Messages

[Part 14 – Scapegoating Apartheid To Steal Our Country And Our Wealth]

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 13 – The Apartheid Laws On Mixed Marriages]

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
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

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 ? 

Those christians that are white are generally pro race mixing and therefore weak and ultimately doomed. (The only exception to this of any note is the Boer type Christianity that while crazy does allow them some kind of tribal existence-at the same time it almost entirely responsible for the Boers not doing to Africa what the anglos did to north america) in effect Christianity castrated the Boer and made him love his enemy-the nigger

The "Boer type Christianity" in South Africa is a form of CI – the judeo Christians are the English speaking and are the libtards that despised the Boer and took this country down with the British/American worldwide onslaught on South Africa – suppose they could never forgive the Boer for kicking their ass in the Boer war, so instead they committed war crimes to "win" through scourged earth policy and placed children and woman in concentration camps killing 27 000 innocent people

The "Boer type Christianity" you refer to slaughtered 12 000 zulus at Blood River, never forget that – "no turning the other cheek", no sir. Further this "Boer type Christianity" crushed the communists to a pulp in Angola, South West Africa, Mozambique and Rhodesia; the only reason they never finished the job is because of the British/American conspiracy against the racialists in this country – never forget that. You are wrong that the Boer loves the nigger – it is the judeo-christian English speaking libtards that loves the nigger – for this reason most right-wing groups in South Africa are exclusively Afrikaans speaking. "Boer type Christianity" could never subvert the Boer to foreign rule, libtards and traitors from within did this, so stop using religion as an excuse, it`s a cop-out

If i was going to join a majority fictional mud religion I would join the muslims

Then you would have no problem with the mud religion of the jews either, seeing that both are semitic filth torn out of the same cloth

[Part 12– The Architects Of Apartheid]

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 11– Bantu Education Under Apartheid]

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, 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 , 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 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/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.