by Johann Theron on November 28, 2015

During the 1898 â€“ 1901 Anglo-Boer War in South Africa, thousands of Americans participated as volunteers on both sides. The US government was apparently indecisive because the policies it subsequently followed in South Africa were radically different from what it implemented just prior in the Philippines.

Political decisions create an inertia which limits leaders to kicking the can further down the road. This little war however, caused a lot of difficulty for the British Empire, with some opining that it was the straw that broke the camelâ€™s back and initiated the 20th century British de-colonization policy, in part because (based on informal information) it took the Treasury a century to pay back the expenses incurred. However, in todayâ€™s world, the United States is the Empire required to address the worldâ€™s little conflicts, those low-probability but high severity risks some people refer to as â€œblack swan eventsâ€.

Today South Africa has changed roles from the â€œEmpireâ€™sâ€ black swan to its â€œcanary in the coalmine.â€ Itâ€™s the â€œSâ€ in the BRICS organization that supports transition from the dollar as the world’s reference currency, it is the Gate to Africa and a future influencer of world affairs (on the Security Council) if one considers Mandelaâ€™s doctrine of demography i.e. (majority) rule. African demographic growth is staggering international commentators with migrants (already) streaming into the West. If these migrants were of above average IQ, the situation would not be dire, but unfortunately their IQ is below average while their inherent culture is incompatible with the West (proven by the refusal of Eastern countries to accept them).

The situation the West finds itself in â€“- having been exporting â€œhuman rightsâ€ is in fact a paradox since it does not really want to â€œimportâ€ human rights — consists of telling the third world that the West will give them human rights in exchange for money (not other human rights). This is another form of “whatâ€™s good for thee is not good for me.” Africa doesnâ€™t care about all of that. The African proposal is simply: â€œIf you donâ€™t give us money, you must take our people. But after you paid, you will have to take them anyway.â€ This sentiment was expressed by the â€œbigâ€ men in Africa i.e. Ghaddafi, Mugabe and Mandela.

Time has moved on and the next â€œbig manâ€ on the rise in South Africa is Julius Malema with the updated (African) proposal of â€œlook after your employees, and they will buy your products.â€

The environment in which this proposal is expressed relates to the â€œmodernâ€ Africa, where cell phone towers preceded transport infrastructure because cellular service allows migrants to transfer monies abroad. Africa itself is full of migrants since borders are not that important and migrants do not wish to walk all the way. For example, an African migrant can cross America in six months on foot.

Meanwhile in South Africa the political environment is one of continuous covert revolution. Sometimes they call it â€œTransitionâ€ where we are now active in the â€œSecond Transitionâ€, sometimes called the â€œrevolutionary morality.â€ South Africa employs a dual cultural approach where they would do things at the political level to suit international observers while doing another thing locally. For example, they exclaim that â€œjobs are our highest priorityâ€ while at the same time making deals with crime bosses in order to expand their electorate, bringing in income for the political party.

So what Julius Malema is saying is that he expects a leaderless revolution where police will fire on their officers rather than criminals. He bases his observation on the black student revolts in local universities (not conservative, mostly white students) where they demanded change in University leadership in order to get lower tuition fees. In order to prevent the student revolt to roll-over into industry, employers should make haste in getting their employees â€œon their side.â€ Companies can get their employees â€œon their sideâ€ by giving them 51% of the shares. He adds one further tidbit of advice which is that should businesses have their â€œemployees on their sideâ€ production will improve. Economically it can be deduced that he proposes disqualification of affirmative action, then to take the money that businesses already lose on AA, and re-route it to normal employee benefits (shares excluded in this part). The employees therefore benefit in the short and long term and will â€œrescueâ€ all businesses as a result.

So, the situation in South Africa shows that a revolution is on hands either covertly or overtly, and itâ€™s up to Western man to decide which he prefers. The old Boers from the Anglo-Boer War has since also moved on too, and have closer ties with European descendants than Africans, in part because they have been exposed to these revolutions already.

Thus spoke the Canary.

Tags: africa, afrika, afrikaners, diversity, refugees, south africa

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.