Time To Open Pandora's Apartheid Box – Part 1
By Mike Smith
22nd of April 2010
When we were children. We could never understand what the church minister meant when he said that all sins are sins and all sins are equally bad. It did not make sense to us, because telling a lie is not as bad as murdering someone, or is it ? Personally I believe that lying is far more dangerous than murder. Lying can kill entire civilisations. You see, lying is an art. There are many facets to it, but basically successful lying works like this - you start with a massive lie. Some idiots will believe it, some will be mildly sceptic and a few intelligent ones will dismiss it as hogwash. Then you tone the lie down a bit, and those mildly sceptic ones becomes believers and the few intelligent ones who thought they knew the truth start doubting themselves and think, "OK, some of it might be true, but it is mostly bullsh!t". And so it carries on, you tone the lie down a little bit more until everyone accepts it as the truth. See, people do not believe lies, because they have to, but , because they want to. But there are lies and then there are statistics, and then there is the truth. And that is what I profess to. And so the lie of Apartheid and everything about it was started as a massive lie until Apartheid was accepted as a crime against humanity on the 30th of November 1973.
The Crime of Apartheid - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid)
Was it a Crime ? A Crime against humanity, or was it the fairest system ever created for multicultural societies ? These are the questions I want to explore in a series of articles. "Why", you ask ? This so called "Crime of Apartheid" is a daemon released from Pandora's Box. It has far reaching consequences that were previously not considered. It has consequences and it is making people nervous, everyone from international corporations, international church organisations to sovereign nations are currently biting their nails.
What is the motivation to open Pandora's Box ? Does common sense not tell you to rather keep it shut ? Do you really want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes ? When it comes to "The Crime of Apartheid", the only motivation is GREED. So who are these greedy people brave enough to open Pandora's Apartheid Box ? They are called The Khulumani support group - http://www.khulumani.net/ (http://www.khulumani.net/)
Khulumani means "To speak out" in the Zulu Language.
So let us speak out. Let us not hold back anymore. Let us not pay 20,000 blacks R30,000 "restitution for suffering under Apartheid" like the ANC did after the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission"). To understand it better I have to take you back a while to when us whites willingly handed power over to the Blacks in 1994. We thought we had an honest deal. The deal was actually simple. We wanted the international community to lift all economic and sport sanctions against us so we could play Rugby and take part in the Olympics. In exchange we asked the ANC to stop planting bombs in shopping centres and landmines on farm roads, we told the international community that we were willing to bury the hatchet with the ANC, provided they do the same.
We wanted to bury Apartheid and build a fantastic country all working together to make the country even stronger than what it was. We thought it was achievable, because we always got on well with our Black domestics in our homes or our black colleagues at work. We knew nothing about the communist agitations happening in the townships. Most of us, were political dunces at the time. Our political beliefs were very liberal after we left (brainwashing) school and entered the realm of Liberal activist student politics. The reality was that when we buried the hatchet, the ANC continued the struggle. They have not at the time, neither now achieved their ultimate goal, which is a total communist South Africa, and therefore will continue the struggle until there is not a single white person left in South Africa. How did I realise that the ANC was continuing the struggle ? I saw it with the TRC, I saw it with the introduction of Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment. I saw that the ANC was not willing to let it all go. They were not interested in burying the hatchet. The ANC was not interested in "A better life for all".
The ANC was only interested in making as much money for themselves and screw the rest of all South Africans, Black or White. The ANC equals Greed. Nothing will ever be enough. You cannot bargain or deal with them, because they will take everything you put on the table and demand more. It is futile to deal with these Marxist terrorists. Dealing with them will mean you will lose everything you have and they will not give up a single thing they have. You will keep on giving until you have nothing more to give, at which point you become expendable. That is when they will kill you. We as ordinary whites in South Africa are fast approaching that stage.
Along came the TRC who paid blacks in South Africa R30.000 each for their bullsh!t stories about how Apartheid oppressed them. The oppression and benefits will be dealt with in another article, but as far as I am concerned, when someone offers me R30,000 then I can also suck a brilliant story of oppression out of my thumb. Make the sum people. R30,000 paid out to about 20 thousand black ? R600,million ... is that enough ? So to take stock. We thought it was enough to hand over our country that we built with our money and our expertise. We thought it was enough to give them a first world country with a nuclear and space program. We identified every single black who supposedly suffered under Apartheid, we believed all their lies all 20,000 who came forward, we paid them restitution of R30,000 each.
But let me tell you, it was not enough, it will never be enough with these Marxist terrorist scum. No, they want blood. They want us to pay in blood ... to the very last drop ... more on that later. They have started a court case in the USA against international companies who benefited from Apartheid. They name Land Rover (Leyland) and Mercedes who supplied vehicles to patrol the townships, they mention Oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell who ironically donated their headquarters in SA to the ANC that is now called Luthuli House. They name Barclays Bank who withdrew from SA and at the same time changed their name to First National Bank and continued to fund the ANC. These same ANC scum now turns against their international masters and demands restitution.
But what about countries that supported the previous National Party ? We immediately think of Taiwan and Israel ? Surely if you can claim restitution from international corporations who supported Apartheid then you can also claim restitution from countries who supported the Apartheid government at the time. See, what I mean about opening Pandora's Apartheid Box ? The ANC should have left sleeping dogs lying, but no, greed has no brakes. So let us see where this journey takes us. Let us see how deep the rabbit hole goes. At the end of this series you will see that we never had any friends, nobody had any friends. Nobody is friends currently and nobody will ever be friends with anybody. Everybody lies about everyone else. The biggest lie is the one that everyone believes about Apartheid. These scavenges are all in it for the money and the power. It is a dog eat dog world out there my friends, and we as White South Africans chose to be the EPOL biscuits
Part 2 - What "Diversity" Means In South Africa
Nobody can understand Apartheid unless they understand the diversity of the people of South Africa. Let us start with the whites. In South Africa there are several groups of whites. The two main groups are the Afrikaans speaking and the English speaking ones. The Afrikaners are the descendants from mainly Dutch, Flemish, French, German and some other Western European backgrounds. The Afrikaners have a unique culture, their own language and they are mostly protestant. The English speaking whites of South Africa are from mostly British background. They are made up of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish descendants, as well as a large contingent of ex Rhodesians. These English speaking Whites of South Africa can today not be referred to as British anymore. Very few hold British passports. They developed a unique accent and culture in South Africa and are fully South African today. Their forefathers came to South Africa long before there were any Whites in Australia or New Zealand.
South Africa also has other large white communities such as the Portuguese (300,000), the Greek (+/- 100,000). They all have their own religions and cultures. The Portuguese are mostly Catholic, the Greeks are orthodox Christians. Further, South Africa has a Chinese population who arrived around 1870 to work in the gold mines until Chinese immigration was stopped by an exclusion act in 1904. The South African Chinese community is about 300,000 and the Jewish communities about 70,000 strong. The Cape coloureds are also diverse and complex from a wide variety of backgrounds. Today there are the two main groups, Christians and Muslims. There is about 4 million coloureds in total. It is commonly understood by most foreigners and also amongst many South Africans, that the coloureds are a mixture of Black and White ancestors. This is false. The coloureds as a group existed long before the Whites saw any Blacks for the first time around 1770 in the Eastern Cape about 1000km from Cape Town. This was 120 years after the Dutch settled at the Cape (1652).
The indigenous people of the Cape were the Khoi Khoi(Hottentots). They were almost 90% annihilated by a smallpox epidemic at the Cape (1703) http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/smallpox-epidemic-strikes-cape (http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/smallpox-epidemic-strikes-cape). The Dutch also imported artisans such as bricklayers, carpenters, etc from Malaysia and Indonesia. These were the Muslims or Cape Malay people. The KhoiKhoi and the Cape Malay also intermarried and interbred. A small percentage of Whites also married coloureds, but it was actually very rare. A large amount of the passing sailors frequented coloured prostitutes. Today the Cape Coloured features vary from dark brown to almost White or yellow and their hair vary from peppercorn curly to straight black. Some have KhoiKhoi features and some Arabic or Malaysian. Today the Muslim and Christian coloureds have distinct and different cultures. Some speak a dialect of Afrikaans and some English. In Natal we find most of South Africa's Indian population. They total about one million and are descendants of indentured labourers (for the sugar cane plantations) and traders from India and Sri Lanka. They speak mostly English, but many still speak Tamil, Hindi or Urdu. Their religion is mostly Hindu but many are Muslim. So far I have not even started with the blacks yet. Most foreigners believe that South Africa has one group of Blacks that speak one language and have one culture. Nothing could be further from the truth.
South Africa's Black population is not homogenous. There are several different tribes who all speak different languages and who have distinct and hugely different cultures. There are main tribes such as the Zulu, Xhosa, Tswana, Venda, Ndebele, Sotho, Swazi and the Shangaan/Tsonga people. But it does not stop there, because these main tribes consist of smaller tribes. For instance the Xhosas are made up of Mpondo, Fingo, Thembu, Bhaca, Nhlangwini and Xesibe tribes. The Sothos are made up of North Sotho (Bapedi) and South Sotho (Basotho) tribes. The Tswanas are only a part of the main tribe known as the West Sotho. Other tribes that make up the West Sotho are the Kwena, Kgatla, Tlhaping, Tlharo, Rolong and Ngwato. The Venda tribe is made up of mainly the Mphephu and the Lemba, but in total the Vavenda can be bordered off into 27 clearly distinguishable tribes. The Zulus are made up of about 200 smaller tribes The Swazis are made up from the Nkosi, Shongwe, Khumalo and Hhlatyawako tribes. The Northern Sothos are made up from the Pedi, Koni, Phalaborwa, Lobedu and Kutswe tribes. And so I can go on. All in all South Africa has nine official Black languages, with 23 sub categories and innumerable dialects.
Yes, these different tribes of South Africa all have different languages, cultures and belief systems. The Vendas for instance have a special affinity to crocodiles. The Zulus consider themselves as a warrior tribe and they do not circumcise their boys when they are initiated into manhood, they have to kill a bull with their bare hands. The Xhosas on the other hand do circumcise their boys and therefore Xhosas consider Zulus as mere boys regardless of their age. When a Xhosa and a Zulu work together and they have words, the Xhosa will first and always accuse a Zulu of being a boy, thus not a man. Another remarkable piece of information that very few people know about is that the Lemba people who form part of the Venda tribe are Jewish. No. They did not convert to Judaism after meeting some Jewish immigrants to South Africa. President Kruger found them already with their Jewish belief system going back more than two thousand years. They migrated from the Kenya or Ethiopian regions. South Africa's black Jews. http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/lemba.htm (http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/lemba.htm)
I hope that the reader can see that South Africa is a palette of people, cultures and religions, but also note that I started with the white people who were leading in the atomic age into Africa and I ended with Blacks who are for all intents and purposes still nomadic Negro tribes stuck in the stone-age. With this background, is it really so unimaginable and difficult to understand that the way of "Separate development" (Apartheid) was the best and fairest solution for the problems of South Africa ?
Part 3 – The Violent Nature Of Blacks - First Rationale For Apartheid
By Mike Smith
26 April 2010
Many white South Africans feel guilty about Apartheid, they feel as if they actually did something evil or bad, but that is totally wrong. Ex president De Klerk apologised for Apartheid and http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4134067.html (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4134067.html) so did the Dutch Reform Church Dominee, Swanepoel who also started pulling out his intestines about Apartheid and apologised on behalf of the entire church without any mandate from anyone of the congregation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/despatches/africa/33032.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/despatches/africa/33032.stm) So when such "leaders" tell us how wrong we were, then we tend to believe them. But let us look at the truth.
Anyone who knows the history of South Africa will know that nobody suffered more on the soil of South Africa, no one has bled as much as the Afrikaners and their descendants the Boers. The Whites of South Africa and specifically the Afrikaners have nothing to be sorry for. In fact the Blacks owe them a tremendous gratitude and a gigantic apology for the way they treated Whites in the last 350 years. The Afrikaners have a song that is taught to all Afrikaans kids from the crib and that every Afrikaner today knows. The name of this song is called, "Siembamba". The lyrics are so heavy that I almost do not want to repeat it here. But it goes like this,
"Siembamba, mama se kindjie,
Siembamba, mama se kindjie
--draai sy nek om, gooi hom in die sloot;
trap op sy kop dan is hy dood."
For our international readers I will freely translate and then explain.
"Siembamba, mommies little child,
Siembamba, mommies little child,
--Wring his neck, throw him in the ditch,
Step on his head, then he is dead..."
Believe it or not, this is a song Afrikaans people sing to their children while rocking them to sleep ! It records the brutality of the Xhosas who would indiscriminately kill white women and white babies during the nine Kaffir wars. Black men are mostly cowards who are only brave when in packs. They actually seldom engage in head on confrontation with White men. When they attack it is always in groups, while people are asleep. Their preferred targets are the elderly, women and children.
A common myth amongst foreigners and South Africans alike is that they think that before the White man came to Africa, Blacks lived in peace and harmony with nature and with each other. This harmony with nature is not entirely wrong. It is the perception of "In harmony with nature" that is misunderstood. People want to believe that nature is pure and good and that the lion lies with the lamb, but reality is far removed from that. When one sees how hyenas tear a live animal apart, how a praying mantis bites the head off her mate after copulation; how the Streptococcus bacteria can destroy human flesh, one is left with a feeling that nature can be very cruel. Nature amongst African blacks have always been very cruel. Blacks who supposedly lived in tune with nature were regularly eaten by lions, crocodiles, bitten by snakes, stung by scorpions and their numbers controlled by insects like the mosquito (Malaria) or the Tsetse fly (sleeping sickness). Yellow fever and Cholera were other forms of nature to control the numbers of Blacks. But it has to be said that before the white people came to Africa, the most effective way Blacks controlled their own populations were with genocidal tribal wars and cannibalism.
Let me point out some of the psyche of the Blacks in order to try and understand his petty jealousy and envy. Amongst the Black communities it is not allowed for individuals to show ingenuity or individualistic prosperity. The moment one black person starts to rise a little above the others, he will be the first one to be hammered down by the community like a nail in a wooden floor. Those who do prosper are ostracised by their black tribes and it will be said of them that they are not real blacks that they are whites with a black skin. That mentality still persists to this day, but this petty envy is accompanied with an inbred, inextinguishable, brutality that the whites of Africa came face to face with and learned about the hard way. Ever since the white man set foot on South African soil, he has been shocked and horrified at the brutality of the blacks. No matter how much the whites wanted to believe in the "equality of man", they were sadly confronted only with the brutality and reality of Stone Age savages.
Blacks of central Africa sold other blacks they have conquered into slavery to Arabs, other black tribes and also to whites. The moment one tribe had a bit more than the others, they would be prone to a nocturnal raid by neighbouring tribes who would kill all the men, rape the women and children, steal the cattle and incorporate the women and children into their own tribes. Tribes who were not strong enough would flee the area. In sub Saharan Africa it meant that nobody wanted to flee north, because they knew it was a desert where they could not survive. So the only way was to flee south. The weakest of the weakest tribes were right in the front, followed by a slightly stronger tribe, followed by ever increasing stronger tribes further north, driving the weaker ones south. Roundabout the same time that whites first settled in South Africa, black tribes first entered South Africa. They were contemporary settlers of the area now known as South Africa. In some areas whites were the first and in others, blacks were the first. Blacks moving South and Whites moving north looking for better grazing for their cattle eventually met at the Fish and the Kei rivers around 1770. About 120 years after the Whites first (permanently) settled at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652 . To put it into perspective, it was about the same time as New York was founded in the USA.
Who were these Blacks they met at the Fish River ? They were the Xhosa. The Xhosa were fleeing from the Zulus who murdered them en masse. Even until today the word or name "Xhosa" in Zulu is synonymous with the word "coward". The animosity between the Xhosas and the Zulus goes back hundreds of years. Mandela and Mbeki, the two previous presidents were both Xhosas, but the current president, Jacob Zuma is a Zulu. Zulus and Xhosas hate each other more than they hate whites and that says a lot. But why do the other Blacks of South Africa hate the Zulus ? It goes back to "King" Shaka. Note, I put "King" in inverted commas. Blacks can never be kings of any kind - before one can be a King, one should first be a MAN. Shaka was a sadistic psychopath who committed genocide on a larger scale than Rwanda has ever seen. The Zulus wiped out entire tribes, entire cultures in what is today known as the Mfecane or Dfecane (Annihilation). Shaka's terror was so great that Mzilikazi, the chief of the Matabeles fled back North, direction where Zimbabwe is today.
Amongst all this chaos arrived the White man in the region of the Xhosas. They fought nine "Wars" against the Xhosa between 1811 and 1879. The Frontier Wars, Kaffir wars or Xhosa wars. Everytime the wars were about Xhosas stealing cattle and other livestock, burning down homesteads, killing not only white farmer families in the most horrific torturing ways, but also the coloureds who worked for the whites. It was at the time of the sixth Kaffir war that Piet Retief decided to trek with the other Voortrekkers. Piet Retief and his party thought they could negotiate and buy land from the Zulus, but they were massacred on a hill at the kraal of the Zulu King, Dingaan when they respected the wishes of Dingaan to leave their weapons outside. Every man and boy, around 100 in total, were clubbed to death. Retief was the last to be killed, so as to witness the death of his comrades.
Dingaan then ordered all Voortrekker laagers to be attacked along the Bushman's River. An orgy of violence started. Families were camped at Bloukrans, Dorinkop, Moordspruit, etc. Cowardly blacks would attack them during the middle of the night, killing everyone in the most horrific ways. Women were brutally gang raped and pregnant women were cut open, their babies killed in front of them while they still lived. Small children and babies were picked up by their feet and their heads smashed against the sides of the wagons. Among the Voortrekkers , 41 men, 56 women and 185 children were killed. In addition another 250 or 252 Khoikhoi and Basuto that accompanied the Voortrekkers were killed. A girl called Johanna van der Merwe (12 years old at the time) sustained 21 assegai wounds, but managed to survive. The Voortrekkers built the town Weenen (meaning wailing) at the site.
The Bloukrans Massacre http://www.anglo.50megs.com/bloukrans.htm (http://www.anglo.50megs.com/bloukrans.htm)
Throughout the following decades up until the present day the whites of South have experienced this petty envy and brutality at the hands of blacks. Examples are legion. Boers retaliated at Makapansgat http://tia-mysoa.blogspot.com/2009/08/makapaanspoort-murders.html (http://tia-mysoa.blogspot.com/2009/08/makapaanspoort-murders.html) where blacks savagely murdered whites in the most horrific ways. Hermanus Potgeter was tied down to a rock bed and skinned alive like an animal while still conscious, he died while the blacks ripped his organs out. More lately we saw the brutal black on black murders with the necklace method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing) We saw blacks storming into white churches with AK 47's and hand grenades, opening fire on the unarmed congregation such as at the St James Church massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_Church_massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_Church_massacre) We have seen everything from brutal Muti murders http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2003/0814/fe21-2.html (http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2003/0814/fe21-2.html) to the evil torture preceding the brutal killings of White farmers and their family members in Rhodesia, Namibia and also in South Africa, most of the time nothing stolen. More than 3000 White farmers and family members murdered to date since the ANC took over in 1994.
It is necessary to reiterate that this violent nature of blacks are not directed at whites only, so the black behaviour apologetics who claim that this behaviour is retribution for wrongs committed by whites against blacks, have no leg to stand on, because most often than not this black violent nature is directed at their own kind as we have seen with Shaka's defecane, Muti murders and necklacing. No, this brutality, this murderous, stealing and other asocial behaviour of Blacks could never and can never be reconciled with the behaviour of the deeply religious and pious Boers of South Africa. This violent behaviour of blacks was one of the rationales for Apartheid. The other was cultural differences. More on that in the next edition. For now it is important to realise that whites in South Africa never wanted to rule blacks. Whites wanted to separate from blacks and stay as far away from blacks as possible.
Thanks for posting this article, Reverend. Lengthy and informative. I needed some spare time to read and process.
It just goes to show that any "White" country (in quotes because there simply aren't any now) can't depend on its government to protect it from the mud plague. You cannot reason with these proto humanoids so you cannot expect them to ever be decent and law abiding. The US is experiencing in influx of African "refugees" into even our most rural and Northern areas. Rwandans and Somalians who are completely illiterate and have no idea how to use indoor plumbing. But they do know crime! Robberies and sex assaults are up 50% only one year after the ground simians arrived! Did our local population (which is almost completely White but unfortunately ultra liberal) just decide last year to go on a rampage? Probably not.
The government can point out economic stress on the native population leading to drug use leads to an increase property crimes, blah, blah, blah but they NEVER suggest that their subsidized coons could be to blame. Never! They are ALWAYS the victims. And what a poor suggestion too. If there is already economic stress in a small rural area, why aggravate it by introducing another burden? How about doling out some of that federal money for refugee subsidization and putting it back into the host community? That's a pretty liberal suggestion right there, but not liberal enough.
We Creators know where this leads. This article is perfect material to induce a fence sitter to face facts and make a decision. As in South Africa, as in the US, as in the entire formerly White world.
Thank you Rev Pat ;) - the author of these articles have put a lot of effort into them, and hopefully people will understand why Apartheid was the best way to go at the time, and why it was abolished
Part 4 – Black Culture And Customs - Second Rationale For Apartheid
By Mike Smith
I find it rather amusing that the cultural relativists wants to tell us that all cultures are equal and that no culture is better or higher than another, but these same primitive cultures they want to make equal to our White Western culture, rejects the notion of equality outright. In South Africa we observe this amongst blacks on a daily basis. Again the examples are legion, but let us start with the way the African black treats his women. I said women (plural), because Black men are polygamous. They can marry as many women as they can afford. When a black man walks down the street, his wife is lucky if he allows her to walk five paces behind him. Most of the time he tells her to go walk on the other side of the street and a few paces behind him. You see this all the time in South Africa, but we who grew up in South Africa just accept it as "it is just the way blacks are". Although black women can vote in official government elections, on a tribal level they have no political say and are not allowed to even sit amongst men least raise an opinion.
I said that a black can have as many wives as he can afford. That does not mean that he has to work and look after his wives. Quite the contrary. Traditionally the women do all the work in black culture. Black men buy their women and pays for them in cows in a system known as "Lobola". It starts with five cows and then the two families barter a price. The price is dependent on her social status, whether she is still a virgin or already has a child, what education she has, etc. The daughter of a chief is worth around twenty cows, but normally the price is kept down to between five and ten cows for ordinary women. Once married the woman is chattel and becomes the possession of the man, to breed and beat as he feels fit. The Xhosas practice what is called, uKetwala (the hunting down of a young girl and raping her to make her his wife)
Missionaries from Europe have tried to convert the Blacks to Christianity ever since the whites first set foot on African soil. These missionaries came across savages who believed in the powers of their dead ancestors, rather than that of a deity. Just about all civilisations had deities of some sort, but it was absent amongst blacks in South Africa. These missionaries saw the results of intonjane (female initiation) and ukwaluka (boy's circumcision and initiation into manhood) where some boys were lucky to live after their penises fell off due to gangrene, etc. They saw the licentious behaviour and customs of the blacks, but none of their efforts could ever win the blacks over. They struck up compromises in the hope to later convert the blacks, but even after their best attempts the best they achieved was that blacks accepted Christianity as an addition to their tribal religions and beliefs, not as a replacement. Blacks continue to practice their traditional beliefs in parallel with Christianity up until this very day.
Read about the fruitless experiences of the missionaries here http://stmarys.ca/~wmills/course322/Missionaries_XhosaClergy.pdf (http://stmarys.ca/~wmills/course322/Missionaries_XhosaClergy.pdf)
To us whites the initiation rites of blacks are horrific and barbaric practices that are still practiced to this very day. No Xhosa will ever be accepted as a man if he as a last resort to save his life, went to a western hospital during the circumcision period. The Zulus initiation into manhood is called ukeshwama. A group of boys have to kill a bull with their bare hands. They pull out his tongue, stuff dirt down his throat, squeeze his testicles till it burst and then finally wring his neck by gripping the horns until his neck snaps. They also have to tear meat from the carcass with their bare hands and eat it raw. This is all in the name of "Culture". But the most horrific practice amongst blacks in South Africa and Africa in general has to be "Muti-murders". One just has to make an internet search or a search on a news site like IOL for "Muti-murders" to be shaken to the core at the brutality of the black man. Muti means "medicine". It is made from plants or animal organs, but the most powerful muti is made from human body parts, harvested while the person is still alive.
Everything from sexual organs to hands, lips, ears and other organs are cut from victims of all ages while they are still alive, including young children and babies. Some will say that these are a few dissident Sangomas (traditional healers) who practice "muti-murders", but the shear amount of these killings tells us that there are huge markets of believers amongst the black communities which drive these killings. Blacks further believe in the "Tokoloshe", a hairy goblin-like creature with a huge penis, who is sent by the Sangoma to attack them if they have done something wrong. One can literally write volumes on the evil practices and beliefs of black South Africans. In more modern times new "cultural beliefs" of blacks have emerged that shows their primitive mindset that no amount of education or conversion to Christianity has been able to change. Blacks believe that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. This has resulted in horrific rapes of babies as young as six months. Black men rape lesbians, to "correct" them. It is called by the media, "corrective rapes". How can any cultural relativist ever be able to convince us that these practices, customs and cultures are the same as ours ? The problem is that people who do not know Africa, or more specific, South Africa, will never believe anything I wrote above, yet it is all true and only a fraction of the truth about the blacks of South Africa. The information is today freely available on the internet and in books.
Cultural relativists should first go and try to preach their "equality" and "relativism" to the blacks of Africa, before they try to convince others of it. The whites of South Africa learned the hard way from observing the black man in his natural habitat over hundreds of years since they first settled on South African soil in 1652. Despite all this evil, never, not once, did it cross the minds of the Whites to annihilate and obliterate the entire black populations of South Africa, although they had every reason to do so. The whites were too pious and despite all the evils committed against them during the nine Kaffir wars, at Bloukrans, at Bloodriver, at Makapansgat, etc, still believed in "Peaceful co-existence" with Blacks. The whites acknowledged the nature of Blacks, with all their evil customs, cultures and superstitious beliefs. The whites did not want to change any of it like the missionaries attempted (and failed) to do. No, they just wanted to separate themselves from such evil as far as possible. In the end the piousness of whites would mean their downfall. What they should have done was to extinguish this evil.
It is stomach churning to read, but unfortunately sometimes the unpleasant truth is what is needed to wake people up. I would rather have someone be upset with me over an article I suggested they read, than find out the hard way and be attacked.
I don't know how many, a dozen or more, people I went to school with who were victimized by blacks. Girls who would go to the clubs and get sexually assaulted and boys beaten up who went into the ghettos naive and unprepared. Most of those people are now racially aware.
The ironic thing here in the US is that the biggest supporters of black "civil rights" don't live anywhere near them! They have the token "black" friend (a quadroon at worst) that they point to and say "see they're not bad".
I went to school with mulattos and quadroons in my younger days and I can firmly state that although they may be a bit more civilized than their full blood cousins, those "jungle impulses" still dominate.
Quote from: Rev.Maritz on Tue 15 May 2012To us whites the initiation rites of blacks are horrific and barbaric practices that are still practiced to this very day. No Xhosa will ever be accepted as a man if he as a last resort to save his life, went to a western hospital during the circumcision period.
Same initiation rites amongst some Australian Abos. Amongst others are ritual spearing and the smashing out of particular teeth. The Australian government gives them free dental, but with teeth deliberately smashed out and general lack of hygiene along with a hatred of White man's medicine, most of them have rotten, smashed out teeth which they display with pride.
Quote from: Rev.Pat on Tue 15 May 2012The ironic thing here in the US is that the biggest supporters of black "civil rights" don't live anywhere near them! They have the token "black" friend (a quadroon at worst) that they point to and say "see they're not bad". I went to school with mulattos and quadroons in my younger days and I can firmly state that although they may be a bit more civilized than their full blood cousins, those "jungle impulses" still dominate.
Again it's exactly the same as here.
Quote from: Rev.Maritz on Tue 15 May 2012Cultural relativists should first go and try to preach their "equality" and "relativism" to the blacks of Africa, before they try to convince others of it.
That's what they tried here. All they succeeded at doing is convincing the stone-age Australian Abo that it has a "real culture" while we Whites do not have any "culture" at all, so that they consider themselves culturally and - thanks to a
few sporting achievements (and American TV) over the last fifty years - physically superior to we Whites. And thanks to their entrenched victim status, no matter what degenerate, bestial impulses they happen to follow, they are always morally superior to we Whites.
Scientists know that raised melanin levels limits intelligence as the fight or flight instinct is heightened due to the immediacy of raised adrenalin levels. So the racial problem becomes a universal problem: The darker the skin, the more prone to violence; the lighter the skin, the more chance there is of advanced thought. That is why everywhere in the world it is the same types that advocate for
racial equality black supremacy, reconciliation and reparations. If liberal do-gooders had to live amongst these ... creatures, they would use their influence to enforce their own form of racial separatism/apartheid, and keep these these evolutionary cul-de-sacs away from their children forever.
@Cailen.
Part 5 – Black Cognitive Ability - Third Rationale For Apartheid
By Mike Smith
Long before studies like "The Bell Curve" or "Race and Reason" were published, before IQ tests were invented, we whites of Africa knew the mind of the black man intimately. Nobody had to prove anything to us. We knew the limitations of the African black and his capacity to break whatever he touches. We knew his strengths and his weaknesses. From simple, obvious and uncomplicated examples the white man drew his conclusions about black's cognitive abilities. The white man noticed that the blacks from South Africa never invented the wheel. Blacks never had any written languages. They had no dug-out canoes, let alone ships. Their dwellings were nothing but single roomed shelters that resembled poor imitations of inverted bird's nests, made from sticks and grass. They had no woven cloth and were wearing animal skins. They had no maps and no borders. They had a primitive belief system and their tribal laws were held and changed by "elders" at will after drinking their tribal beer/brew.
They were nomadic cattle herders that never permanently settled in one place for too long. They hardly grew crops and if so, it were small patches of subsistence maize introduced by the whites who brought it back from South America, the only place where it grew and existed. Yes that is right. Maize, which is today the staple food of all Blacks throughout the entire Africa, comes from South America and was introduced to blacks by white European settlers. Blacks today cannot even imagine a life without maize, yet they say that whites never brought anything good to Africa. Because as far as providing for themselves, they are useless. Blacks have proven that they cannot farm. They hardly understand the principle of irrigation, let alone ever building any dams. When a slight drought occurs one year all their crops fail and they starve.
Whites in South Africa developed commercial farming into a science and built universities such as Elsenburg at Stellenbosh. Blacks who have worked on white farms for their entire lives, for generations, never learned a thing and every white commercial farm that was handed over to blacks failed, even after vast amounts of money was thrown at them, training was given and the most modern implements bought for them by the government. This tragedy is documented in a book by Dr. Phillip du Toit called, The Great South African Land Scandal . Dr du Toit has made his book available online, free of charge. http://greatsalandscandal.blogspot.com/ (http://greatsalandscandal.blogspot.com/)Liberals and cultural relativists will be quick to point out that there are many blacks today who are academics, medical doctors or lawyers.
They will tell us that the environment determines IQ. They somehow believe that a black child raised in a white household, who went to white schools and who had all the opportunities as a white kid would magically become equal or better than a white child. It is only the simpleminded who believes this. Eskimos live on the same parallel as Northern European Whites, but have never been able to reach the same level of development and ingenuity as Whites from Scandinavia, Russia or Germany. Blacks who live in Tropical conditions have never been able to build the structures of the Incas, the Mayas or even anything resembling the beauty of Angkor Wat in Cambodia. Besides, the Australians tried it. They took Aborigine children away from their communities, raised them in wealthy white households, sending them to only the best schools, etc. The results were that these Abbo children reverted to the same behaviour and sometimes worse than that of their traditional communities. Today we refer to them as The stolen generation. So what about those clever blacks you ask ? The ones who are doctors, etc ? Anybody who has ever taught blacks anything, lectured to them or tried to jerk them into the twentieth century will understand what I am about to say ?
I have to tell you a little story here.
When I was at school in South Africa I had a friend. Let us call him "Manie". Manie was a hyper intelligent young boy. At the age of eleven when we had the "Rubik Cube" craze, he was solving the puzzle in 50 odd seconds. Later on in high school, Manie produced straight A's, he could play several musical instruments including the drums, guitar and trumpet. He played Rugby and was also a martial artist of note. Manie became a dentist and is currently practicing in the UK. While he was a medical student I once asked him how difficult the course was. He said to me that to become a doctor is not difficult. It is a sh!t load of work to study, but it is not difficult as in Engineering or Physics. I asked him why he opted for Dentist. He told me that when he wants to drive a Porche, he wants to go out there and buy him one. He was honest. He did not become a dentist, because he had some calling in life, he did it purely for the money.
So for blacks to become medical doctors is actually not that difficult. The black (Zulu) historian and Shaman, Credo Mutwa talks about this in his book, "My People" (1969). Credo says that blacks never had any written language so they have no written history. Their history is passed down orally from Sangoma to Sangoma. See, the Sangoma is not only the traditional healer, he is also the preserver of the oral history, the tribal laws and the ancient rituals and customs of the blacks. He explains that blacks have an excellent memory that they drill from childhood through stories, rhymes and songs. To remember detail they use what we would call "memory association". For instance, Credo Mutwa says that the blacks have a huge respect for the late president of the ZAR, Paul Kruger. President Kruger had an ability to mimic the sounds of all birds through whistling. Even till this day the township of Mamelodi east of Pretoria, capital city of the ZAR and South Africa is named after Paul Kruger, the whistler. His statue stands on Church Square in Pretoria. When one teaches blacks, it is not uncommon to find that they score well to very well in tests or exams where they have to repeat what they were taught. In fact it is almost well known amongst educators that blacks are better at this than whites. But when it comes to applying knowledge, when it comes to using logic, faultfinding and problem solving skills, blacks fall by the wayside. They just cannot do it.
A black can pass all the theory exams to become a pilot, but put him in a simulator and subject him to crisis situations where he has to think rapidly, then one sees the cogs of the black cognitive system start flying all over the place. And I am talking about the one percent, the best of the best. The other 99% are only good to dig ditches, provided they do not break the pick or spade. The proof is in the pudding. It is not as if the world is over run by Nobel Laureates for hard sciences like physics or chemistry. How many black astro or nuclear physicists do you know ? Today much is being said about Black education under Apartheid, but the truth is that in 1987 at the height of Apartheid, six million black children were at school, a new record for South Africa at the time. In the previous year 1800 classrooms for secondary education were built by whites, with white money for blacks. About 130 new schools were built. If one considers the schools burnt down by blacks at the same time the education standards of blacks could have been even higher.
At the time black South Africans had the highest literacy rate amongst other blacks on the entire continent. Blacks had eight universities in South Africa producing lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc of world standard. None of those people would say today that their education and degrees are of an inferior standard. Quite the contrary, they are extremely proud of their education they underwent during Apartheid. Telling them that their education was "Sub standard" would be insulting them. As I have mentioned before, South Africa was a world leader in medical science during Apartheid and established a unique Medical university called MEDUNSA which produced amongst others on average 200 black doctors per year. MEDUNSA also trained nurses and other medical staff. The most amazing thing is that no matter how well Blacks are educated, they never let go of their superstitious believes in the Tokoloshe, Muti witchcraft and ancestor worship. Blacks who hold high positions today such as ministers in parliament or judges, blacks who are engineers, still consult the witchdoctor on a regular basis. Blacks still run around and attack everyone, including their own with pangas. No amount of western education will ever be sufficient to change the African black savage into respectable human beings. They are what they are. We have to be honest with ourselves and with blacks and accept them for who and what they are. We have to realise that our cultures will never be compatible.
Just as the Boers never wanted to rule over the Blacks, the Boers will NEVER accept blacks ruling over them. The previous National Party government was not stupid. They never took any decisions without thoroughly investigating all options. They studied the Swiss Canton system and the Belgium model with the Flemish and Walonians. No sytem could be compared to the unique South African situation. Apartheid was not the only option. There were others to consider like the Stalinist option of just exterminating all opposition in their millions. But BJ Voster asked us to accept the reforms, because the other options were just too ghastly to comprehend for the pious Whites of South Africa.
Quote from: Rev.Maritz on Fri 18 May 2012They will tell us that the environment determines IQ. They somehow believe that a black child raised in a white household, who went to white schools and who had all the opportunities as a white kid would magically become equal or better than a white child. It is only the simpleminded who believes this. Eskimos live on the same parallel as Northern European Whites, but have never been able to reach the same level of development and ingenuity as Whites from Scandinavia, Russia or Germany. Blacks who live in Tropical conditions have never been able to build the structures of the Incas, the Mayas or even anything resembling the beauty of Angkor Wat in Cambodia. Besides, the Australians tried it. They took Aborigine children away from their communities, raised them in wealthy white households, sending them to only the best schools, etc. The results were that these Abbo children reverted to the same behaviour and sometimes worse than that of their traditional communities. Today we refer to them as The stolen generation.
Actually it is not we who refer to them as "The Stolen Generations." It is the Abo with his hand out, do-gooder society, the mainstream media and the JOG. The average White Australian is a guilt laden fool, that will bow his head and go along with whatever the previous television program has told them. Show them the truth on their cathode ray idiot box, and they will wake up.
The other point is that there were no "Stolen" generations of Abo children. Right through to the nineteen-sixties, Australian Abos were known to murder mixed race children born amongst their own. Smashing the skull of a newborn with a rock and throwing the remains to the camp dogs was their typical behaviour, so the White missionaries and the government intervened whenever it could and took possession of the infants whenever possible. That is a fact that has been well documented by Abos that were raised in all-White households and communities, only to research their personal history and discover the horrendous truth in middle to old age. They are the few that are so shocked and stunned, that they do speak out against the "Stolen Generations" myth. By comparison to those Abos that would rather hold their hand out and blame Whitey for everything, they are few, but they are vocal. They are considered by those who advocate the mainstream Abo industry to be self hating Aborigines: in our terminology, race-traitors. For a White to be caught speaking or writing of the experiences as described by these Abo truth-sayers, it means the destruction of your life, a lifetime of hounding by the political police, charges under the Racial Vilification Act (and any other false charges they can get you on), and possible death at the hands of the advocates of Black Supremacy.
The second and more typical type of "Stolen Generation" is the Abo child - mixed race or full blood, it matters not - that was taken from the parents due to parental incompetency. The reasons given by the Abos and do-gooders is that it was for assimilation and black genocide. The reasons given in court reports are abandonment of the children, alcoholism, criminal activity leading to extended prison sentences ... everything that you find in a reports about an unfit White parents.
So although it is deemed racist to say so, there were no stolen generations of Australian Aboriginal children. And the result is that today, instead of removing an Abo child from a dangerous situation, the government bends over backwards to ensure that the child stays with its own kind, and is therefore practically guaranteed to live a life of pure hell - and grow up (if it survives) to blame Whitey for all its woes.
@Cailen.
Part 6 - Other Rationales For Apartheid
By Mike Smith
So far I have only scratched the surface and told the reader about the more common practices and customs of blacks that whites know about and find abominable such as, Lobola (buying wives with cows), the initiation rituals of boys and girls, witchcraft, superstition, muti-murders, raping babies to cure AIDS, etc. There are so many more rationales for Apartheid that one can actually write a book about them. And indeed someone has written a book about it, several books actually. His name is Credo Mutwa and the name of the book is "My People-The writings of a Zulu witch-doctor". (1969) ISBN 014003210X. The book is extremely rare and few people know about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vusamazulu_Credo_Mutwa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vusamazulu_Credo_Mutwa) It is a fascinating book, giving you insight into the various traditions of black South Africans of various tribes, their beliefs, their superstitions, their customs and their mindset.
Credo is the most respected Sangoma and Sunusi in the whole of South Africa. He is a traditional healer, a black historian and an authority on traditional customs and beliefs of the black tribes of Africa. If one has to compare him to Christianity, then Credo Mutwa would be the pope of traditional healers. He mentions several practices that is just too ghastly for the pious whites of South Africa to accept. One of the things he describes is the black law of infanticide when twins are born. This practice is still carried on today. Think about it, look around you, how many black twins have you seen in South Africa ?
"The law requires that if a woman gives birth to twins, one must be destroyed by having a round pebble pushed down its throat. But in the case of triplets, one must die and two must live" - "My People", Chapter 10, Pg. 218. So the few "twins" we see amongst blacks were actually triplets of which one was killed.
Blacks also killed their own wounded soldiers - "The wound would fester and sooner or later the patient would die. Even small gaping wounds spelt a write-off of the patient; large Panga slashes were regarded as fatal at the outset and warriors thus wounded were given a mercy death. Many battle axes were furnished with special 'dispatchers' for this purpose." - "My people" Chapter 11, pg. 234.
I will conclude with a topic that very few people wish to address and prefer to ignore, but if we are going to be honest about blacks and why we had Apartheid, then we need to mention the facts that blacks are untidy, and well, they smell funny. One just has to look at how blacks live. From ancient times until today, it does not matter where in the world one goes, a black area looks like a pig sty. I have seen this in Trinidad and Tobago, in Haiti, in Jamaica in the Bahamas and everywhere I went in Africa. I have seen this from black areas in European cities to ghettos in the USA. Blacks just cannot keep their environment clean and tidy. Everything is disorderly, chaotic and dirty, rubbish lying all over the place.
Another phenomenon that one sees in townships of South Africa, is that Blacks do not plant grass, flowers or trees amongst their tin shacks. This is amazingly odd. Firstly, because blacks work as gardeners or bricklayers for whites. So the ability to build is there, the ability to keep lawn and a garden is there. Why is it that blacks never do in their own areas what they do when they are working for whites ? Maybe their environments are reflections of how they keep their bodies orderly and tidy as well. This is how blacks are. They are actors. They can even mimic a White accent, white behaviour or intelligence and appear almost the same as whites. Many whites fall for this and indeed believe that blacks are the same as whites, but it is when one gets to know blacks up close and personal that one sees through this veil and behind the mask.
Blacks can bullsh!t a lot, especially when they work for whites. Then they know they have to put their best foot forward or lose the job. That is when they wash, dress respectably and behave almost white. In the workplace, blacks who are utterly incompetent will fake competence, bullsh!t their way through every day, steal other's work, all an act to hide their incompetence and when they are caught out, they just change jobs and repeat the process. That is when one realises that the so called intelligent words coming out of the mouths or pens of Martin Luther King or Barack Obama are all stolen. All non original thought and written by speech writers or whispered in their ears by advisors. But something blacks find extremely difficult to hide is their body odour. Blacks smell. Everyone knows this. You go to Poland, you go to Japan and you ask anybody about blacks, you will hear they say, "blacks smell". Maybe there is a biological reason for it, but I am not exactly keen on finding out. All I know is what my nose tells me and that is that Blacks smell really bad and that I cannot live with that.
But let me quote what Credo Mutwa says in his book, "My people", (1969) chapter ten - "Xhosa women also prepare mysterious potions to secure their husbands to them, so that they will not be forsaken. This potion is prepared as follows : The woman refrains from taking a bath for several days, and then rubs the body dirt off her skin in little rolls. To this she adds the hair she has shaved off her private parts. Then follows ground Bangalala root which, when mixed with milk, is a violent aphrodisiac. The recipe may also include the powdered dry petals of a sunflower, a little spittle, and a piece of sandlewood. The whole concoction is then heated in a bowl until red hot and thus reduced to ashes. These ashes are then stirred into the milk of a nanny goat which had a deformed kid, until a thick putty is formed. This is then rolled into little balls or pills, which are added one at a time to the husband's food." - "My People", Chapter ten, pg. 213.
It is clear that the religions, cultures, customs and the behaviour of blacks are just too different than that of white people. These cultures are worlds apart and totally incompatible with each other. Whites and blacks will never get along in South Africa. Anybody who believes such a pipe dream as a multicultural "Rainbow Nation", does not know black culture or white culture. Such a person would only be fooling himself through masturbating his own delusional, liberal, feel-good mindset. No, I am sorry to disappoint such people, but blacks and whites are NOT the same. The reality of South Africa is so that few options actually exists. Either one of the two, black or white, totally wipes out the other or they separate completely. Not partial separation as under Apartheid, total separation. The reasons for Apartheid are still as valid today as they were 100 years or 50 years ago. Whites can never apologise for Apartheid, because whites cannot help for the inferior cultures, customs and behaviour of blacks. Separation and separate development of all the tribes is and was the most humane and fairest solution for all the complex groups of South Africa.
Part 7 – The Role Of A Government
By Mike Smith
When one asks most people, white or black, what the role of government is one will get various opinions depending on who one pose the question to, but in general most people believe that the role of government is to develop and maintain infrastructure, in other words build dams, roads, schools, etc. Their means of doing this (it is believed) is to tax the citizens. Most people also believe that the government (politicians and civil servants) steal some of this money out of the state coffers, and that is what we call corruption. They further believe that some governments steal more than others. Some build more schools and roads than others and a good government is the one who does not steal and who builds lots of "things" such as sport stadiums.
But in reality it basically works like this. Several political parties compete to rule the country to represent the people. The party that has the best sales pitch, that appears to be the most just will win, voted in by the majority population. Once in power the self-enrichment starts. The politicians do not care one bit about the people who have voted for them. Their sales pitches, lies, empty promises, bullshit and fraud is all just to get to the feeding trough and pocket the spoils, but open theft will soon end them into prison so they have to be sly about it. All governments spend more than they raise in taxes. Government officials borrow money from gigantic banks and other financial institutions to finance their building of roads, houses for the poor, etc. They then contract the jobs to companies that they themselves own, their families own, etc. This borrowed money ends up in the pockets of the politicians, but the loans needs to be paid back. This is where our taxes come in. Our taxes pay back to the banks what our governments have stolen.
The more liberal the government, the bigger the government structure will be and the bigger the theft, nepotism and corruption will be. Conservative and nationalist governments tends to be smaller and the corruption a lot less. The more uneducated the people of a country is, the least they will grasp this thieving principle and the fewer checks and balances will be kept on their thieving government. That is why liberal/socialist governments will introduce dumbed down education systems such as Outcomes Based Education and Training (OBET) to keep the people uneducated. In fact everything from sports to radio, newspapers and television will be changed to keep people ignorant of the theft going on behind the scenes. It is important to reiterate that theft and corruption happens in all governments to some extent. Some of them are mild when it comes to corruption, but most are aggressively greedy. The longer they stay in power, the longer they are in the front row of the feeding trough. That is why a government like the ANC in South Africa has one goal and that is to stay in power for ever. In order for us to understand the reasoning and rationale behind Apartheid it is necessary to briefly look at the role of Government. We as human beings want to live and survive. We want to pass on our genes into the future and in this short period of being here on earth, we want to be happy.
Part of being happy is to have a house, furniture, a television, or whatever makes us happy, basically to own property. This is called the right to life and the pursuit of happiness through the ownership of property. Problem comes in when someone wants to take your life away, take your property away or interfere in anyway with your pursuit of happiness. Such a person is then initiating force. He is stealing from us, physically attacking us, defrauding us, etc and therefore threatening our survival and our pursuit of happiness which are the most fundamental rights an individual can have. When you are a strong burly bloke, you can easily defend yourself against such a person and your retaliatory force will be just. You did not initiate the force, but protected your right to life and happiness. But what if the assailant has weapons, or there are more than one ? What if you are a child, a frail woman, an elderly person or mentally handicapped ? How do you then protect yourself against the initiation of force ? And that dear people is why we have a government. The only job of any government is to protect our individual rights. The role of any government is to protect our right to life and our pursuit of happiness from those who wants to take it away from us. The way government does it is to have an army to protect us from those outside of our country who are or might be attacking us and threaten our survival and pursuit of happiness and to have a police force to protect us from those inside our country who wants to take our individual rights away.
The government therefore needs to uphold the laws that the citizens feel are rightful and just to protect them from the initiation of force and what threatens their individual rights. First as a warning to those intending on taking away those individual rights and also to punish those who break these laws. One thing a government should never do is to initiate force against its citizens. This becomes a dicey topic, because extorting taxes is a form of initiation of force. A government can actually totally fund all its expenditures through other moral means such as setting up trust funds with all the money and property it owns, donations and people paying for services such as passports, toll roads, vehicle registration, etc. Companies who want to transport their goods through harbours, by rail or road, etc, should pay for using this infrastructure. Taxes therefore become obsolete. There is not a single government department that cannot fully pay for itself. Nevertheless, I am digressing. The National Party government in 1948 were faced with all these dilemmas when they came to power. Their primary task as a government was to protect all the citizens of South Africa. In the previous instalments of this series I tried to explain the background to this dilemma, considering the vast diversity of South Africa's people, their cultures, their religions, their languages and their histories. I explained how blacks from literally hundreds of smaller tribes were fighting against each other for hundreds of years before the whites came to South Africa, often wiping each other out completely.
Credo Mutwa writes in his book "My People" (1969), chapter eleven, page 244 :
"One of the High Laws of the Bantu is the law of revenge. The result of this law is that there are blood-feuds going on all over Africa which show no sign of dying out. Some of these have already been going on for generations. The Zulus have been feuding with the Basutus (Sothos), and also with the Shanganes of Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique), for more than a century. The feud between the Baluba and some of its neighbouring tribes has been going on for nearly six hundred years, while the feud between the Masai and the Wakambi in Kenya has now entered its tenth century. The Bahutu (Hutus) and the Wa-Tu-Tutsi (Tutsis) have been at each other's throats for as long, and as recently as 1963 the newspapers reported that this senseless feud had accounted for another 30,000 Wa-Tu-Tutsi lives".
Note how Credo Mutwa writes about the animosity between the Hutus and the Tutsis of Rwanda in 1969, referring to a relatively small massacre of 30,000 Tutsis in 1963. It culminated in full blown genocide of between 800,000 and 1,2 million Tutsis in 1994. This is exactly the chaos Apartheid tried to prevent. The South African situation was unique. It was a major challenge and it had to be solved fairly. The NP had to find a compromise that everyone could live with and be happy with. The White NP government intimately knew the blacks of South Africa and the blacks of Africa in general. They knew about Shaka's Defecane that was worse than the Rwanda genocide, they knew about all the inter cultural and inter tribal differences of the blacks of South Africa. They knew about the massacres of whites during the Xhosa wars, the massacre of whites at Bloukrans, the Battle of Blood River and countless more.
The only way to keep the peace, protect all the citizens of South Africa and to secure the individual rights of all the people of South Africa was to separate them, let them develop at their own pace, give them autonomy the right to rule themselves, draw up their own laws and enforce those laws with their own armies and police forces. The official government policy was called "Seperate Development". The Media called it, "Apartheid". Proposed in 1973 accepted and enforced in 1976, The United Nations General Assembly declared Apartheid a crime against humanity without offering an alternative to South Africa's situation. The question is thus open. Considering the background that I have sketched so far in this series, what would you have done if you were in charge of South Africa at the time, faced with the same challenges ? What would your solution have been ? The worst that Apartheid critics can dig up, the worst "Massacre" they can ever refer to, is the Sharpeville shootings in 1960 when 69 blacks died.
Compare that to Rwanda 1994; Rwanda is exactly what Apartheid tried to prevent. It does not matter what people says about Apartheid today, on the watch of the National Party, no Rwanda style massacre ever occurred on South African soil. More than 3000 white farmers were not killed by black savages under Apartheid, reported rapes of 50,000 per year never happened under Apartheid. Contrary to what most blacks and/or liberal whites would like to think about what whites supposedly did to blacks under Apartheid. There are no mass graves, there is not a single concentration camp, and there are certainly no gas chambers where whites tried to exterminate blacks. Quite the contrary. White South Africans built the biggest hospital in the world, Baragwanath (today called the Chris Hani Barragwanath hospital) for blacks with white expertise and white taxpayer's money - 3200 beds and 6760 staff members. For that, and many other altruistic and charitable endeavours, whites of South Africa were and still are made out as the evil skunks of the world.
Part 8 – The Lies About The Homelands
By Mike Smith
A common myth or lie about Apartheid is that the whites stole the land from the blacks and shoved them on 13% of the land of South Africa in what was called Homelands. It is further believed that blacks barely scratched out a living in these homelands due to it being on barren soil or arid regions. It is further claimed that whites made sure there were no minerals on these lands before giving to the blacks. It is time to address these lies. Traditionally South Africa belongs to the whites who first permanently settled South Africa since 1652. Blacks entered South Africa at about the same time, but never permanently settled any area, because they were nomadic cattle and goat herders. Blacks only started settling areas permanently after about 1770.
Wherever the Boers or Voortrekkers went they bargained for land with local Blacks who settled certain areas before them. In fact there is hardly any part of South Africa that was conquered by whites from blacks. Piet Retief's treaty with the Zulu King, Dingaan still exist to this day. Blacks settled other areas than the whites and in those areas blacks have the right or claim on those areas. It is however difficult to determine their claims, because blacks had no written language, no maps and no legislation such as land title deeds. Despite this, whites researched the areas that Blacks traditionally settled and gave them full autonomy to rule themselves, with their own police forces and armies trained in South Africa with white taxpayer money. To create work, white business people were encouraged to open factories in these countries with huge tax concessions.
The ten homelands were as follows :
Transkei –Xhosa
Ciskei – Xhosa
Venda – Venda
Bophuthatswana – Tswana
Gazankulu – Tsonga/Shangaan
KaNgwane – Swazi
KwaNdebele – Ndebele
KwaZulu – Zulu
Lebowa – Pedi (Northern Sotho)
QwaQwa – Sotho
Note how some blacks got two or even three countries of their own. The Xhosas got both Ciskei and Transkei. The Tswanas who have their own country called Botswana, also got Bophuthatswana. The Sothos who already had Lesotho as their own country also got Lebowa and QwaQwa. The Swazis who already had their own country Swaziland got KaNgwane. After South Africa became a union in 1910, the territories (British protectorates) of Bechuanaland (Botswana), Basutuland (Lesotho) and Swaziland was excluded from the union, but the plan was to incorporate them later. The successive South African governments always tried to enclude them, but the British played delay tactics and after South Africa withdrew from the commonwealth in 1961 it ended any prospect of incorporation of these territories into South Africa. Botswana got its independence from Britain in 1966, Lesotho in 1966 and Swaziland in 1968.
If one considers that these countries are actually part of the original South Africa, then the territories under Black rule and autonomy including the other homelands makes up 50% of the total land and not 13%. One further has to remember that about 70% of the current South Africa is uninhabitable simply because it is too mountainous or it is half desert in the Western part. Only about 10% is under normal climate conditions economically viable farmland. When one considers the rainfall map of South Africa and the areas settled by Blacks, then one sees that Blacks settled in above average rainfall areas. The soil of these homelands was some of the most fertile soil of South Africa. Today the black ANC government is taking white owned farms away and handing them over to blacks to be totally ruined in a few months. Something else a lot of people do not know is that the White NP government also forced whites off their land by paying them out undervalued sums for their farms so that they could hand it over to blacks in the establishment of the homelands. I personally know people who lost their successful dairy farm in those days to make way for the Ciskei.
About 48% of all the viable agricultural land was in these Black homelands. Today the Blacks want to say that these lands are barren. As I have mentioned it is totally false, but on the other hand, these were the areas the blacks chose out for themselves to settle on about 200 years ago. The cannot blame the whites for it today. It is often said that whites first made sure that there were no minerals in these homelands before they gave it to the Blacks. This is also false. In the homeland of Bophuhatswana, the Tswana homeland in addition to having their own country Botswana, we can find the largest Platinum deposits in the entire subcontinent. Gold are also mined as a byproduct in these platinum mines.
In the "Book Verrat an Südafrika" Klaus Vaque mentions an article in the German Magazine "Deutschland-Magazin" Nr. 3/83 where a Lebowa chief was asked if it was true that blacks have been pushed onto worthless desolate areas. I freely translate, the chief answered : "No, it is not true. We have here all the raw materials except diamonds and crude oil. We have all other minerals. As far as agriculture is concerned, we have some of the richest parts of South Africa. We have good rainfall and good soil. I think our livestock are some of the best and our wheat and maize potential is fairly high. The people who say that we have been pushed onto dry and desolate areas do not know what they are talking about. I think they are talking about others."
The question has to be asked : "What is so bad about giving all the major Black tribes of South Africa their own country where they could rule themselves on territory they historically settled and where they could be ethnically homogenous, where they could speak their own language, practice their own culture and religion and where they could be totally free ? What is the crime in that ?
Part 9 – The Lies About The Townships
By Mike Smith
It is today not un-common to find White people who lived through Apartheid in South Africa who have never set foot in a black or coloured township. Most whites never lost anything in a township and never saw the need to go to there. Besides it was dangerous, and the further they could stay away from blacks the better. People commute from Somerset-West, Strand or Gordon's Bay along the N2 highway to Cape Town for years every day, but they never ever turns off into the townships south of Cape Town International Airport (D.F. Malan Airport) to have a look. All they see are the slums of Cross-Roads, Langa and Nyanga and it scares them away. Most whites do not even know the coloured township of Mitchel's Plain. They do not know the bad areas such as Tafelsig, Lentegeur or the posh areas such as Woodlands or Strandfontein. If they could see the millionaires houses of Athlone, they would fall on their backs. The image that most whites of South Africa have about a township is what they have seen on television, in papers or magazines. I myself was about 19 years old and a conscript when I first set foot in Gugulethu, Cape Town. I can remember how surprised I was at how good the houses looked in certain parts, all the sports facilities and other amenities were not what I have seen on TV. We were only shown the worst parts, the Squatter Camps.
Actually the word "Township" is today confused with the word "Squatter Camp", but we are not allowed to use the un-PC term of "Squatter Camp" anymore, it is now called, "Informal Settlements. Nevertheless, a black township in South Africa has different sections just like any other town around the world. It has rich areas where educated blacks and black businessmen live in millionaires villas, it has the middle class areas and it has, well, the squatter camps. The problem is that the media always only show us the poor, squatter camp areas. Whites of South Africa and the world are kept ignorant by the media. We are not allowed to see that there are literally millions of extremely well-off blacks in South Africa who live in fairly good areas, on par with whites or well-off coloureds. The lies about the townships are numerous, but the most common one is that blacks were forced to live there under extreme poverty conditions and were denied the same amenities as whites had. Well, in the previous section of this series I pointed out that all the black tribes were given their own countries to live in where they traditionally settled. Nobody forced them to come to white cities. But blacks streamed in their thousand towards the white cities and set up squatter camps around the outskirts of these white areas, because they knew that whites were giving them work, but also, because they knew whites were very charitable and always gave them free clothes, food, etc.
This is quite ironic, because on the one hand the whites are painted as evil racists and blacks selectively believe this when they want to, but when blacks are truly honest with themselves, they will realise that whites always gave them lots of stuff, for free. It has always been like that in South Africa and will probably be like that for a long time to come, because South African whites are compassionate, charitable and good people. Nevertheless when these squatter camps became too large and/or a health risk due to the unhygienic practices of blacks, whites would build them proper houses with proper sewage systems, health clinics, schools, churches, roads with electric illumination, sports facilities and many more. This is how the townships came about. Basically built by white taxpayer money. Now I know there will be some people not convinced that these townships were actually quite well kitted out. So let us take an example; let us take the most well known township of South Africa, called Soweto, but the same can be said of just about any black township in South Africa. At the hight of Apartheid in 1978 Soweto had 115 Football fields, 3 Rugby fields, 4 athletic tracks, 11 Cricket fields, 2 Golf courses, 47 Tennis courts, 7 swimming pools built to Olympic standards, 5 Bowling alleys, 81 Netball fields, 39 children play parks, and countless civic halls, movie houses and clubhouses. In addition to this, Soweto had 300 churches, 365 schools, 2 Technical Colleges, 8 clinics, 63 child day care centres, 11 Post Offices, and its own fruit and vegetable market.
There were 2300 registered companies that belonged to black businessmen, about 1000 private taxi companies. 3% of the 50,000 vehicle owners in 1978 were Mercedes Benz owners. Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time. Today Soweto has modern shopping malls like, Dobsonville Shopping Centre. In 2005 the Protea Gardens Mall opened. This was followed by the Baramall Shopping Centre and the Jabulani Shopping complex and the Maponya Mall. Experts say that Soweto has as much as 25% oversupply of retail space. The Canadian Medical Doctor, Dr Kenneth Walker wrote about Soweto, (I freely translate from "Verrat an Südafrika", Klaus Vaque, 1987,pg 41) "In Soweto I saw many homes that costs about $100,000 (1978) and that had a BMW in the driveway. All houses are single storey. Many are recently painted. Many had flowerpots in the windows and lawn in the front. Only 2% were shacks. If I had the choice to live in Soweto or in the apartment dwellings or "Projects" of New York, Chicago, or Detroit where there is so much crime, then I would not hesitate for one moment and choose Soweto."
The biggest hospital in the world, Baragwanath with 3200 beds and at its peak almost 8000 staff had 23 operation theatres fitted out with the most modern medical equipment that existed in the world. Blacks were treated here, operated on at full state costs to the white-taxpayers for unlimited periods. The budget of this hospital was and is higher than the yearly budget of most small member states of the United Nations. Next door to Baragwanath is the St. John's Eye Clinic. The clinic is world famous for the treatment of Glaucoma, Cataracts, traumatic eye injuries and rare tropical diseases. All built and maintained by white taxpayer's money. Baragwanath in 1978 employed 450 medical doctors in full-time service. It treated 112 000 in-patients and 1.62 million out-patients per year. The children and infant death rate with 34.8 per 1000 was lower than Harlem in New York. In 1982 alone, this hospital performed 898 heart operations of world quality. Ironically, 90% of the blood donors for this hospital were whites, who donated blood free of charge, totally voluntarily to save black lives. (Quoted from The Citizen, 2 April 1987). In my time at school and as a student, the Red Cross or St Johns Ambulance would come to our white schools, universities, colleges and even our workplaces to solicit for blood donations. All we got was a cup of tea and some biscuits. Regular blood donors would get a lapel pin and would wear it proudly at work or university.
Today the blacks want the whites to apologise for "the evils" of Apartheid. They want compensation. They have been compensated R30,000 each after the TRC , but it is not enough; they want more, they want blood, but we have already given them our blood. We already saved millions of black lives with our blood donations during Apartheid. How do you put a price on our blood that we donated ? How do you put a price on black lives saved by white blood ? As you can see dear reader, the blacks of South Africa are eternally indebted to us whites, not the other way around. We owe them nothing, they owe us big time.
The description perfectly fits what we see on Australian TV when they talk about the Black South African townships. And like many, we didn't ask any questions and accepted that all Black South Africans lived in the same squalid conditions. The reason for this is our own comparisons with the Australian Abo (and I expect the Americans have the same opinions from their own natives and media sources). Just like in South Africa, Whites are charitable and they donate and build everything the Abos will ever need; but then in no time at all the Abos destroy everything they have been given and in the blink of an eye they have returned to the squalor of the South African
townships squatter camps. Makes the Blacks in South Africa seem almost human by comparison.
(http://l.yimg.com/ea/img/-/110818/160811genhomeless8_174oe2k-174oe2l.jpg?x=292&sig=QXgBloPApZSejFs6AkEz3g--)
They call it a "housing shortage" but it's all about them being unfit for civilised conditions. Still, I say give them sovereignty, give them all the short term funding and assistance they need, close the borders and then leave them sink or swim.
Delenda est Abo.@Cailen.
Part 10 – District Six - A Case Study In Forced Removals
By Mike Smith
When one today thinks about Apartheid forced removals, immediately Sophia Town in Johannesburg (blacks) and District Six in Cape Town (coloureds) springs to mind. We will take District Six as a case study. Today one is up against a mind set of people who wants to believe that District Six was a Multicultural paradise where, mostly coloureds, some Indians, some whites and also a few blacks all lived in harmony and perpetual bliss. They believe that the evil white government destroyed a happy go lucky community and forced them onto the Cape Flats, mainly where Mitchels Plain is today. To tell the truth about District Six today will be a revolutionary act. Firstly a bit of history. Where is or was District Six ? Well if you stand with your two legs in the water of Table Bay and you look towards Table Mountain, District Six would be on your left side at the slope of Table Mountain, just above "The Castle". Today the Cape University of Technology (Zonnebloem campus) stands on part of the area.
The origins of District Six is like this. Many moons ago during the Dutch and later British rule, it uses to be a farm called Zonnebloem. After the abolishment of slavery throughout the British Empire (1833) coloured people started squatting on the outskirts of Cape Town against the foot of Table Mountain, because they still wanted to work for the whites, but when they were slaves they were housed by whites, but as free people they now had to find their own houses. Two areas of freed slaves developed in Cape Town in what is called, "The Bo-Kaap" and "District Six". The Bo-Kaap was mainly a higher classed Muslim area and District Six, although also having a lot of Muslims, was made up from other coloureds of lower social standing. Now it has to be remembered that the Cape Colony only introduced official building regulations in 1861. By that time, 28 years of indiscriminate building by coloureds, resulted in a slum area developing in Cape Town's District Six that was getting worse with every day passing. There was no proper sewage or running water infrastructure in those days. In no time, District Six became an overcrowded slum, with narrow alleyways between jumbled together structures.
Here one has to consider that building rules are largely there for safety and health reasons. Windows need to be of a certain size to allow fresh air and natural light in. Rooms need to be a certain height. Every human being needs a certain amount of breathing space to prevent diseases such as Typhoid, Tuberculosis, etc from breaking out (as is the case in overcrowded concentration camps). Streets need to be a certain width so that ambulances and fire trucks can reach emergency situations. The coloured people from District Six knew nothing of such "trivialities". They just kept on adding more structures made from wood and corrugated iron sheets. This phenomenon can still be observed when one visit coloured areas today. No sooner have they received a house from the government for free, or they start building a "hok" (shack) in the backyard. Some have even multiple shacks or what is called "Wendy Houses", low quality wooden dwellings. These shacks and Wendy Houses are rented out and provide the owner with an income. Some even set up shebeens (illegal, informal drinking bars) in their backyard.
In the case of District Six it was exactly like that. Some of these people had several such shack dwellings that they would rent out and became what is referred to as the "Slumlords" of District Six. Most houses were small, some consisting of only one room housing as many as 20 people. The toilet was in the back yard and washing comprised turns in the bath tub in the kitchen or washing oneself in a "kom", a plastic bowl filled with some hot water. Once a week was enough. Further, In District Six started what is today referred to as the "Skolly gangs", coloured hooligans, who preferred a life of crime, drinking and drugs over honest hard work. By the 1930's District Six was a rat infested hellhole full of shebeens, "smokkelhuise" (smuggling houses) and brothels, where, alcohol and drugs flowed freely and sparked more and more social ills. The government realised that something had to be done about District Six before an epidemic of bubonic plague or cholera could break out that would have killed thousands. The government knew the history of the three smallpox epidemics of 1713, 1755 and 1767. The smallpox epidemic of 1713 killed about 90% of the KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and about 25% of the whites of Cape Town.
The University of Cape Town has all the archives in their library. It is called The Denis Verschoyle Papers. Denis Verschoyle, an Irish immigrant, was a City Engineer and Town Planner in Cape Town. From 1961 to 1972, he lectured on the history of town planning in the School of Architecture and Planning at the University of Cape Town. He died in 1997. The information is today freely available to anyone who wants to know the truth about Cape Town planning and in particular, District Six. Basically Mr. W.S.Lunn who was city engineer in the 1930's had a plan. He wanted to transform District Six. He wanted to build proper houses with proper infrastructure and so, started building houses by the beginning of the Second World War, a total of 1127 homes had been built. But the coloureds did not want to move into the new houses. They claimed the rent was too high, but the rent was actually subsidised by the government (i.e.) White taxpayer money and very affordable. This a coloured culture for you. They always seem to have money for drugs and alcohol, but never for rent or utilities. Why pay rent and electricity when you can live for free in a shack and burn candles and have more money for alcohol ?
Eventually some did move into these houses, but as usual the backyards started being filled with illegally erected structures. Today the coloureds that lived in District Six have very fond memories of a period when alcohol flowed freely, Dagga was smoked and every second person could play a musical instrument. Their memories of District Six are basically, party every night. I do not dispute that they were very happy there. Like I said, in reality the place was a nest of social ills, it was dirty and it was a health risk, a ticking time bomb in actual fact. But how does one convince a pig that wallowing around in crap all day is bad for him, when he is so happy at doing it ? When one takes the pig away from his crap puddle, washes him off and let him live in a clean orderly place, he will be most distraught and upset with you. He will forever have fond memories of his crap puddle, where he was happy. No amount of explaining will ever convince him of anything else. So how did these memories of such a harmless and convivial District Six take root in the minds of coloureds over the years ?
Basically the newspaper called "The Cape Times", in an attempt to save District Six, ran some articles in the 1950's focussing on the music and culture of the people, painting everything rosy and saying nothing about the social ills, the gangs, the brothels, the alcohol and drug abuse or the rats. In 1966 the National Party declared District Six to be a 'White Group Area' so enabling them to destroy all buildings, except religious ones, on the grounds of 'slum clearance'. The government moved about 60,000 people from District Six to the Cape Flats at a cost of 30 million Rand including compensation. In 1970, the government renamed the area Zonnebloem after the original Dutch farm. They offered the land to investors to rebuild it, but no investors showed interest to rebuild the area, so the Government built the Cape Technikon Zonnebloem campus there. In District Six, there is a museum today that documents this period in an extremely biased and subjective way. It says that about 60,000 coloureds were forcibly removed from District Six to the Cape Flats because of the colour of their skin. It fails to mention that the coloureds of the Bo-Kaap are still living there and so are the ones from Observatory. If the government wanted to remove the coloureds from District Six, because of the colour of their skin or to take their "prime" land, why did they not also move the Bo-Kaap coloureds ? The Bo-Kaap is situated in the centre of Cape Town on prime property and worth billions. Why did the government not build millionaires villas in District Six, but instead chose to build a learning institution ? The simple truth is that District Six was everything from an eyesore, to a filthy slum, to a gang and rat infested hellhole.
The government in those days employed highly qualified health inspectors. One of them who were involved with the destruction of District Six told me how they went in there, saw rats the size of cats and millions of cockroaches half a foot long, how they had to board up these building structures first, fumigate them before they could destroy them, because they feared the plague would spread to the rest of Cape Town. Today the ex residents of "District Six" are a dime a dozen. Although only 60,000 were moved today the "survivors" are probably double that if not more. The "victim mentality" has fully taken hold of these "ex residents of District Six", but what they forget is about 40,000 whites were also forcibly removed from their land to make place for the Black Homelands. These whites have never been properly compensated for losing their farms that they had to sell way below market value to the government at the time, but they simply got on with life and made a living somewhere else. District Six was a case study in this issue, but the same can be said for places like Sophia Town where Blacks were also removed. Large concentrations of people from whatever race, who overcrowd and indiscriminately build with no planning, will always, pose a health risk not only to themselves, but also to their neighbouring communities.
Today they complain about forcibly being removed, but what was the alternative - Death by epidemic proportions ? They should be thankful that they are still alive today to yarn swap about their times in District Six, because if they carried on the way they did, disease would have wiped them out for sure. The irony is that they cannot see the truth. They see the NP government as a bunch of racists who wanted to exterminate them, but if that was the goal of the NP, they could simply have done nothing and waited for the bomb of disease to explode. No, the NP did everything in their power to avoid it. They actually saved thousands of coloured lives and entire future generations, along with their music and culture in District Six with their removal to the Cape Flats. Today it is easy to reminisce about the banjo playing, alcohol and dagga clouded times of District Six, but when you are a professional government with a job to do, to protect all your citizens, the picture is rather different.
Another good article from Mike Smith. Thanks Reverend Maritz. 8)
Part 11– Bantu Education Under Apartheid
By Mike Smith
If Communists value and care so much about education, why do they kill off the educated elite as the first thing they do in taking over a country ? From Stalin's purges to Mao's "Great leap forward". From Cuba to Cambodia, the first thing the Communists do when they take over is to kill the academics and educated elite in their millions. In Cambodia they killed about 2 million alone. People were killed for simply wearing glasses, because if you could read, you were already too clever. That alone should convince anyone that communists have never and will never give a toss about education. In fact the worst enemy of the communist is the educated person. The entire system of communism is depended on a dumbed down, uneducated and unemployed proletariat (the sheep). Today the Bantu-Education Act of 1953 is highly criticized http://www.disa.ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_displaydc&recordID=leg19531009.028.020.047, (http://www.disa.ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_displaydc&recordID=leg19531009.028.020.047,) called "racist" and "discriminatory". I wonder how many of those critics have ever read it through, because I have and I still challenge anyone to point me to the discriminatory part. Yet it is today held up as one of the main reasons for the resistance against Apartheid as well as the violence of the student's uprisings of 1976. Its critics are the usual gang of liberals, culture relativists, humanists and racial egalitarians, but their criticism holds no water. If one scrutinises the Act as posted above, one will see that the act established a black education department, basically gives the minister of education along with the minister of finance the right to fund the black government schools in a way they deem appropriate, that the government holds the right to determine the medium of instruction and that the minister of education can consult and establish black school councils on how to run the schools and what to teach.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. As I said in part Seven of this series, the duty of the government was not and is not and will never be to provide schools (or any other infrastructure) to anybody. The role of the government is to protect the citizens against the initiation of force. That is it ! For the rest of the part, they should keep their nose out of the business of the people. Government schools are actually a form of initiating force. It steals our money, it locks our children up with criminals, gangsters and drug dealers every day, it teaches them socialist doctrines, dumb them down incapable of rational or logical thought, and it falsifies our history. But people like schools, because they think schools do good. Nevertheless the NP government taxed whites almost to death to provide schools for blacks. During Apartheid schooling was made compulsory for all children up to 16 years of age. But apart from the actual Bantu Education Act of 1953, that nobody ever reads, and just believe what they find in Wikipedia about Apartheid Education, how did it actually work ? As I have pointed out during this series, whites and blacks have huge cultural differences between them. Whites and blacks have huge religious and language differences between them. Would it not be fair that blacks be instructed in a way that is more suited towards their cultural and religious needs ? If one takes the road of the racial egalitarian and culture relativist, one would destroy the culture of the blacks, destroy their language and religion. Cultural Relativism destroys all cultures. Racial egalitarianism destroys all races.
And that is all Bantu Education was. It acknowledged the cultural and religious differences of whites and blacks and seeked to educate both groups along those cultural lines. Surely it would be wrong to force the stories of Snow White and Goldilocks down the throats of black children. How do they relate to Repunsel with here long hair when blacks have peppercorns or afros ? It would be far better if they learned their own songs, their own culture and their own stories of how the zebra got its stripes. The same with white children. It would be far better to teach them about their own poems, songs and books. Blacks and whites have different heroes, different values, different everything. Blacks needs to be educated in a different way than whites. Blacks have a natural, affinity to music, dance and colourful art. Should one have destroyed that and forced them subjects that they do not like, do not understand or should one have taken their natural talents and improve on it ? When someone says that the Bantu Education system was inferior to that of the whites, then that person either admits that black culture is inferior or that whites are superior. They will then have to explain what they mean by inferior. Inferior to what ? Relative to what ? Maybe High Western civilised education ? If they say that educating blacks along black cultural lines is inferior to educating whites along white cultural lines then I have to ask you, who are the real racists here, liberals or Nationalists ? There were thousands of blacks during the time of the National Party who made it to university and for those provisions of tertiary education of world standard was provided. Ten black universities in SA and the homelands in total. Today one just has to look around to see how many medical doctors, nurses, lawyers and judges there are in South Africa who got their education under this exact "Bantu Education" system of the National Party. It was not inferior at all. If one accuses any of these graduates of having a substandard degree or education, one would be insulting such a person.
One has to remember that blacks in South Africa had no schools, no written language no basic arithmetic, nothing, prior to the white man came to Africa and through their missionaries started educating blacks. African societies placed strong emphasis on traditional forms of education well before the arrival of Europeans. Education involved oral histories of the group, tales of heroism and treachery, and practice in the skills necessary for survival in a changing bush environment. The European styled English and Afrikaans/Dutch curriculum placed no value on such skills. It would have been morally wrong to force such a European system on the blacks of South Africa. Today there are many who wants to quote and say that the NP wanted to purposefully keep blacks stupid and who selectively quotes what suits them http://africanhistory.about.com/od/apartheid/qt/ApartheidQts1.htm (http://africanhistory.about.com/od/apartheid/qt/ApartheidQts1.htm) , but when one look deeper and see the truth behind the bullsh!t and the proof of the pudding then the picture is rather different. In an article called "Die Afrikaner" 11 Feb 1987, the quarterly magazine called "Vox Africana Nr 29 4/87 stated that, South Africa had 4,8 million whites and 18,2 million blacks in 1987. The whites paid 77% of the taxes and the blacks only 15%, despite this, 56% of the government budget was spent on blacks. Today it is often quoted that, "Per-capita government spending on black education slipped to one-tenth of spending on whites in the 1970s". http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/56.htm (http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/56.htm) What everyone fails to say is that, since 1970 the budget for black education was raised by about 30% per year every year. More than any other government department. In the period 1955 -1984 the amount of black school students increased 31 times from 35,000 to 1,096 000. 65% of black South African children were at school compared to Egypt 64%, Nigeria 57%, Ghana52%, Tanzania50% and Ethiopia 29%. Amongst the adults of South Africa, 71% could read and write (80% between the ages 12 and 22). Compare this to Kenya 47%, Egypt 38%, Nigeria 34% and Mozambique at 26%.
In South Africa, the whites built 15 new classrooms for blacks every working day, every year. At 40 children per class it meant space for an additional 600 black students every day ! In 1985 there were 42,000 Blacks at 5 universities in South Africa, about the same amount at the universities of the homelands. Another example of "Bantu Education is the unique medical university of MEDUNSA that I mentioned in Part 5 of this series. Here the whites trained black medical doctors, dentists, veterinary surgeons and paramedical personnel to world class standards, at full state costs. About 200 black medical doctors were qualified here every year, thanks to the "oppressive" Bantu Education system. Source: (Verrat an Südafrika, 1987, Klaus Vaque). In my search to find the true reasons for the 1976 Soweto School riots, I found that most sources say that the riots was because of Afrikaans being forced to be taken as the medium of instruction. Why this vilification of Afrikaans ? The truth is that if one looks at the original decree one will see that both English and Afrikaans would be used on a 50-50 basis. Once again we see how Afrikaans has been vilified over the years. I can still understand to a degree why the blacks would object to Afrikaans or English, but what I cannot understand is why the coloureds of Cape Town, who only spoke Afrikaans or English, would also boycott and riot.
Here is the original decree ...
Northern Transvaal Region
"Regional Circular Bantu Education"
Northern Transvaal (No. 4)
File 6.8.3. of 17.10.1974
To : Circuit Inspectors
Principals of Schools : With Std V classes and Secondary Schools
Medium of Instruction Std V - Form V
1] It has been decided that for the sake of uniformity English and Afrikaans will be used as media of instruction in our schools on a 50-50 basis as follows :
2] Std V, Form I and II
2.1. English medium : General Science, Practical Subjects (Homecraft-Needlework-Wood- and Metalwork-Art-Agricultural Science)
2.2 Afrikaans medium : Mathematics, Arithmatic, Social Studies
2.3 Mother Tongue : Religion Instruction, Music, Physical Culture
The prescribed medium for these subject must be used as from January 1975.
In 1976 the secondary schools will continue using the same medium for these subjects.
3] Forms III, IV and V
All schools which have not as yet done so should introduce the 50-50 basis as from the beginning of 1975. The same medium must be used for the subjects related to those mentioned in paragraph 2 and for their alternatives.
Your co-operation in this matter will be appreciated.
(Sgd.) J.G. Erasmus
Regional Director of Bantu Education
N. Transvaal Region
Further, one has to remember that the National Party government always insisted on "Mother Tongue Education" for all races during the primary school period. It was official government policy. Further note how Afrikaans and English would only be used for Mathematics, Science and technically skilled subjects. The rest would still be mother tongue. But why would they want to introduce Afrikaans and English in these black schools to instruct subjects like mathematics, science and metalwork ? Well, the problem is that blacks simply never had any words for objects they never knew; they borrowed Afrikaans and English words to describe technical things. The word for Scissors is "Iskêra" from Afrikaans (skêr). The word for knife is "Imêsi" from the Afrikaans word (mes), etc. Can you imagine trying to explain the replication of a DNA molecule to a black student in Xhoza ? Can you imagine explaining the parts of a lathe to black students studying metalwork or woodwork ? If you are going to use 90% English words, you might just as well do the entire thing in English or Afrikaans for that matter. A lathe is a dangerous piece of equipment, people can kill themselves. The other reason I found that blacks objected to was the maximum age of school attendance. Whites would finish school at 18 or 19. Blacks on the other hand would be 18 years old in grade 7 or 25 years old in matric (Grd 12). They also started later at the age of 8 or 10. Then they expected the whites to just keep on paying for this. Then they cannot understand why less money was spent on them than on whites every year. Not only were they 5 times more than whites, they flunked so much that they spent an average of an extra five years at school. The irony of it all is that the Indian journalist Prega Govender wrote an article in the Sunday Times of 22 October 2006, telling how black students at school were taking English as their first language at school, dropping their own mother tongue as second language and replacing it with Afrikaans, which they found easier. These students either dropped their own mother tongue completely or relegated it to "Third Language status".
Now I ask you, "What were all those riots in 1976 for ?" The whites of South Africa made a big mistake. They should never have introduced "Bantu Education" to the blacks. They should never have taught the blacks anything. It was not their responsibility to educate blacks. If blacks are so good, then they should educate their own people. They should build their own schools, universities, and colleges with their own money, their own initiatives and their own know-how. They should go for it. I wish them nothing, but luck. For our efforts to educate the blacks out of stone age and into the modern era, we were vilified and stoned, even killed by. We were cursed at, spat at and blamed for everything else. The alternative we see today is the socialist "Outcomes Based Education and Traning" system, where "nobody fails", "Everyone passes", "Pass one; Pass all" is the ridiculous slogans and demands nowadays. Little black boy in a group with whites and coloureds dragging their marks down and raising his own merely through his presence, but hey, they all pass, right ? What is the problem ? http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/school-system-a-timebomb-1.469833 (http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/school-system-a-timebomb-1.469833) http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/zero-pass-rate-at-four-kzn-schools-1.469736 (http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/zero-pass-rate-at-four-kzn-schools-1.469736) "Liberation before education" was the slogan during the Eighties. Have the communists succeeded in their goal ? Have they dumbed down the blacks and most whites ? A few pockets of free thinkers remained who are today blowing the horns. People are waking up from their liberal and socialist sleep. The ANC keeps singing their lullaby, but everywhere the horns are blowing and more and more people are waking up. The ANC knows their days are numbered. Bantu Education made them clever enough to realise that.
Part 12– The Architects Of Apartheid
By Mike Smith
Today when one asks, "Who was the Architect of Apartheid" one would almost unanimously get the answer of "Dr. H.F. Verwoerd". It is today taught in schools and all over the internet as "fact". The saying goes that when you want to beat a dog, it is easy to find a stick. Today the Afrikaners and Boers, are bearing the brunt of this accusation as "The Creators, and or the Monsters of Apartheid". Now some Afrikaners would proudly accept that title as the inventors of a system of segregation called Apartheid and as I have said, they might even try to patent this model, but do they actually have a claim to it ? When one does the proper research one will find that the segregation policies that eventually became known as "Apartheid" was actually not started by the Boers/Afrikaners but by the British High Commissioner Lord Alfred Milner between the end of the Second Anglo Boer War and unification of South Africa in 1910. Milner started a group called his "Kindergarten" made up of civil servants close to him. Why, you ask ?
In those days and especially in 1905 the subject of "The Native" question and the "Asian menace" first came up when the Cambridge Anthropologist, Alfred Haddon, addressed a meeting between the "British Association for the Advancement of Science" and The South African Associations. (Source, A Commonwealth of Knowledge, Science, Sensibility, and White South Africa 1820-2000, Saul Dubow). Sir Godfrey Langdon, author of "The South African Native Affairs Commission report", urged Howard Pim to outline an overall scheme of racial segregation. The official report from those days is called, "Report of the 75th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 1905 (London, 1906"). Lord Milner was an arch racist who had some serious dualistic problems. He described himself as a "Race Patriot" in a letter to Haldane, 21Jan. 1901, "Very Confidential", in Headlam(ed.), Milner Papers, ii.206.
Milner had no time for the Boers and many times tried to slight them on their characteristics – for example he said that the Boers can continue to fight a guerrilla war for a while, "just as low types of animal organisms will long survive injuries which would kill organisms of a higher type outright..." (M van Wyk Smit, Telling the Boer War"). Milner could not synchronise his hatred for the Boers, their "Backwardness" as he described it, with the countless defeats of the British and the superiority of the Boers on the battlefield. In those days the post Anglo Boer war British Government of South Africa were hoping to erase differences between Boers/Afrikaners and the English speaking South Africans. They thought it would be only a matter of time before these two groups would fully merge. The "Selbourne Memorandum" of 1907 opens and speaks of these two principal races of South Africa - British and Dutch – to overcome their historical differences. The memorandum declared that both groups were "Teutonic in origin" and that the fusion between them would only be a matter of time as it was with the Saxons and the Normans who were distantly related.
The Selbourne memorandum said that there were more differences between the people of Ireland or Canada than there were between the Boers and the British of South Africa. Basically, the idea before the Unification of South Africa in 1910 was to unite the two white tribes and separate them from the blacks. Two of Milner's "Kindergarten" group, Lionel Curtis and Patrick Duncan confided in each other, "The fact is that we have all been moving steadily from the Cape idea of mixing up white, brown and black and developing the different grades of colour strictly on the lines of European civilisation, to the very opposite conception of encouraging as far as possible the black man to separate from the white and to develop a civilisation, as he is beginning to do in Basutoland, on his own lines." (Patrick Duncan Papers BC294C23.3.8, University of Cape Town, Manuscripts and Archives, Curtis to Duncan, 26 Nov 1907). The term applied to this British strategy was called "Segregation". The Afrikaans word for it would be "Apartheid".
As can be seen so far, the idea of Apartheid came from various sources. The Whites of South Africa, whether it be Boer or Brit had an intimate knowledge of the blacks of South Africa. It was basically a common consensus that Whites and Blacks have to be separated. We all ... black and white ... wanted Apartheid. This can be seen from the aspirations of the Sothos and the Swazis who wanted their own kingdoms where they could preserve their own culture, language, religion and where they could rule themselves. The Tswanas who got Botswana is another example. Therefore we are all guilty of the so called "Crime of Apartheid". There is absolutely nothing wrong with any nation who wishes to secure and preserve their way of life. There is nothing wrong with any nation wishing to live in peaceful harmony with their neighbours. Segregation, Apartheid or Separate and Equal Development was a unique concept, wished by all South Africans, both Black and White. Nobody has to feel guilty about it today. It was our country and we had to find a solution where we could all be happy with and live with each other.
Today the critics of Apartheid are numerous, yet nobody have produced a better model for the unique South African situation. The current "Rainbow Nation" model has proved to be an abject failure. The need for people to rule themselves and have a national identity is the most natural system on earth. It is called Nationalism. We have seen this need amongst the Basks and the Catalonians of Spain, the Croatians, Serbs, Montenegros, etc of Yugoslavia, The Irish and the Scots of the UK, The Kurds of Syria and Turkey, The Ibos of Nigeria, The Hutus and Tsutsis of Rwanda, the Muslims in Chad, The Tamils in Sri Lanka, The Greeks and Turks in Cyprus, The Walonians and the Flemish in Belgium. This need to be separate is a worldwide phenomenon. Maybe Apartheid was not perfect, but show me a political system that is.
In South Africa we came upon a system that kept the peace and where we lived happily alongside with each other until the Communist agitators entered and disturbed our peace, where they played us off against each other after we have already fought all our battles and made peace with each other. We found our own solution. We found our own peace that was called "Apartheid", but the communist wanted the riches of our country and made us enemies again. South Africa will forever be a unique situation and only us, the blacks and Whites of South Africa will be able to find a solution we can all live with in the end. The solution for our problems will come from us who have shared this beautiful country for hundreds of years, not from outsiders who just want our gold and minerals.
Let me finish with a quote ....
"You do not want any reforms; You want my country"
(President Paul Kruger to Lord Alfred Milner - 31st May1899, shortly before the outbreak of the second Anglo Boer war)
Part 13 – The Apartheid Laws On Mixed Marriages
By Mike Smith
One of the first and most criticised laws of the "Apartheid" era is the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act No 55 of 1949. This law, along with the Immorality Amendment Act, Act No 21 of 1950; amended in 1957 (Act 23) made it illegal to marry or have sexual relations with other races. Many people today believe that this act was introduced by the now hated Afrikaner dominated National Party, but that is simply not true. As early as 1685 Dutch Cape law prohibited marriage between white men and slave women; some legal unions of white men with free women of colour continued to take place, but with decreasing frequency. The predecessors of the "Apartheid" laws on mixed marriages were the Immorality Act [No. 5] of 1927, and the two laws of the Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek (Transvaal) of 1897, called law no. 2 and 3 -- 1897, "Wet tot tegengaan van deontucht," (Law prohibiting sex between whites and blacks.)
There were some other laws namely the Cape Colony law no. 36- 1902, "Betting Houses, Gaming Houses, and Brothels Suppression Act," which prohibited voluntary sexual relations for the purpose of gain between white women and Africans. In Natal : No. 31-1903, "Criminal Law Amendment Act," prohibited indecent relations between white women and coloured persons (sec. 16); coloured were defined in the "Vagrancy Law" 15-1869 as "Hottentots, coolies, bushmen, Lascars, and members of the so-called kaffer population." Orange Free State : No. 11 -- 1903, "Suppression of Brothels and Immorality Act," sec. 14-16. Transvaal : No. 46-1903, "Immorality Ordinance," similar to Natal, but with harsher punishment and with a very broad definition of "native" as including natives of the indigenous or coloured races of Africa, Asia, or St. Helena. The Rhodesian "Immorality and Indecency Suppression Act" (by Cecil John Rhodes's British South African Company) made illegal and punishable sexual relations between a white woman and a black man (but not those between a white man and a black woman). South Africa was by far not the only country to introduce a ban on mixed marriages. Neither were the Germans with the 1935 15 September : "Nürnberger Gesetze" prohibiting interracial sex and marriage between "Aryans" and "Jews" in Nazi Germany; "Gesetzzum Schutz des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre" and "Reichsbürgergesetz," Reichsgesetzblatt 1146. Germany actually banned interracial marriage in German Samoa as early as 1912. A Spanish royal decree in 1805 required that persons of "pure blood" obtain permission of the viceroy or the audiencia in order to marry "elements of Negro and Mulatto origin." 5 April 1778 : The "Order of the Council of State forbade all marriages between whites and blacks in France, on penalty of being expelled at once to the colonies."
In 1771 The Viceroy of Portuguese Brazil ordered degradation of an Amerindian chief, who, "disregarding the signal honours which he had received from the Crown, had sunk so low as to marry a Negress, staining his blood with this alliance." In 1724 French edict (of March) by Louis XV banned intermarriages between whites and blacks (but not whites and Indians) in Louisiana; this special Code noir for Louisiana also prohibits whites "or freeborn of freed blacks" to live in concubinage with slaves; article 6 says : "Défendons à nos sujets blancs, de l'un et de l'autre sexe, de con-tracter mariage avec les Noirs, à paine de punition et d'amende arbitraire; et à tous curés, prêAtres ou missionaires, séculiers ou réguliers, et méme aux aumôniers de vaissaix de les marier." ("We forbid our white subjects of either sex to contract marriage with blacks, under threat of punishment and fines; and forbid all clerics, priests, or missionaries, lay or ordained, and even ships' chaplains, to marry them.") http://www.redboneheritagefoundation.com/Chronicles/interracial_marriage_timeline.htm (http://www.redboneheritagefoundation.com/Chronicles/interracial_marriage_timeline.htm)
In fact, between 1913 and 1948 (The year the NP government came to power in South Africa) laws prohibiting miscegenation were enforced in 30 of the 48 states of the USA and continued until 1967)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws)
The question of miscegenation is a bit of a red herring. On the one side there are the Bible experts that are split into two groups fighting amongst themselves. One group quotes reams of text explaining that God prohibits marriages outside of our race. Their equally Biblical fanatical opponents declare that we are "All one in Christ". I am always sceptical of people who build their entire argument on what the Bible says. As I have explained before, the only job of a government is to protect all its citizens against the initiation of force. The question thus arises whether laws against miscegenation are the job of the government ? How is the decision of two consenting people to mix their race any business of the government or anyone else ? They are not attacking anyone, they simple love or lust after each other. Pretty harmless at first glance if you ask me, but this issue needs to be looked at deeper. We have to go back to the basics of nature. Most simplistic arguments that one hears is that " a cat and a dog does not mix", but the truth is that a black dog can mix with a white dog and more specific a Labrador can mix with an Alsatian. A Persian cat can mix with a Siamese cat, etc. In nature we see many closely related species that can interbreed, but do not. The Black Wildebeest and the Blue Wildebeest in Africa can interbreed, but in the wild, they do not. It is only when they are forced together in small game reserves that they do and have to be kept apart. The reason for this, the game wardens explain is, because the offspring of this miscegenation is a weak result, prone to diseases of all kinds and weakening both herds in the long run. This offspring is easily eaten by predators or taken out of the gene pool by disease. This is Mother Nature's way of ensuring the survival of the species as Darwin said. Similar cases can be made for the White and Black Rhino or the Kruger and Knysna Elephants as well as thousands of closely related bird species. The fact is that Mother Nature prefers to keep species apart to ensure their survival, the survival of all of them. Nature is Nationalistic and Nationalism is nature. It is true diversity, not make believe liberal nonsense that aims to destroy all species.
But how does this law of nature manifest itself amongst different human species or races ? Between 1946 and the enactment of the Apartheid law to prohibit mixed marriages in 1949, only 75 mixed marriages had been recorded, compared with some 28,000 white marriages. That is about 0.23% of all marriages in the country and relatively insignificant. It shows that we still prefer our own kind to breed with, the way nature intended it to be. The formation of "China Towns", Negro ghettos, Muslim and Jewish communities in European countries is a testimony to this perfectly natural phenomenon. We do not actually need laws to keep us apart, we do not need laws prohibiting us from interbreeding. Nature takes care of this in its own way. It is when we want to play Mother Nature and set the laws for Nature that she comes back and hits us over the head. Our greatest mistakes that we ever made were to interfere with Mother Nature. We think we are clever, we think we can reroute rivers and build levies and dykes, but the time will come that Mother Nature will return everything to the natural state of being. We think that we can force different species and nations together and force them to interbreed under unnatural Socialist captivity, but sooner or later Mother Nature restores the status quo with disastrous results. The break-ups of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda in recent years are case studies in point. We do not seem to have a problem with the separation of Blue and Black Wildebeest after hearing the explanation of game wardens, yet the separation of different human species is regarded as "Evil"...even "A crime against humanity"....The fact that genetically black diseases such as Sickle Cell amenia and Lupus are transferred to children is of no concern to the liberal brigade. The lifelong suffering of such children is sacrificed at the politically correct altar.
When a married couple with small children have a divorce, the courts are quick to point out that their major concern is the welfare of the children involved, but when it comes to marrying adults of vastly different ethnical and cultural backgrounds, no consideration for the wellbeing of the future offspring is produced. Children from such unions suffer their entire life. They never have a complete identity. They never feel as if they fit in anywhere. They are never considered as "White", neither are they ever considered as "black". They are torn between two worlds. Even when they decide to fully embrace one side of the union and identify with it, they will never fully be accepted by that side. In the six thousand years of recorded history there have been about 25 great civilisations. Just about every single one has disappeared due to miscegenation with lesser races. These are the stark realities that previous white governments were faced with. Was it moral to legislate interbreeding ? Yes, certainly. The prevention of interbreeding of different cultures and races means the protection of those cultures. It means securing their continuation and their future. The Liberal doctrines of Multiculturalism and Racial Egalitarianism are illogical paradoxes; the end result is not the protection of different cultures and races, but the destruction of all. It leads to no culture, no Race, No religion and no identity. Can you imagine a world where there is only one type of flower in the entire world ? Can you imagine only one type of plant; only one type of food; only one type of car; only one type of music; only one style of dress code ? That is what the end result of Communism is. We have seen this kind of influence from various communist states already. Mao Ze Dong introduced "The Mao suit", a unisex black or blue dress code that was worn by millions of Chinese. That was his sick vision of a communist world. In East Germany you basically had one type of car, the Trabant, maybe a Warburg if you were lucky, but you had to wait years for a car. That is what Liberals and Socialists proudly call their unholy paradox of "Diversity" today.
During Apartheid, very few people actually had a problem with the prohibition on mixed marriages or the immorality act. The Indians, the Chinese, the Muslims, the Jews, the Greeks or the Portuguese never actually complained, because they saw it as a way of protecting their cultures and their way of life. Only the blacks and the coloureds objected to these laws. One cannot blame them for wanting to breed with whites, because it is a natural phenomenon supported by Darwin to select superior genes for your offspring. Therefore the desire of coloureds and blacks to breed with whites is an admission on their part that whites have superior genes. If they are so convinced about black superiority then they would select the best amongst their own. The Seal/Heidi Klum, O.J.Simpson/Nicole, Tiger Woods/Elin Nordegren, Alan Boesak/ Elna type relationships are testimony only to the inferiority these men feel about their own people and about themselves. In their desire to be with white women and produce children with them they acknowledge their own inferiority and the inferiority of their own women. It is clear that the LWB`s (Liberal White Bitches) who married these so called successful blacks had only money, status and limelight on their agendas, but every single one eventually came face to face with the degenerate criminal streak inherent in the black genes. It would actually be amusing to know what black women think of these race traitor men of them, because as soon as they have a bit of money, they buy themselves a white whore that no respectable white man will even touch with a barge pole.
Coming back to the South African situation, we have to decide whether the laws of Apartheid was justified. Did it succeed in protecting all the citizens of South Africa ? Here we have to consider short term and long term goals. In the short term the laws of Apartheid ensured relative safety and peace between various races and cultures that can not be equalled by the current ANC Marxist terrorist regime. In fact if it was not for the insurrection of the communist agitators, we would still be living in peace and harmony with each other today. In the long term ? Well the proof is in the proverbial pudding. All the different tribes of South Africa with their diverse cultures and languages are still largely intact and with us today. We have to thank the policies of "Mother tongue education" at least in primary school level and separate, but equal, development. If the argument is to promote and protect diversity then Nationalism has passed with flying colours and honours. My original question therefore still stands, "Whether laws against miscegenation are the job of the government ?" Personally I believe that mother nature will take care of this. The only law we need in this respect is the law of nature. In formalising a natural law, the NP opened themselves up to attack. All things considered one can understand their rationale as a professional government wishing to protect all of its citizens, irrespective of their diversity. They have fully succeeded in that.
In South Africa amongst the Afrikaners we have a special family, a special paradox, called the Breytenbach brothers. On the one hand we have Colonel Jan Breytenbach, Commander of the crack South African Defence Force, Special Forces known as "The Recces" (Recognisance Unit). He was also commander of the most decorated unit namely "32 Batalion" (Buffalo soldiers, mainly black unit with white officers fighting communists). He was also commander of the 44th Parra Brigade. A finer soldier on the face of this earth will be hard to find. On the other hand we had his brother, Breyten Breytenbach. He fell in love with a French/Vietnamese woman and was not allowed to live with her in South Africa. Breyten Breytenbach is one of our best poets and novelists. He went to France and founded an anti Apartheid organisation called Okhela. He planned terrorist attacks against white South Africans and tried to re-enter in 1975, but his own ANC Marxist buddies who did not trust him sold him out and he spent 7 years in prison for high treason. Breyten Breytenbach, a victim of the mixed marriages act, is your typical liberal useful idiot who still do not know where he stands. The one moment he praises the ANC and the next he criticises them. Recently he declared that we are all coloureds of various degrees, we are the "Rainbow nation" after all. Problem is that the ANC on all their government forms still insist on us declaring our race, because they allocate Affirmative Action quotas and BEE contracts to non-whites. So if we are all so "Coloured", what is the problem ? When can we start to insist on our AA and BEE rights ?
Part 14 – Scapegoating Apartheid To Steal Our Country And Our Wealth
By Mike Smith
There are several reasons why South Africa had to be given over to the ANC Marxist terrorists; Apartheid was not one of them. Compared to human rights abuses in Islamic and Communist countries, Apartheid was actually mild. By 1987 just about all the Apartheid laws were abolished, but the world still kept sanctions and boycotts against South Africa. It becomes clear that the "Struggle against Apartheid" was nothing more than a deception by international power players to get their hands on the treasure chest of the world, namely South Africa.
There were mainly three reasons to conquer South Africa by any and all means :
1) South Africa is the richest country in the world when one considers the mineral wealth beneath its soil
2) South Africa was a Nationalist state and therefore a rock in the way of globalists.
3) The strategic sea route around the Cape of Good Hope was in the hands of these Nationalists.
Just before the outbreak of the Second Anglo Boer war, "Human rights abuses" was used as a stick by British imperialist to get their hands on the wealth of the Boers. This excuse would be repeated again fifty years later in 1948 to vilify and demonize the whites of South Africa and more specifically the Afrikaners as the creators of the evil system of "Apartheid". This term was created by the media. The official policy of the government was "Separate and equal development". In the previous chapter, I showed clearly that the Afrikaners were not the architects of Apartheid neither where they the only ones who practiced it, yet countries with far worse human rights records hypocritically installed a full spectrum of sanctions against South Africa. Whenever I think about the demise of South Africa, I think about lions and hyenas fighting over the carcass of a dead Springbok. Once they have eaten themselves full, they leave the rest for the vultures (the ANC) to pick off.
But why would the entire world gang up against four million whites at the Southern tip of Africa ? The reason is that South Africa possesses the mineral wealth that can make it a superpower in the world. In the 21st century the mineral wealth of South Africa will surpass the oil wealth of the entire Arabic region. Many of these minerals are critical to the Western weapons industry. Therefore the Soviet Union wanted their hands on these minerals so that they could first of all have control over all the mineral wealth in the world, and secondly so that they could deny the West these strategic minerals and in doing so win the cold war. The West could not let this happen. They could not let the Communist control the mineral wealth of South Africa and in doing so cut off the jugular vein of the Western world and at the same time control the strategic sea route around the Cape of Good Hope. If the Communists were allowed to control South Africa they could form a mineral cartel similar to that of the OPEC oil cartel and could close the tap on the West whenever they felt like it. South Africa possesses 93% of the world's Manganese, 83% of the Platinum, 61% of the world's Vanadium, 63% of the Gold, 29% of all the diamonds, amongst many others. The Communists knew that whoever controlled the strategic Cape sea route also controlled a jugular vein of the Western economy. About a quarter of the West's oil comes around the Cape. On average 70 ships round the Cape of Good Hope every day. That is about 25,000 ships a year with a Brutto Registered Tonnage (BRT) of 550 million tons. (Welt am Sontag, special edition May/June 1986).
By now the reader is probably asking himself why the West would have sanctions against a pro-western, anti-communist country such as South Africa. Not only would they cut off their own jugular, but also that of neighbouring Southern African countries that depended on the harbours of South Africa for their exports of ore. Is it really believable that the West would risk suicide because of a system such as Apartheid ? Why would the West support a Marxist terrorist organisation such as the ANC, whose goal always was to make South Africa a member of the Communist world ? The answer to this we will only find when we see the onslaught against South Africa in a holistic, global strategic way in which the West and the East had common goals. In his book, "The War on Gold", Dr. Anthony Sutton writes that the reasons for the onslaught against South Africa had very little to do with human rights issues or the internal politics of South Africa. That was all just propaganda for the war on Gold. Dr. Sutton adds that Henry Kissinger, who left the prosecution of political dissidents in the USSR untouched, would also not be touched by the welfare and concern about voting rights for blacks in South Africa. Professor Sutton adds that the war on gold was orchestrated from Wall Street who also financed the Bolshevik Revolution. These diabolical International financiers want a "New World Order", a one world government of "Dollar Imperialism" under Wall Street control under which the USSR would only be a technical and economic colony of the United Nations. (See "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Dr. Anthony Sutton).
The independence and sovereignty of any nation is a stumbling block in the way of people who wants a one world government with a single currency, a world police force and a world army. The UN delegate Andrew Young, after a visit to Windhoek, Namibia told journalists that a Communist Angola or Namibia would not bother the USA in the least, because such countries would always be an easy market for goods from the USA. The payment would always be in the form of mineral concessions that the enslaved nations would be required to work for. Today the colonisation of Africa is made out to be the enslavement of blacks, but this is simply nonsense. The colonisation of Africa meant advancement for blacks. A better living standard, education and peace like they never experienced before. It is the Decolonisation of Africa that means slavery to these blacks. Never before in history has blacks been so much exploited and enslaved as after decolonisation. None of the colonial powers such as France, Belgium, England, Portugal or even the Whites of South Africa have ever exploited the blacks of Africa as much as the High Financiers are doing today. These Third World countries are de facto the property of high finance groups who make their currencies into worthless paper and any loans in US dollars have to be paid back in the form of mineral concessions.
This neo-colonisation of Africa by Wall Street is thus hitting two birds with one stone. Firstly they get their paws on the mineral wealth of the country and secondly the country sacrifices its independence and sovereignty in the march to a one world government. A strong, independent sovereign and White South Africa that possessed the largest Gold reserves in the world and, next to the USSR the largest reserves of strategic minerals, therefore became a gigantic rock in the way of these global financers and their planned Socialist World Government. A corrupt black, Communist government is much easier manipulated than a professional and strong incorruptible white government. Neither the Western financers nor the Communists ever give anything away for free. All the weapons and money the ANC received from the Communists and the West needs to be repaid now. Further the ANC takes on massive projects such as building of (low quality) houses for blacks, acquiring weapons such as frigates, submarines and fighter jets from Europe to a country that is not at war and at peace with all its neighbours. Soccer stadiums are built that will become white elephants in no time. They set up Socialist schemes such as the "All-pay" system of paying grants to unproductive and lazy blacks that breed more unproductive and lazy blacks. They give out contracts for new types of driver's licenses, passports, etc.
All of these government schemes are contracted out to companies owned by the top brass of the ANC and needs to be financed from somewhere. The Western financiers are only too glad to grant them loans of billions of dollars that ends up straight in the pockets of ANC fat cats such as Tokyo Sexwale and Patrice Motsepe. At the end of the day this money needs to be paid back by the white taxpayer, the enslaved milk cow of the ANC. It is therefore in the interest of the ANC to prevent the whites of South Africa to find out the true extent of the theft and rape of the country that is currently being perpetrated under their noses. It is in the interest of the ANC to paint a rosy picture of a rainbow nation and dumbing whites down into believing all is well in South Africa, because they cannot afford all the whites to leave the country as more than a million of the four million whites have already done. But the Global Financiers are not really bothered about how many whites leave South Africa. In fact the sooner they leave the better, because the moment the milk cow runs away, the sooner the ANC will have nothing to repay the financiers and the sooner they will start pawning off the mineral concessions of South Africa. The problem is that they did not reckon with the tenacity of white South Africans who love their country and who do not want to or can not leave. These whites stay and work themselves to death to appease the ANC hoping that it will be enough to ensure their continued existence in a country that is going to the dogs. They do not realise that they are persona non grata in South Africa. The chess game starts to become a bit clearer once they realise that the end solution is to get rid of all whites in South Africa. If the whites do not want to leave willingly then they should be terrorised into leaving through violent house invasions, rape, torture, and farm murders. The final solution will be an all out, full blown genocide of white South Africans. That is why we see this playoff of racial tensions between white and black South Africans who are all too ignorant to realise that they are just white and black pawns in a chess game that they do not understand and where the wealth of South Africa is the prize.
Unless whites leave South Africa to the last man, they will soon become the targets of impatient global financiers who are using the blacks as their instruments to get their hands on our mineral wealth by any means. It has nothing to do with racism or human rights; it is just business as usual for the financial elite of the world. Many will say that the mineral wealth and the marine resources of South Africa was not the property of the Boers to start with, that it belonged to the blacks all along, but that is devoid from any truth as I have explained so far in this series. The Blacks and the Whites were contemporary settlers of South Africa. The Boers discovered the gold and the diamonds that the blacks were sitting on and did not even value. The law of "Finders Keepers" therefore prevails. Blacks never extracted any gold from ore. The blacks did not eat fish because they have a fear of the ocean and never even had dug-out canoes. The whites of South Africa started mining and fishing on a commercial scale and therefore have full claim to these resources. The selling out of whites and the treason by their own leaders who were collaborators of these global institutions such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Tri-Lateral Commission will be dealt with in future posts.
Part 15 – Smuts And Rhodes' "World State"
The history you will read below is denied to most students today at school, but relatively freely available to people who are willing to do the research and make the connections. Today we find many so called "Conspiracy theorists" who speak of a "World State" and those who try to make them off as nutters, even in the face of hardcore proven facts and evidence. Most of the time truth and facts are all we need to see and understand what happened to South Africa. The idea of a "One world government" with a one world army and police force under the UN, might be familiar to most readers who are observers of world affairs and who can see that we are daily tiptoeing towards a Communist totalitarian state. What most people do not know is that since Machiavelli first rolled the ball and proposed the basic idea of world government and rule without scruple of justice or humanity, the ball was picked up in South Africa by team mates Rhodes and Smuts who ran with it. In order for us to understand why Apartheid was scapegoated to hand South Africa over to Marxist Black terrorists; how South Africa became the skunk amongst nations, why the Western Capitalist as well as the Communists and every man and his dog ganged up on us, we have to look at events holistically. We need to see the roots, the trunk the branches and the position of the tree in the forest. We need to see the position of the forest in the country, the country on the continent, the continent in the world and the world in the universe.
It is only then that we will understand why South Africa had to go and why Dr. H.F. Verwoerd, who saw himself as an "unmovable piece of granite" was assassinated. A good point to start with is the idea of "Holism" or the man who coined the word "holistic" namely General Field Marshal Jan Smuts. Today when one speaks to black people in South Africa one would soon hear that they do not really mind racists, because they say, "At least we know where we stand". With Liberals it is a different story. Helen Zille of the DA has tried her entire life to win the support and respect of the blacks, but I can assure her it will never happen. In Credo Mutwa's book, "My People" he says that blacks do not trust liberals. Blacks never know where they stand with liberals who are nice in front of them, but try to shaft them behind their backs. Blacks of South Africa have an immense respect for President Paul Kruger, but they have no respect for Jan Smuts, and with good reason. Jan Smuts advocated racial segregation for most of his career, but after loosing the election in 1948 to the National Party he changed his tune and issued the Fagan Report. The main recommendation of the commission's report was that influx control of African people to urban areas should be relaxed.
During the Second Anglo Boer War he led Boer troops in the Transvaal under Koos De la Rey who were supplied by the Germans, but afterwards in the First World War he turned against the Germans and Koos De la Rey and fought on the side of the British, with General Botha annexing the German Colony, German South West Africa, now known as Namibia and commanding the British in German East Africa. Smuts was a bright character. He graduated from Stellenbosch University with honours in Science and Literature. He then studied many subjects at Cambridge in England amongst other things, Law. Back in Cape Town he became a lawyer and journalist for the Cape Times. He also became friends with Cecil John Rhodes, who owned the De Beers mining company, and became his personal law advisor. When Rhodes launched the Jameson Raid in 1895-96 Smuts was furious and felt betrayed by his friend and employer and subsequently left De Beers to go to Johannesburg. Again Smut's erratic behaviour came to the fore. At first he fully supported Rhodes' expansionism policies, but suddenly was its biggest opponent. After the war, Smuts was instrumental in drawing up plans for the unification of the two Boer Republics of Orange Free State and Transvaal and the two British colonies of Natal and the Cape that happened in 1910.
Smuts created the South African Defence Force and served on the British Imperial war cabinet during WW1 as well as WW2. He also helped to create the Royal Air Force. He was a signature at the treaty of Versailles and a proponent of The League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations. After WW2 Smuts worked day and night to draw up the charter for the new United Nations. Smuts had a driving force and personal philosophy called "Holism" defined as "the tendency in nature to form wholes that are greater than the sum of the parts through creative evolution". One biographer ties together his far-reaching political vision with his technical philosophy : "It had very much in common with his philosophy of life as subsequently developed and embodied in his Holism and Evolution. Small units must need develop into bigger wholes, and they in their turn again must grow into larger and ever-larger structures without cessation. Advancement lay along that path. Thus the unification of the four provinces in the Union of South Africa, the idea of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and, finally, the great whole resulting from the combination of the peoples of the earth in a great league of nations were but a logical progression consistent with his philosophical tenets." Smuts was seriously disappointed when at the first UN general assembly in 1946, India chastised him about his racial policies and the condition of Indians in SA.
Smuts' view of Africans was patronising, he saw them as immature human beings that needed the guidance of whites, an attitude that reflected the common perceptions of the white minority population of South Africa in his life time and in 1929 he justified the erection of separate institutions for blacks and whites in tones reminiscent of the later practice of apartheid. The United Nations would be one of the first double speak, Orwellian Newspeak names we will encounter, because the UN is an organisation that is suppose to keep peace, but their means is making war, an organisation that did not come to unite nations, but to destroy nations on its march to a one world government. But what about Cecil John Rhodes, Smuts' drinking partner before the Anglo/Boer War ? Rhodes got much of his ideas from John Ruskin, a "Do-Gooder" liberal arsehole who was famous for his impassionate championship of "the downtrodden masses". Funny enough, Ruskin's life ended with a mental breakdown as so often happens with La-La-Land Liberals who think themselves God-Like. Nevertheless Rhodes was a student of Ruskin at Oxford where Ruskin spoke of a "New Imperialism". He told his aristocratic students that to preserve their privileged lives they have to absorb the lower classes and that they have to extend it to the non-English world.
Rhodes was greatly influenced by Ruskin and when he arrived in SA, he had an idea and that was to make the entire Africa British or as he said it, "Paint the map of Africa Red (i.e. British)". More than fifty biographies were written about Rhodes, A university in Grahamstown South Africa is named after him, two countries (North and South Rhodesia) were named after him. (Today called Zambia and Zimbabwe).A massive memorial to him stands below the University of Cape Town. In his first will, Rhodes wrote his ambition was " extending British rule , throughout the world and founding so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the interest of humanity." Rhodes also set up a secret society called the Round Table based on the Jesuit model (Society of Jesus) and interestingly enough also the model that Adam Weishaupt of the Bavarian Illuminati adopted in 1785 and also used by the Communists. The model works on a principal of circles within circles where the inner circles knows more than the circles surrounding it. In the inner circle ("Circle of initiates") were Lord Rothchild, Sir Harry Johnston, Mr Balfour, and other personages prominent on the South African scene. The outer circle was called "the Association of Helpers" or as Lenin called them, "The useful idiots". We simply refer to them as "Liberals".
Another of Rhodes's legacies is the Rhodes Scholarship under which about a hundred young men are handpicked from the British empire, the USA and Germany every year to spend two years at Oxford University where they receive special instruction in world affairs, the object being so that, "after 30 years there would be between two and three thousand men in the prime of life scattered all over the world, each one of whom would have impressed on his mind in the most susceptible period of his life the dream of the Founder. Moreover each one of whom, would have been specially, mathematically selected towards the Founder's purpose". Prominent Rhodes scholars include Bill Clinton, actor/singer Kris Kristofferson, Edwin Hubble (Hubble space tellescope), film director Terrence Malik (The Thin red Line and Badlands) and feminist Naomi Wolf who wrote "The beauty myth". Lord Milner became the head of the Round Table in 1891 and surrounded himself with a group of young men called, "Milner's Kindergarten". Prominent members were, Phillip Kerr who held many positions in British South Africa, Lord Lothian, British ambassador in Washington and Lionel Curtis British Official and author who promoted a World State. He became the head of the Round Table when Milner died. Lord Lothian was the one who said that, "We should strive to build the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth". I find it amusing how "World State", "One World Government" proponents always claim that "Peace" and "Heaven" will come of their efforts, but in reality it just brings more and more war, suffering and death. Blacks in South Africa and Africa as a whole believe that they have aquired "Freedom", but all they experience is death and misery. As George Orwell said in "1984", "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength".
Part 16 - The Hidden Government
By Mike Smith
One of the basic strategies of war is to find and identify your enemy. If we want to know who the enemies of South Africa were and who constantly crucified us upside down at the United Nations for "The Crime of Apartheid", then we should open a few cans of worms and peek deep down the rabbit-hole. The attack against South Africa was never about the abolishment of Apartheid. It was about the destruction of all western systems of freedom and democracy. They wanted Western Capitalism to be replaced with Scientific Socialism. Most people understand the Communist attack on South Africa, but why the Western World also climbed in and kicked us while we were down is a bitter pill to swallow and difficult to understand. We were a pro Western, Capitalist, Nationalist and Christian country. Why would the Western World attack us ? Most people refuse to believe that the West can be bad. That the West can support Communism. "How can Capitalist leaders cut off their own necks"? they ask. Dr Carrol Quigley wrote a monumental work on the subject called, "Tragedy and Hope" http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf (http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf) and the entire text can be read online. Quigley was a highly respected professor at Princeton and Harvard Universities. He was the mentor of Bill Clinton who was one of his students. He was also professor of history at Georgetown University and did 25 years of in depth research before he wrote his book. I won't call such a great man a "conspiracy theorist" rather a realist who saw how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Here is an excerpt from his book "Tragedy and Hope" : "There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates to some extent in the way the Radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
About the same time of Rhodes's death in 1902, Smut's ideas of a Union of South Africa (that would destroy the two Boer Republics forever) and Milner surrounding himself with his "Kindergarten", Woodrow Wilson became the president of the USA (1913). He is often credited for his "Fourteen Point plan" and one of the drafters of the League of Nations, the forerunner to the United Nations for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1919.
The "Presidential Advisors"
The presidency of Woodrow Wilson saw the introduction of what is now called "The Presidential Advisers" who are still haunting the White House to this day. It is based on a Boer general namely Jan Smuts' ideas who was a traitor of South Africa, a collaborator of the "One World Government" who served on two British war councils during two world wars as an "Advisor". It started with a character called Edward Mandell House http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House) who was an American diplomat, politician, and presidential advisor. He was also a Marxist. Commonly known by the title of Colonel House, although he had no military experience, he had enormous personal influence with U.S. President Woodrow Wilson as his foreign policy advisor until Wilson removed him in 1919. In 1921 he founded the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) whose purpose was to communize and destroy the freedom and independence of the United States, and to lead the country into a one-world government. In 1912, House wrote the fictional book "Philip Dru : Administrator" in which he (Dru) was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." In this book, House planned the conquest of America, telling how both the Democratic and Republican Parties would be controlled, and be used as instruments in the creation of a socialistic government. In his fictional perverse mind, he leads the democratic western U.S. in a civil war against the plutocratic East, becoming the dictator of America. It is said that after President Wilson read the book "Philip Dru : Administrator" he had a stroke and pined into senility and his second wife became the de facto president of the USA for a while. Every single president of the USA since Wilson has read the book that Mandell House wrote. House also asked for the establishment of a state-controlled central bank which was also proposed in "The Communist Manifesto". In 1913, both of these proposals became law.
The Federal Reserve Act was passed, which brought into power a private central bank to create the money of the United States, taking this power away from the United States Congress. And the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, (graduated income tax as proposed by Karl Marx), was also ratified. In 1940, at the invitation of President Roosevelt, members of the CFR gained domination over the State Department, and they have maintained this domination ever since. More on this organization later. Another famous one of these "Advisors" was Bernard Baruch http://www.knowitall.org/legacy/laureates/baruch%20bernard%20m.html (http://www.knowitall.org/legacy/laureates/baruch%20bernard%20m.html) who was of German Jewish origin and advisor to six presidents of the USA over a period of 60 years. Baruch was also known as the "Park bench statesman". He preferred to do his business on a park bench, because he was well aware of bugging devices. During both World Wars he was ever insistent that "One man" become the head of an "Advisory Commission" to the Defense Council of which an investigating commission of Congress in 1919 said, "It served as the secret government of the United states". In 1935 he said something that shows what he had in store for the American people, "had the 1914-1918 war gone on another year our whole population could have emerged in cheap but serviceable uniforms", shoe sizes being the only permissible variation. Mr Baruch in those words revealed his vision of a future America : a faceless mindless mob allowed only to do labour, provided with identity numbers and bread cards - (The Grand design – Douglas Reed). Next up is Harry Lloyd Hopkins, an ulcerous type, intense, jittering with nerves, a chain smoker , black coffee drinker and the closest advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt. This Roosevelt era is quite significant, because it was at the end of WW2 that Mr. Hopkins and a guy called Alger Hiss gave half of Europe away to Communist at the Yalta conference. This period is probably the darkest days in the history of Europe and it will take generations to recover from the yoke of Communism.
This man Alger Hiss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss) would later be tried for treason, because he was a communist spy. Alger Hiss was also one of the founding members of the United Nations. Over the years we would see many more of these "Advisers", but probably the worst one of them all would be Henry Kissinger. Never before in history have humanity had a larger, more diabolical enemy than Henry Kissinger. After the United Nations were formed, we saw a series of "No-Win Wars" against communism, as Douglas Reed, British author, journalist and playwright calls it in, "The Grand Design" and "The Siege of South Africa". First one of these "No-Win Wars" would be Korea where American, British, Australian and Canadian troops would be sent to fight Communist who was supplied with aircraft, artillery and amour by "Advisor" Mr. Hopkins. South Africa, as part of the UN, also sent troops and pilots. It was all deception. When the successful American commander, MacArthur, wished hotly to pursue a beaten enemy across the Yalu River, President Harry Truman sacked the general. Korea was portioned off like Europe and Germany, and the Communists were left with the Northern half. These "No-Win" wars we saw through from Korea, Vietnam and Namibia, to present day Iraq and Afghanistan, where both sides are supplied with weapons and money from the same sides and profits are made on the corpses of Western White men. But let us look at some of these organizations that would play major roles in attacking us in South Africa and who supported Marxist terrorists with money, training and logistics. Prof. Quigley calls them "An Anglophile Network" founded out of the Round Table of Rhodes from South Africa. Scary to think that this spider web had its origins in South Africa of all places, but it is all true.
Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House)
The RIIA is a British think tank that absorbed Rhodes' Round Table and Milner's "Kindergarten" members. It was founded in 1920 and is part of the British establishment. Chatham House holds meetings at which members, discuss the on goings of world affairs. Over the years many famous statesmen have spoken to distinguished audiences at Chatham House. Recent notable speakers include Jack Straw (British Foreign Secretary) and the Palestinian Prime Minister. Its famous Chatham House Rule, when invoked, ensures confidentiality of all meeting participants. The rule currently reads as follows : "When a meeting or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".
Council on Foreign Relations
Prof. Carroll Quigley (who was a CFR member himself) writes in his book, "Tragedy & Hope" : "The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established." Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the CFR for 16 years, warned the American people of the organization's intentions : "The most powerful clique in these elitist groups has one objective in common — they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government." And Dan Smoot, a former member of the FBI Headquarters staff in Washington, D.C., summarized the organization's purpose as follows : "The ultimate aim of the CFR is to create a one-world socialist system, and to make the U.S. an official part of it." The CFR's activities are treasonous to the U.S. Constitution. Their goal is to destroy the United States of America, and to make the country a part of their global government scheme. It has to be further remembered that there are over 170 journalists, correspondents, and communications executives who are members of the CFR. The leaders of 'Time', 'Newsweek', 'Fortune', 'Business Week', and numerous other publications are CFR members. Its members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, 'The New York Times', 'The Washington Post', 'The Des Moines Register', and many other important newspapers.
The Trilateral Commision
In 1973, The Trilateral Commission was founded by David Rockefeller and Jimmy Carter amongst others. David Rockefeller is the head of the Chase Manhattan Bank (now called JP Morgan Chase). He is the grandson of J.D. Rockefeller who founded Standard Oil. The Trilateral Commission was kick started with a donation from the Ford-Foundation to work for the same goal : a one-world government. The Trilateral Commission's roots stems from the book, "Between Two Ages", written by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1970. In this book, Brzezinski praised Marxism, thought of the United States as obsolete, and praised the formation of a one-world government. Senator Barry Goldwater said this of the TC : "The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the U.S - David Rockefeller appointed Zbigniew Brzezinski to be the Director of the Trilateral Commission.
The Bilderberg Group
David Rockefeller is also a member of the Bilderberg group, a highly secretive international think tank who meets annually since 1954. This group, some believe conspires to foster global government. It was founded by Joseph Retinger, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Belgian Prime Minister Paul Van Zeeland. Bilderberg invites 100 (or more) of "the most powerful people in Europe and North America", for annual, closed door meetings at five star resorts. The group stresses secrecy : "What's said at a Bilderberg conference stays at a Bilderberg conference." http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bilderberg-group/ (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bilderberg-group/) Another prominent member of the Bilderberg group is Dr Henry Kissinger who was instrumental in the downfall of South Africa and a personal friend of Pik Botha, former Foreign Affairs and Information Minister of South Africa. You can read more and watch some interesting videos at the links below.
Bilderberg group http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bilderberg (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bilderberg)
The Tavistock Institute for Human Behaviour http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tavistock_Institute_for_Human_Behavior (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tavistock_Institute_for_Human_Behavior)
The Tavistock Institute
In his book Conspirators' Hierarchy : The Story of the Committee of 300, Dr. John Coleman, "a former intelligence agent of British MI6," discusses the The Tavistock Institute for Human Behaviour. (Founded in 1946 by a grant from the Rockefeller foundation). The Tavistock Institute developed the mass brainwashing techniques which were first used experimentally on American prisoners of war in Korea. Its experiments in crowd control methods have been widely used on the American public, a surreptitious but nevertheless outrageous assault on human freedom by modifying individual behavior through topical psychology. A German refugee, Kurt Lewin, became director of Tavistock in 1932. He came to the U.S. in 1933 as a refugee, the first of many infiltrators, and set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which originated the propaganda campaign to turn the American public against Germany and involve us in World War II. Coleman states that "All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal---to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the World Order. There are numerous other organizations at play in this global game that is marching us on to a One World Government. They all interlink and who all strive for the same goal, that of a one world government, but the major players at this poker game have been named and will suffice as far as this article stretches. This rabbit hole is unbelievably deep. The bottom of which we are still trying to find. It is only through an understanding of the position of South Africa and its White population in the context of these international role players and organizations that we will be able to understand why South Africa had to be handed over to black Marxist terrorist. It is not my aim to expose every single person or organization who is striving for this "One World Socialist Utopia". To me it will be sufficient if the reader can grasp and comprehend that the attack on South Africa had very little to do with our internal politics of "Separate, but equal development", today known as "Apartheid".
It was an orchestrated plan flowing down from the top of international globalists; both Communist and Capitalists, who saw South Africa as a major stone in the path of their march towards a totalitarian one world government. Not only did we have untold riches in minerals beneath the soil of or country, not only did we control a major shipping route around the Cape of Good Hope, but we were also a shining example of the success of Nationalism as opposed to the failure of Communism on the rest of the continent and in the rest of the world. Communism is such a useless self destructing system that primary school children can grasp the simplicity of its failures. Without massive financial support from the Western Capitalists it would soon self destruct and disappear down the toilet of political and economical ideas. The sick Frankenstein Monster of Communism is plugged into a lifeline from global bankers who ensures that their creation, their diabolical baby, survives. A good example is the two Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique. In Angola the Americans supported the mildly communist Dr. Jonas Savimbi of UNITA against the severely Communist MPLA government with money and "Stinger" missiles. In Mozambique the Communist FRELIMO were supported by the Chase Manhattan Bank of David Rockefeller. The opposition RENAMO, supported from South Africa was about to take over control in Mozambique at one stage, when David Rockefeller personally flew in to prop up the Communist FRELIMO Government. The effect of the carnage that took place in those two countries is still visible to this day. To us it will always seems like a Capatalist/Communist paradox, something that does not make sense. But Author Garry Allen in his book, "None dare call it Conspiracy" sums it up beautifully on page 32 : "If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."
Page 35
If you wanted to control the nation's manufacturing, commerce, finance, transportation and natural resources, you would need only to control the apex, the power pinnacle, of an all-powerful socialist government. Then you would have a monopoly and could squeeze out all your competitors. If you wanted a national monopoly, you must control a national socialist government. If you want - a worldwide monopoly, you must control a world socialist government. That is what the game is all about. "Communism" is not a movement of the downtrodden masses but is a movement created, manipulated and used by power-seeking billionaires in order to gain control over the world, first by establishing socialist governments in the various nations and then consolidating them all through a "Great Merger," into an all-powerful world, socialist super-state
Page 37
But the ultimate advantage the creditor has over the king or president is that if the ruler gets out of line the banker can finance his enemy or rival. Therefore, if you want to stay in the lucrative king-financing business, it is wise, to have an enemy or rival waiting in the wings to unseat every king or president to whom you lend. If the king doesn't have an enemy, you must create one.
And so my dear readers were an enemy created. That "Enemy" was "Apartheid" and the whites of South Africa who upheld it.
I wish you all the best in South Africa, from what I hear the farm murders are becoming an epidemic and of course the outside world completely ignores it.
What really makes me sick is Eastern European communists that think Mandela was a hero, they do not understand that African communism and it's bastard offspring American communism (although not nearly as far along, it is in the same vein) is of a completely different nature than the old Soviet bloc or Yugoslav style communism. African communism is blatantly kill whitey. Their theme song is "Kill the Boers". Eastern european communism was bad but not as blatantly racial or violent. They think it is like what their communism was and they are completely wrong. There are also a lot of American communists who have never heard of genocidal incidents like Zimbabwe. If whites in Europe knew what was going on in South Africa, socialism/communism would have a massive decline immediately.
The only way to spread the word of things like this is Youtube and other sites like it. If the masses of whites knew about this, not only would white countries be forced into trade sanctions (through massive public outrage) with South Africa, it would also shed light on the true nature of modern day communism in other white nations.
I sincerely hope White South Africa survives.
They know about it Brother Mikey, because they set it up. Nations like South Africa, America, Australia and New Zealand didn't have a peasant underclass that could be easily turned into Marxist slogan chanting, rioting mobs, so they used race as the catalyst for division. This undermined the White working class, creating a White underclass that is worse off politically, financially and socially than blacks in the same socio-economic class as they are. While blacks are guaranteed welfare, political support, education and training, and an easy going justice system, poor Whites have to fight tooth and nail to make ends meet while trying to avoid coming to the attention that same system that self indulgent blacks lavish upon themselves. The only Whites at that socio-economic that prosper within that system are those that choose to become race traitors knowing that they will be handed all the assistance they could ever dream about via their black wife or husband, and kids.
Meanwhile, as the White underclass grows more resentful and militant, the seeds for a violent Marxist are sewn ... or so the plan went. As time went on, governments became increasingly socialist - not a bad thing at all - but with each successive administration, each government also moved further to the Left of the political spectrum, until we reached the position we are in today, with so-called Right-Wing Conservatives lodged firmly in the Left. Hence my own argument that there is no Left and Right any more, there is only Extreme Left and Conservative Left.
Once you understand that, reread the most recent posts in this topic from Reverend Maritz by Mike Smith, and you will see that it is the same Marxist agenda in Eastern Europe as it is in Western Europe, albeit with different tactics. A win for the Marxists in Eastern Europe (at that time) simply meant that Marxists everywhere around the world gained powerful military and political allies that could work unashamedly in the open.
That is why White South Africa was destroyed. That once great nation was used by the Marxists as a moral lever to force allied - but less visibly divided - nations to mount the moral soapbox and thereby hasten their own destruction.
Cui bono? The International Elite of course. International financing with its slave holding corporations controlled by militant Jews, Kosher-Christian Whites firmly in the Zionist camp, and - by default of being the only remaining Marxist contender - the Red Chinese.
Like I said before, all of the information is contained here - in much more detail - in this topic. I am just a
little more blunt at getting the same message across.
@Cailen.
Part 17 – The Banking Conspiracy
By Mike Smith
I was going to jump to the UN and show how SA became a skunk amongst Nations, but in the light of new evidence in the form of admission and confirmation from none other than ex Foreign minister Roelof Frederik (Pik) Botha about the role of international banks ganging up against South Africa during the National Party government, I thought it appropriate to explain in more detail how huge international banks manipulate countries. I have also received some requests to explain the methods used by bankers. Kindly note that I am not anti Capitalism in exposing these bankers. Quite the contrary, I am in full favour of laissez faire capitalism, but one has to distinguish between genuine free market capitalism and that of manipulative high finance Mega-banking monopolies.
"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
(James Paul Warburg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg) Appearing before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 7th February 1950. He was an international banker, a member of the CFR and financial advisor to F.D. Roosevelt)
I must admit that when I started this series, I knew I would sooner or later end up at a point where I had to address the influence of powerful international think tanks such as the RIIA, the CFR and the Trilateral Commission in bringing down South Africa and handing it over to a black Marxist terrorist regime. I knew the time would come that I would have to address the role of Mega Bankers and how they financed the communist revolution in South Africa. I knew the time would come where I would be slammed with the epithet of "Conspiracy Theorist". I thought hard about how to address this issue. It is like being labeled a "Racist" when you speak the truth. In this case it is the same. There is however only one way to counter the lies and propaganda of these communists and that is with hard facts and the truth.
So along came Mr. Pik Botha who was the minister for foreign affairs as well as Information during the last years of Apartheid (1977-1994) and affirms everything I and so many other writers have discovered. Last Sunday (6th of June 2010) he wrote an article in Rapport, the Afrikaans Sunday paper, titled "Die land wás op pad na ekonomiese verwoesting" (The country wás on its way to economic ruin). In this article he affirms how the Chase Manhattan Bank of David Rockefeller wanted to call in all loans to the SA government. He further affirms his year's long friendship with Dr Henry Kissinger, that still continues to this day, and how he asked Kissinger to intervene with the Bank. Kissinger phoned him back 04h00 in the morning and told him that it was too late, there is nothing he could do and in fact the other banks were going to do the same thing. They were going to overnight ruin the economy of South Africa. It was only due to a rescue package from a Swiss Banker called Dr. Fritz Leutwiler that saved the country. Every person who has done an in-depth study of how Apartheid was brought down comes to the same conclusions, the same discoveries, the same organizations, the same banks and the same names.
The internationally acclaimed journalist Aida Parker back in the Seventies published a series of articles in "The Citizen" called, "Secret War on South Africa". This was a revolutionary move on her side. These well researched articles were so hot that she was forced to resign shortly after that and start her own edition called "The Aida Parker Newsletter". She came to exactly the same conclusions about the CFR, the RIIA, the TC and gigantic oil, industrial and banking concerns as well as international media corporation who wants to introduce "a world government or "Super state". The German author Klaus Vaqué in his book "Verrat an Südafrika" dedicates an entire chapter (Ch. 5) to the conspiracy of the Bankers against South Africa. Eustace Mullins in his book Secrets of the Federal Reserve (1952) tells the story of a few New York bankers who met on the evening of 22 November 1910 at the Hoboken train station, New Jersey. They were to board the train and their destination was the exclusive Jekyl Island Hunt Club on Jekyl Island, Georgia that belonged to the J.P. Morgan bankers. This group of bankers are known as the "Aldrich group" after Republican senator Nelson Aldrich who would lead the commission. With him was three bankers, Frank Vanderlip of the then mightiest bank, "National City Bank of NY", to whom the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Company also belonged. The other two were Henry P. Davidson of J.P. Morgan Company and Charles D. Norton, the president of "First National Bank of New York". One other person who was part of this group was Paul Moritz Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb and Company. He was the principal representative of the European banking family, The Rothschilds. These men left for Jekyl Island, not to go and hunt, but to work out a law that would be treason to America and would give these bankers control over the money of the USA. This law is called "The Federal Reserve act" of 1913. They waited until 23 December 1913 when most congress representatives would already be on Christmas holiday before they passed this bill (signed by Woodrow Wilson) through congress and got it approved. On this day ended the American constitution and the freedom of Americans were handed over to a handful of bankers.
How the Bankers make money out of War
Every government spends more money than they get in taxes. They use this for big projects such as dams, roads or simply for free handouts. This money is then borrowed from these big banks and the taxpayers pay the money and interest back. It is thus in the interest of these bankers to drive up the debt of a country, because more debt means more interest. Nothing drives a country deeper in debt than a war. So if the banks want to make money, they just support the enemies of the state to initiate war, whereupon the state then borrows money from the bankers to fight this war. It is quite common for these bankers to finance both sides of the war. How many people dies in these conflicts means nothing to them. The first harvest for these bankers came three years after passing the Federal Reserve Act at the end of the First World War, and because it worked so well, they built in the start of another World War into the Treaty of Versailles. The Vietnam War could have been won within months if the generals were allowed to do their job. Ten years and 58,156 dead American soldiers later the only ones who won were the bankers. Today many people believe that Communism is a movement of suppressed masses who are fighting against the exploitation from their employers. Nothing is further from the truth. Most people know that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia came in (Oct) November 1917, but few knows that the Tsar already abdicated in March, seven months before that. At that time there was an interim, provisional government run by prince Lvov, moulded on the American model. Unfortunately Alexander Kerensky a Socialist revolutionary succeeded prince Lvov. He then lifted a ban on all communists that were previously banned under the Tsar and so allowed 250,000 communist revolutionaries to re-enter the country.
When the Tsar abdicated, Lenin and Trotsky were in exile in Switzerland and the US respectively. At that time the Bolsheviks were no real power in Russia. Lenin was sent all across Europe in his sealed train and had about $5-6 million of gold with him. It was arranged by the German High Command, Max Warburg and Alexander Helphand. The father-in-law of Max Warburg's brother, Felix, namely Jacob Schiff of Kuhn Loeb & Co also helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution. According to the newspaper "Journal American" of 3 February 1949, Jacob Schiff donated $20 million dollars to the Bolsheviks. Mr. Bakhmetiev, the last Russian Imperial ambassador in the USA said that the Bolsheviks transferred more than 600 million rubles to Kuhn Loeb & Co between the years of 1918-1922. As we can see, the revolution never comes from the oppressed masses it comes from the top down or from the outside in. It is financed from high power and finance institutions. No war just breaks out spontaneously, it is carefully orchestrated. Not only did these bankers support the Communist, but they also kept them alive for decades. It is all documented in the work, "Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development", by Dr Anthony Sutton. Everything the Soviets ever had has been acquired from the USA. One can say the Soviet Union was "Made in the USA". It does not matter whether a hundred million people died under Communism and 2 Billion are still enslaved under the Communist yoke today, it was a small price to pay for a future world government. The methods used by these bankers are one of power play. They tell governments to toe the line or they will send the communists. They do this in Thailand, in Greece and they did the same in South Africa. There is a way to defeat these communists and bankers, but more on that in a later edition.
In South Africa these bankers supported the communists, because they knew that when the natives would start getting agitated and started revolting, the White people would try to appease the aggressors, by building them free houses, schools, hospitals, play parks etc. The more the Whites built the more money they needed, so they borrowed it from the international banks. The more the blacks were stirred, the more they demanded and the deeper the country got into debt. At the same time South Africa was fighting a prolonged war on the Angola Namibia border, had sanctions and embargoes against her and was losing a propaganda war at the United Nations and world media. This tactic eventually becomes a vicious spiral until the point where these banks can literally bankrupt a country or a currency as we have seen recently in Greece and with the Euro. Such is the strategy of appeasement and why it will never work. The Beast is insatiable and there is only one way to stop its appetite for destruction; cut off its head. Another technique they use is the one of "Angst". The German word "Angst" is also in the English language, but it is hard to explain. It is something German people are very aware of, because their entire lives are based on it. Nobody is as "ängstlich" as Germans. It is a condition of constant worrying and fear combined with anticipation and finding solutions. It is a technique used very well in the insurance industry. The more they can make you think and worry and fear, the more money they can make out of you. Inventing risks and fears where none exists is their game and we pay them just so we can sleep better at night. One of these fears was the threat of nuclear war with the USSR during the Cold War that never existed. As Henry Kissinger once said, "The world's superpowers will never make war on another; The European Socialists are too dumb to understand that. The Soviet Union is too badly prepared for it..."
This Soviet incompetence and bad preparedness was so well illustrated when a West German teenager named Mathias Rust flew a light aircraft from Finland through a supposedly impregnable air defence system, all along a railway track in Russia and landed on the Red Square in Moscow. It led to the firing of several senior Russian officers including the Defence Minister Sergei Sokolov. Today the Russians maintain that Rust was tracked several times, but they never received an order to shoot him down. Nonsense ! They will never admit that they were outsmarted by a 17 year old boy. Another example was the Russian aeroplane in which the Mozambiquen president Samora Machell died. An independent international investigation pointed out that bad maintenance of the aircraft and the incompetence of the pilots who got lost and did not stick to the flight plan (probably drunk from too much Vodka) were the reasons for the crash over South African territory, but hey, you can always count on a communist to blame everything on big, bad, South Africa, as they did. This technique of using angst is playing on our worst fears and used to great effect by the communist and international banking elite to get us to pay. Even our fear of the dark is being exploited as with ESKOM shutting down and blacking the country out. Eskom proposed a 35% increase in electricity tariffs and got from Nersa (National Energy Regulator) 25% in 2010 on top of a 30% increase in 2009 and a 28% increase in 2008. And the sheep just accepts it all without as much as a bleat, because they are scared of the dark.
Today in the absence of The Soviet Union and Apartheid, new enemies should be created and fears exploited so that the bankers can make money and keep us enslaved. Our fear of suffocation is used to perpetuate lies about "Greenhouse gasses", our fear of drowning is exploited to lie about "melting ice caps" and "global warming". Our fear of terror lurking behind every bush (no pun intended) is used to fight "Al Qaida" for the control of the world Opium trade, our fear of prison or economic ruin is preventing us from speaking the truth and doing something about the killing of our people in South Africa, and so I can go on ... fear, fear, fear. These fears were used in South Africa to great effect. Apart from Black and White fearing being wiped out by another, we feared financial collapse as Pik Botha tried to tell us then and is telling us now. We feared the "Swartgevaar" (Black terror) and the "Rooigevaar" (Red Terror). We feared everything from world isolation to being caught out on camera by Leon Schuster. Nevertheless, fear is an acronym in the English language for "False Evidence Appearing Real". It makes the wolf appear bigger than he actually is. But it is through knowing the truth and exposing their methods that we will fear no more and laugh in the faces of these manipulators, because when we fear something we give it power, and that I refuse to do.
Quote from: Br.Mikey on Tue 21 Aug 2012I wish you all the best in South Africa, from what I hear the farm murders are becoming an epidemic and of course the outside world completely ignores it
Thanks; much appreciated. The farm murders are reaching the outside world in the last year or so, but the world wont react.
Quote from: Br.Mikey on Tue 21 Aug 2012What really makes me sick is Eastern European communists that think Mandela was a hero, they do not understand that African communism and it's bastard offspring American communism (although not nearly as far along, it is in the same vein) is of a completely different nature than the old Soviet bloc or Yugoslav style communism. African communism is blatantly kill whitey
American communism is picking up speed at an alarming rate - I am amazed how asleep the Whites are over there !
Quote from: Br.Mikey on Tue 21 Aug 2012I sincerely hope White South Africa survives
Oh we will, or die in the process - make no mistake about that. South Africa is not zimudwe; we have a different breed of Whites here - it`s always darkest before the dawn !
Quote from: Rev.Cambeul.PM on Tue 21 Aug 2012Like I said before, all of the information is contained here - in much more detail - in this topic. I am just a little more blunt at getting the same message across. Pontifex Cambeul.
A good book to read is "Verraad teen Suid Afrika" (Conspiracy Against South Africa) - this is where most of the info comes from. This book was a real eye opener to me when I read it some 17 years ago - geez, I`m getting old.
Part 18 – Hypocrisy At The United Nations
By Mike Smith
In an excellent article Citizen Kane, occasional contributor to the South Africa Sucks blog gave an accurate account of who and what the United Nations Organization actually is, namely a communist front. I will therefore not duplicate what he mentions in his article, but simply underline it. What I want to highlight in this article is the hypocrisy of nations uttered at this communist platform against South Africa and how South Africa was turned into "A skunk amongst Nations" as Les De Villiers mentions in his book by the same name. Les de Villiers who has a masters degree in linguistics was a journalist and diplomat in Canada and headed the South African Information Services in the USA for five years. What irked him the most was the double standards of nations represented at the UN general assembly and the hypocrisy with which they slagged off South Africa and its human rights situation. It was in 1960 that the Afrikaans Newspaper, "Die Burger" first took stock of South Africa's position in the world and called it, "Die Muishond van die wêreld" (The skunk of the world). It was Cicero who said, "When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff". Judging from how SA was treated at the UN from 1946 to 1994 it is clear that the UN had many students of Cicero. At the end of WW2 Jan Smuts led the SA delegation at the San Francisco Conference where the UN was found. Like I have mentioned before, Smuts was one of the main writers of the UN charter. He also served as Chairman of the General Assembly. Smuts was well respected as a statesman during both war and peace. In Article 2, paragraph 7 of the UN Charter it is stated clearly that the UN shall not intervene in matters which were essentially within the jurisdiction of any member state. Great was Smut's surprise when at the very first UN General Assembly in 1946, India insisted that the condition of Indians in South Africa be discussed. This is the same India who has a caste system of discriminating against their own people and who have major issues with Pakistan over Kashmir. Smuts found himself up against a stonewall of prejudice at the very organization he helped to create. At first there was only 51 states and from Africa only four, South Africa, Liberia, Ethiopia and Egypt.
After WW2 Africa was still mainly colonial, but during the fifties and sixties, Britain, France, Portugal and Belgium left Africa and the Communists took over almost all of their former colonies. Today there are 53 African states out of 192 nations represented at the UN and they all have the same vote as western countries. Out of the world's 195 countries only three are today not members namely, Kosovo, Taiwan and The Vatican City. Basically the UN is run by the Africans. Even Henry Kissinger admitted it, because the blacks only have to open their mouths with a loud tribal howl and an automatic two-thirds majority occurs, thanks to the support from the Communists and the Asian bloc. With this two-thirds majority, the African states rammed through dozens of condemnatory resolutions against Apartheid and South Africa and got Apartheid declared as a "Crime against humanity" in1976. Up until today, the UN General Assembly has not made any findings, nor have apartheid-related trials for crimes against humanity ever been conducted. In 1971 Communist China was welcomed as a member of both the General Assembly and the Security Council at the expense of Taiwan (Nationalist China). Communist China with a record of killing 25 million of its own citizens and till this day guilty of gross human rights abuses with a string of gulag death camps, forced abortions and killing 3000 pro democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square, is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. In 1972 they joined the pharisaical choir to get South Africa expelled from the UN.
If Apartheid and South Africa did not exist, they would have invented some other "Whipping boy", because how else could they have ignored what was going on in Ireland, Vietnam, Nigeria, etc ? During these days at the UN it used to become customary for the African nations to stage mass walkouts every time a South African delegate mounted the podium. This is a testimony to the tolerance blacks have to viewpoints differing to their own. Their argument was that blacks in South Africa led a "subhuman existence". But then, in 1961, the then foreign minister of South Africa, Eric Louw presented a factual comparison of the living conditions of blacks in South Africa compared to other African states. He proved that Blacks in SA had a higher per capita income, better educational opportunities, far superior medical and social services and altogether a higher standard of living than anywhere in Africa. How did the blacks respond to the truth ? The Black African states engineered a motion of censure against him (first of its kind) and his speech was struck from the record. Even "The Washington Post", who regularly criticized South Africa, noted : "Nothing that South Africa has done and nothing that its representatives said, justified the mob-like censure which the United Nations visited upon that country and its Foreign Minister, Mr Eric Louw." In 1973, The Mauritian ambassador, Radla Kirshna Ramphul piped up and said that South Africa could not be heard in the General Assembly until her credentials were approved and it became impossible for South Africa to fully participate in the UN. The next year, 1974, Bouteflika of Algeria took the presidential chair of the UN. Pik Botha, Foreign minister of South Africa who led a multiracial delegation mounted the rostrum to make a brief statement. Bouteflika's moustache twitched in disdain and he refused to recognize the presence of Botha. Botha responded by not congratulating him on his election to the presidency. It was clear, South Africa had no friends at the UN.
In 1974 came the call to have SA expelled from the UN. They voted 93 to 23 (14 abstaining) that SA was not fit for membership. "Voor in die koor" (in the front of the choir) was the Ugandan Foreign minister Elizabeth Bagaya, representing a country run by a cannibalistic dictator Idi Amin who became synonomous with oppression of blacks (the Lango and Acholi people) and the indiscriminate execution of dissidents. Between 100,000 and 500,000 people were brutally murdered in Uganda at the time. She hardly batted an eyelid in listing the alleged "Crimes" of South Africa. In that very same assembly, sat the Indians who gave Smuts such a hard time in 1946, seemingly unaware that Amin expelled all the Indians from Uganda. Nobody had the guts to object to this macabre performance. That nobody burst out laughing is beyond me. When India, Pakistan and Ceylon(Sri Lanka) were taking on Jan Smuts over their brethren in SA, he offered to pay for their repatriation to their home countries. A small group from SA took him on on his offer as an advance party, but soon returned telling their fellow Indians in SA to stay where they were, because conditions in their motherland were unbearable. Indians in South Africa at the time enjoyed a per capita income six times higher than that in India and towards the end of Apartheid on par with and sometimes higher than that of whites. These same Indians and the rest of the world who were slagging South Africa off about Apartheid at the UN seemed to be unconcerned about the 900,000 refugees who were fleeing religious persecution in India and Pakistan during the 1960's. They cared little for the 500,000 Indians thrown out of Burma, tens of thousands expelled from Uganda, or the thousands victimized in Kenya and Tanzania. Ten years before that Indonesia slaughtered tens of thousand of women, men and children of Chinese background, Many African countries have done worse, yet China and Russia, operators of their own Gulag Archipelagos voted to expel South Africa. Only the United States, Britain and France prevented the expulsion of South Africa in 1974, mainly because they realized that similarly Arab countries could gang up against Israel and expel the Jewish state. But the General assembly eventually had the final word, before the year was out they voted 91 to 22 (19 abstentions) to suspend SA from its deliberations. The Arabs supported the Africans in exchange to hold back on the Palestine issue. Barely days after the suspension of SA, the terrorist leader of the PLO, Yassar Arafat rocked up at the UN. He was welcomed by the Africans and the Arabs as a hero and Israel's freedom to speak at the UN was restricted.
In 1967 the UN Human Rights Commission decided to establish a special unit to investigate "allegations" of cruelty against prisoners in SA jails, while in Saudi Arabia according to the Anti-Slavery Society's report to the UN, slaves were still sold. The Society estimated that King Feisal and wealthy members held thousands of slaves. Gerald L'Ange of the "Johannesburg Star" was their when the resolution was adopted to throw SA out of the UN, but he said the Commission was thrown into discord when they had to deal with complaints of gross violations in eight countries. These complaints included mass tribal killings in Burundi, detention of 55,000 political prisoners in Indonesia, torture of hundreds of dissidents in Brazil, suppression of political rights in Iran, forged marriages in Tanzania, interrogation by torture of thirty people by the British Army in Northern Ireland and discrimination against Indians in Gyana. L'Ange pointed out that these eight cases were drawn from a list of 7,000 violations. When a proposal to investigate these cases more closely was made, it met stiff opposition from the Soviets, who obviously had a lot to fear about the treatment of their prisoners in the Gulags. In the same Burundi, who was mouthing off about racism in South Africa, the Tutsis were killing off thousand of Hutus. The retaliation in 1994 would lead to a genocide that the UN did not, could not and did not want to stop. The killings in the Sudan mounted to 100,000 a year. The Biafran war in Nigeria lasted 30 months and 2 million were killed and 5 million ended up in refugee camps. What did the UN do ? The UN chose to be observers. But when eleven rioting black mine workers were shot at a mine in Carletonville, South Africa, Kurt Waldheim immediately launched a full enquiry into it. But it was not only the Africa countries who were voting against South Africa. Prior to 1974 Portugal was always a friend of SA, but suddenly leftist post coup Mario Soares who capitulated Guinea Bissau and Mozambique to Communist forces rose in the General assembly and fiercely attacked South Africa in his "Volte-Face" (total change) speech under great applause of the Africans. At that stage, South Africa was handing blacks self rule (over a long term peaceful period) to full Black independence under democratic principles. Mozambique was plunged into a civil war that killed almost a million people and displaced 5 million.
At the General assembly of 1962 the Soviet Foreign minister, Gromyko, speaking from a home base littered with labour camps and harsh prisons, described South Africa as, "The veritable private domain of slave owners". The soviet minister's speech just happened about the same time of the erecting of the Berlin Wall, that trapped the East Germans under a Communist yoke, and South Africa giving full freedom and independence to the Xhosas in Transkei. In true Orwelian New-speak, freedom has become slavery and peace has become war. Israel for many years supported many of the black states and even donated money to the Organisation for Africa Unity (OAU). Then came the Yom Kippur War against the Arabs and overnight all of Black Africa severed ties with Israel. Her only real friends proved to be the USA, the Netherlands, Portugal and South Africa. For Israel it was a rude awakening. Yosef Lapide, who wrote for the Tel Aviv newspaper "Ma'Ariv" had this to say about Black African states : "Well, the so called liberated African states are, with a few exceptions, a bad joke and an insult to human dignity. They are run by a bunch of corrupt rulers, some of whom, Like Idi Amin of Uganda, are mad according to all the rules of psychiatry. I feel unburdened when I say this; I wanted to say this all these years, and all these years I had the feeling that we fool the public when, for reasons of diplomacy, we do not tell them that the majority of black African states are one nauseating mess". Lapide found that "The lowliest of Negroes in South Africa has more civil rights than the greatest Soviet author; The most oppressed negro in South Africa has more to eat than millions of Africans in "Liberated" countries." He further added that "The most rabid White extremist in South Africa will not treat Negroes in the way Negroes treated - and still treat - Whites in the Congo, in Uganda and in other African states." Lapide goes further, "The people advocating "progress", who were so worried about the rights of the majority in South Africa, have never raised their voices for the majority in Hungary or in Cuba, in Red China or in Egypt." "In half a dozen states - including Ethiopia - thousands of persons die every day of hunger, while the rulers travel by Cadillac and steal food that is being sent to aid their subjects." "Only in the sick minds of "progressives" do the babies die of starvation with a smile on their lips, because the ruler who starves them to death has a black skin." "For the life of me, if I must choose between friendship with Black Africa, as it is today, and friendship with a White state that is orderly and successful, and contains a blossoming Jewish community, then I prefer South Africa. The only pity is that we waited until the Blacks threw us out." – end of quote. Yes, such was the disillusionment of Israel.
However, no mention of the UN attack on SA would be complete without mentioning the Nordic Countries who also stepped to the front of this holy Black crusade against South Africa. The Whites in the South African government thought that they had an opportunity to present some facts to reasonable white people. How wrong they were. The South African government extended an invitation to the Nordic countries to visit South Africa at a time convenient to them, with every facility to go where they pleased and to meet whomever they wished. It was declined rather curtly. The African Nations were obviously not the only ones who lived in fear of hard facts about the South African situation. In 1973 Black African terrorist gathered in Oslo, Norway under UN auspices to plan strategy. A year later the "Special Committee on Apartheid" went on an expensive junket to publicize its efforts and to meet with anti-apartheid elements in churches, schools, universities and labour unions throughout Europe. Nevertheless, the Latin American countries, dubbed the African countries in the UN the "Aplandora" (the Steamroller). The UN is only a platform for black communist propaganda. In 1974 West Germany also applied for admission to the UN. She soon found out who exactly runs the show at the UN. West Germany was told to toughen her stance against South Africa if it was serious about being allowed in on the first vote. Chancellor Willy Brand obliged in his maiden address of the UN general assembly. He promised to support the UN resolutions aimed at getting rid of "The anachronistic remnants of Colonialism". In countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada it became fashionable for politicians to slag South Africa off just so they could win votes. At the UN every man and his dog was against us. We have to remember these lessons learned in those days when we are serious about having a country of our own one day. The UN will never allow a strong independent nation state to exist, let alone a white one, despite what the Charter says. Let us look at the Katanga episode as a Case study in point. The story is told in the book, "The Fearful Master : A Second Look at the United Nations" by Edward Griffin.
When The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) received independence from Belgium on 30 June 1960 Patrice Lumumba, a Gin drinking, dagga-smoking piece of communist scum became the prime minister and he told the King of Belgium at the official handover, "Nous ne sommes plus vos singes (We are no longer your monkeys)". Six days later black soldiers mutinied against their white officers and attacked numerous European targets. Armed bands of mutineers roamed the capital looting and terrorizing the white population, raping and killing as far as they went. This caused the flight of thousands of European refugees to Brazzaville and Stanleyville. Belgian troops had to intervene. Another six days later on 11 July 1960, with the support of Belgian business interests and over 6000 Belgian troops, the province of Katanga in the southeast declared independence as the State of Katanga under the leadership of Moise Tshombe. Tshombe was an educated accountant and successful businessman. He was pro-Western, pro Capitalist and a Christian and hated Communism. Now comes the interesting part. Tshombe asked the Americans for help to restrain the communist forces. The communist Lumumba, went crying at the UN and the UN took his side, passed a resolution (143) with the support of America and Russia, and the UN troops were sent in to chase out all the Belgian and mercenary troops and to use force to prevent the secession of Katanga. Katanga was loaded with minerals and the richest part of the DRC. Within a few weeks, thousands of UN troops arrived in the DRC. Belgium pulled its troops back and left the DRC to the mercy of the communist Lumumba and the UN troops. The UN troops did almost nothing to stop the carnage against whites and the people of Katanga. They did not bring peace or control, they mostly stood by and watched as the country was being destroyed and how it came more and more under Communist control. Tshombe restored calm and peace in Katanga. His foreign affairs minister said they wanted Katanga to be a bastion of Anti-communism in Africa. Tshombe himself said that he abhors Communism and that he would never change.
It infuriated the UN Security council so much that shortly afterwards they attacked Katanga. Initially the UN had a few successes, but then the Katanga forces hit back and drove the UN back. Clearly frustrated the UN used mercenaries to start a terror campaign against Katanga civilians. Murder, arson, torture, rape and plunder was used to subdue the Katangese. 90% of the houses destroyed by the UN were civilian buildings. Children and adults were indiscriminately bayoneted and entire hospitals destroyed. Amazingly, Katanga held out two years against the UN barbarians and prevented the capitulation of their country to Communists. The UN troops regrouped and were kitted out with new equipment, airplanes, helicopters. American dollars paid for everything and all the military hardware were American. 29 December 1962, the UN launched a second assault on the freedom and independence loving country of Katanga. A month later as the UN invasion reached its peak, Moise Tshombe told his brave soldiers, "Men, in the last two and a half years you fought three times like heroes against the enemy, but now the enemy masses are just too much. Shortly after that the last flame of hope, freedom and independence died in the Congo. And so we can mention many instances in Cuba, Nicaragua, Hungary, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia and Rhodesia where the UN handed power over to communist regimes. In the 65 years of existence of the UN, it has never once acted against the communists. Terrorist organisations like SWAPO were given observer status in the UN even before they became the government of Namibia. Not only that, SWAPO, the ANC, ZANU-PF and many other terrorist organisations are directly sponsored by the UN. South Africa was the last domino to fall, before the rest of the West would be tackled directly. "Day X", the day of a one world totalitarian government is fast approaching. When we were under a total onslaught in South Africa, friends were few. Today many who were against Apartheid are laughing and dancing on the graves of 3000+ white farmers, they are ignoring our plight for help all over the world, but those same people should realize that their day will come, when they will feel how it feels like to lose your country, being powerless and watching helplessly how your country is being destroyed.
Anybody who has dreams of an independent white homeland in Africa, should bear in mind that the UN had a full scale Battle-plan of ground, air and sea invasions worked out to attack White South Africa. The "Chicago Tribune" wrote on 24th of July 1965 that a 170 page Battle Plan with the title, " Apartheid and United Nations Collective measures" was compiled by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It detailed a ground invasion with 93,000 troops with air and sea support after which the country would be handed over to a Black government and be under an international trustee control. It would be a 30 day Blitzkrieg and would cost US$ 94,537 000. They even worked out the casualties on both sides and the amount of wounded. On the hand of this evidence it is clear that the United Nations is not, nor has ever been a friend of Whites in South Africa and in the event of a future racial war or war for independence we will not only be up against the Blacks, but we will have to reckon with the UN supporting them as well.
Katanga and the problems of South Africa are the very reason why settling for a North-West corner of a former White Nation will never work. We must take back all former White Nations and drive out the inferior mud races once and for all. Only then will we be on an equal footing. If the mud wishes war, the mud will lose.
@Cailen.
Part 19 - The Role Of The Commonwealth
By Mike Smith
As we have seen most of the hatred of South Africa came from hypocritical nations at the communist platform known as the UN, but the UN was only one such an assembly for the hypocrites of the world where they could spew their Nelson-eyed poison against South Africa. The British Commonwealth was another. Today there are many who claim victory over Apartheid. The former Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) is one of them. They also claimed that one of their biggest achievements was to get South Africa kicked out of the Commonwealth. Their role was important but if we have to single out a person to be credited for this, then it has to be John Diefenbaker of Canada. Separating myths and truths, we have to get a few things strait first. South Africa was not kicked out of the Commonwealth, she forcibly withdrew, but let us look at the historical events that led to it. On October 5, 1960, South Africa's white voters decided to make the country a republic and replace the British monarchial constitution with a Republican one. It was expected of Commonwealth members to re-apply for membership whenever they changed their form of government. Many people feared that the Afro-Asian countries in the Commonwealth would vote against South Africa and vote for her expulsion. There is nothing wrong with rejecting the British Monarchial system and adopting a Republican constitution. India did it as well and was admitted again into the Commonwealth despite the discriminatory caste system of the country, but as could be expected, nobody ever lets a chance go by without taking a few swipes at South Africa. The Commonwealth is suppose to be a family of nations, where the focus should be on points of agreement rather than disagreement.
The history of the Commonwealth goes back to about 1880 when the South African statesman John X. Merriman first used the term "Commonwealth" to refer to a future group of former colonies of the British Empire in their relationship with Britain. In 1905 He wrote to Jan Smuts describing his idea of a "Commonwealth of Nations" of which South Africa would be a member along with countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Smuts with his personal philosophy of "Holism" immediately liked the idea. Ultimately Smuts would have many pet projects such as the unification of the two Boer Republics and the British colonies of Natal and the Cape into a unified South Africa, the Commonwealth, the charter and formation of the League of Nations and ultimately the charter for the United Nations that the Boer general and later Prime minister of South Africa almost single handedly wrote himself. The only alterations were basically the removal of "God" from his original draft. I have no doubt that Smuts meant well and that he had sincere and good intentions, unfortunately he was what Vladimir Lenin called, a "Useful Idiot". He found out quickly in 1946 at the very first UN assembly how his baby would be used against him and his country, South Africa. Nevertheless, the Balfour declaration of 1926 as well as the Statute of Westminster in 1934 ensured equality for South Africa at the Commonwealth along with Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Before, during and for some time after WW2, the Commonwealth functioned well. These founding members and independent nations retained deep seated family ties with Britain and mutual interests with each other. Then came along, Pakistan, India, and Jamaica (and all the ex British Caribbean islands), Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Malaysia, Singapore, Uganda, Gambia, etc, and a new club of hypocrites, intolerant to views differing with their own emerged.
At about this time, the conservative Prime minister of Canada, John Diefenbaker was quite adamant against any ousting of South Africa from the Commonwealth until the largely anti-Apartheid Canadian press started working him into a tight corner and intimidating him. In his book, "A skunk amongst Nations", Les de Villiers describe what happened on page 47,48. It was going to be the tenth Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference in London - "On the day of Diefenbaker`s departure from Ottawa to attend that fateful Commonwealth meeting in March 1961 a three column photograph of the doyen of the press corps in Canada, Charles Lynch, appeared in the local press. In his hand he held a black ball. The caption read : "Black Ball ends Crystal Balling". Students planned to hand the black ball to Diefenbaker at Ottawa airport, it was stated, so that he could drop it in the lap of the South African delegation at the Commonwealth conference. They were prevented from doing so by Royal Canadian Air Force guards, and Charles Lynch took over the mission." – Les de Villiers, "A skunk amongst nations". At the Prime Ministers' Conference in 1961, Verwoerd formally applied for South Africa to remain in the Commonwealth. The prime ministers were divided. Diefenbaker broke the deadlock by proposing that the conference not reject South Africa's application, but instead states in a communiqué that racial equality was a principle of the Commonwealth. This was adopted, although Britain and New Zealand disagreed with Diefenbaker's proposal. South Africa could not accept the communiqué. At that conference, the Afro Asians commanded six of the eleven votes, but it was not necessary for Nigeria, Malaya, Ceylon, India and Pakistan to cast their votes. South Africa withdrew its application and exits the Commonwealth. According to Peter Newman, this was "Diefenbaker's most important contribution to international politics. Diefenbaker flew home, a hero." The "Vancouver Sun" praised Diefenbaker, "The Telegram" exclaimed, "The Commonwealth has been saved".
This is the same Diefenbaker who a few months before steadfastly refused to be a party to South Africa's expulsion. At this same time hypocritical Canada had severe restrictions on immigrants of colour other than "White" and treated their Indian and Eskimo (Inuit) people as second class citizens worse than South Africa ever treated her indigenous blacks. But it did not stop this hypocrite Diefenbaker to issue a Declaration of Human rights and distribute it freely to schools. As so many true believers and so called experts in this field, Diefenbaker's, doctrine of human rights was, however, an abstract one, the condition of underprivileged Eskimos and Indians in Canada remained unchanged. The same can be said for the way Australia treated their Aborigines and New Zealand treated their Maoris. Any of these nations could equally have been vilified and kicked out of the Commonwealth for the very same reasons they had against South Africa, but it was just South Africa's time. The time of the other nations will still come. And what about those nations that opposed South Africa ? How did they fare ? India had millions of "Untouchables" in her rigid caste system. Ceylon had the stateless Tamils, Ghana was a dictatorship and Nigeria was on the verge of a bloody clash between her major tribes called the Biafran war. Dr Vervoerd said to the Indian Prime Minister during the deliberations, "Within ten years we will stamp out illiteracy on the part of our blacks, but you won't do so in fifty years". Verwoerd was obviously speaking about the now hated "Bantu Education" system that saw the blacks of Africa propelled to the highest literacy standards on the entire African continent. But Karma is a bitch and she came to visit the ones who ganged up on the pious Boers of South Africa. Two years later, Diefenbaker lost the general election in Canada and was reduced to an opposition back bencher. In a night of terror, the Nigerian Prime Minister Tafewa Balewa, and his trusted aides ended up in shallow graves near Lagos. The Biafran war followed in Nigeria and claimed more than two million lives. Kenya and Uganda expelled tens of thousands of Indians. India and Pakistan fought over borders and in Bangladesh another few hundred thousand victims were claimed.
Back in Canada in 1966, the new Prime Minister Lester Pearson was already loading and setting up the guns against the latest problem namely Rhodesia and he wanted to "Crush White Supremacy" there. It is not often that a staunch liberal comes up for South Africa, but after the Ottowa summit an American liberal journal asked Professor John Hutchinson (John Hopkins University) to write an article about the 12 day Commonwealth parley, said he, "You asked for my observations on the proposal, made at the last Commonwealth summit, for a Commonwealth Force to be stationed in Rhodesia for ten years to keep the peace and, presumably, to usher in a democratic age. The mind expands at the idea. General Amin of Uganda could administer massacres. Prime Minister Forbes Burnham of Guyana might give a course on inter-racial affection. Prime Minister Errol Barrow of Barbados, who apparently is not afraid of bloodshed in Rhodesia, could advise on the maffia consessions, a major perk in the Carribean. I do not quite know what Prime Minister Gough Whitlam of Australia might do, since he is busy analyzing other governments, but perhaps he could squeeze in a lecture on "Apects of Aboriginal Freedom": it would not take long, since there are only aspects to deal with". Yes dear reader, this is what we call "Politics of the absurd" as we have seen at the UN and the Commonwealth as well with the Canadian press, but such is the power of the press and so called democracy of the UN and its Mini-Me, the Commonwealth. Today we hold "Democracy" as the highest value of the Western World, but thanks to "Democracy" we have Hamas, a Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorist organization in charge of the Palestinians. Thanks to democracy we have a Black Marxist terrorist government in South Africa. The will of the majority rules the world they say.
Part 20 - Dr. Verwoerd, Nationalist Visionary, "The Most Hated Man In South Africa" And The Success Of Nationalism
By Mike Smith
Most people today cringe when one mentions the name of Dr. Verwoerd. Even ardent right-wingers are careful to be associated with Dr. Verwoerd, normally denouncing this great visionary. People in general believe that Dr. Verwoerd was "The Architect of Apartheid". This is plain nonsense as I have proved in this series. Most of the Apartheid laws were already in place when the National Party came to power in 1948. These laws were drawn up under British rule when South Africa was still a colony and during the time of Jan Smuts who was a liberal puppet of the Crown. There is a technique in historical research to cross reference information about certain people. It works like this - most great historical figures are praised by their own people and loathed by their enemies. So in order to find out the true nature of an historical figure it is sometimes necessary to look at what the enemies of such people have to say. That is exactly what we will be doing in this post, but let us first have a look at Dr. Hendrik French Verwoerd. Dr Verwoerd was born to Dutch parents in Amsterdam, the Netherlands and moved to South Africa when he was two years old in 1903, shortly after the Anglo Boer War. The family moved to Rhodesia shortly after they arrived in South Africa. Most of his childhood he spent in Bulawayo in Rhodesia. In 1917 the family settled in Brandfort in the Orange Free State. Verwoerd studied at the prestigious Afrikaans University of Stellenbosch and as a brilliant student he obtained his BA and his MA degrees cum laude. He eventually obtained his Ph.D. in Philosophy that included Psychology. Verwoerd then won two bursaries and decided to take the one that would offer him the opportunity to study in Germany. In 1925 he arrived in Germany and studied at three German universities namely Leipzig, Hamburg and Berlin. He got married in Germany to Betsie Schoemann, toured Europe and then moved over to the USA where he did some more research. Upon his return to SA, at the tender age of 26, Verwoerd became professor in Sociology at Stellenbosch, his alma mater.
In 1937 he became editor of "Die Transvaler" (The Transvaler, an Afrikaans daily paper). In 1950 he became Minister of Native affairs in the National Party government of Dr. D.F. Malan. It is important to note that all these Nationalist Afrikaner leaders of the time were no idiots. Dr Malan had a Doctorate in Divinity (Theology) from the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands as well as a Masters degree in Philosophy. Yet most people refer to them today as "Dumb Dutchmen". Verwoerd was thus a man who was highly educated, well travelled and could speak several languages including Afrikaans, Dutch, German, English as well as the black languages of Zulu and Shona. He was also a natural leader whose talents were recognized at student level already. Verwoerd was elected Prime Minister on 2 September 1958, promising to uphold with honour the democratic institutions of the country, and justice between white and non-white. Verwoerd reformulated the Apartheid policy calling it "separate development". He wanted to guide Africans to self-determination once they were considered to be ready. On the 3d of February 1960 British Prime Minister, Mr Harold Macmillan, delivered his famous "winds of change-speech" before the joint session of the Union Parliament. On the 5th of October 1960 a referendum regarding a Republic for SA was held. The Yes vote won with a majority of 74,580 votes - 90,73% votes were cast. Verwoerd led the nation to become a republic. On 15 May 1961 in London, at the meeting of the Commonwealth, Verwoerd announced that South Africa withdrew its membership. South Africa became a republic on 31 May 1961. Verwoerd's biggest critics were the English speaking press in South Africa, but let us look at what the "Rand Daily Mail" (a sworn enemy of Verwoerd) on 30th of July 1966 wrote about this great man.
"At the age of 65 Dr. Verwoerd has reached the peak of a remarkable career. No other South African Prime Minister has ever been in such a powerful position in the country. He is at the head of a massive majority after a resounding victory at the polls. The nation is suffering from a surfeit of prosperity and he can command almost unlimited funds for all that he needs at present in the way of military defence. He can claim that South Africa is a shining example of peace in a troubled continent, if only, because overwhelming domestic power can always command peace. Finally, as if that were not enough, he can face the session (of parliament) with the knowledge that, short of an unthinkable show of force by people whom South Africans are rapidly being taught to regard as their enemies, he can snap his fingers at the United Nations. Thanks to the recent judgement of the Hague Court (on the South West Africa issue) he can afford to condescend to the world body, graciously remaining a member as long as it suits him. Indeed, the Prime Minister has never had it so good." In his booklet, "Assassination and the tragedy of South Africa", Jaap Marais, deceased leader of the HNP speaks of the success of Apartheid and why Dr. Verwoerd was killed. Jaap Marais was another of these so called educated "Dumb Dutchmen". He was a politician, an attorney a devoted ornithologists as well as the man who translated William Shakespeare's "Julius Ceaser" into Afrikaans. Marais states that under Verwoerd and his policy of "Separate development ("Apartheid"), the living standards of Blacks were rising at 5,4% per year against that of the whites at 3,9% per year. In 1965 the economic growth of South Africa was the second highest in the world at 7,9%. The rate of inflation was a mere 2% per annum and the prime interest rate only 3% per annum. Domestic savings were so great that South Africa needed no foreign loans for normal economic expansion.
A few months before Dr. Verwoerd was assassinated, the editor of the British periodical, "Statist", Paul Bareau, wrote, "At the rate at which South Africa is now expanding the term ,,miracle" is likely to be appropriate to its development over the next few years". In other words, South Africa was an emerging economic and military threat to the Anglo American establishment. Nevertheless, all of this, South Africa under Nationalism, achieved despite of worldwide arms embargoes, economic sanctions and the entire world supporting the enemies of South Africa. It has to be remembered that after the Anglo Boer War where the British destroyed all the economic power of the Boers by a "Scorched Earth Policy" of burning their farms to the ground, killing their livestock and interning their women and children in horrific concentration camps where 27,000 white women and children died; there was no "Bailout" or "Marshal Plan" to rebuild South Africa. The Boers rebuilt South Africa and created their own wealth singlehandedly with absolutely no foreign support. "Time magazine", eleven days before Dr. Verwoerd's assassination, wrote, "South Africa is in the midst of a massive boom. Attracted by cheap labour, a gold backed currency and high profits, investors from all over the world have ploughed money into the country, and the new industries that they have started have sent production, consumption – and the demand for labour – soaring. Such are the proportions of prosperity". Quotes like these are numerous and a testimony to the success of Dr. Verwoerd's policy of "Separate development". These quotes come from sources that were normally extremely hostile to Dr. Verwoerd and South Africa. We will deal with sanctions in a later edition, but for now I just have to explain that the object was to bring South Africa economically to its knees, to impoverish the people (all the people and especially the blacks) so that they would start a revolution against their government. It totally backfired, because South Africa just became more and more self sufficient.
Nobody ever took the personal philosophy of the Boers into concideration. In South Africa we have a common saying, " A Boer makes a plan". It is a saying, a philosophy that we grow up with, that was forged over hundreds of years on the African continent. No matter how hard it gets, no matter how tough life gets for us, we can always make a plan. When the world imposed oil embargoes against us to bring us to our knees, we simply invented a method of making fuel from coal, known as SASOL. When the world cut of weapons, we simply started ARMSCOR and in no time we were not only self sufficient, we were exporting top of the range weapons to the very countries who imposed those sanctions against us. Such is the will of the whites of South Africa to survive. The more the world tried to isolate us the more selfsufficient we became. Our scientists, medical doctors and engineers were some of the best in the world and leading at the forefront of technology. Our observatory at Sutherland was fully booked out by international astronomers years in advance. Karl Marx predicted that the more Capitalism grows the poorer the common man will become and the more he will be and feel exploited. Nationalism in South Africa proved Marx wrong. The more industries were created, the more jobs were available and the living standard of blacks in South Africa was the highest on the continent of Africa. Not only that, Nationalism ensured the survival of all the nations of South Africa, it ensured the survival of their languages and their cultures. It was obviously a massive blow to the Anglo America establishment who wanted to destroy South Africa and get their hands on the riches of the country. The spite and envy came out in the word of Lord Deedes who said that, "The Afrikaans speakers made two big mistakes. One was to leave the Commonwealth - and the other was to survive."
So they did not reckon with the tenacity of the Afrikaners and their will to survive, not only to survive, but to prosper ! But even Lord Deedes admitted, "White South Africa grew to become the economic giant of the continent, the other members of the Commonwealth virtually sank into poverty." The British Foreign Office and the US State Department were disappointed to say the least. South Africa turned out to be a major success under Nationalism and every other country in Africa opposing the system of Apartheid was sinking into poverty. What was happening at the time was that Dr. Verwoerd was winning the Cold War all by himself. He was showing the world how successful Nationalism is and he was showing up the failure that Communism is. Verwoerd also initiated an investigation into power monopolies known today as the "Hoek" report (1965). Verwoerd delegated the job to Professor Piet Hoek and asked him to investigate the stranglehold that economic monopolies such as Anglo American (the Oppenheimers, mining), Rembrandt, (Anton Rupert, liquor and cigarettes), Trust Bank (Jan Marais), Sanlam (A.D. Wasenaar, insurance), etc were holding. In addition, Verwoerd destroyed the Marxist terrorist onslaught against South Africa by nipping arch Communists (including Mandela) in the bud by arresting them in Rivonia and destroying all their cells in South Africa. By 1965 the ANC and the SA Communist Party was defeated.
In her book, "People's War", Dr Andrea Jeffrey on page 7 quotes Oliver Tambo the leader of the ANC saying in 1964, "it appears as if the guns of MK (uMkhonto we Sizwe, Spear of the Nation, armed wing of the ANC) have been silenced for all time." There is no doubt that Dr. H. F. Verwoerd was a remarkable man. The best Nationalist leader and politician who ever lived and the best Prime Minister South Africa ever had. Dr. Hendrik French Verwoerd loved South Africa with all his heart. He loved all the nations and all the cultures of South Africa. He wanted to protect and secure the future of all the rich cultures that make up the country of South Africa. "Seperate Development" was his vehicle, he was a true patriot who turned South Africa into a first world country and the envy of the world. He laid the foundation that turned South Africa into the only nuclear power on the continent. He was "The man of Granite" who stood up against the entire world who wanted to destroy South Africa and the last vestiges of White success on the continent of Africa. He wanted to protect the culture and survival of his own people as much as he wanted to protect the culture and the survival of all the black tribes of South Africa. Today he is despised as a "Racist" when he should be praised as a visionary. Whilst Premier of Free State, Terror Lekota removed the statue of Hendrik Verwoerd, which had been mounted in front of the building that housed the provincial administration. Lekota apparently found the mere sight of Verwoerd, to which he was subjected every time he showed up for work, quite offensive. Today that statue stands in an honorary position in the Afrikaner enclave known as "Orania". But Dr Verwoerd does not need any statue of himself. By the time he died he built his own monument which is there for all to see : The Republic of South Africa
Part 21 - The Assassination Of Dr. Verwoerd
By Mike Smith
In the previous section we saw how Dr. Verwoerd took South Africa to heights as never seen before and probably will never see again. South Africa was economically, militarily and politically at its peak under the nationalist government of Dr. Verwoerd. Dr. Verwoerd was no ordinary man. In his book "At last we have got our country back", G.H. Calpin wrote of Dr. Verwoerd - "He was the kind of man who might instinctively have invited the dislike of some for the sheer mathematical brilliance of his intellect, he had the mind of a computer". There is never a shortage of inferior minds jealous of a brilliant thinker. One such an envious inferior mind was Piet Cillie, editor of "Die Burger", Afrikaans newspaper owned by NASPERS who owns several other newspapers as well. The English press being in full control of the Oppenheimers (Jew) of Anglo American/De Beers. In 1960-1961, this intellectual midget tried his hand at Dr. Verwoerd, but came horribly short. Cillie never forgave Verwoerd, his excellence and success in running South Africa. Verwoerd was a man of outstanding character. When the whole world was ganging up against Ian Smith's Rhodesia after declaring UDI, Verwoerd refused to institute economic sanctions against the Rhodesian government, declaring his full support for Rhodesia. Another victory of Verwoerd was the one over the UN on South West Africa, Namibia at the International court in The Hague. What happened was basically that South Africa in 1914 (as a British colony) annexed South West Africa (German colony). After the First World War, Germany was bankrupt and Britain did not want a vast desert to administer, so the League of Nations gave South Africa a mandate in 1920 to administer the territory of South West Africa, which it did very well. Under SA rule, SWA reached development on par with SA and Rhodesia.
The mandate allowed SA to apply its laws in SWA as an integral part of South Africa. It further stipulated :"The mandatory shall promote to the utmost the material well being and the social progress of the inhabitants". It further required, "freedom of conscience, and religion, prohibiting the slave trade, trafficking in arms and liquor, and preventing the establishment of foreign fortifications and military basis on the territory." The plan against SA was to bring charges of human rights abuses in South West Africa against the South Africans. That would give the UN the right to invade South West Africa as well as SA. Ethiopia and Liberia, on behalf of the African block laid the charges in 1962 at the International Court of Justice. Their evidence was the usual bullsh!t (no evidence) uttered at the UN General Assembly and that of so called "petitioners" – self-styled political exiles from SWA. Charges were amongst others, "Exterminating the native inhabitants and militarizing the territory". These bastards soon realized that making unsubstantiated allegations at the UN general Assembly is totally different to delivering proof in a court of law. SA delivered a written presentation of 3000 pages, called 15 expert witnesses out of 38 presented. The evidence showed amongst others, fifty countries which, by law and official practice, differentiate between groups, classes or races – forty of them members of the UN at the time, including Ethiopia and Liberia themselves. South Africa refused to accept the written allegations by the "petitioners" and wanted to get them in court and cross examine them, but at no stage was Ernst Gross, the American lawyer on behalf of the African states interested in calling any "petitioners". South Africa even offered to pay all their expenses, just for a chance to cross examine them, but to no avail.
Nevertheless, the court ruled in favour of SA and dismissed the nonsense of the African bloc. Despite their defeat, the UN voted in 1966 (114-2) that SA 's mandate in SWA have ended. Verwoerd would not be forgiven for this victory over the UN. He thwarted the invasion plan drawn up by the Carnegie Endowment for International peace and wiped his backside with their blueprint called "Apartheid and United Nations Collective Measures". Verwoerd also practically annihilated the British and American sponsored opposition parties (United Party and Progressive Party) in the March 1966 general elections. There was only one option left, Verwoerd had to go. Nine days before the Death of Verwoerd, "The Sunday Tribune" (Durban) published a front page article written by Aida Parker, headlined, "Verwoerd must go plan : Cape Nats back Anton Rupert (Jew)", and, "The knives are out in the National Party". Anton Rupert was the billionaire of Rembrandt and Rothmans tobacco. He was also a CFR member. During WW2 he was anti-British, but after the war he dropped his Afrikaner Nationalist friends and became an exponent of a "Pax Americana", hosting Bobby Kennedy during his 1961 visit to SA and fully identified himself with the British-American interest and objectives for South Africa. Piet Cillie, editor of "Die Burger" was spearheading the plan to replace Dr. Verwoerd with Anton Rupert. When Jaap Marais wrote a letter to Cillie asking him about the report in "The Sunday Tribune", and what the options was to get rid of Verwoerd seeing that a vote of no confidence was out of the question, Cillie refused to answer and threatened Marais with lawyers. Marais was researching it for his book, "Die Era van Verwoerd". He never heard from Cillie or his lawyers after that.
At the time of his death, a Greek ship called, "Eleni" was in Cape Town for almost a month, undergoing repairs. Tsafendas, the assassin, frequently visited the vessel and tried to buy a weapon from the crew. Three days before the assassination, people on the ship asked people on the quay whether they knew that Dr. Verwoerd was dead. It also came out in the enquiry afterwards that Tsafendas visited the vessel almost daily and bought a pistol and a tried to buy a knife. Another interesting point is that "The Evening Standard" of London carried the following report : "Young man on Dieppe-Newhaven ferry asked if there was any news of the Verwoerd assassination – last Friday (ie 2 September)". Verwoerd was assassinated on the 6th of September. The report stated that a liberal politician, Allan Thomas was reading his paper when a young man approached him and asked him if there was any news on the assassination of Verwoerd, four days before the assassination. It appears that even in the UK there was advanced warning of the coming assassination. Over the years we have seen many assassinations such as that of Abraham Lincoln, J.F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, John Lennon, attempts on Reagan and the Pope, and in every instance the killers were so-called "Lone nutters". Such is the general belief in the case of Dr. Verwoerd as well. The truth is rather different to what most people today believe.
As early as 1937 Demetrio Tsafendas was identified as a Communist and the SA authorities refused him a permanent residency visa. He later admitted that he joined the Communist Party in 1939. He was born in Mozambique. His father was a Greek sailor and his mother was a mixed race Mozambiquen. In 1941 age 23, he joined the Merchant Navy and started sailing all around the world. In 1946 he was taken up in the North Grafton hospital in the USA where they noted he joined the Communist Party at the age of twenty and was faking mental illness because he was scared to go back to the ship due to leaks on the vessel. In 1947 he was again refused permanent residence in SA due to being a Communist and in 1959 his name was placed on the Black List of the Department of Home Affairs. In 1959 whilst in Britain he was noticed in the company of radical leftists. Tsafendas himself later mentioned that when they were private, some of these leftists raised the possibility of having the Prime Minister of South Africa shot. Less than a year later in April 1960 came the first attempt on Dr. Verwoerd's life. A deluded farmer called David Beresford Pratt, who also went to Britain and who have been involved in political activities of the Liberal Party, shot Dr. Verwoerd at close range. Pratt was a brilliant student at King Edward VII Boys' High School in Johannesburg. He then studied at Cambridge University and obtained a BA (Hons) and qualified as a chartered accountant. He went back to SA to help his father farm. He had two children from his first wife and then later married a Dutch woman he met in SA. Pratt showed very strange and neurotic behaviour. He lived in a 35 room mansion filled with treasures and antiques. At times he would go missing and stay with the homeless in Johannesburg returning to shut himself inside his mansion for months. He was also reported to be charming.
On the morning of 9 April 1960, he took his 22 Pistol to the Rand Easter Show. Apparently after hearing Hendrik Verwoerd's lack of concern for public life, he went up to Verwoerd and shot him twice in the head. Another source ("Transition" issue 75/76) says he was motivated after seeing a group of about 100 black prisoners being bundled into a van. Miraculously Verwoerd survived the attack. After having been examined, Pratt was reported to have been a sufferer of epilepsy for 40 years and from a mental disorder. On 26 September 1960 the Judge President sent Pratt to jail and awaits his fate. He was later transferred to Orange Hospital, Bloemfontein. On his 52 birthday on 1 October 1961, Pratt hanged himself with a coiled-up bed sheet in his room. It became apparent that he had suffered an epilepsy relapse a few nights before he decided to hang himself. It seems as if there was never a shortage of "Lone Nutter Assassins" who wanted to kill Dr. Verwoerd. In November 1963, Tsafendas entered South Africa illegally, and in February 1964 he again applied for permanent residence. In his application he stated that he suffered from no mental illness and a medical certificate to this effect was attached. The immigration board granted him permanent residence. Tsafendas had various jobs. In March 1965 he was medically examined by the South African Railway and Harbours Services and they also found nothing wrong with him. In August 1965 Tsafendas, classified as white under Apartheid, applied to be reclassified as "Coloured". It was then that a decision was taken to deport him. The Minister of Home Affairs signed a deportation order, but it was not enforced by the time of the assassination.
On 20th of July 1966 Tsafendas was appointed as a messenger in the House of Assembly, but only started working on 1st of August 1966. A month later on 6th of September 1966 he assassinated Dr. Verwoerd in the House of Assembly. In one month Tsafendas seems to have gained enough insight about parliamentary procedures to know exactly when the most relaxed time would be for the attack namely just before the proceeding of the day's events, when MP's were strolling towards their benches and sitting casually chatting with one another. Tsafendas, in typically cowardly fashion approached Dr. Verwoerd from behind and stabbed him four times...three of the wounds were of fatal nature. A medical doctor in the House who attended to Verwoerd afterwards said "The assassin must have received training in the art of wielding a knife". An Afrikaans Sunday paper also reported from the medical evidence that it was evident that the assassin must have had thorough training. The first thing Vorster did was to appoint his own commission of enquiry consisting of a total of one man, who found that there was "no ground for the rumour that the wounds had been inflicted by an expert". On the 7th of September, one day after the assassination, "The Star" (Johannesburg) had a headline : "No sign of assassination plot. This was the work of a lone killer, says Vorster". It has to be remembered that Vorster was Minister of Justice, and therefore of Security, making him responsible for the security of Verwoerd. More remarkable was that Vorster started systematically undoing the foundation of all that Verwoerd built up. This would later be carried on by P.W. Botha and F.W. De Klerk who would eventually hand over the country to Marxist Terrorist rule.
Nevertheless, the press reported that the Security Police had a file on Tsafendas. When the head of the Security Police was phoned on the day of the assassination, he had a file with him in a short time. Amazingly Vorster promptly issued a statement that "the report that the Security Police had a file on Tsafendas was devoid of all truth". This was a blatant cover-up. It later surfaced that the Security Police had no less than four files on Tsafendas. Two were destroyed without authority and a third was completely missing. In the previous edition I mentioned that Dr Verwoerd launched an inquiry into "Die Georganiseerde Geldmag" (The organized money power) known as "The Hoek Report" by Prof Hoek of Pretoria University. This report was finished after Verwoerd's death and Vorster refused to publish it. Parts of it leaked out in 1969. It found that Anglo American Corporation was the largest private group in the economy, large enough to frustrate government policies. Anglo paid disproportionately low taxes, resulting in loss of government revenue of millions. Hoek pointed out that as an important supplier of key minerals to the SA defense industry, Anglo should be brought under much stricter government control. He suggested that its operational boundaries in South Africa be limited, and restrictions placed on its foreign-based companies such as Charter Consolidated in London. This is all documented in the fascinating book called "South Africa Inc." by Pallister, Stewart and Lepper, 1987, page 100. On the same page it states that "Oppenheimer (Jew), in fact, was able to develop cordial relations with Vorster". So who benefitted from the assassination of Verwoerd ? Obviously John Vorster who was appointed the new Prime Minister and who would carry out the wishes and policies of Harry Oppenheimer. The Hoek report was shelved and for the Anglo American Corporation it was business as usual. The restrictions Verwoerd was going to impose on their operations magically disappeared. The Cillie and Rupert, "Verwoerd must go" plan succeeded.
After the death of Verwoerd, Anton Rupert (Jew) said, "The fact that Dr. Verwoerd was no longer Prime Minister, was the best thing that could have happened for South Africa". The fourth and most important beneficiaries were the British-American powers behind the ANC, who were out to break the Afrikaner's political power and get South Africa in line with the other Communist controlled Southern African States of Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia. Tsafenda's Communist leanings were just a useful shield behind which others such as Britain and the USA operated. Vorster and his Foreign Affairs minister, Hilgaard Muller (Rhodes Scholar) introduced a strategy called "Détente" which focused on appeasing the Black Communist enemies of South Africa. From 1974-1976 Vorster betrayed the white Portuguese in Mozambique and Angola, allowing the Communists to take over. He betrayed the whites in Rhodesia, introducing economic sanctions against Rhodesia and pressuring Ian Smith to accept Black Communist rule. He also betrayed the whites of South West Africa, by accepting the so-called Western Powers' Formula (Resolution 435 of the UN Security Council), which laid the foundation for the Communist take-over of South West Africa. Vorster was a "Useful Idiot" whose appeasement strategies fed the crocodiles in the hope that South Africa got eaten last. And indeed, what a feast it was when we got eaten as well. In fact, I think the feast is not finished, yet. Nevertheless, the last bastion against Communism in Southern Africa fell to the Marxist terrorist gang of the ANC/SACP/Cosatu alliance in a bloodless coup, facilitated by F.W. De Klerk, 28 years after the assassination of Dr. Verwoerd. Behind this operation was the British design of using the franchise of the blacks to continue by other means, the Boer War against the Afrikaners, preferring Communist rule over South Africa to Afrikaner political power and influence in the sub-continent.
Main Sources :
South Africa Inc, Pallister, Stewart, Lepper, 1987
Verrat an Südafrika, Vaque, 1987
Assassination and the tragedy of South Africa, Jaap Marais
South Africa, A skunk amongst nations, Les De Villiers, 1975
People's War, Andrea Jeffrey, 2009
Tragedy and Hope, Quigley, 1966
Part 22 : Holy Terror - How The Church Crucified South Africa
By Mike Smith
One of the sorest points for us Whites in South Africa to accept and a really bitter pill to swallow is the role that the church played in our demise. We can accept everything, we can accept the role of the UN, organizations such as the CFR, etc, but one thing we refuse to accept is that our church brethren ganged up against us and stabbed us in the back. It is just not something Christians do to other Christians. But the record of history stands. Some of the biggest role players in the demise of South Africa and its handing over to a Communist terrorist regime were the churches of the world. It all had a reason. See, a people that is robbed of its spiritual values and from whom the moral principles and rules of conduct is taken away, becomes a ball in the hands of ideologists and powers that can hit it in any direction it wants. Today, when we think back to the times during Apartheid, one remembers a lot of prayer and a lot of religion in our lives. Sundays shops were closed. Sundays we went to church and Sunday school. Church was always full and we had to fight for seats. Monday morning at school, hall-assembly was opened with prayer. We had Bible class at school. In fact our education system was called CNE (Christian National Education). Our parents were involved with church charities, even deacons or elders in the church. These were the people who took us as children to the beach, who bought us ice cream, these were not evil people. These were God-fearing, loving and caring people.
How is it possible that the world could hate such pious people, call them evil monsters and wanted to destroy them ? But it is true, that is what happened. We the good Christian people of South Africa were made out to be the skunks of the world by none other than world church organizations. Saying that the whites of South Africa were traditionally religious is an understatement, and almost a lie in the eyes of people who want to believe that the Whites and especially the Boers of South Africa were "Evil Monsters". But let us hear what someone from neutral ground has to say about the pious Boers of South Africa. The veteran and liberal German journalist and author Peter Scholl-Latour has been throughout Africa and also South Africa during the dark days of Communist takeover of many countries and he wrote a book called "Afrikanische Totenklage" which would loosely translate to "The African Death Song" , subtitled as "Der Ausverkauf des Schwarzen Kontinents" or "The sell-out of the Black Continent". On page 372 he has an interview with a Jewish businessman of South Africa called Arthur Goldstein in 1985...
Goldstein says the following about the Boers - I freely translate - "These Boers create a double sided feeling within me. The relationship between Pretoria and Jerusalem is closer than both sides would admit. For us it is a pragmatic cooperation against the radical third world states. But how can we forget that the older generation of the National Party openly sympathized with Hitler and his racial madness during the Second World War ? The Prime Minister, John Vorster was a member of the "Ossewabrandwag" a neo-Nazi organization and was during the war interned by the British. On the other side, we discovered here, at the Southern tip of Africa a horribly distorted mirror image of our own religious history. O, these Afrikaners are more true to the Bible than we Jews. They know their old Testament. On TV there is a Bible quiz. On this show, normal every day citizens are tested on their knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. The Quiz-master would ask them about a verse from one of the books of our prophets and almost instantly the answer will come with staggering precision. Do you know that these Boers see themselves as the new "Chosen People of God" ? When they trekked away from British domination they saw themselves as the trek of Moses who lead his people to the promised land, and the Blacks they encountered were to them like the Amalekites or the Philistines. During the 1930's these Boers were impoverished bare feet livestock farmers or railway workers, but after the Second World War they reached their social ascension. Step by step they reached key positions in the Capitalist world and actually pushed the arrogant British against the wall. Believe me, this white tribe of Africa is not in the mood to ever give up or capitulate."
So how did it happen that such strong willed and religious people eventually did capitulate to Communist forces that they already defeated ? Such a victory could only be achieved through infiltration and treachery at the very heart and soul of the pious Boers. In the centre of all their policies stood their belief in the Almighty God, their Calvinistic values and beliefs such as "good conquers evil". Funny how the same names always re-appear. David Rockefeller not only donated the ground that the UN building stands on in New York, he also built the headquarters of the WCC in Geneva. In 1958 he also donated $2 million to build a training centre for theologians in Geneva. He also donated money for the starting of a fund to further Christian Rock music. This is the same Rockefeller who built an abortion centre in New York where more than 10,000 abortions take place every year. The same Rockefeller who financed the Sex-Guru Bhagwan, who financed the Club of Rome, etc. Most people think that Communism is Atheistic; that it simply rejects all religions, but that is not true. Communism is Satanic. Karl Marx was a practicing Satanist detailed in the book "Marx and Satan" by Richard Wurmbrand. Communists, at least the top Communists are not atheists at all; they believe in God, they just hate him. Since Mordechai Marx Levy, also known as Karl Marx wrote his three volumes of "Das Kapital" and his "Communist Manifesto", commissioned and supported by the House of Rothschild and the mysterious "League of Just Men", the Christian belief system has come under attack from the forces of evil.
The disciples of Marx such as Lenin set out to wipe all religions and especially the Christian religion from the face of the earth, because all these religions stood in the way of a World Revolution that would put evil in charge. By 1941 there were only 4000 churches left in the USSR from an original 46,000. In the first 30 years after the Bolshevik Revolution, 48 million people were liquidated, the equivalent of a Rwanda every 9 months. Amongst them were 48,000 priests or religious ministers. Despite the efforts of Stalin and Khrushchev the numbers of believers actually increased in the underground churches. So the Communists decided to change their tactics. Instead of attacking the church from outside, they started infiltrating the churches with students who were all KGB agents. These theologians knew more about Marx and revolution than they knew about Jesus and prayer. And so the prosecution of people who baptized their children, their priests etc started, but the Communist would always keep a few churches as show windows for visiting clerics such as Billy Graham who would then go back to the USA and tell of "Religious freedom" in the USSR under Communism. In the West the Communists used a different tactic. They started using sympathetic liberals and useful idiots to do their work. Georgi Dimitrov, the Bulgarian Communist leader said that such liberals were worth more than "500 poor devils who do not understand much more than allowing themselves to be beaten up and clubbed by the police".
He also said : "Specifically, we should use ambitious politicians who needs support; Men who acknowledge that we Communist can smooth their way and give them publicity. Such men would sell their souls to the Devil and we are in the business of buying souls." It would not only be politicians who sold their souls to the Devil, but also many Church men. The Communists knew only too well that the loosing of faith does not come out of the congregation or from the bottom up; no, it comes from the top down from the clergy themselves. Through the use of these liberal theologians and their "God is dead" theology, every message in the Bible was turned into a revolutionary slogan and the Bible itself became a revolutionary handbook. At the forefront of this heretical movement was the World Council of Churches (WCC) which is so aptly described by Les de Villiers in his book "SA; Skunk amongst Nations" as "A Churchy version of the United Nations". For the WCC it is not about the unity of World Christians, but the unity of all religions, sects and cults, a Socialist brotherhood of man that will open the door for full blown totalitarian Communism. The final goal of the WCC is a One World Government, with one united "Church" for atheist, Budhist, Taoist, Muslim, Jew, Voodoo, etc. The WCC are well known to frequently hold prayer gatherings with Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, etc.
The strategy to let the churches run empty is twofold. On the one side we see in the media how the church is made laughable in the eyes of the world through one scandal after another so that the church loses its credibility in the eyes of the religious Christian. On the other hand there is an active drive to use the Church apparatus and its money to support the goals of Communism. The attack on the whites of Southern Africa actually started in 1961 when the Russian Orthodox Church was accepted as a member of the WCC. It was the same year that Kennedy called an end to the "Cold War" and proposed a peaceful co-existenz with the USSR. It meant that we had to accept Communist dictatorships as democratic systems equal to that of the west. This band of KGB agents went to work from the inside of the WCC and after about ten years it would become clear to even the dumbest person that the Orthodox Church was not interested in furthering Christian Ideals, but rather furthering the communist hegemony of the USSR. In the 1970's they managed to pass their controversial "Programme to Combat Racism" in the WCC, dressed up and camouflaged to appear somewhat Christian through all the smoke and mirrors of humanistic, theological feel-good bullshit. Racism would come to mean a one-way street. Only whites were "Racists". I have until this day never heard of a single cent being spent by the WCC to fight racism against whites. No, the "Programme to Combat Racism" was nothing but a Church funded "War On Whites".
Nevertheless, the programme under direction from the Dutch sociologist Sjollema, would be a major success for terrorist groups all over the world, especially for the ones in Southern Africa, who instantly received a moral and theological boost from the main "Christian" organization of the world. It opened the door for churches and church front organizations to start donating millions of dollars to Marxist terrorist organizations in the name of "Anti-racism" and "Liberation from White Oppression". Christians from Western nations paid millions over to terrorists believing their money was going for "Humanitarian Aid" in Africa. Again the double standards we have come to known so far evinced at every meeting of the WCC. Everyone was vehemently opposed to Apartheid, but as soon as the persecution and atrocities against Christians behind the Iron Curtain were mentioned, everyone kept quiet and looked the other way. In 1968 while the free world expressed spontaneous revulsion at the brutal Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, the WCC remained silent until Soviet goals were achieved. In the USA these member churches of the WCC would help to drive America out of South Vietnam, letting the entire Vietnam fall into the hands of the Communists scum.
The WCC was so moved by "those who suffer" in Vietnam that it sent sixteen tons of expensive medical supplies and equipment to the Communist Vietcong insurgents, at the same time the WCC assisted and abetted draft-dodgers and deserters from the American Armed Forces in Canada and Sweden. The Swedish government who were already donating a $100,000 a year to the Marxist cause, suddenly increased their contribution to $3million per year. The Lutheran World Foundations did not waste time either. They donated 65,000 German Marks to FRELIMO, the Communist regime in Mozambique who killed about 2 million people in their civil war with pro West, pro Capitalist, RENAMO. But the biggest contributor to the Marxist Terrorist cause came from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany (EKD). To understand why, one has to understand the German psyche and guilt complex since WWII. The Stuttgart Declaration of guilt http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/StuttgartDeclaration.htm (http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/StuttgartDeclaration.htm) made by Martin Niemöller who wrote the famous poem, "First they came..." is the one who is the father of the guilt complex of the Germans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...) . With his declaration, he made all of Germany alone responsible for WWII and all the atrocities, the Allied forces and especially the Russians were ten times worse than the German people, but I suppose it is all about money and enslaving people as milk cows for communism at the end of the day. If you want to be buried in money, just stand in the middle of a German city and accuse them of being "racists" and you will soon see how they will shower you with money with tears of guilt in their eyes.
It might come as a revelation to South Africans that in Germany, people who write on their job applications that they are Christians are taxed for it. One pays about €30 a month to be a Christian. The government actually encourages people to admit that they are atheists when they are not. This tax called "Kirchensteuer" is deducted by the government and people think it goes for the upkeep of Germany's beautiful churches, but Norbert Homuth wrote in "Diagnosen" (Oct 1984, pg 42) that 65% of the money paid to the WCC went directly to Marxist Terrorist organizations in South Africa. The "Patriotic Front" in Rhodesia, in 1978 got US$ 85,000. This Patriotic Front was at the same time supported from Cuba and the USSR. Shortly before this payment the Patriotic Front killed 207 White and 1712 black civilians. Over the years, millions more from the WCC went to nineteen terrorist organizations, most directly opposed to South Africa such as SWAPO, FRELIMO or the MPLA. In 1978 these terrorist with money from the WCC killed 35 foreign missionaries and their children in Rhodesia. Previously people would donate money to the church to aid missionaries, to build churches and to help the poor, but now old women in America and Western Europe would starve their canaries for a week to donate money to assist Marxist terrorist organizations who murdered, raped and bombed innocent civilians regardless of colour or creed. The WCC naively said that the terrorist organizations gave them their word that the donations would not be used for arms. Of course the terrorists would give their word. After the money was donated the WCC had no control over the funds. You cannot put a leg of lamb in a lion's cage and hope he holds it for a week before he starts nibbling it.
The WCC, forever pontificating about "Love, Justice and Peace" was never interested in uplifting the living standards of blacks in Africa. It is clear from their support of terrorists who wanted to blow up the Cabora Bassa Dam in Mozambique and the Kunene project between Angola and South West Africa, initiatives of the South African Whites to provide hydro electricity and food production to the entire Southern African region. Sjollema expressed himself to London businessmen saying that the uplifting of black living standards and paying them higher wages was "not helping the situation". The strategy is to keep the poor (blacks) in deprivation and misery so as to get them so far as to revolt against their government. The Kairos document http://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/challenge-church-theological-comment-political-crisis-south-africa-kairos-document-1985 (http://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/challenge-church-theological-comment-political-crisis-south-africa-kairos-document-1985) is a diabolical, Liberation Theology, Marxist Critical Theory, propaganda, claptrap, document written in 1985, but no-one really knows by whom. Some say that Rev Frank Chikane was one of the authors. It was issued by the ICT or Institute for Contextual Theology, undersigned by some 150 clerics and theologians from just about every church in SA and translated into just about every European, African and Asian Language. Kairos means "The time has come" in Greek, and so the time has come for Apartheid.
In it, Communism is obscured with no real definition and even glorified, while the White government and their God is vilified as "the God of teargas, rubber bullets, shamboks, prison cells and death sentences"..."The Devil disguised as God"... It called for the overthrow of State Theology, only the state is violent; the people just show desperate attempts to defend themselves. The violence of "the people" (Black Communists in the Townships) were likened to that of a woman defending herself against rape. Basically everything that is against Communism is "evil" and everything that is pro-Communism is "good". A pseudo religious document that called for Church support of terrorism from Communists against real Christians. So much for "turning the other cheek" and "loving thy enemies", hey ? No, "Turning the other cheek" and "loving thy enemy" is only for real Christians suffering genocide and oppression under a Marxist terrorist regime. Then violence against such a tyrannical Communist regime is discouraged. You can read this Kairos document that was undersigned by amongst others, the Catholic Bishop below. Many other churches supported the necklacing and burning to death of black opponents to Communism and the bombing of civilians, black and white, by Marxist terrorist organizations such as the ANC, PAC, Cosas, etc.
In the Citizen of 29 June 1987, a black woman and former ANC terrorist turned Christian, Salamina Borephe, shocked the USA with her acknowledgement of how she took part in this orgy of violence in the townships. She mentions how the Anglican Church priests told them that "Communists were heroes from central Africa such as Mugabe, Nkomo and Samora Machel. She tells of how these priests taught them to hate the white South Africans and in particular the Afrikaans speaking "Boers". She would further mention how they would gather in the Catholic Church on Sunday the 2nd of September and Monday morning around 05h30 they were already up to throw stones at buses and cars. Many of these Church Men would eventually sell their souls to Mammon and oppose the National Christian government of South Africa. The SA Catholic Church General Secretary, Father Smangaliso Mkhatshwa was arrested for the illegal possession of weapons and ammunition on 16 May 1986. The great Socialist Saint and propaganda idiot Archdiocese Dennis Hurley was a supporter of the "End Conscription Campaign" and who accused one of our crack anti-insurgent units "Koevoet" of human rights abuses on the Angola border, when at the same time the landmines and atrocities of SWAPO's PLAN forces on civilian farm roads were overlooked ? Despite severe objections from the Catholics of South Africa, the Bishop's conference in 1984 received around US$ 400,000 from overseas congregations to support Marxist terrorist organizations in SA. The next year the figure tripled to over a million USD.
Another one of these mini United Nations organizations is the South African Council of Churches (SACC) who was in an alliance with the ANC during Apartheid and whose membership included and still includes most of the English Churches as well as the Afrikaans Dutch Reform Church (NG Kerk). Former leaders included Arch Communist Frank Chikane (one of the alleged authors of the Kairos document and whose feet were washed by ex minister of Safety and Security Adrian Vlok). Also Desmond Tutu and Beyers Naude, both notorious Marxist collaborators and church men who have lost their faith and sold their souls to the NWO, were leaders of the SACC. The three Afrikaans protestant Churches withdrew from the WCC in 1960 after their Cottesloe Consultation at Johannesburg where Aparteid was investigated in loco and found "guilty as charge", but most of the English churches remained including the Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans and Congregationalists. The most shocking evidence of the Church involvement with Marxist terrorist organizations in Southern Africa came out on 15 February 1984 in the form of a two year investigation known as "The Eloff Report". It revealed the extent to which the SACC and al it's churches were involved with Marxist terrorists, hell-bent on making South Africa ungovernable with civil unrest.
Anglican Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu and holder of a Nobel Peace Prize, who was the General Secretary of the SACC at the time admitted that he was waging a massive psychological war against South Africa. Together with their member churches the SACC also waged a war overseas to get governments and organizations to exercise political, economical and diplomatic pressure against the National Party government. Relentlessly the diabolical SACC (SA Communist Church) campaign was waged against the true Christians of South Africa. These NWO churches were in solidarity with everything from militant "Black-power" organizations, Marxist terrorist organisations to radical black trade unions. Tutu called the leader of the ANC, Arch Communist Oliver Tambo, "A sincere person of Christian conviction in his strive for peace, justice and democracy in South Africa". What he failed to explain is what "peace, justice and democracy" means to the Communist. For a Communist peace can only come when the entire world is enslaved under Communism, justice means the summarily execution of all opponents to Communism and Democracy means a One Party Communist State. Bishop Tutu further failed to mention that Oliver Tambo as the head of the ANC was directly responsible for the Pretoria, Church Street bombing in 1983, where 19 people were killed (many were black women and children) and more than 200 injured. Tutu called Communist Terrorist Nelson Mandela his boss and "Future State President of South Africa". This "Red-Bishop" is a self confessed Socialist and someone who "hates Capitalism", according to the Sunday Times of 29 December 1985, he said, "There is no alternative to taking up arms. There is no room for peaceful struggle in South Africa." (Washington Times, cit. UCANEWS 10/85)But at the same time claimed to be a pacifist.
How this NWO puppet could ever be the Archbishop of Cape Town is beyond logic. He even denied the divinity of Christ by saying, "Some people thought there was something odd about Jesus' birth. It may be that Jesus was an illegitimate son." (Cape Times, 24.10.80).This liar and "Pillar of Peace" who presided over the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" said, "Thank God I am black. White people will have a lot to answer for at the last judgment." (Argus, 19.3.84) You can read more of ArchTutu's wisdom over here. The Arch Bishop and The Bible http://www.christianaction.org.za/GDL/articles/The_ARCHBISHOP_THE_BIBLE.htm (http://www.christianaction.org.za/GDL/articles/The_ARCHBISHOP_THE_BIBLE.htm) .The Eloff Report further mentions the "Asingeni Fund" that was advertised to collect and donate money to victims of the 1976 riots and to pay their legal costs. This fund was used for explosives, civil unrest, destruction of private property, robbery, stone throwing, etc. People like Tutu and Boesak supported the very terrorists who burst into the St. James Church and tried to kill everyone inside with AK47's and hand grenades. In May 1982 the PAC, who were later responsible for the St. James Church massacre, thanked the WCC and its different organizations for financial and moral support over the past years and expressed their hope that it would continue.
Tutu's partner in crime at the TRC was Dr Alex Borraine, a former man of the cloth who went to work for Anglo American/De Beers. At the TRC he would be one of the jesters in the "Des and Alex show". At one stage he even tried his former boss and paymaster Nikki Oppenheimer (Jew) for alleged collaboration with the Apartheid government. Oppenheimer told him with a smile exactly where to get off, quoting from the Bible, he said to Borraine, "Let he without sin cast the first stone..." The NG Kerk or Dutch Reform Church also had many of these Anti-Apartheid "men of (their) god". Beyers Naudé, Nico Smith, Johan Heyns were all secular humanist church men and traitors to their people who played significant roles in the Communist onslaught against White South Africa. In 1990, Ds. Willie Jonker would pull a Martin Niemöller and take all of the "Blame" and "Sins" of Apartheid on the Afrikaner and his church. A declaration was issued called The Rustenburg Declaration , which proclaimed to all the world that the South African Churches had repented of and confessed to "heresy", "disobedience to God", "denial of the Gospel of Jesus Christ", "misuse of the Bible", "slowness to denounce apartheid" and "spiritualising the Gospel." Professor Willie Jonker of Stellenbosch, though not entitled, confessed the Apartheid guilt of the whole Dutch Reformed Church and the Afrikaans people as a whole Willie Jonker pulling out his intestines about Apartheid http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/07/world/afrikaner-cleric-asks-blacks-to-forgive.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/07/world/afrikaner-cleric-asks-blacks-to-forgive.html) . Other organizations that supported these terrorists were the UN Trust Fund and the International University Exchange Fund (IUEF, CIA front organization). With this money the WCC also supported other Marxist Terrorist organizations in the Philippines, South Korea and Indonesia. The onslaught against South Africa was not limited to the greed over its strategic minerals and sea route around the Cape of Good Hope, but it was also a Satanic, end-time attack on one of the last, strong bastions of Christianity that stood in the way of the Marxist "New World Order" and its Pseudo World Church.
Main Sources:
"Verrat an Südafrika" - Klaus Vaque
"Afrikanische Totenklage" – Peter Scholl-Latour
"People's War" – Dr. Andrea Jeffrey
"SA; A Skunk amongst Nations" – Les De Villiers
"In Sight of Surrender" – Les de Villiers
"The Paper Curtain" – Eschel Rhoodie
"The Third Africa" – Eschel Rhoodie
Christianity and Communism are the abominable offspring of Judaism, designed to infiltrate and destroy their targets from within: First fell Rome under the damning sway of Christianity, then the rest of the White world with Marxism. When Marxism failed on its own, it roped in its abominable sibling to assist in completing its genocidal tasks.
Very true - Ben Klassen put it very well in Nature's Eternal Religion
Quote[size=78%]To hear the Kosher Konservatives tell it, a fierce, intensive battle is raging today between the evil forces of communism and the sacred forces of Christianity. We are led to believe that it is an all out battle between good and evil. We are told that these two forces are the very essence of two poles of opposition – in complete and diametrical conflict. It is a sham battle. The fact is they are both degenerate products of the collective Jewish mind, designed to do one and the same thing – to destroy the White Race. If we take a closer look at these two evil forces that have bedeviled and tormented the minds of the White Race for all these years, we find that they are not on opposite sides at all. We find that they are both on the side of international Jewry, doing the job they were designed to do, namely : confuse and confound the White Man's intelligence so that he himself will help the Jew in destroying the White Race. In comparing the two we find that they are strikingly similar, and not opposites. In fact, there are so many similarities in the two programs and in the philosophy of these two creeds that the hand of the same author can easily be detected. That author is the International Jewish network. They and they alone wrote both the creed of Christianity and the creed of communism. Both communism and Christianity preach against materialism. Communism designates those productive and creative forces of our society to which we owe in such large part the benefits of a productive White civilization, as "bourgeois." It then lashes out with unparalleled fury at the bourgeois and tells us over and over again that they must be destroyed. Instead of giving credit where credit is due, it slanders and vilifies these constructive and productive elements, namely the bourgeois or the capitalists, as the ultimate in evil.[/size]
Christianity tells us basically the same thing. It tells us that it will be more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. It tells us that we should "sell all thou hast and give it to the poor," an insidious piece of advice that, if followed, would make us all a pack of roving bums and beggars. It would most surely cause the breakdown of our society. Christianity further tells us "lay not up treasures on earth, but lay up treasures in heaven." Throughout, the implication is clear. Don't accumulate unto yourself any of the good things in life. If, through hard work, you've already managed to accumulate some wealth, get rid of it, give it away, give it to the poor, above all, give it to the Church, they'll take it, with relish. The net result of this fantastically bad advice, of course, is that it will more easily pass into the hands of the Jews, who do not subscribe to such foolishness. They hope to make fools of us, knowing very well the old saying "A fool and his money are soon parted," is only too true. The other side of the coin is that the leaders of both Christianity and communism themselves are fantastically materialistic. When we look at the Catholic Church on down through the ages, we find that whereas they were extracting the last mite from the poor widow, the church itself was gathering up and hoarding gold, silver and precious gems in unbelievable quantities. Not only was it taking in and gathering all the gold, silver and precious stones that it could, but it acquired huge amounts of real estate, and the Catholic Church today is undoubtedly the most fantastically wealthy institution on the face of the earth. Even through the Dark Ages when poverty was widespread, mostly because of Christianity itself, we find these huge and fabulously rich cathedrals, built in the midst of poverty, with gold encrusted altars and apses and vaults and columns and walls. The leadership of the Church caused to be built huge and great Basilicas, Cathedrals, Abbeys, Baptisteries, Mausoleums, Convents, and Churches. Practically all of these were so lavish and so huge in comparison with the meager surroundings of the times, that they flamboyantly stood out as the main repository of all the material wealth – gold, silver and architectural lavishness – of both their era and their geographical location.
The church never has bothered to explain why it was so necessary to have such lavish wealth on display to the worshipping faithful, who were told time and again that it was evil to "lay up treasures." Unto this day, churches are built to be flamboyant, garish and bizarre. Money seems to be no object. The Vatican, that citadel of "spiritual" leadership, which also preaches, "lay not up treasures on earth," does not practice what it preaches. On the contrary, what it practices is indeed the height of hypocrisy, and the antithesis of spirituality. It goes all out for laying up treasures on earth. It has amassed unto itself a portfolio of 5.6 billion dollars in stocks alone, not to mention all of its real estate, art treasures and other valuables. It enjoys an annual income of 1.5 billion dollars, much of it undoubtedly collected from the "widow's last mite," as well as its vast holdings. The United States religious establishment as a whole is valued at 102 billion dollars. In 1969, of the 17.6 billion dollars United States individuals contributed to charity (mostly benefiting the negroes), 45 percent, or 7.9 billion dollars was earmarked for religious purposes. Pretty materialistic for a religion that "shuns" earthly treasures and preaches "my kingdom is not of this world." Likewise, the communist bosses in Russia, practically all of which are Jews, have accumulated unto themselves all the riches of the countryside. While the communist slave laborer is toiling away twelve hours a day and then comes home to a dingy, dirty, filthy, crowded little apartment shared with other families, his Jewish bosses have opulent palaces spread all over the countryside. They drive the best of cars, chauffeur driven, of course, and eat the best of foods. Not only that, but they have the best of planes at their disposal to fly wherever they see fit to govern their slave laborers. These Jewish communist bosses usually also have at their disposal imported clothes and tailors and a galaxy of servants. When they need a rest from running their slave empire, they have private villas on the Black Sea or other choice vacation spots at their beck and call. And so it goes in the Proletarian Worker's Paradise.
Let us pass on to the next similarity. Both communism and Christianity make extensive use of the weapons of terror, both psychological and real. Undoubtedly the most ghoulish and vicious concept ever contrived by the depraved and collective mind of Jewry is the concept of hell. Can you think of anything more horrible than placing millions of people in confinement in a superheated torture chamber and then burning them forever and ever without even the mitigating mercy of allowing them to die ? With this piece of "Good News," and "Joyful Tidings," Christianity set out to conquer the minds of its superstitious and unreasoning victims. The fact that such a torture chamber was non-existent did not at all detract from the fact that it was a real threat to those who were made to believe that it was real. To a child, for instance, if you tell him that the Boogieman is going to get him, and he innocently believes you, then the threat is just as real as if a Boogieman actually existed. And so it is with hell. To those that have become convinced that it exists, this horrible threat is just as real as if it did exist. However, Christianity did not stop with using psychological terror alone. Those who deviated from the official church line were declared as heretics and forthwith burned at the stake. The idea of using fire in one form or another as a means of torturing their opponents seems to have obsessed these "loving" Christians' minds. According to van Braght's famous Martyr's Mirror, some 33,000 Christians were put to death by other so-called Christians by means of burning at the stake, a grizzly type of revenge. Among my ancestors alone (who were of the Mennonite faith) some 2,000 martyrs were burned at the stake by these ever-loving Christians.
One outstanding feature about this burning at the stake business was that they were always White people who were being burned. Never have I heard of a negroe being burned at the stake for his heretical beliefs. Nor have I ever heard of a Jew being burned at the stake for not believing precisely along specified lines of Judaism, even though they did not believe in Christ at all. Burning at the stake wasn't the only means of torture and death used by these love-dispensing Christians who were so eager to spread their message of love. During the Inquisition, and other times, all the beastly refinements of torture that the depraved human mind could devise were used to extort confessions and whip the unbelievers or heretics into line. The thumb-screw, water-dip, the iron corset, drawn and quartered, gouging out one's eyes with hot irons, and the rack (slowly tearing limb from body by means of stretching) were but some of the devices used by these ever-loving Christians to spread their gospel of Love. When the communists came along and used physical torture as one of their instruments of conquest, they had very little left to invent but what the Christians had already utilized before them. And this is as can be expected, since it was Jewish fiendishness that designed the means of torture for both. Nor did the Church hesitate to use wholesale warfare to batter down whole nations that did not submit to their religious dictation. In fact during the 16th, 17th and 18th century the main causes of war were religious dissentions in which one religious group sought to force their beliefs on their opposites by wholesale warfare and slaughter.
The communist record of using wholesale terror, both psychological and physical, is so recent, so widespread and so well known that we need hardly review it here. In Russia alone the Jewish communist regime used terror on a scale unknown before in the annals of history. In order to exterminate the best of the White Race in Russia, namely the White Russians, the Jews slaughtered some 20,000,000. The terror, the killings, the murders that are going on in Russia today defy the imagination of the average White Man's mind. In any case, both communism and Christianity are using, and have used, terror extensively, both psychological and physical, to subjugate their victims. Whereas the Christians excelled in psychological terror, the communists excel in physical terror. But in both cases the Jews were experts in using whatever type of terror best accomplished their ends. Both communism and Christianity have a book that presumably lays down the creed of their movement. Christianity has the Jewish bible which was written by Jews, mostly about Jews, for the purpose of uniting the Jewish race and for destroying the White Race. The communist bible is Karl Marx's Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx in conjunction with Friedrich Engels, both of whom were Jews. Both of these Jewish creeds, communism and Christianity, are highly destructive, and when followed, tear down the fabric of the society that has fallen victim to them.
Christianity teaches the evilness of man, that he is a no-good, unworthy sinner, that he is born in sin and that his every instinct is evil. Communism preaches that the productive, creative element of our society, namely the "bourgeois" as they call them, is rotten and evil, and must be destroyed. It can be safely said that any sound, healthy society that turned either to complete Christianity and practiced all of its principles, or any society that practiced pure communism, would soon destroy itself. Again we want to vigorously point out that contrary to what these Kosher Konservatives are always telling us, communism is by no means the same as socialism or collectivism. The latter are basic constructive elements of any healthy society, but communism is an undisguised Jewish slave-labour camp. Both communism and Christianity preach the equality of man. Christianity preaches that we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, whereas the communists preach that we all must become equal in the communist society. The latter argue that the only reason we are not equal is entirely due to environment, and this little quirk of Nature they are going to correct. By the time they get through processing us all in an equal environment, they assure us they will have leveled us all down to where we are all equal. This will only be too true, for the White Race will be leveled down to where they are all equal to a horde of miserable slaves, whereas every Jew, on the other hand, will be a king.
Not only do both communism and Christianity preach the equality of the individual, but they also preach the equality of races, another vicious lie thrown in the face of Nature. Both creeds have a very tricky dogma that is rather nebulous and confusing, not to say contradictory, in itself. They both, therefore, have set up a hierarchy that interprets what the correct dogma of the day is and everyone is to toe the line or suffer the consequences of an entrenched power structure. Christianity and communism both have had their schisms. In the case of Christianity, the followers that differed were called heretics and in the case of communism, those that stray from the official line are called deviationists. In the case of Christianity, the Great Schism, of course, was during the Reformation when the Protestant segment developed and broke away from the Catholic Church. It then proceeded to split and splinter in a thousand different directions from there on out, all to the detriment and destruction of the White Race. The first great split, of course, was when the Byzantine Empire split from the Roman or Western half. Among the communists there were a number of schisms such as the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, and a number of other schisms, before the communists ever came to power. After they did come to power, there were the Stalinist communists and the Trotskyite communists, the latter being vigorously pursued and purged from the ranks. Now we presumably have the Mao wing of the communist party and for a while we had the Tito deviationists, and so on. In any case, the main idea in Christianity and communism is the same : On top of a confusing and impossible dogma sits a tight powerful hierarchy which dictates and interprets what the line of its followers must be, and terror, death and reprisal are the consequences to those who dare to think for themselves.
It is not at all surprising that the archenemy of both these Jewish creeds is Adolph Hitler, because he dared to come out with a healthy, natural social structure that embodied those principles that were in harmony with the natural laws, and with the healthy instincts for the preservation of the White Race. We, therefore, find the Jewish press, the communist press, and Christianity, all in chorus, denouncing Adolph Hitler, and telling us what a terrible, terrible man he was. All perpetrate and repeat over and over again the same Jewish lies about Hitler that the Jews themselves have dreamed up and supplied to their toadying stooges. The similarities between these creeds go on and on. Both preach the destruction of the present society. They especially zero in on the destruction and downgrading of the more creative and productive elements of society as a whole. Both denounce and vilify the better elements of established society and rejoice at human failures and weaknesses, thereby claiming to prove the correctness of their communist-Christian theory. The Jews, who are the perpetrators of communism, envision the United Nations headquarters to finally rest in Israel and in particular, in Jerusalem. Christianity too, continuously keeps talking about Zion, the New Jerusalem, and looks to Jerusalem as the Holy Land, its origin and spiritual headquarters. Both of these Jewish creeds consistently follow policies which are disastrous to the welfare of the White Race. I have already gone into considerably detail about the catastrophic effects of Christianity on the great White Roman civilization. I have also pointed out previously that the Jews in communist Russia killed off 20,000,000 of the best White Russians. However, the programs and policies of both these creeds extend much further than these two major catastrophes of history and to point out how disastrous the effects of both Christianity and communism have been upon the fortunes of the White Race would require a whole volume in itself.
Another similarity that manifests itself in both of these Jewish creeds is that both have an incurable ability to put forth a profuseness of verbiage that is extremely vague and beclouded with confusion. Not only is the verbiage profuse, but incredibly lacking in substance. This is an old Jewish trick to confuse and confound the minds of their opposition, the latter being deceived into thinking that all this vast collection of words must have some higher meaning beyond their comprehension. To further destroy and beat back the opposition, both creeds have developed to a high state the art of hurling vicious trigger words and hate words at their opponents. The Christians developed such hate-trigger words as atheist, heathen, heretic, apostate, blasphemy, pagan, sinner and anti-Christ. The communists have developed a whole stable of similar trigger words, and some of these are Fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot, prejudice, and anti-Semitic. Without anyone really stopping to analyze what each of these words mean and why they should be considered as bad, these words have been developed to a high state of implied evil so that by just merely calling these names, you need not really debate the issues, but mercilessly strike down your opponents without resorting to any debate or reasoning whatsoever. If the similarities between Christianity and communism seem rather striking, there is a very good reason for their parallel ideology. That reason is, of course, they were both concocted by the Jewish power structure for the common objective of destroying the White Race. Unfortunately, up to this point, both their ideologies have been devastatingly effective. It is partially the purpose of our books and Creativity to confront this devastating attack on the mind of the White Race and expose these twin Jewish ideologies for what they are.
Furthermore, I am firmly convinced, and it is my measured conclusion, that the Jews could never have foisted modern communism on a long suffering humanity, had they not first softened up, unhinged and confused the intellect of the White Race with the fallacious snares of Christianity. It is therefore the further objective of Creativity to help straighten out the befuddled thinking of the White Race to where they then can, and will, expunge both of these twin Jewish scourges from the face of this planet.
How any white could love a semitic religion was always beyond me &:(