Jy blaai in die argief vir 2012 Julie.

Please explain…

Julie 10, 2012 in Sonder kategorie

A letter posted in Australia in a newspaper:

 

Please explain the term “PREVIOUSLY DISADVANTAGED”.

Who “disadvantaged” the ‘black’ people of the interior Southern Africa before the (supposed) belligerent ‘white’ settlers moved inland in the mid 19th century? As certainly, what the ‘settlers’ found was not a hugely advanced infrastructure, deep mines, airports, vast libraries of written works, grandiose institutions of learning, etc. No, as little as 170 years ago they found small groups of black people living on the fringes of the stone age. They were all in skins, wielding sticks, waging war on one another, living in primitive dwellings, dragging and carrying things around, having not even invented the wheel.

Ethiopia – a country that was NEVER colonized. Today one of the most desolate places on the planet – who “disadvantaged” the people of Ethiopia?
Put Zimbabwe and Germany next to each other and please explain the differences. In 1945 Germany was (for all intents and purposes) flattened to the ground and torn in half. Fifteen years later, West Germany was described as an “Economic Wonder”. And around the same time as the end of Apartheid, Germany was re-unified. It yanked the (unified) Germany back four centuries in time. Yet, in (around) fifteen years (for the second time a few decades) it built an ‘economic wonder’ – today, fast becoming a global leader in almost every aspect. Reminder: a lineage very strongly associated with… WHITE AFRIKAANS SPEAKING people…

On the ‘flip side’ – Zimbabwe – was handed one of the wealthiest countries in the WORLD (eg a currency that was worth more than the USA Dollar, etc) – what is it today? Competing with Ethiopia to be the most desolate hell-hole on the planet? Please explain…

I can carry on for days – but enough for now. Just one more request: please.., pretty please.., kindly respect the intellect of our audience and refrain from cheap (ANC-like) red herrings – eg. calling people “racists” – and kindly just answer the questions – directly and with tangible substance.

In parting, I would suggest the following, – The term “Previously Disadvantaged’ is as much a fantasy, as is the delusional lunacy that threatens voters with the revenge of the ancestors (a bit like the “rapture” we are all eagerly awaiting, for the 4 017.75th time since 2000 alone…), the same delusional insanity that claims the words “KILL THE BOER” really, actually means – “come over to my mansion for tea and cookies”…

You cannot take something from somebody WHO NEVER HAD IT! In fact, what is it that white people, specifically white men, supposed to “give back” to black people..? Can someone PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE explain to me what it is that white men took from blacks?

LAND? Blacks NEVER owned any land. Any form of formal ownership is a Western concept. The ‘black’ tribes of the mid 19th century haphazardly SETTLED in an ad hoc manner – effectively governed by tribal savagery – in other words, the most savage ruled the land (a bit like Hillbrow today). They used (abused?) a piece of land until it could not sustain them anymore and just moved on to the next area) They simply ran away until they could not run anymore – not having ANY grasp of the concept of a horizon or for that matter any measure of finite land mass – eg. the boundaries – that is the fundamental concept of ownership.

MINERALS? Hallucinations aside – eg. ancient gold mines… – a little bit like the Zimbabwe Ruins (the Pyramids, etc) – next to the magnificent structure, the indigenous people build stone-age dwellings out of dirt and sticks (at best emulating the birds). Minerals beneficiation is an entirely Imperialist/Western concept – in fact, in many ways it saw some of the most tangible advances, by WHITE SOUTH AFRICAN MEN – just peruse some of the academic paper at Wits’ Engineering Library.

WEALTH? Money, Capital and the pivotal mechanisms of the wealth that allows you to breathe, eat, have children, live a rather healthy productive and fulfilling live, but also allowed the cognitive development that leads you to make daft comments – it is ALL of Western origins. In fact, the key advancements in modern finance and economics were made by the… ….DUTCH Why do you think it is called ‘Wall Street’..? It was initially ‘Wal Straat’ – yes my dear, the Dutch took their cognitive substance there as well.. The same Dutch that were the most direct descendants of the people that landed at the Cape in 1652 – in fact, the modern ‘WEALTH system’ was originated by the Dutch and it funded the explorations around the tip of Africa .

Perhaps we took their aeroplanes, their Breitling watches, their Italian Suits, or their German luxury limousines, their ‘Blue Light Brigades ‘ or perhaps their Space Shuttles..?

Mmmm… I just hate the implicit assumption that ‘whites’ stole from ‘blacks’..

J. Lebogang

Brisbane Times – March 2010
Australia

 

 

Blikskottel: Wonders is this oke left Africa as he is racist or because of crime?

Change, we need it.

Julie 8, 2012 in Sonder kategorie

“The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” – Joseph Stalin

Blikskottel: …even worse, now geeks behind computers influence the outcomes to suit their paymasters.

Vellies, sweet en die juffrou!

Julie 7, 2012 in Sonder kategorie

Die seuntjie vra die juffrou om te help om sy skoene aan te trek. Sy probeer met ‘n gedruk en getrek om die vellies aan die kind se voete te kry. Teen die tyd wat sy by die tweede vellie kom breek daar al ‘n lagies sweet op haar voorkop uit en begin haar hare al slierte hang soos wat sy stoei om die vellies aan die kind se voetjies te kry.

 

Dis … toe dat die mannetjie so tussen sy vier afwesige voortandjies se, “Juffrou hierie eerthte vellieth ith aan die verkeerde voet. Sy kyk en, so wrintiewaar, die vellie is aan die verkeerde voet. En die uittrek van die vellie aan die verkeerde voet gee toe nog ‘n gespook af. Die juffrou hou kop en begin toe weer om die vellies nou hierdie keer aan die regte voet aan te trek met steeds een helske gesukkel.

 

Amper klaar kondig die mannetjie aan “Juffrou hierie ith nie my vellieth nie” Die juffrou byt amper haar tong af van verergelikheid, maar hou kop en sê kalm “Hoekom het jy nie vroëer gepraat nie?” En die gestoei begin weer om die vellies uit te trek.

 

Pas is die vellies uit of meneertjie sê weer “ Dith my boetie the vellieth wat my ma my maak dra het vanoggend.” Die juffrou sluk droog en skraap al haar moed by mekaar en begin weer stoei om die vellies aan die voetjies te sit. Uiteindelik is hulle aan die voetjies.

 

Die mannetjie trek aan die juffrou se baadjie en vra verlee “Juffrou wat van my kouthe?” Juffrou skree “ Nou waar is jou kouse”??!! Die knapie sê ewe kordaat terug. “Ek het dit voor in die vellieth gebêre”.

 

Blikskottel: Kan maar net lag oor die saak.

Secret # 4 government does not want you to know

Julie 5, 2012 in Sonder kategorie

Silence is Consent

 

Consent:

An agreement to something proposed and differs from assent.

Consent supposes,

1. a physical pomwer to act;

2. a moral power of acting;

3. a serious and determined and free use of those powers.

Consent is either express or implied. Express when it is given viva voice, or in writing;

implied, when it is manifested by signs, actions or facts, or inaction or silence, which raise the presumption that the consent has been given.

Let’s suppose that someone comes up to you and says, “I am your government, pay me taxes” and you then pay, have you not accepted their claim that they are your government?

If a demand is made, it rests upon a claim. Meeting the demand means you have accepted the claim. The word ‘accept’ implies ability to ‘reject’. When you reject their claim the demand has no foundation. At that point the claim has to be either abandoned or defended. Defending a claim means that they, as human

beings, have to use words (The legal system is nothing more than use of words) to defend their claim.

Consent is not the same as assent. It doesn’t require a positive affirmation from you. It is just as easily achieved through your silence as it is through your words. Now you decide if you still want to keep your mouth shut and accept whatever is thrown at you.

Blikskottel: Knows that silence is thief that steals freedom

More on statutes and common law

Julie 4, 2012 in Sonder kategorie

  • The statute is like a tyrant; where he comes he makes all void; but the common law is like a nursing father, makes only void that part where the fault is, and preserves the rest.
    • Lord Hobart, C.J., quoted by Twisden, C.J., in Maleverer v. Redshaw (1670), 1 Mod. Rep. 36 ; and by Wilmot, L.C.J., in Collins v. Blantern (1767), 2 Wils. 351.

 

Statutes are formal written enactments of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations issued by government agencies. Statutes are sometimes referred to as legislation or “black letter law”.

 

  1. The types of laws:
  • o        statute law—laws made by Parliament (or Congress) (all crimes and some civil matters fall under statute law)
  • o        common law—inherited law that is not written down as legislation but is recorded as case law

       

Random House Webster’s College Dictionary

Statute

 a formal enactment by a legislature.

 

statute

a document setting forth such an enactment.

 

statute

an instrument annexed to an international agreement, as a treaty.

 

statute

a permanent rule established by an organization, corporation, etc., to govern its internal affairs.

 

________________________________________________________________________________

 

To clarify my position:

I am not against “statute law” as such, but I am opposed to it when it become a tyrant, when extracting money is it’s main purpose, when it tries to remove any human being’s human rights, when it overrules the common law, when it is used to favour one person over another, when it is not written in plain English, when it does not clearly show all lawfull actions that can be taken in defence, when it uses words without clearly defining the actual meaning, when it turns the people’s courts into the governments courts and when it is used by political parties as a tool to stay in power….and there are more, but suffice to say these are the ones at the top of my list.

 

In my next few blogs, I will explain my views in more detail, showing the problems and my reasoning.

 

Blikskottel: Hates injustice and loves truth.

Toeriste is welkom om die Afrika “experience” aan hul bas te voel.

Julie 2, 2012 in Sonder kategorie

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-147875/Warning-Briton-raped-South-Africa.html#ixzz1u4VJ6UAl

Warning after Briton raped in South Africa

Ek kan nie verstaan hoekom toeriste nie besef wat die gevare is om die nuwe RSA te besoek nie. Ek besoek ook gereeld ander lande en een ding wat ek altyd doen is om in detail na te vors wat die risikos is om die land te besoek en hoe om voorsorg te tref om die risikos te verminder tot ‘n vlak wat vir my en my gesin aanvaarbaar is.

Gister lees ek die stukkie raak:

South Africa has the 3rd highest murder rate in Africa after Angola and Lesotho and only the drug war states of Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Columbia have higher murder rates, that makes us the 7th most murderous nation on the planet.

Here is a sample of murder rates written as murders per 100 000 people:

Japan – 0.45

China – 1.21

Australia – 1.23

UK – 1.57

Canada – 1.67

India – 2.77

Palestine – 3.85

USA – 5.22

South Africa – 36.54, unless you are one of our commercial farmers where the murder rate is 3300 per 100 000, with a death toll of around 3811 since 1994.

 

In 2011, there were 142 397 violent crimes reported in South Africa.

 

15 940 murders, 15492 attempted murders, 14 667 armed robberies of businesses, 16889 armed robberies at homes, 10 627 hijackings, 56 272 rapes in a total of 68 332 sexual offences.

 

The Vietnam war took place from 5 August 1964 to 28 March 1973, a total of 8 years & 8 months. The Americans lost 47 359 personnel to hostile deaths and 10 797 personnel in non hostile deaths, a total of 58 156. This is a total of 6710 people per year on average.

 

Kortweg sou mense dus beter af gewees het deur aan die Vietnam oorlog deel te neem, eerder as om in sonnige Suid Afrika te probeer ‘n lewe maak. Natuurlik sou die oorlog daarso baie korter geduur het, sou die ou SAW daar geveg het.

 

Blikskottel: Vertel elke POMMIE, met wie hy saam werk, wat in RSA aangaan.

Alternative first aid

Julie 1, 2012 in Sonder kategorie

Sunday funny:

Blikskottel: Wonders which one of these two will blow more life into this oke?