I heard that the suicide rate among Afrikaner males is at an all-time high and has been for many years. In fact it is out of proportion to the other race groups and the reasons are many and some say deliberately (I believe so) designed to induce suffering. It ranges from economic repression (BEE - that model of historic & worldwide failure which no long haired liberal will ever admit) to failed marriage relationships because of the economic repression.
We find quite often these days the male is at home because he is unable to find a job or have the resources to start a business. Hence the wife becomes the breadwinner and not all are kindly disposed with this state of affairs. Many, to their lasting shame, see this as a reason for divorce and then the man is even more damaged goods. Now he has debt he simply cannot pay and his children are taken away from him. In fact the family is broken which is of course what satan and the followers of satan wanted. He also has to live somewhere else in reduced circumstances as we educated men say when flat broke and nowhere to go to. When he meets someone else who is more privileged she thinks he needs a roof over his head (perhaps, who knows?). He just cannot win.
Obviously the couple could not have been soul mates for soul mates follow the two rules of love which we speak about in Better Men...a book which I am astonished to say is downloading at a tremendous rate. * The two rules of love are (1) never to do anything which will hurt the other and (2) always do what will keep the other one happy.
Rejecting a man because he became reduced for reasons beyond his control is long haired liberal behaviour in my eyes. Even John Locke, the philosopher with his theory of a social contract between state and citizen never equated marriage to the same level as a contract. Let me tell you, the law always intervenes in your life, even in marriage & relationships as we saw in my book The Circle of Life but it never presumed that a marriage is based upon the husband's ability to provide but on love and respect (in some countries also to perform - the so-called consummation of the marriage - not in South Africa).
For the Afrikaner male this enforced reduction is especially hard as he grew up with the idea of being the provider, to be strong and caring and to "make a plan." Most would have served honourably in the old South African Defence Force and Police where they often commanded men in battle. They are in fact in demand in other countries and yet, we read every Sunday (if you bother to buy the Sunday Propaganda known as newspapers) that there is a great shortage of managers and other qualified personal in the country. Yeah, they cannot find people to fill the available positions and now import foreigners at tremendous cost to do so. Or, and only a long haired liberal will find this an excellent solution - the position remains vacant or is filled by unqualified people.
What utter nonsense to say there are no qualified people! I have had the misfortune to attend quite a few of these "interviews" during my time and came to the conclusion that "recruiters" have no idea what they want or what their clients want. And they all follow the same pattern - a few minutes late to show you that you are desperate (which you are not - they are desperate to fill the position with the right candidate). Then a couple of forms to be completed including electronic fingerprinting which is a way of saying to you that they doubt your honesty or your CV. Then the interview with a young or middle age woman who obviously did not read your CV or if she did, cannot remember it and must be taken step by step through it. * On this point - they have no idea what a CV should look like - each has his own standards and they are mostly what I call derogatively a standard 3 CV – naam, van, plek en getuigskrif van die dominee (Name, Surname, place and reference from your minister). And then, you never hear from them again for they are too busy or too important (take your pick) to let you know and you have to guess the end result. Lastly, they have no idea how to speak to senior staff who is looking at director type positions - all in all as unprofessional as they can get away with. Telling you, if old age or boredom does not get me I plan to write a very nice book on "recruiters" which will make them cry foul as the banksters did with Your Worst Enemy. Another book which is downloading by the tens of thousands.
The "recruiters" are rather pathetic and I have a lot of sympathy with the trade unions and political parties (even if long haired liberals) who want them banned. It will probably not happen though - freedom of economy and all that you know. Which brings me to my point....Manne, ons moet ons eie ding doen en mekaar help...niemand gaan jou hand vashou nie. (Men, we must do our own thing and help each other...no-one is going to hold your hand.) And one last warning, never trust a father & son business which comes to you with a Bible under the arm. As we saw in my book Tricks of Trade - Memories of a Rogue Lawyer they will do you in from any angle you care to mention.
Back in 1998 I was a new attorney working at Ismail Ayob & Inc which turned out to be a very famous human rights law firm. Mr Ayob represented Mr Mandela for decades and I can tell you, is as clever as a tree full of owls. For a man with my background it was an eye opening experience and it must be said, I was treated well.
One day though we had to do something legal about the fellows who copied Mr Mandela's face everywhere - you will no doubt remember we had coins, t-shirts and whatever else with his face on for sale everywhere. And whatever your political beliefs are - the man turned out to be quite popular and remains one of my heroes. His face however was (maybe still is - I don't know) trademarked and the royalties on his face went to the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund. I soon realised it was impossible to get everyone to cease and desist from using his face to their own advantage (money). And the law proved to be quite useless in practice - I approached one of the largest intellectual property firms for assistance and they wanted to throw the book at the belligerents (the usual nonsense of cease & desist letters, interdicts and a claim for damages with destruction of the goods). Of course ONLY lawyers make money in such an action and hence we refused to go that route, besides the negative publicity attached to such things. It was however the start of what I called "forensic law" where civil remedies are used to protect a VICTIM of crime or civil injustice. I asked the forensic legal question "What can the practising lawyer do to help the VICTIM of crime or other civil injustice?" As silly as this sounds it turned the legal system on its head for up to that time the practising attorney / advocate only acted for the perpetrator which left the poor victim in the cold. Turned out we could do a substantial amount for the victim and hence "forensic law" was
Note that it has very little (less than one percent) to do with forensic investigations but that is how it was copied. Suddenly every second law firm had a "forensic section" meaning investigations. They still don't get it that forensic law is primarily civil law but whatever, carry on and be happy. I have yet to meet a private detective (no matter what degrees he has) who gets civil law. *If interested in this subject you can read my book "Tricks of Trade - Memories of a Rogue Lawyer."
Now at JKLS we are unconventional though there is a place for conventional law also - it is called "compliance" and the only way you can protect yourself and your company from abuse. Simply, if your taxes are paid as they should be - the tax office cannot touch you - if not (not compliant) you are subjected to severe pressures. The same with security -we spoke last week of "insurance driven security" where you obtain some security to protect yourself against harm - but in fact it will not protect you and is a scam from that viewpoint.
If you happen to have read my last book "Better Men", you would know I feel that the man is the head of his household. As such he has a duty to protect his wife and kids against harm and he better not fail. Hence it is very strange to me that you can put your trust in systems which on their own will not protect you. And it is not rocket science to know you need to be prepared and that is what we do at JKLS, when law gets too boring (law is boring for sane people). We think out of the box to find solutions which are cost effective. Hence our briefings, where we advise clients on what to do before they are attacked, and what to do to survive the attack. It is in fact legal stuff and not security as such - for instance if your employee is kidnapped the law plays a very large role in how to deal with it.
I have no doubt that all the major security firms will soon copy me as did all the lawyers since 1998 with the forensic law concept. Do I care? No, it will save lives and life is precious. Do not take it lightly - it is a gift from God to be enjoyed every single day.
The first thing you learn in law is to be cynical. The oath in courts taken solemnly by witnesses means almost nothing and can just as well be left out of proceedings. However, we spoke about that before I think and today I am more concerned with dishonest books. Yesterday, I had the bad luck to start reading a book on South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Program written by two long haired liberals who ostensibly did a lot of research on it. For us who served honourably and always suspected the existence of the weapons (it was an open secret) such a book would be of obvious interest.
Now I love reading and never read less than three books at any specific time. Regrettably my reading is limited to what I find interesting in life (law would not even begin to qualify) like military history, biographies and anything which is capable of exploding. I don't read fiction at all unless it is my favourite authors like Alistair Maclean, Wilbur Smith, Tom Clancy, George Macdonald Fraser and many others where I would read the same book time and time again.
What bothers me about this particular book, and I usually don't disapprove of books for I have been hammered myself (mostly by the far right who ran to Australia or the left wing in Canada) on my own ramblings often enough to know it is a useless exercise, is that I counted no less than four errors in the first ten pages. By page 50 I stopped counting and decided it should be placed in the fiction category as was Lance Armstrong's biography a few years ago.
For instance, they clearly have a liberal political viewpoint which must come over no matter what the facts are. Hence the bizarre innuendo that Dr Wouter Basson was found innocent in 2002 only because the trial judge was an Apartheids Era appointee as if that played any role in the case. In fact I am surprised that his lordship did not institute defamation charges against the authors, university they represent, and publishers for saying such a thing.
Then they also reckoned that the SADF learned counter-insurgency from the Israeli's who learned it by suppressing / oppressing the Palestine's on the West Bank. In fact the Israeli Army was so grateful (for what I would not know) that they assisted in planning the invasion of Angola with Operation Savannah. And all this by page four! It destroyed the credibility of that book as far as I am concerned but that is for me...what about the tens of thousands (millions for all I know) other readers who takes this nonsense as gospel?
And I wonder, what other utter nonsense is being send into the world and seen as facts when we know it is not? I don't fancy myself as an author and knows my limitations on grammar only too well but it was this question which made me publish 20 plus books & articles since 2012. Why? Simply because we need to place on record what really happened or the long hair liberal view will stand as the only record. Even if your idea is wrong it must at least be honest. Why are we not defending ourselves?
The older generation, our senior officers and leaders, who knew very well that they acted under instructions from the Nationalists, are dying out. Which means their stories and the historical truth is also dying out with them. They tried - I read the other day an interesting article by a highly respected (by me anyway) former SAP general - to invoke the tu quoque legal principle to defend their actions. Hear my words, it will never work and was already destroyed as a legal defense at the Nuremberg Trials just after the Second World War as was the principle of acting under orders when those orders are illegal. You have to refuse and don't we know how difficult that was and is? Still we did refuse illegal orders when we could.
* Tu quoque is an appeal to hypocrisy saying you did that too! Let me explain in practical terms. Every now and then someone accuses the government of fraud and then the embarrassed long haired liberals will say "Yes, but you know, such things happened in Apartheid too" as if that is an excuse! What they are begging you to understand is that since both are in the wrong we should now leave each other alone and not point fingers. Let me tell you - the law is not concerned about that but what you did. It is a rather silly defense based on desperation and we talk of it often in my legal books. A more common way of putting it is to say "We fought fire with fire." It is a non-argument in law.
And that is my point today. Write your story so that the future generations can at least understand why we did what we did for our intentions were honourable enough. If cynical, I will say that all this comes down to proper criminal trial procedure - make the water so murky that no-one knows what happened and an acquittal is most likely to follow. Don't let the long haired liberals publish their versions of half-truths unchallenged. Put them to the stand to prove everything while you stick with your Shaggy defense.