South African Patriot Steve Hofmeyr Is Closer to Truth Than ANC Propagandist. Naturally.

Crime, Critique, Propaganda, Pseudoscience, South-Africa

Do you believe apartheid-era number crunchers with their typical Western fidelity to record keeping, or the ANC records, crunched by a propagandist at Africa Check?

I’d go with Hofmeyr (or Mercer). For lies in science, no amount of hyperbole from Hofmeyr can match the African National Congress and its supporters in the social “sciences.”

The point of contention: “Are SA whites really being killed ‘like flies’? Why Steve Hofmeyr is wrong.”

Keith B. Richburg is the author of a remarkable journalistic tour de force, “Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa.” My own book, “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” recounts Richburg’s surprise at just what a western outpost South Africa was.

Before it reverted to the seething kraal it is today, a South African crime scene was thus processed. Excerpted from “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa”:

Just before Afrikaners surrendered without defeat, Richburg, Africa bureau chief for The Washington Post from 1991 to 1994, journeyed to South Africa from the killing fields to the north, on assignment. In the course of his duties, he filed a report from the scene of a tribally motivated killing near Johannesburg. Zulu and Xhosa were embroiled in pre-elections strife. Twelve people had been gunned down. A small massacre by African standards—at least, so thought Richburg, who has described Africa as a continent where everywhere black bodies are stacked up like firewood. Imagine his astonishment when “the police, mostly officious-looking white officers with ruddy complexions—came and did what you might expect police to do in any Midwestern American city where a crime has occurred. They cordoned off the area with police tape. They marked the spots on the ground where the victims had fallen.” Topping this CSI-worthy protocol was a statement to the press “promising a ‘full investigation.’” This civilized routine Richburg characterized as utterly misplaced on a continent where nobody counts the bodies; and where chasing down and charging a man with murder is like “handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.” (Pages 22-23)

State statisticians and record keepers were likewise rather good in the Old South.

So, Nechama Brodie critiquing Hofmeyr, or the latter quoting Apartheid-era numbers (likewise extrapolated in my 2011 book)? I’d go with Hofmeyr.

Comments Off on South African Patriot Steve Hofmeyr Is Closer to Truth Than ANC Propagandist. Naturally.

Written by on

UPDATED (5/11): We’re ‘Incredibly Blessed’ To Have Barbie In The White House

Celebrity, Conservatism, Donald Trump, Ethics, Family, Feminism, Gender

If Ivanka Trump’s signature superlatives—“incredible, “amazing,” “tremendous”—don’t get on your nerves; if the insipid emptiness of her words, the stuff of “a contestant in a beauty pageant,” don’t creep you out—then, at the very least, WHAT White House barbie says should disturb.

Remember, “What Ivanka wants, Ivanka gets.” And Ivanka seems to want to be loved by the Davos crowd.

Someone continues to inflate this silly woman’s worth. President by proxy Ivanka Trump on possibly bringing in those Syrians; laying down her global vision for a Syria refugee policy:

“I think there is a global humanitarian crisis that’s happening, and we have to come together, and we have to solve it,” she said to NBC reporter Hallie Jackson.
“Does that include opening the border to Syrian refugees in the U.S.?” inquired Jackson.
“That has to be part of the discussion, but that’s not going to be enough in and of itself,” came the reply.
“I’m incredibly hopeful that legislation is put together,” Ivanka continued.

UPDATED (5/11): Sidelined.

Conservatives Who Supported Trump Being Systematically Excluded From Trump Administration. Which is why, face it, Trump is stumbling.

Paul Gottfried Ponders Richard Spencer’s Strategy (& My Paleolibertarian Take)

Conservatism, Critique, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Logic, Multiculturalism, Old Right, Paleolibertarianism

Well, at least some in the Moron Media have corrected course and are calling Richard Spencer a “white nationalist,” instead of a white supremacist.

Watching Richard’s performance at Auburn University, renowned scholar of the Right Dr. Paul E. Gottfried shared these impressions:

When I criticize him, I am not making moral judgments, except when I note his futile attempt to keep up with leftist Millennials by siding with gay rights and abortion. What I object to in Richard is his, well, strategic stupidity, not the fact that he has committed the “sin” of being a white nationalist. Since “educated” whites are taught to hate their own race, I can’t see how one can appeal to Millennials and leftist college students by calling for white nationalism. Nor does one win their sympathy by mimicking their positions on feminism and homosexuality while trying to convert them to a racialist ideology. What seems to me the only chance left to the Right to be effective is by mobilizing the “Deplorables” and then turning them against the social-cultural Left. I was delighted to see how the pro-Trump people took it to the Antifascists at Berkeley. And I knew these counter-demonstrators were on the side of the angels when David French at National Review began to rail against them.

My impressions? The young, white men in the audience seemed receptive, even enthusiastic, although Richard may be talking above their heads. What Richard was saying conjured an interview I gave, “Self-Segregation Trumps Imposed Multiculturalism.” My views are decidedly LIBERTARIAN, a slant Richard Spencer rejects:

Multiculturalism as practiced in the West amounts to top-down, centrally enforced and managed integration. Show me a historical precedent where forced integration has worked. As it works across the Anglo-American and European spheres, one group (the founding, historical majority) is forced by self-anointed and elected elites—no contradiction there—on pain of public and professional ostracism, to submerge its history, heroes, customs, culture, language, and pander to militant minorities, who’ve been acculturated by the same elites in identity-politics warfare. As a libertarian, I believe that the right to include or exclude; associate with or dissociate from, is inherent in the right of private property. Private property is a civilizing institution. How better to keep the peace than to respect the right of free private-property owners to keep their distance (or not)—to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will? This foundation of civil society is being dismantled for the sake of militant multiculturalism and policed pluralism.
An interesting new book, reviewed by one Barnaby Rogerson, makes the point that the Levant of the 18th century was peaceful and prosperous (and surprisingly libertine), because it was made up of “a grid of self-governing communities.” Integration between disparate communities was not enforced. And surprise, surprise: communities freely chose to live in complete segregation. This freedom fostered “remarkable tolerance” among diverse communities across the cities of the Levant of that time. “Deals before Ideals, City before State, Trade before Politics,” as the reviewer puts it. This freedom of association was the source of strength. These autonomous ethnic communities were free of the top-down, punitive, forced integration that has become the hallmark of the 19th-century nation-state that usurped their authority.

See: “Self-Segregation Trumps Imposed Multiculturalism.”

John Maynard Keynes’ Influence At Harvard Business School, And Beyond

Debt, Economy, Political Economy, Socialism

Interesting points about what the procession of Harvard Business School elites has wrought on the American economy were made on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Making them was Duff McDonald, author of The Golden Passport.

Nothing in the interview was said about the baleful contribution of John Maynard Keynes’s credit and consumption-based voodoo economics on the entrenched thinking at Harvard Business School, and on world political establishment. (That’s not to say Keynes’ “politically inspired economic theory” is not covered in the book. It could well be.)

Because consumption is its be-all and end-all, consumer confidence is crucial to the Cult of Keynes. If the consumer is not crazy confident—even when he ought not to be—goes the “thinking,” he’ll quit consuming until he drops. In short, Keynesian economic animists hope that the holy spirit of “confidence” will enter the once bitten, twice shy lender, and make him lend. The same spell is supposed to mysteriously move the unemployed and penniless to spend.

In his wonderfully learned book, The Failure of the ‘New Economics, Henry Hazlitt summed-up the essence of Keynes’ General Theory: “The great virtue is Consumption, extravagance, improvidence. The great vice is Saving, thrift, ‘financial prudence.'” Duly, Keynes’ acolytes in all administrations are always vowing to make credit flow “the way it should.” Never mind that “all credit is debt,” and that, in Hazlitt’s words, “proposals for an increased volume of credit are merely another name for proposals for an increased burden of debt.”