks to dump part of the Racial Discrimination Act. Quite naturally and on cue, the usual suspects are protesting. If I were to heed the warnings of those protesting the proposed changes, then Australia faces another Hitler, another Holocaust,  und so weiter. To channel the theme of Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry: the victims of the systematic Nazi genocide of European Jewry will be put up on stage  -- there ain't no business like Shoah business -- to remind the Jew-hating Volk (just in case we were sleeping during history class, or are not subscribed the the History Channel, or perhaps live under a rock?) that, unless free speech is curtailed, then The Holocaust II: Hitler Strikes Back will be screening in a theater near you -- and now in 3D! 

In a sane world, what I wrote above would be grossly offensive and crude. Alas, such is the exploitation of the Holocaust by Israel and her allies that not even my Sarah-Silvemran-esque attempt at humor could possibly cheapen the holocaust: one can't cheapen something that has already been reduced to $0. But who am I to question the financial wizardry of the Jews? 

Actually, I am Jewish (on the half that counts, anyway), so accusations of monomanical anti-semitism just won't cut it, sorry. 

What I hope to show in an upcoming blog post is the double-standards and 'sheer unreasonableness' of The Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Many of the so called "canards" of the anti-Semitic right are unabashedly put forth in the organisations long list of precepts. Highlights include the double standard on racial-consciousness, cultural and racial preservation, multiculturalism, support of terrorism, and recognition of the indigenous as fist occupants of the land.