A tiny new-born elephant plays with a flock of low flying swallows on the H3 near Berg en Dal in the Kruger National Park in South Africa.
A tiny new-born elephant plays with a flock of low flying swallows on the H3 near Berg en Dal in the Kruger National Park in South Africa.
Yesterday I posted
about this guy who slipped by all the worlds top security and apparently stood next to all the world leaders and , well..flapped his arms around. Today we get to meet the man who stood 3 feet from said leaders.
Originally published December 11, 2013 at 5:47 AM | Page modified December 12, 2013 at 2:25 AM
The man accused of faking sign interpretation next to world leaders at Nelson Mandela’s memorial has told The Associated Press that he has schizophrenia, had visions of angels coming into the stadium and was trying not to panic because there were “armed policemen around me.” Thamsanqa Jantjie also said he has been violent in the past.
Jantjie, who stood gesticulating three-feet (1 meter) from U.S. President Barack Obama and others who spoke at the ceremony that was broadcast around the world, insists he was doing proper sign-language interpretation of the speeches of world leaders for the deaf correctly. He also apologized Thursday for his performance that has received unanimous condemnation from numerous sign-language experts who said he had been merely signing gibberish.
Published December 11, 2013
A man who stood close to President Barack Obama and other heads of state while providing sign language interpretation at Nelson Mandela’s memorial Tuesday was a “fake” who was making up his own gestures, sign language experts say, raising questions about the security at the event.
“[He] was moving his hands around, but there was no meaning in what he used his hands for,” Bruno Druchen, the Deaf Federation of South Africa’s national director, told The Associated Press Wednesday.
The country’s deaf community and the ruling African National Congress have no knowledge of who the man actually is, despite him appearing on television gesticulating alongside South African President Jacob Zuma last year, Reuters reported. Zuma’s office is trying to figure out the man’s identity.
“I don’t know this guy. He doesn’t work for the ANC. It was a government event. Ask them,” ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu said.
U.S. Secret Service Spokesman Brian Leary told FoxNews.com on Wednesday that the department is aware of the matter, but declined to elaborate.
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during a press briefing that he wasn’t aware of any security concerns with the man being near Obama.
“I think my only reaction to that is that it’s a shame that you had a service that was dedicated to honoring the life and celebrating the legacy of one of the great leaders of the 20th century, [and it] has gotten distracted by this and a few other issues that are far less important than the legacy of Nelson Mandela,” he said.
Druchen and three other sign language experts said the man was not signing in South African or American sign languages and could not have been signing in any other known sign language because there was no structure to his arm and hand movements. South African sign language covers all of the country’s 11 official languages, according to the federation.
“He didn’t follow any of the grammatical rules and structure of the language. He just invented his signs as he went along,” Delphin Hlungwane, an official South African sign language interpreter at DeafSA, told Reuters.
“There was zero percent accuracy. He couldn’t even get the basics right. He couldn’t even say thank you,” she added.
Ingrid Parkin, principal of the St. Vincent School for the Deaf in Johannesburg, said she’s received complaints from the deaf community from Canada to China about the man on stage and that his movements look “like he’s signing gibberish.” He also used no facial expression to convey the emotions of the leaders, a key element of sign language interpretation.
“This man himself knows he cannot sign and he had the guts to stand on an international stage and do that,” Parkin said.
The scandal over the interpreter is another indication of shoddy organization of the historic memorial service, which took place Tuesday at FNB Stadium in Johannesburg, South Africa. Other difficulties included public transportation breakdowns which hindered mourners from getting to the event and a faulty audio system that prevented many of the tens of thousands in the stadium from hearing the leaders’ speeches. In an apparent security failure, police did not search the first wave of crowds arriving at the stadium.
When the man appeared last year with Zuma, a deaf person in the audience videotaped the event and gave it to the federation for the deaf, which analyzed the video, prepared a report about it and a submitted a formal complaint to the ANC, Druchen said.
In their complaint, the federation suggested that the man should take the five years of training needed to become a qualified sign language interpreter in South Africa.
Druchen said a fresh complaint will be filed to the ANC about the interpreter he called a “fake” with a demand for an urgent meeting.
“It was horrible, an absolute circus, really, really bad,” Nicole Du Toit, an official sign language interpreter who also watched the broadcast, told The Associated Press.
Bogus sign language interpreters are a problem in South Africa, because people who know a few signs try to pass themselves off as interpreters, Parkin said. And those hiring them usually don’t sign, so they have no idea that the people they are hiring cannot do the job, she said.
“They advertise themselves as interpreters because they know 10 signs and they can make some quick money,” said Parkin. “It is plain and simple abuse of the deaf community, they are taking advantage of the deaf community to make money.”
FoxNews.com’s Greg Norman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Nelson Mandela died yesterday, at age 95. The world went into a paroxysm of praise and faux grief, including this unintentionally-hilarious plaudit from the highly-intelligent and well-informed Paris Hilton: But Nelson Mandela was no Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Here’s a reminder of the kind of man Mandela really was, from Dean Garrison of D.C. Clothesline. FOTM is grateful to have his permission to republish his post.
See also my companion post “Mandela was pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and a high-ranking communist.”
by Dean Garrison – December 6, 2013
I got a little nauseous tonight after I learned of the passing of Nelson Mandela. Some of the sources that I would expect to give that “fair and balanced” reporting they promise definitely failed in that regard. That is my opinion. Check out these headlines:
I could go on with this list. The question is if people are buying it. Unfortunately I think most probably are. I received an email yesterday from an overseas friend who has some expertise on this subject matter:
Hi Dean Mandela has finally been proclaimed dead. The world – including your President are now gushing about what a wonderful man he was. He was not. Obama could take lessons on how to live a lie and keep people fooled! Obama says he studied Mandela – I can believe it. I wrote this article in June: http://www.allvoices.com/
It’s an excellent article. I was already busy gathering facts and sources when I received her email. Now let’s get this out of the way because I am sure I will receive the typical response from the uninformed who will call me a racist rather than arguing the facts, which they usually seem to know nothing about. Nelson Mandela was very instrumental in the defeat of apartheid and apartheid is and was a crime against humanity. It is his methods I question and his methods that the world tends to conveniently overlook. Are you aware that Nelson Mandela could not enter the United Stateswithout a special waiver until 2008? Up until that time he was on a terrorist watch list.
Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress were on a U.S. terror watch list until President George W. Bush signed a bill removing them in 2008. Source: Buzzfeed
How can the man that is most credited with the end of apartheid be on a terrorist watch list in the U.S.? Well, you are about to hear the rest of the story. Ronald Reagan was instrumental in the classification of Mandela’s ANC (African National Congress) as a terrorist group. He cited the ANC as one of the world’s “most notorious terrorist groups.” Now let’s pause there for just a moment. I want you to ask yourself whose judgment you would trust if given the choice. Would you trust George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan on correctly assessing the character of this man? The argument is that Mandela was a different man in 1988 than he was in 2008, but I think we need to look hard at the facts and see that in South Africa there are people very much on edge, even today. I want you to understand why Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were outspoken against the African National Congress. Were they racists? Not at all. There was a revolution going on in South Africa and it was not blacks killing whites (that would come later). It was the ANC killing anyone who opposed them, or anyone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, including over 20,000 blacks. Here is a video that might find interesting.
The thought of some is that Nelson Mandela was orchestrating these planned attacks from prison. Either way, you can not dispute that it was his organization that was responsible. If he didn’t want to be associated with such violence then he could have renounced the ANC and its violent tactics. Here is a short list of the ANC bombings from CSBR:
SA exile Henri le Riche writes: “Other than the ANC siding with the communists during the Cold War, why did UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher and US president Ronald Reagan call the ANC a terrorist organisation? I will let the current US president, Barrack Obama, answer that question. After the April 16 2013 bombing at the Boston Marathon he said: “Any Time Bombs Are Used to Target CIVILIANS It Is an Act of Terror”. The ANC had an easy choice: Fight soldiers, or take the easy cowardly option terrorists worldwide take,and that is target civilians.. THE ANC’S VICTIMS WERE MOSTLY CIVILIANS: 1981 – 2 car bombs at Durban showrooms 1983 – Church Street Bomb (killed 19, wounded 217) 1984 – Durban car bomb (killed 5, wounded 27) 1985-1987 – At least 150 landmines on farm roads (killed 125) 1985 – Amanzimtoti Sanlam shopping centre bomb Dec 23 (killed 2 white women and 3 white children) 1986 – Magoo’s Bar bomb (killed 3, wounded 69) 1986 – Newcastle Court bomb (wounded 24) 1987 – Johannesburg Court bomb (killed 3, wounded 10) 1987 – Wits command centre car bomb (killed 1, wounded 68) 1988 – Johannesburg video arcade (killed 1 unborn baby, wounded 10) 1988 – Roodepoort bank bomb (killed 4, wounded 18) 1988 – Pretoria Police housing unit, 2 bombs (wounded 3) 1988 – Magistrate’s Court bomb (killed 3) 1988 – Benoni Wimpy Bar bomb (killed 1, wounded 56) 1988 – Witbank shopping centre bomb (killed 2, wounded 42) 1988 – Ellis Park Rugby Stadium car bomb (killed 2, wounded 37) Late 1980s – numerous Wimpy Restaurant bombs (killed many, wounded many)
On 31 January 1985 State President P W Botha offers Nelson Mandela, leader of the banned African National Congress (ANC), conditional release from the prison sentence he had been serving since the conclusion of the Rivonia Trial in 1964. The condition of his release is that he renounces violence, and violent protest, as a means to bring about change in South Africa. Source: South African History Online
Does that sound like a “man of peace” to you? Whether the violence was justified or not is a matter of opinion. But I think it is fair to say that Mandela was never the Ghandi-like man that he was portrayed to be in American mainstream media. What people need to understand is that the violence in South Africa did not end when Mandela was released and it did not end with the death of apartheid. In fact, it may be worsening. Despite the end of apartheid the racial division of a leader who claimed to be about peace has caused black on white crime and genocide to explode.
In July of 2012, Dr. Gregory Stanton, head of the nonprofit group Genocide Watch, conducted a fact-finding mission in South Africa. He concluded that there is a coordinated campaign of genocide being conducted against white farmers, known as Boers. “The farm murders, we have become convinced, are not accidental,” Stanton contended. “It was very clear that the massacres were not common crimes,” he added — especially because of the absolute barbarity used against the victims. “We don’t know exactly who is planning them yet, but what we are calling for is an international investigation,” he added. Source: Frontpage Mag
It seems like the black population of South Africa finally decided to take out generations of built up hostilities on the white people who once ruled them. But this is not the ruling class they are killing. These are civilians. Notice a theme here? I understand that they didn’t want to openly oppose the military, but killing innocent civilians is not acceptable collateral damage. It is terrorism. It is terrorism when a jihadist does it. It was terrorism when Timothy McVeigh did it. The trademark of terrorism is the killing of innocent civilians. You can not put pure motives upon the killing of innocent people and justify it, at least not in my book.
So what did Mandela have to do with the killing of white farmers? Like any world leader he was so well insulated that even if he was ordering these killings you would likely never prove it. And since the ANC has now gained a sense of legitimacy they would be careful to cover their tracks as well. So how can I logically relate Mandela to this senseless violence?
Mandela was a race baiter. He was very much like Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. He was always about inciting people to violence on the basis of skin color. The thing is that he was far less subtle than the black-on-white race baiters in America. In this YouTube video he sings about killing whites: [Note from Eowyn: The video was in 2008, when Mandela was 90 years old.]
So where does all of this leave us? Should I have simply kept my mouth shut and reported upon the passing of this world leader? Folks, that would be wrong because the legacy of Mandela is not dead yet and there are white South Africans heading for cover as we speak. Let’s revisit an RT article from October:
A section of the white population in South Africa is preparing for the worst scenario in case aging former South African President Nelson Mandela passes away. The national evacuation plan over possible genocide was drafted almost a decade ago. Since Mandela’s was elected South Africa’s first black president in 1994 after spending 27 years in prison for actively opposing the segregationist policies of apartheid in the country, Afrikaners say over 3,000 white farmers have been murdered in revenge for the suppression enforced by its own National Party. Afrikaners say the government has never shown much desire to investigate the deaths. And now as Mandela is in and out of hospital at age 95, Afrikaners and their supporters are preparing for the worst upon his death. … Genocide Watch, an organization that analyzes conditions around the world that could result in mass murder, puts Afrikaners’ risk of slaughter at level six or “preparation” stages, one level away from killings. Gustav Muller and his team preparing for the worst are afraid level seven could start any moment. A former intelligence officer in the South African army, he says it was simple to read the warning signs. … Muller, a leader of the Suidlanders movement, has helped establish a countrywide operation with more than a hundred safe areas. When the alert is given, people across the country will be notified by SMS, and they will go to a pre-arranged meeting point from where they will travel by convoy to the safe areas. “The death of Nelson Mandela is a risk scenario,” Muller said. “He is a political icon and his passing could see violence flaring up again.”
The history books will likely never show this side of Nelson Mandela. They will likely report on how instrumental he was in the ending of apartheid and talk of his Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. You won’t likely read about his terrorist methods. In fact, if you read about it at all you will likely read about the travesty of the United States having this man on a terrorist watch list for 20 years. You don’t just stay on a terrorist watch list for 20 years for no reason my friends. Republican and Democratic administrations alike had a chance to take him off of that list. But it wasn’t until he was 90 years old that George W. Bush signed his release. Think about that. Think about it hard. Or you can go read about how great he was if you would like. It doesn’t matter to me. I am after the truth. I don’t care if he was white, black, yellow, green or purple. The man was about hate and he was very dangerous and divisive. Nelson Mandela was a marxist and a terrorist who drove people to kill on the basis of skin color. After his death they will likely continue to reign terror upon their countrymen and that is what he leaves behind. That is the truth.
If a White racist group calls for the killing of all Black people, what do you think the Obama regime and the media would do?
And what if it turns out that none other than the sitting President of the United States himself had participated in and spoken before a rally of this same White racist group, would this shocking news be all over TV news and the print media?
Well, just such a racist group is doing that, but you’ve neither heard, watched, nor read about it. The reason is simple:
On August 13, 2013, NBP radio played a shocking segment from a speech in 1993 at Kean College in Union Township, New Jersey, by the late Khalid Abdul Muhammad, in which he called for the extermination of all white people in South Africa, including babies, women, homosexuals, and the elderly.
Khalid Abdul Muhammad (born Harold Moore Jr.; January 12, 1948 – February 17, 2001) was the National Assistant to Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (NOI). Though referred to as Dr. Khalid Muhammad, he had but a Bachelor’s degree from Pepperdine University. After his 1993 “kill all whites” speech, Muhammad was condemned and removed from his position by Farrakhan, as well as censured by both Houses of the U.S. Congress. Muhammad moved on to become the National Chairman of the New Black Panther Party until his death at age 53 in 2001.
Central to the ideology of the Nation of Islam — and evidently to that of the New Black Panthers as well — is the notion of whites as “blue-eyed devils” who have kept blacks, the “original man,” enslaved and oppressed for thousands of years. But in the End Times when a huge “mother ship” will appear in the sky, whites will be destroyed, which will usher in a millennial utopia where blacks — who were the original creators of civilization and science — will reign.
Beginning at the 7:19 mark of the video below of Muhammad’s speech, you’ll hear him say the following:
“I say if we’re gonna be merciful, I’d give them 24 hours in South Africa to get out of town by sundown. I say, if they don’t get out of town, we kill the men, we kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies, we kill the blind, we kill the cripple, we kill the crazy, we kill the faggots, we kill the lesbians, I say goddammit we kill them all! If they are white, kill ‘em all!”
[Cheers, whistles, and standing ovation from the black audience]
“Why kill the women? Why kill the babies? They are just innocent blue-eyed babies? Because goddammit they are going to grow up one day to rule your babies. Kill them now. Why kill the women in South Africa? I say kill the women because the women are the military manufacturing center. And every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs, so shut down the military manufacturing center by killing the white woman.
Why kill the older crackers? Old decrepit crackers in South Africa. How the hell do you think they got old? They got old oppressing and killing black people. I say kill . . . [makes gurgling noises as he pretends to fall to the ground] . . . Kill ‘em all! Kill the faggot. Kill the lesbians. And after you’ve killed them all […] I say then you go to the goddamn grave, and dig ‘em up, and then kill ‘em a-goddamn-gain because they didn’t die hard enough.”
[Cheers and applause]
The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) regulates the international trade in conventional weapons. According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, the treaty will not do any of the following: interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in Member States; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm States’ legitimate right to self-defense; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.
But the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Gun Owners of America warn that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations. In other words, just like the UN Small Arms Treaty, the Arms Trade Treaty is really a gun-control agreement.
On April 2, 2013, after years of preparation, the ATT was approved by a vote of 154 to 3.
Today, the doors open for U.N. member nations to ratify the ATT. President Lucifer is expected to sign it today, assuming he hasn’t already done so by the time I publish this post.
Despite his signing the treaty, the U.S. Constitution gives the authority over foreign treaties to the United States Senate. This means the ATT is not enforceable unless and until the Senate ratifies it with a two-thirds majority vote.
The ATT would provide the United States Executive, i.e., the President, sweeping powers to regulate which guns can and cannot enter or exit our country. Further, this treaty is likely a stepping-stone to a mandatory international gun-registry. In July 2012, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action sounded this warning:
“Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That’s a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the ‘end user’ of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an ‘end user’ and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.”
The NRA’s warning is well-placed. Here’s what Article 5 (“General Implementation”) of the Arms Trade Treaty says:
2. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms. […]
4. Each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties. States Parties are encouraged to make their control lists publicly available.
5. Each State Party shall take measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and shall designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and transparent national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) and of items covered in Article 3 and Article 4.
6. Each State Party shall designate one or more national points of contact to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Secretariat, established under Article 18, of its national point(s) of contact and keep the information updated.
Read Article 5 (4) again. It’s not just our federal government that would get a copy of the “national [gun] control list.” International bureaucrats at the United Nations and foreign governments would have access to the list as well!
A gun registration system (though it’s not called such) is contained in the treaty’s Article 12 (“Record Keeping”):
1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).
2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users, as appropriate.
4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.
Then there’s the ATT’s Article 14 (“Enforcement”), which seems to authorize the United States Executive, i.e., President, to create whatever domestic gun-control laws that are needed: “Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to enforce national laws and regulations that implement the provisions of this Treaty.”
Even worse, Article 16 of the ATT allows for U.N. personnel to help U.S. law enforcement implement treaty obligations: ” In implementing this Treaty, each State Party … may request, offer or receive assistance through, inter alia, the United Nations, international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations, or on a bilateral basis.”
Article 16 also opens the door to U.S. taxpayers footing the bill for other countries’ treaty implementation: ” A voluntary trust fund shall be established by States Parties to assist requesting States Parties requiring international assistance to implement this Treaty. Each State Party is encouraged to contribute resources to the fund.”
Read the UN Arms Trade Treaty in pdf format, here.
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), one of 34 Senators who voted on a resolution in April opposing the Arms Trade Treaty, vows that he will block the treaty “as long as [he is] breathing in the U.S. Senate. I have great concerns that this treaty can be used to violate the second amendment rights of American citizens, and do not believe we should sign any treaty that infringes on the sovereignty of our country.”
Here’s Sen. Mike Lee’s contact info to send your “Thank You”:
316 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Email: click here
South Africa is an object lesson in why gun registration should be opposed. Put simply, your government can only confiscate your guns if they know you have guns. And they know that only if you tell them — via a mandatory gun registration system.
Arnold Ahlert writes in FrontPage Mag, March 11, 2o13:
Like so many societies where demonstrating who’s in control becomes a necessity, disarming the population becomes a priority. In 2010, the ANC-led regime changed the Firearms Registration Act, demanding that all legal guns be re-registered by July 31, 2011. In the process of re-registration, more than half the applicants were turned down, and 90 percent were turned down again on appeal. Thus, white farm families were forced to relinquish their last line of defense against the tens of thousands of criminal gangs roaming the countryside–armed with AK47s. and as Genocide Watch noted on its website last July one more step was taken as well. “The government has disbanded the commando units of white farmers that once protected their farms, and has passed laws to confiscate the farmers’ weapons,” it reported. “Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocidal killings.”
H/t FOTM’s Sunny.
The Obama regime, in the person of Secretary of State John Kerry, signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty on Sept. 25, 2013. See “President Lucifer signs UN gun control treaty.”
Not many know about Kulula Airlines, the South African low-fare airline that only travels in and around a handful of African countries, but with the airliner going to great lengths to demonstrate its humor inside and outside of its airplanes, maybe Kulula Airlines can turn some heads, gain some attention and even expand in the process.
Kulula Airlines was founded in July 2001 as a low-cost subsidiary of British Airways franchise Comair, with Comair listed on the local exchange and British Airways retaining an 11 percent stake in the business. But even with a low budget, the South African airliner is finding new ways to attract attention and customers.
After 11 years since launching, Kulula Airlines has actually become the No. 2 carrier in South Africa, thanks to eye-catching ad campaigns that depict ordinary flyers as superheroes, under their slogan, Now anyone can fly. Now, the airline is going even further with humor, using it both inside and outside the plane.
Humour has been part of Kulula from day one, said Heidi Braurer, Kulula’s marketing chief. It is well to be easy and funky, but this is serious business, too.
Inside the plane, Kulula takes a page from Southwest Airlines, adding wisecracks into the otherwise-bland pre-flight safety demonstration. For instance, you might hear a flight attendant say upon departure, In case you have two children, choose the one you love the most to help him or her first. Or upon arrival: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Cape Town. You can disembark in a moment, except for the hunk in 13A, who is welcome to stay.
They are encouraged to be interacting and original, but not insulting to anybody, Braurer said. We don’t hire them as comedians, we hire them as flight attendants.
But outside the plane’s cabin, Kulula is turning heads and making a name for itself in the process. The company has become very liberal with their exterior decoration, painting some planes with cows, signs that read This Way Up, and even adding arrows that point out each individual feature of the plane, including the black box, the seats, the back door, the nose cone, and even where the co-captain sits. It’s highly unusual for an airliner to not take itself so seriously, and people are noticing.
We couldn’t guarantee that we would always be cheapest, especially as the national carrier (South African Airways) in South Africa has had a history of cost-cutting to drive out new entrants to the market, Brauer said. [But] with a tiny budget, we needed to be seen.
In the last decade, Kulula has managed to claim 20 percent of South Africa’s domestic market, transporting more than 2.4 million passengers a year.
It is a very good case study, said David Blyth, a marketing manager at Yellowwood, an ad agency based in Cape Town, South Africa. It is a very difficult market, very competitive, he said. What they did very cleverly is giving humour, bringing an ambiance: as a passenger, you think you are a personality, you get more for the same price.
Kulula may be in trouble, however, as Comair just announced its first-ever financial loss recently. The company will need to face this obstacle and many more to come, including issues like increasing costs on fuel and airport access, but at least Kulula will do it all with a smile.