Hankering after the good old days?

White, stupid and with an unwarranted sense of racial superiority and entitlement

by Stanley Collymore

Try to imagine that you’re forced to live in a community where your local authority is not one that is democratically elected with you having the power through the ballot box or even by consultation to change this body and which is in effect an unelected and unaccountable, to you and the rest of your community that is, quango. And while you’re getting your head around this one imagine also that this aforesaid quango can do whatever it likes in respect of your daily lives, including levying exorbitant sums of money to arbitrarily carry out its prejudicial, self-obsessed and intransigent programmes that you are not consulted about; doesn’t have any cognisance of or would it respect your viewpoint even if you were allowed to express it; is dismissive of you because it knows you can’t hold it to account as you have no right of veto or even the power of recall over its members; and whose activities exclusively benefit not you or other members of your community who are paying for all of this, but rather the coterie of self-serving, innately incompetent, nepotistic quango members and their privileged corps of other family members, like-minded friends and associates and, most crucially and ironically, others living well beyond the borders of your community, and even in foreign countries, whose domestic and external interests are not only at variance to but are also inimical to those of your own community who they couldn’t care less about, but to whom this quango that you can’t get rid of happily pays obeisance to.

Unimaginable or a perverse fantasy perhaps? Sorry, but it’s neither; for this is very much a reality in the UK and the quango I’m referring to is none other than the BBC, or to accord to it its official name (a misnomer if ever there was one): The British Broadcasting Corporation, since the only accurate parts of that title relate solely to the fact that it’s an entity that broadcasts and does so from Britain. For the BBC is neither a corporation in the true meaning of that word nor is it British in the accepted sense of that terminology: an entity that accurately and systematically espouses, upholds and defends those values that are quintessentially British and universally understood and accepted as such.

For starters the much hyped myth about the BBC being an impartial broadcasting entity is precisely that. And to reinforce this reality let me say that the BBC has always been the mouthpiece of the rich and privileged, its Downing Street and Whitehall political mandarins who selectively appoint its board members and chief executives, and who unsurprisingly are not only beholden to but are also deeply and corruptly embedded in the financial pockets of big business plutocrats, many of them closely linked with the oil and armaments industries, have well-known and long-established connections with foreign countries like the United States, Israel and western client states in the Middle East, powerful zionist entities like AIPAC and its many other US and Canadian hybrids, as well as their counterparts in the UK, EU and white settler states like Australia and New Zealand; and to add insult to injury these very powerful interests through government legislation get the ordinary man and woman on the street to fund their virulent propaganda, which by and large is very antipathetic to the general interests of these human cash machines that bankroll the BBC.

How democratic! How public-spirited of the BBC’s external and internal puppeteers bearing in mind that regardless of whether one watches the BBC or not, so long as he or she lives in the UK and purchases a television set that individual must pay an annual television licence fee; a policy that is strictly enforced with prosecution and swingeing punishments should one either on principle or through ignorance or inability to pay that licence fee flouts what is essentially the law of the land. This despite a groundswell of opinion within the UK that although most Brits would prefer to have the BBC as a public sector broadcasting company the operative word in their thinking is public. None the less the BBC continues to pursue its zionist agenda in tandem with private sector organisations like Sky, ITV, CNN, Fox News and the other rightwing press, as well as electronic so-called western mainstream media. How can this be; and why is the BBC allowed to get away with it? As far as I’m concerned what the independent commercial media do in a democratic society, as long as they don’t break the law, is none of my concern; I believe in freedom of speech and at least they have the guts to go out and canvass advertising and put their money where their mouths are. The BBC however is different; its money comes exclusively from the licence fee payer who it treats with utter contempt; and were the BBC to follow the line of Sky and the rest of them I personally, and I’m sure many other licence fee payers must feel as I do, couldn’t care less what the rabid, nepotistic and zionist cohorts who run it do. But as long as the BBC carries on as it does while getting money for old rope I think my point of view and those of many more like me are quite valid.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. In a brilliant article entitled: BBC’s Pro-Israeli Bias, he hits the nail directly on the head in relation to the BBC and how it goes about its propagandistic work, masquerading at the same time as this long-established beacon of probity, integrity and impartiality – something it most definitely is not. Rense.com in an incisive and detailed account by Thomas Sparks entitled: “Near Total Zionist Jewish Control Of The British Media – May 2002 – enumerates how all the independent media and the BBC are either owned, or in the case of the BBC controlled by a tightly knit coterie of ardent zionists who are often related either through blood or marriage to each other, have in some instances been members of the so-called Israeli Defence Force, regularly visit Israel, have close connections with its leadership and whose first allegiance is not to the UK but Israel itself. Little wonder then that there is a virulent pro-Israeli bias in favour of whatever Israel does, no matter how heinous its crimes are or who these are committed against or where.

It was the same during the apartheid era in South Africa with the BBC in many instances being the domestic as well as the international mouthpiece of that country’s odious, racist regime, its belligerent apologists and fanatical supporters in the UK, and managing to do so quite successfully because of the misplaced trust that many people oversees place in the BBC due to its longevity as an international broadcaster. Who can forget Margaret Thatcher’s arrogant boast: “Anyone who thinks that the ANC will ever be the government of South Africa is living in cloud cuckoo land!” The BBC supported and widely promulgated this racist mindset; what it pointedly refused to enlighten its viewers and listeners about though were the massive and highly lucrative, financial and other business dealings that Maggie and her late, unlamented husband Denis were personally, like many others of their ilk, carrying on in apartheid South Africa and happily and committedly doing so on the downtrodden backs and cheap labour of indigenous South Africans who had no vote, no say in the running of their own country, and whose lives in every respect were controlled by white, expatriate racists; just like their ancestors had done previously throughout most of the world during the era of slavery and entrenched European colonialism.

It was against this backdrop therefore that on Tuesday night the 8 June 2010 I tuned into the BBC to watch a documentary by Leonora Critchlow that posed the question: Who is Nelson Mandela? An early member of the Anti-Apartheid Movement myself when that movement was viewed as a pariah organisation by many in the UK and there were regular calls at Tory Party conferences to “Hang Mandela” and many so-called luminaries across the British political spectrum and in UK boardrooms nationwide were damning Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and the ANC as a terrorist organisation – the same epithet now given to the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and their respective organisations and even the leadership of Turkey, Brazil, Iran, Venezuela and Bolivia by these intellectually challenged white supremacists – and well versed in matters African, I sat down expecting the worst, in the same way that one feels obliged to attend a family wedding but instinctively feels and even knows that the principal speaker will embarrass everyone by making a fool of himself or herself while asininely thinking that he or she is being quite clever.

To my great shock I was surprised to see what a largely balanced documentary it was, especially coming out of the BBC stable; and while as a qualified and experienced journalist myself there are a number of pertinent questions I would have raised and answers given that I would have pursued further, bearing in mind that it was the BBC she was reporting for, and replacing my journalist hat with my academic one (having been a practitioner in tertiary education for several decades now) I would give Ms Critchlow, who is of black/white mixed parentage, a B+ for endeavour. Even so, what interested me more, and to which I instantly turned my attention at the end of the documentary, were the public comments posted on Ms Critchlow’s blog and in turn have prompted me to write this piece knowing full well that had it been sent to the BBC the so-called moderators there would have ensured it never saw the light of day.

Unsurprisingly, there was a mixed bag of reactions to the documentary and I read them with interest, but just as unsurprisingly for me, a hardened activist, some really made my blood boil; and one such response was from someone calling herself AMALINDA. Below is my response to Amalinda and those like her who prompted me to write this article: “White, stupid and with an unwarranted sense of racial superiority and entitlement.” Now I’m openly giving you the chance to either express unmitigated solidarity with all fair-minded South Africans, regardless of their race or social background, and their staunch supporters like me, who like they want to see them live in peace, harmony and in a society affording equal opportunity to all and where the character of the person and not their skin colour matters; or else disagree with my assertion and have the guts to objectively say why. Here’s my challenge to Amalinda et al.

Amalinda and her ilk would like us all to believe that apartheid South Africa was a political and social panacea which would have continued that way had it not been for those pesky Blacks who wanted to spoil things: like running their own country; getting the vote; being able to go to school and get a decent education; being allowed to live wherever they wanted to in their own country; being treated as human beings in their own land etc etc - all the things that whites like Amalinda take for granted and feel they have an omnipotent sense of entitlement to.

It doesn't surprise me that she sides with the young Boer woman in the documentary. What she, the Boer woman, and her ilk fail to realize or accept is that this is Africa. And whenever these types open up their mouths in condemnation of Blacks the first thing they always say to them regardless of where these Blacks were born, grew up, live, work or in what country they pay their taxes if it's outside Africa is: "Why don't you go back to Africa where you belong?" Well I've news for you Amalinda and others like you, South Africa is in AFRICA.

Significantly even Leonora Critchlow failed to ask this Boer woman who claims that Boers are now second class citizens in South Africa: “What were Blacks prior to the official dismantling of apartheid? At least in post-apartheid South Africa whites can vote, a luxury Blacks didn’t have under apartheid; whites can also live wherever they want to, Blacks couldn't under apartheid, and most of them still can’t 16 years after its dismantlement because of the disparity of wealth between whites, who were allowed post-apartheid to keep their ill-gotten gains, and Blacks stigmatized and grossly disadvantaged by apartheid itself, hence all these so-called townships which were just repositories for cheap black labour and conveniently located where they are so that such labour was readily on tap for the exclusive benefit of whites.

Whites second class citizens in South Africa? Those who believe this are either utterly bigoted or simply having a laugh. Most of the wealth in South Africa: financial and in terms of ownership of land there, over 90% of the most arable land, is in the hands of whites who through ethnic cleansing, forced removals and sheer barbarity against the indigenous Blacks took this land from them and who despite the official dismantling of Apartheid in South Africa still doggedly want to hold on to it; land they’ve never paid a penny for as is the case with Zimbabwe. In fact one of the major complaints of Blacks in Africa, and not only confined to southern Africa, is that Blacks, unlike Europeans in Europe, don’t own their land or countries. And to those who ask the ludicrous and patronizing and racially-biased question: “Why are so many people leaving South Africa?” let me clarify that matter here.

Firstly, the immigration policies and laws of European states, notably the European Union, the USA and the white colonialist outposts of Australia, New Zealand and Canada ensure that black immigration to these countries is severely restricted or in many instances virtually nil. So if there are people leaving South Africa to go to these white-owned and white-controlled lands these migrants must be white. And that’s precisely the case, since all of them – whether they were born outside South Africa or in that country – were from birth given European, USA, Canadian, Australian or New Zealand passports which enable them to freely reside and work in these countries without hindrance, something they meticulously exploit; just look at the composition of the English cricket team with its plethora of white South African players, and who can forget the cynical use of a British passport by Zola Budd to run for the UK but principally to get around the belatedly imposed sanctions on apartheid South Africa which effectively ended up, for the reasons espoused earlier, hurting the black victims who couldn’t leave South Africa or would they have been accepted in these white-owned and controlled lands even if they could. So let’s cut the garbage out about whites in South Africa being second class citizens.

And to the asinine comment that Europe is a continent of different cultures, how crass! Show me a single country in Europe that is ruled by anyone other than whites! Show me a country in Europe whose government is other than white! Show me a country in Europe where as of now or previously a non-white minority held sway, and more importantly the kind of lethal sway, that whites in South Africa have had over Blacks since they colonized that country. Show me a black or other non-white state that currently or has ever existed in Europe. Even Turkey, more than half of whose territory lies in Europe, is persistently refused membership of the EU by many European countries, notably Germany and France, for purely racist reasons; so I can’t ever see any of these European states or their predominantly Caucasian citizens ever countenancing an all-black or other non-white state on the European continent, nor would Blacks or other non-whites want such a state (or states) to be created there, particularly against the expressed wishes of the white majority. But guess what? It’s perfectly okay in the warped thinking of such racist whites to have an all-white state in Africa and sub-Saharan Africa at that.

The setting up of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the ANC post the official fall of apartheid and the demise of the previous minority and odious, racist regime that ran South Africa shows the endemic maturity, incredible humanity, remarkable magnanimity and avid aversion by Blacks generally and the ANC government in particular to the settling of old scores at any cost; a commendable human facet that is notably lacking among many Caucasians, particularly their elected leaders, governments of all political persuasions, their mainstream media, business and public sector officials right across the board, trade unions and the like, and which is instinctively transmitted downwards to and readily absorbed and inculcated by many members of the European public, as well as their kith and kin in white established settler states worldwide from Canada and the United States to Australia and New Zealand. An empathy that says we won’t criticize or take action against white perpetrators for the dreadful and inhuman crimes they commit against Blacks and other non-whites but should the victims and their kith and kin incensed by this and as a last ditch act of desperation retaliate against the barbarous acts carried out against them, then as whites we’ll collectively condemn and damn them as terrorists, dishonestly claim we’re fighting a war against terrorism and as such employ our military and economic might to unjustly crush them.

Let’s not forget, underestimate or delude ourselves about the significance of what the ANC did by setting up that Truth and Reconciliation Commission. No white government or body of Caucasians anywhere would have done, particularly in the same circumstances in which the ANC and the majority population of South had for such a long time been involuntarily placed. No white government at home or in the colonies had ever acted in such a manner before and one would be hard pressed to see any white government ever acting in this way since magnanimity and forgiveness to their enemies, particularly their implacable ones and especially if these are black or other non-white adversaries, is a no-brainer for white governments, their media and their public at large. Revenge is what they would have wanted, demanded and got, as supported by their worldwide kith and kin they embarked on their fest of retribution.

Nuremberg wasn’t an isolated example. History is replete with myriads more that have gone unreported and are thus unknown to the general public, and as a rule of thumb even such tribunals were casually dispensed with when these so-called terrorists (freedom fighters to the more prescient-minded) were non-white; Kenya and Malaysia during their struggle for independence from the British are just two examples on the British side, but every white-ruled country globally is just as guilty. That said Nuremberg is unique, since this tribunal was motivated principally by white guilt for passively but in the majority of cases having allowed inherent white anti-Semitism: a curse whose genesis is exclusively white European and Caucasian, to give full expression to Europe’s own holocaust, even though other, more widespread and enduring holocausts had been committed previously as well as subsequent to the European one of 1933-1945 by Caucasians and their governments across Planet Earth. But these hapless victims: Vietnamese, Congolese, South and Central Americans and Africans, of white imperialism, colonialism and a white superiority mindset were either Blacks or other non-whites and, as such, their equally barbaric, mistreatment, killings and demise didn’t matter in Caucasian circles.

Importantly too, is this culturally Boer state that this woman was on about and wants to see materialize in black South Africa only going to have Boers as its citizens or will other whites be allowed to become citizens as well? And if the latter, it throws their culturally disingenuous argument right out of the ball park. After all, whites are not a homogenous group of people and in South Africa they come from all cultural groups: Jews, for example, who come from right across Europe and are themselves not a homogenous group; then there are the English, French and other European language speakers, and importantly not forgetting the Boers who are themselves Dutch! Even in Holland: an established and recognized European state, there are diverse white Caucasian groups living there as one nation. Evidently, all this woman wants and craves for is white dominance; in this case the continued dominance by whites over Blacks who she clearly considers to be vastly inferior to herself and others like her, and therefore can't accept that in 2010 Blacks who have suffered atrociously under apartheid won’t countenance going back to those dreadful days but which she would consider were halcyon times for her ilk.

So my proposition is this, if Amalinda and this Boer woman really want to live exclusively from all Blacks then let me point one glaringly obvious fact out to these people: THERE IS ALREADY A BOER STATE IN THIS WORLD THAT HAS A SEAT IN THE UN, IS REPRESENTED IN MOST WORLD BODIES, AND IS AN INTEGRAL MEMBER OF NATO, WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS SITED ON ITS TERRITORY - IT’S CALLED THE NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND). Incidentally, apartheid South Africa was given and assisted in the development of its nuclear weapons programme by zionist Israel and the west, but the moment it became a democratic state with universal adult suffrage for its citizens these same western countries led by the USA, Britain and France were badgering this democratic South Africa to give up these weapons even though the ANC, which knew about this nuclear deal between apartheid South Africa and the zionist west, had long stated that under a democratic government they were in charge of their country wouldn’t have any such weapons, and would voluntarily give them up; but even with that solemn and clear-cut undertaking by a democratic South Africa these racist and colonialist-minded western entities that pass for governments in their own countries couldn’t bring themselves to accept that.

Fast forward to Iran in 2010 and the message is similarly quite clear; we who have nuclear weapons, and in the case of the USA have actually used them; we who have trampled the world, massacred and exploited its indigenous peoples and their natural resources and still do, even rendering some of these people like Tasman Man and the Arawaks of the Caribbean extinct; we who have created holocausts worldwide and even at home in Europe, although the latter is the only one we care about; we who have committed so many crimes against humanity, still want to, and actually carry on doing so can be trusted with these weapons of mass destruction, but you who have been the perennial victims can’t and should never be.

What a despicable indictment of these members of the Master Race! But I doubt whether they would see it that way. One would have thought that if commonsense, short in supply among this lot it seems, were applied that those Caucasians hankering for the good, old days in South Africa and who can't stand the new order there would consequently and sensibly exit en masse to this exclusive BOER STATE that already exists in Europe. But that won’t happen; since no fellow white in Europe, not even their closest white kith and kin, is ever going to wait hand and foot on them in the manner to which they’ve long and disgustingly been accustomed to in South Africa; for in Europe they’d be considered by their fellow whites to be just another nondescript white man or woman who wasn’t entitled to any such privileges that they had in South Africa or any other preferential treatment for that matter.

Throughout Europe Blacks and other non-whites are still subjected to prejudices and discrimination of all kinds and this is particularly so in Holland with its racist, right wing government. So get real you racists and smell the coffee. All the empirical data shows that so-called black on black violence was funded by the outgoing apartheid regime. And it’s sad to see that many Jews who fled to South Africa to get away from the gas chambers of Europe and widespread European anti-Semitism, where this monstrous phenomenon began and came into its own between 1939-1945, are still shoring up the mindset of people like Amalinda and that Boer woman who were all supporters of the Nazi cause in Europe; and ask yourselves, while these Boers were supporting Hitler who was it from around the world: 2 million Indians; hundreds of thousands of black Africans and West Indians and the like, who were fighting it?

The richest minority of any people on Planet Earth regardless of race, ethnicity, social background, religion or physical location are white European Jews, and collectively they live predominantly in South Africa where the bulk of their wealth comes from diamonds. South Africa and neighbouring Zimbabwe are two of the world’s major diamond producing countries, though to take even a cursory look at the ongoing general poor standard of living of their black indigenous population in marked contrast to that of expatriate whites and Southern African, Caucasian immigrant communities as a whole, in particular Jews living in the region, one could be easily forgiven if he or she thought otherwise. But guess where the world capital of the diamond industry in all its guises, apart from where the actual diamonds themselves are extracted, is located? No, it’s not South Africa, Southern Africa or even the African continent; it’s apartheid, colonialist Israel.

That is tantamount to having the Square Mile: London’s principal financial hub and business sector; the London Stock Exchange; New York’s Wall Street; the bourses of Frankfurt, Germany; Paris, France; and those of the rest of the EU countries being held exclusively in the control of non-white and especially black citizens and residents of the western countries where these vital economic sectors are located, and what’s more with their non-white kith and kin living overseas in their indigenous lands, and most notably the continent of Africa, directing and pulling these very important financial strings while profiting hugely from doing so.

It won’t happen, of course; not least because European and white Caucasian public sentiments globally would never countenance or allow it to, and crucially too because all these white owned and/or controlled Caucasian countries have entrenched and legally binding legislation to permanently ensure that the means, directly or indirectly, of their vital economic and security preservation aren’t and will never be compromised by ever permitting them to fall into the hands let alone the effective control of what they would deem as “foreign” entities; and even when good business practice dictates otherwise western governments, notably the United States and Britain, have speedily and arbitrarily stepped in and legislatively blocked such proposed and even contractual agreements. No such niceties, quid pro quo or deserving consideration however when the boot is on the other foot and the exploited countries, largely black and African, are those which are routinely, dismissively and patronizingly referred to as so-called non-western ones, as the Kimberley gathering which is currently going on in Israel (25 June 2010) testifies to.

That said, if black governments globally, particularly those in Africa, as well as the black Diaspora worldwide who are either fully cognisant of or failing that ought seriously to make a determined effort to find out what’s been done collectively to their people in the past and is still being committed against them even to this day by white, colonialist-minded imperialists, regardless of their country or region of origin, can’t get their act together and do something constructive about this ongoing exploitation of themselves, both in human and resources terms, then frankly they deserve everything they get.

Finally, as for South Africa being a corrupt country with those in power lining their pockets to the detriment of ordinary people, which planet is Amalinda on? Yes, Africa has more than its fair share of despots and corrupt so-called leaders but the real question is, who are the ones who put them in power to solely support western interests and sustain them there by providing these venal despots with excessive amounts of military hardware to suppress their own people through the well tried and tested colonialist practice of divide and rule, often overthrowing democratically elected African governments in order to facilitate this goal? Patrice Lumumba of the Congo and Milton Obote of Uganda, both democratically elected leaders of their respective countries, are two of many such casualties.

However, I couldn’t end without tackling this canard of Amalinda head on, mentioning in the process just a few of the many European countries with well-publicized government and ministerial financial scandals and proven cases of corruption: Germany; Holland; Belgium; France; Ireland; Greece; the UK (MPs expenses scandal for one; the BAE financial kick-back/corruption trial that Tony Blair and New Labour forced the UK courts to halt under the dishonest guise of national security for another, but there are countless more examples) and many others. And across the pond in the United States a similar state of affairs has long existed and still does at both governmental and corporate levels; Enron; the sub-prime catastrophe and many other examples of corporate greed readily come to mind, but there are loads more. Then there’s Australia, Japan, Canada, and the USA’s client states of Indonesia, the Philippines and South Korea – I could go on but won’t, as I’m sure any prescient-minded person will by now get the picture I’m painting of your double standards and hypocrisy Amalinda.

Seems to me Amalinda it’s a classic case of: “Physician heal thyself.” Or “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” And I haven’t touched on those close Middle Eastern client states of the USA and EU (it would take me ages to do so) where democracy doesn’t exist and people don’t even get the chance to vote – like Saudi Arabia! A piece of advice Amalinda, when next you attempt to argue a case of such import please try to do so with objectivity, rationality and commonsense; and if you can’t leave such discussions to those who have the mental capacity and probity to do so.