Popular Posts

Wednesday, 29 December 2010

Durban: feces smeared squatter camp


Click on picture to read article at Digital Journal

Saturday, 25 December 2010

Merry Christmas!


Monday, 20 December 2010

How many Blacks died under Apartheid?

from Censorbugbear

By Vusile Tshabalala, journalist

August 2001-- At the start of the year 1900, the number of African South Africans was found to be 3,5-million according to the British colonial government census.

By 1954, our African population had soared to 8,5-million -- and by 1990, there were a full 35-million of... us -- all carefully managed, closely policed, counted, shunted around in homelands and townships -- and all of us chafing and griping under the suppressive yoke of the Afrikaner Broederbond's rigid racial segregation system.

During apartheid, our population grew apace however because we also had the benefit of the Boers' medical knowledge and their excellent agricultural skills.

Our population growth and our average life expectancy in fact showed us Africans in South Africa to be in better than average health when compared to other Africans on the rest of the continent: in the decades prior to the official policy of apartheid,(which was started in 1948), the average life expectancy of African South Africans was only 38 years.

However, during the last decade of the apartheid era from 1948 to 1994, our average life expectancy had risen to 64 years -- on a par with Europe's average life expectancy. Moreover, our infant death rates had by then also been reduced from 174 to 55 infant deaths per thousand, higher than Europe's, but considerably lower than the rest of the African continent's.

And the African population in South Africa had by then also increased by 50% percent.(source: "a crime against humanity: analysing repression of the Apartheid State", by Max Coleman of the Human Rights Committee).


Former Human Rights Council commissioner Max Coleman's authoritative book analyses all deaths due to political violence from 1948 to 1994 in South Africa and Namibia.

According to the HRC statistics, 21,000 people died in political violence in South Africa during apartheid - of whom 14,000 people died during the six-year transition process from 1990 to 1994. The book lists the number of incidents, dates, and those involved.
This includes SA Defence Force actions, for instance the 600 deaths at Kassinga in Angola during the war in 1978.

Of those deaths, the vast majority, 92%, have been primarily due to Africans killing Africans -- such as the inter-tribal battles for territory: this book's detailed analyses of the period June 1990 to July 1993 indicates a total of 8580 (92%) of the 9,325 violent deaths during the period June 1990 to July 1993 were caused by Africans killing Africans, or as the news media often calls it, "Black on Black" violence - hostel killings, Inkatha Freedom Party versus ANC killlings, and taxi and turf war violence.

The activities of the Civil Cooperation Bureau as outlined by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, were also included in these figures.

The security forces caused 518 deaths (5.6%) throughout this period.

And again, during the transitional period, the primary causes of deaths were not security forces nor white right-wing violence against blacks, but mainly due to "black-on-black necklace murders", tribal conflict between the ANC-IFP, bombs by the ANC and PAC's military wings in shopping centers, landmines on farm roads, etc.

report on: csvr.org.za/wits/papers/papcole.htm (All the liberal whites such as Max Coleman and Judge Dennis Davis were drummed out of the HRC in August 1996 Mail & Guardian article ...mg.co.za/article/1996-08-23-why-max-coleman-left-the-hrc)


The present Aids-HIV epidemic -- against which the Mbeki-regime undertakes no action and still is publicly failing to properly acknowledge -- the World Health Organisation estimates that more than 6-million African South Africans will be dead within the forthcoming decade. And the Mbeki-led ANC regime, which could have undertaken a huge prevention campaign such as Uganda's a long time ago, has done nothing to stave off this terrible death rate.

In November last year (2000) it was being reported in The Star that South African hospitals are becoming places for dying -- instead of healing.In June this year, it was reported that our cemeteries were filling up so rapidly that upright funerals were being contemplated to save space. Still, Aids is not being spoken about at our funerals, and the silence and utterly unscientific public statements about HIV-Aids from Mbeki's continue unabated while our people are dying.Democratic Alliance spokesman Jack Bloom warned late last year that the 20% rise in deaths over the past four years among patients treated at Johannesburg Hospital could only be blamed on the high crime rate and the very serious decline in patient care. Why is our patient care so poor now, and our crime rate so high? The answer is simple: our public funds are being looted by the ANC hierarchy. And the police seem helpless to stop it.

On July 10, 2001, the SA health department announced that it was going to stop R6,6-million in annual funding to the SA National Tuberculosis Assocation because of the ongoing looting of its funds and the lavish lifestyles of its (African) executives, who award themselves R400,000 annual salaries and spend R5000 a month on cellphone calls alone... while millions of South African TB patients go untreated and are wasting away of a deadly, but curable disease.

During apartheid, please note that the SANTA executives were seen to be extremely frugal with the governments' funding -- that many thousands of patients were cured annually, and that many doctors and nurses even VOLUNTEERED their services free of charge.

-- The question is this: "why is this man still CEO of SANTA? Why has he not been fired on the spot?"

And the SA Police reports this month -- access their website's statistics at http://www.saps.org.za/ -- that a total of 174,220 people died violent deaths, from crime-related violence, between 1994 and the year 2000.
So my question is this: "did apartheid ever kill as many Africans as are now being killed by the deliberate neglect and looting of our tax funds by the current, supposedly democratic regime?"

Sunday, 19 December 2010

Farm murders continue…


Click on picture to read complete article at Sarah Maid of Albion

Saturday, 18 December 2010

You liberals must be proud of your creations!

from Johann @ The Right Perspective

At the southern tip of Africa one finds two of the once most prosperous countries in Africa. Rhodesia and South Africa.

anc_deesNo, I have not taken an extended nap like that Rip Van Winkle guy, but I refuse to use the name given to that former breadbasket of Africa by one of the vilest creatures to have stained humanity with his mere existence. Not only is it quite unfortunate that Africa has had to deal with vile, criminal, corrupt, murdering dictator bastards, but also the fact that they seem to appear from the cesspool of Satan himself at uncomfortably regular intervals. And just in case some of my mentally handicapped friends over at the LLL brigade (Leftist Liberal Losers for those of you not familiar with my terminology) get tingling feelings down their legs at the prospect of yanking out their racism and political correctness cards to shove into this white conservative’s face, I’ll cite this article, Stagnating Black Countries, from a distinguished gentleman (Elias Biryabarema) in Uganda. I also have to warn you though: If you’re getting tingling feelings down your legs at my statements up to now, you are going to tinkle down your legs when you read this.

five-pillars-of-the-liberal-faithThe problem with Liberal Faith is that it is based on five pillars: Hysteria, Denial of Reality, Thought Control, Name Calling and Projection of Guilt. Any sane person unfortunate enough to end up “debating” any topic with a liberal will tell you that you will face one or more of these elements. In the worst cases, you will have to confront all of them. Rhodesia and South Africa are such cases.

Liberals were hysteric for decades about the separate development policies of the National Party in South Africa, better known as Apartheid. We won’t go into the trivial fact that certain legislation later included with Apartheid policies was actually instituted by the British at the turn of the previous century. Neither will we go into too much of the detail regarding the abolishment of most of the Apartheid legislation during the 1980’s - thus well before South Africa became a “true democracy” in 1994. All the world knew was that poor black people were “oppressed” and apparently beaten or killed had they so much as open their mouths against the white government. Apartheid was projected as the greatest threat to humankind, while millions were being killed under socialist governments (Frank from Queens). Even though Apartheid as an ideology was flawed, it was nothing compared to what liberals made it out to be - there are many black folk in South Africa today that will testify to this. Many (obviously not the ANC fat cats and their corrupt buddies riding the gravy train) will actually tell you that they had better lives under the previous government. So they must have very poor memory then or Apartheid was clearly not what the hysteric liberals made it out to be. I am not suggesting for one moment that Apartheid was the answer - merely that there should have been alternatives to what has happened.

The reality of Africa is that tribal mentality and characteristics have existed for centuries - it has existed throughout the history of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe - for those liberals with selectively poor memory) and South Africa. If you don’t want to believe me, you should ask that dictator Mugabe why exactly he focused on killing thousands of the same tribe in Matabeleland. Tribal influences were one of the reasons the previous government in South Africa established the self-governing TBVC states (Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei). A multi-state solution was seen as an answer to different tribes governing themselves in their own states. It was also an attempt to prevent folk in rural areas flocking to the cities, since it was perceived to cause over-population and housing issues around metropolitan areas. You never hear any mention from the liberals about these tribal issues in South Africa and Rhodesia - the British Empire also displayed a total lack of understanding of these tribes and how to relate to them when they arrived in the 1820’s. One of the reasons Boers wanted to move away from the Cape Colony - the British stuffed up the good relations between the Dutch-descended farmers and the Xhosas! Liberals totally deny the realities of Africa and South Africa and also the attempts by the white man to find lasting solutions.

Name calling is one of the most comical liberal vices - because it usually displays their utter ignorance and denial of reality. What better example than the previous government in South Africa, the Boers and the Afrikaners being referred to as a bunch of Nazis? Yet these people sided with the British against Germany in World War II. You liberals would be more accurate if you called the British Nazis. The British invented the world’s first death camps where 25,000 Boer women and children were starved to death, because the British couldn’t beat the Boers on the battlefield in the Anglo Boer War.

I don’t want to ponder about the other liberal vices - firstly because it really sickens me and secondly I want to get back to the reason for this post.

You liberals must be really proud of what you have created in Rhodesia and South Africa.

The former breadbasket of Africa is now a country where poor black folk have to pan for gold along rivers to buy a few kernels of corn, because their currency is worth less than nothing today and even less by the time they have strolled from their village to the market. Mugarbage gets away with whatever he wants, literally killing opposition party members. As a comparison for you, the majority of black activists killed in South Africa under the Apartheid government were “people” responsible for killing civilians (including their own kind) in terrorist bomb attacks, necklacing (dousing the victim in gasoline and setting them alight) and literally beating them to death. So what an unfair way to respond by shooting them when they inflict these horrendous crimes on others. I hear you shouting something about the Sharpeville incident where “innocent protesting blacks” were fired upon by “racist white policemen”, killing 67.

Peaceful protest?

What a pity your liberal buddies in the mainstream media did not tell you the truth about the heaps of weapons collected at the scene. Shame also they did not inform you about the Cato Manor incident a few weeks prior to Sharpeville, where 9 policemen were mutilated (their genitals cut off and stuffed in their mouths, dragged through the streets) and killed in the emergency camp - I suppose also by a “peaceful protesting crowd”. Maybe you can understand what went through the minds of the policemen at Sharpeville when they saw yet another marauding crowd throwing stones and wielding axes, amongst many other weapons.

During 2008 and 2009 these events repeated themselves when black South Africans burned alive black Rhodesians (Zimbabweans) for “taking their jobs”. They even coined a term for that, calling it xenophobic attacks.

The latest horrific trend by black savages in South Africa attacking helpless elderly people (especially women), is to tie them up for hours, gang rape them and when they are finished with these defenseless women, they shove scissors and broken glass up their private parts. Two women, and elderly Alice Lotter (78) and her daughter Helen (57), died after being attacked this way in March of this year. I suppose poverty is your stupid explanation - that’s usually your retort when blacks commit crimes in Africa. Nothing to do with torture or savagery. Well, how hungry the people must have been who shot pharmacist Robert Taylor (53) execution style in the head when he took too long to open his safe. I guess an empty stomach makes you do crazy things.

Did I hear you say something about the police force in the new democratic South Africa? You are kidding, right? The police are probably worse criminals than the savages they are supposed to put behind bars. Black police officers do not hesitate to intimidate whites or even engage in hate speech. Or what would you call a black cop telling a white crime victim “You whites must F— off” and referring to them as “white dogs”? Please don’t display your ignorance (we are very well aware of it) by saying the white man doesn’t belong in South Africa. Using that logic, neither do many of the black tribes currently there - they moved down from northern parts of Africa and exterminated the traditional tribes. Should you wish to enrich yourself with true historic events, you will know that the Boer occupied two republics in Southern Africa (Republics of Transvaal and Orange Free State) prior to the Anglo Boer War - that part of Southern Africa was largely unoccupied due to the harsh farming conditions. Hopefully by now you have learnt a little lesson about farming in the equation: productive farms under white rule + white liberal influence = unproductive black farms under black rule + poverty + starvation.

The South African Police Force have executed so many unlawful arrests on VICTIMS of crimes, that judges have urged Executives in the force to take action. Judges and District Attorneys have confirmed that this is one of the reasons civil claims against the Ministry of Safety & Security and the South African Police Force have increased drastically over the last five years. For you liberals out there, just in case you miss the point - the money wasted on these claims could actually be feeding poor people.

The latest victim of such an arrest was attorney Gerhard van Rooyen. Van Rooyen and his wife were attacked by an off-duty railway policeman (Mahlake) with an unlicensed firearm at night. The couple was admiring the city lights from a lookout point at Fort Klapperkop. Mahlake stopped next to their vehicle and asked for directions. After van Rooyen gave him the information, Mahlake got out of his vehicle and pointed his firearm at van Rooyen, while Mahlake’s accomplice also got out of the vehicle. Van Rooyen fired two shots and hit Mahlake. He then drove away to the nearest police station to report the incident, but also phoned police and ambulance services on his way. Van Rooyen was arrested later, after Mahlake passed away.

You can further indulge yourself in articles about the South African Police Force losing 8,286 firearms over the last 3 years, cops with criminal cases against them still on the force, cops being “fined” and issued “written warnings” for serious offences and cops in uniform enjoying a leisurely drink at the pub.

Roy Bennett has described the conditions in a Rhodesian jail to pictures he has seen of concentration camps.

Farm murders in South Africa occur at a pace which makes it difficult to keep track of the 3,040+ death toll.

I don’t hear you liberals cry out against these atrocities. I don’t see you march like you did against Apartheid. I don’t see you support the people suffering today by demanding your governments act against these real oppressors and murderers in charge. Maybe you believe the nonsense you are being fed from across a United Nations podium?unregrets2

You then leave me no other choice than to believe you liberals are proud of the atrocities you created!

Thursday, 16 December 2010

The Apartheid Dialectic.

There was a debate concerning Apartheid on the ILSA blog a few months ago often going along a general pro / con dialectic but I would submit that there is another perspective because that approach misses the larger picture of investigating why Apartheid was promoted & sold as a "solution" during the 1930s onwards in the first place because those that pushed it as a solution were basically ensnared into a confidence trick [ as the Apartheid example as set by the British Colonial power all over the world in fact was then starting to unravel ] because the long term viability of such laws were doomed due to changing trends & especially shifting demographics within the greater State. Consequently the loud proclamations of local governments asserting control over & expanding the existing Apartheid only led to the vilification of the macro White population in general.

Such an over ambitious & teleocratic agenda had great difficulty in obtaining its stated goal growing ever more illusive as time went on but only served as convenient fodder against the general White population as much of the world was conditioned to blame them for the system in place - but what role did the average White person play in the adoption of the system? There are those who are quick to lay blame on White people in general while overlooking just how the system was imposed in the first place. Most average folks within a given population often do not follow let alone participate in government & politics therefore to lay blame on an entire population group for government policies can be displaced.

Part of the erroneous Apartheid dialectic asserts that local White peoples imposed Apartheid laws onto the region when in reality there was never any grass root movement among the White population to adopt such laws & the adoption & imposition of the Apartheid laws was done in a top down manner. Those laws were initially implemented by the British Colonial regimes in the Cape & Natal during the late 19th cent modeled on the policies employed on the mines of Johannesburg. The Apartheid laws were never subjected to a referendum or plebiscite as they were formulated by bureaucrats & politicians. While White people were recruited to fill the role of a surrogate Colonial power within the government of the new macro State - it would be a considerable stretch to blame White people in general for its various policies as governments are notorious for following their own agendas / for being autocratic & for disregarding populist concerns among the general population.

Since Apartheid was never put before the White population in a referendum or plebiscite - it is not fair nor accurate to presume that most White people supported those measures. It is not as though the local White population clamoured for Apartheid laws on some sort of grass roots level or started political movements with the express purpose of implementing Apartheid because the old Apartheid laws were in fact instituted from the top down by various REGIMES without consulting the electorate in any sort of a vote. The only sort of vote which was interpreted as a public endorsement of Apartheid was the 1948 election of Daniel Francois Malan & his Reunited National Party but few bother to scrutinize the matter to discover some telling facts.

First of all the National Party victory at the polls during that election was illusory as they did not win the popular vote: only just barely enough seats to form a government. This is known to happen from time to time in Parliamentary based democracies. Therefore construing that election as a mass endorsement for Apartheid [ as many political pundits do ] would be intellectually dishonest. Next: the governing United Party was in fact PERPLEXED by the National Party's election campaign [ 1 ] & its proposed "emergency measures" aimed at strengthening & reforming Apartheid as the UP saw the NP position as nothing more than a dressed up version of their own policy & believed that the existing Apartheid laws on the statute books were sufficient. The National Party had to later co-opt the Afrikaner Party in the early 1950s [ of which its leader N C Havenga was Malan's preferred successor when Malan announced his retirement but the post ultimately went to Hans Strijdom ] just to increase the National Party's base of support to go into further polls. Then: when the next election cycle came up for 1953 the National Party made sure that the White population of South West Africa could vote in South African elections so that they could increase their representation in Parliament. Not until the 1958 election did the National Party receive a majority of the White electorate: [ 2 ] after most of the Grand Apartheid laws were already passed. Furthermore it should be pointed out that Afrikaner Nationalists simply extended & stregthened previous segregatonist laws that were inheritied from & passed by the earlier Brtitish colonial regimes prior. They did not invent anything new - only made it more organized & later granted independence & self government to various mini States. What had come to be known as Apartheid was in fact in practice since the begining of the South African macro State [ & indeed if it were not then the White surrogate Colonial regime could never have been brought to power in the first place via the universal franchise adopted as the means of electoral law as per the governance of South Africa ] & was IMPOSED onto the region via political decisions from the top & not from popular mass organization. The main purpose of Apartheid [ as it was enforced ] was to secure the State from the British & the intial use of the term Apartheid was used in relation to the separation of Afrikaans speakers from English speakers. The author P Eric Louw notes [ 3 ] that the National Party's version of Apartheid got started as a means to prevent Anglo domination.

This new expansion & reorganization of Apartheid was driven by the then secretive Afrikaner Broederbond which was using the Apartheid issue to bolster their influence & power. The membership of the Afrikaner Broederbond was small in numbers but wielded a lot of influence & power as virtually every single National Party cabinet member was a member of this elite semi-secret group which formulated the Grand Apartheid laws WITHOUT large scale or mass public consultation.

Prime Minister J B M Hertzog who started the original National Party in 1914 stated in November 1935 that: "there was no doubt that the secret Broederbond was nothing more than the National Party operating secretly underground, and the National Party is nothing more than the secret Afrikaner Broederbond operating in public". [ 4 ] Therefore this public admission demonstrates that the mass public were by & large kept in the dark & can not honestly be held accountable en mass for a system devised in secret [ initially ] by the political establishment.

The only reason why the old Apartheid laws appeared to have any support [ of which was never much more than 30 % solid hard core support of the electorate coupled with a slight "swing vote" section of which swung against Apartheid by the late P W Botha regime ] was because after the regimes dangled Apartheid in front of the White electorate as a means to safeguard their security & what little representation they had [ remember politics is the art of pretending to represent the people while really just implementing a semi-secret agenda aimed at securing the interests of the elite ] within the dispensation - they effectively frightened the White electorate into supporting the Apartheid doctrine as the only method to prevent what they cynically called the Black Threat. Cynical because they exploited those fears among the White electorate to great political benefit which was evident in how the National Party was able to hold onto power for over four decades. Though the opposition political parties' lack of submitting a viable alternative also played a large role in National Party dominance. Other options to Apartheid were purposely sidelined because of the establishment's desire to maintain their dominance of the macro State as created by the British Imperialists with an act of legislation passed in the British Parliament in 1909. The various Apartheid laws were just the various regimes' way of attempting to deal with the monstrous macro State that the South Africa Act created without losing control of the said macro State via its institutions & government. Wherein the Boers [among others] were denied their right to self determination in a total betrayal of Article 7 of the Vereeniging Accord not to mention the Sand River Convention & the Orange River Convention.

The Separate Development phase of Apartheid was often viewed as an expression of ultra right wing or conservative politics yet its basic premise of decolonization [ which was limited & never quite got off the ground as they never devised a viable method of reversing the macro State structure ] & of granting ethnic based self determination [ limited once again of course ] could hardly be considered as such & in fact this policy had opponents on the ultra conservative Right. The Separate Development stage of Apartheid as instituted by the National Party from the 1950s onwards was viewed as too liberal by ultra conservative figures such as Albert Hertzog [ who later founded the HNP ] as he was against the granting of Bantu homeland independence as he feared those independent states would become infiltrated by communism. [ 5 ] Though ironically the initial Apartheid policies which became institutionalized in law was a direct result of the high finance Capitalist [ which is not the free market ] influence in the region as a result of the labour policies employed on the gold mines near Johannesburg stemming from the racial segregation policies enforced on the mines.

Furthermore liberal icons such as Alfred Hoernlé was advocating for a system of partition in order "to protect the Black population from White economic exploitation". [ 6 ] Therefore it was one dimensional to view programs aimed at obtaining ethnic partition as "racist" when the very aim of those policies is to prevent racism from being possible by developing a dispensation whereby the various ethnic groups are no longer under the suzerainty of a racially or ethnically exploitative or dominant system. Which is not to say that the manner in which the past attempts within the old dispensation were enacted was desirable nor even practical as it was lopsided & the surrogate Colonial regime was attempting to maintain control over the major portion of the macro State & allocate it for the general White population - but such an aim of authentic ethnic / national group emancipation from macro State & surrogate Colonial regime suzerainty should not be a disparaged goal because the desire of authentic national group independence is a natural outcome of politically mature groups who want to get out from under oppression or ethnic marginalization & the dictates of a centralized system of government.

Conclusion. I will conclude on an interesting note: the Country Studies series available at the United States Library of Congress notes that prior to the arrival of the British & particularly before the era of the Anglo-Boer War - there was a balance of power in the region [ 7 ] thus if that politically stable situation could have prevailed & have been left alone: there never would have been the implementation of the later Apartheid laws on such a grand scale because this balance of power would not have been disturbed & there would not have existed the macro State which was the centralized enforcement mechanism of the Apartheid laws of the past & present.


1. Apartheid Revisited by Gavan Tredoux.

2. Paper presented to the Inaugural Conference of the Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust. The Political Economy of Social Change in South Africa University of the Western Cape.

3. Page 33 of The Rise / Fall & Legacy of Apartheid. P Eric Louw.

4. Alistair Boddy-Evans. Afrikaner Broederbond. What was the Afrikaner Broederbond.

5. Chapter 4 The Afrikaner Broederbond: From ‘Devil of Apartheid’ to an Actor of Change in the Transformation Process of South Africa? Annette Knecht Introduction.

6. R F A Hoernlé, South African Native Policy and the Liberal Spirit, Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg, 1945, pp 168–178. See also P N Malherbe, Multistan: A Way Out of the South African Dilemma, David Philip, Cape Town, 1974.

7. The Library of Congress Country Studies.

Post Script. Which is not to say that State devised programs attempting to manage growing racial demographic complexities [ exacerbated incredibly by the British mines owners ] would not have arisen but it is clear that it would not have been on the scale of what later unfolded due to the nature macro State centralization.

Sunday, 31 October 2010

Tutu playing politics again…

Why is Tutu constantly getting involved in politics?

Click on picture to view full article


Monday, 4 October 2010

Boers arrested in illegal police raid

Click on picture to go to original article


Thursday, 16 September 2010

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box

A brilliant series of posts from Mike Smith at South Africa Sucks:


Saturday, 11 September 2010

May We Never Forget

47802_425878307971_644342971_5046587_8264800_n 11 September 2001 will forever be engraved in my mind.  For two reasons.  It is the day my work permit was approved and I knew we could leave South Africa and the communist thuggery of the ANC.  A day which was supposed to be one of the most ecstatic in my life.  And yet the event which overshadowed that day as I drove home from work was the news flash that terrorists hijacked commercial passenger aircraft and deliberately flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

I almost never used to tune in to the news anymore, as I was truly fed up with government propaganda downplaying the true nature of the communist ANC.  For some reason on that day, I did.  I couldn’t believe it – my first thoughts were that it is impossible, maybe a sick joke.  Until I reached my parents’ home to pick up my son and saw those terrible pictures on TV.  Reality sunk in and I was distraught with grief.  Our plans for the big move took a back seat for a few weeks while the consequences of this hate crime became clear.  I don’t have to tell an informed audience about the emotional experiences, because we all experienced it.  I just knew this would be a turning point in history…

To commemorate all the lives lost, all the brave men and women, all the heroes, the true patriots of a great nation, I give you this poem sent by a dear friend, Michelle Mans:

The Eleventh Of September

We mourn their loss this day this year
Those now with God, no danger near

So many loved ones left do stand
Confronting loss throughout our land

My heart goes out to those who do
No one can fathom what they view

I firmly pray for peace of mind
Dear God please help each one to find

And to our soldiers now at war
God guide above, at sea, on shore

They are the best, I have no doubt
Our country’s pride, complete, devout

The finest force you’ll ever see
All freedom grown through liberty

One final thought comes clear to me
For what must live in infamy

Absolutely – We’ll Remember
The Eleventh – Of September


Friday, 10 September 2010

Remember 9-11

The Cape Dutch of the 19th Cent.

During a previous post I posted a chapter describing the Boers of the 19th cent. I have also long since come across a book called: Cecil Rhodes and the Cape Afrikaners pertaining mainly to the Cape Dutch population of the 19th cent. Comparing the two one will discover rather different outlooks as the Cape Dutch were very pro British & pro Colonial while the Boers on the other hand became anti-British [ stemming mainly from the Slagters Nek Rebellion & into the era of the Great Trek ] as they were very anti-Colonial & quite independence oriented. This is significant as the Cape Dutch population was [ & whose descendants are ] larger than the Boer population group of which both groups were lumped together as part of an "official" coalition under the Afrikaner designation. Therefore when folks assert that "the Afrikaners are from the Boers" they are perpetrating a mathematical impossibility as they are omitting the Cape Dutch population who are in fact the larger progenitors of the Afrikaner macro group.

The following is from Cecil Rhodes and the Cape Afrikaners by Mordechai Tamarkin from page 57.

T D Barry, an English-speaking Bondsman, assured Parliament that he 'had never heard a disloyal word uttered' in the Bond ad that he did not believe there were more than two or three Bondsmen who wished the British flag out of South Africa'. The Bechuanaland crisis, like the Transvaal one before it, rather than triggering disloyalty, was an occasion for Cape Afrikaners to restate their loyalty to Crown and Empire.

The jubilee year of Queen Victoria in 1887 offered Cape Afrikaners an outlet for amazing manifestations of love and loyalty, in town and country, in verse and prose. The Afrikaner Bond congress in its official address to the Queen gave the lead:

We the undersigned, representatives of the Afrikaner Bond of the Colony... wish to approach you with our heartiest and most sincere congratulations on this blessed occasion... We assure you humbly and respectfully [of] our true loyalty to your throne, and we feel proud that in the great British Empire there are not more loyal subjects than those we represent.

It was signed by 'the humblest, loving and most loyal subjects of Your most Blessed Majesty'. In Paarl, the capital of ' Afrikanerdom ', representatives of the Genootschap van Regte Afrikaners and the Afrikaner Bond were present at the local celebration with their flags, while the main speaker expressed his joy at the impressive presence of the burghers which proved Paarl's loyalty to the Queen. The local Dutch newspaper ran a special supplement including a long poem, full of praises for the Queen, by Oom Jan. Such celebrations were not restricted to major urban centers. A correspondent from Van Rhijndorp boasted that 'although our village is small and miserable we have demonstrated our loyalty to our honourable Queen Victoria'. A rural Bond branch in the east held a banquet on a farm. According to the correspondent , 'the house was beautifully decorated and the flag which during thousands of years [sic] withstood the blows of the storm flew merrily high, a striking proof of our Bondsmen loyalty'.

In 1887 Hofmeyr was a member of the Cape delegation to the first Colonial Conference held in London. In a proposal combining a mild preferential treatment for colonial produce with a scheme to finance imperial defense, Hofmeyr made the most important contribution to the idea of strengthening the imperial connection.

Link to book: Cecil Rhodes and the Cape Afrikaners.

The Afrikaners - as a macro group under the mid 20th century definition of the term - are in fact mainly descended from the Cape Dutch while the Boer "segment" was co-opted only after the second Anglo-Boer War.

Tuesday, 24 August 2010


Warning: language might offend sensitive viewers


Friday, 20 August 2010

Interview with Mark Levin

Tuesday, 17 August 2010

Dr. Laura Says N-Word Live Recording

Sunday, 1 August 2010

Reitz Four convicted…

Read the complete article at The Right Perspective by clicking on the picture…


Tuesday, 27 July 2010

Chapter on the Boers of the late 19th cent.

The following is from the book: Oom Paul' People by an American author & newspaper correspondent named Howard C Hillegas. This chapter was rather fair to the Boers & their then struggle to remain independent within their republics during the second Anglo-Boer War & goes into some detail describing the life of the average Boer. The opening line of this chapter was eerily prescient as the Boer people are to this day - over a hundred years later - still struggling to "outlive" the slander & distortion from the British propaganda.

The Boers of Today. [ circa 1900 ]

THE wholesale slander and misrepresentation with which the Boers of South Africa have been pursued can not be outlived by them in a hundred years. It originated when the British forces took possession of the Cape of Good Hope, and it has continued with unabated vigour ever since. Recently the chief writers of fiction have been prominent Englishmen, who, on hunting expeditions or rapid tours through the country, saw the object of their venom from car windows or in the less favourable environments of a trackless veldt.

In earlier days the outside world gleaned its knowledge of the Boers from certain British statesmen, who, by grace of Downing Street, controlled the country's colonial policy, and consequently felt obliged to conjure up weird descriptions of their far-distant subjects in order [89] to make the application of certain harsh policies appear more applicable and necessary. Missionaries to South Africa, traders, and, not least of all, speculators, all found it convenient to traduce the Boers to the people in England, and the object in almost every case was the attainment of some personal end. Had there been any variety in the complaints, there might have been reason to suppose they were justifiable, but the similarity of the reports led to the conclusion that the British in South Africa were conducting the campaign of misrepresentation for the single purpose of arousing the enmity of the home people against the Boers. The unbiased reports were generally of such a nature that they were drowned by the roar of the malicious ones, and, instead of creating a better popular opinion of the race, only assisted in stirring the opposition to greater flights of fancy.

American interests in South Africa having been so infinitesimal until the last decade, our own knowledge of the country and its people naturally was of the same proportions. When Americans learned anything concerning South [90] Africa or the Boers it came by way of London, which had vaster interests in the country, and should have been able to give exact information. But, like other colonial information, it was discoloured with London additions, and the result was that American views of the Boers tallied with those of the Englishman.

Among the more prominent Englishmen who have recently studied the Boers from a car window, and have given the world the benefit of their opinions, is a man who has declared that the Boer blocked the way in South Africa, and must go. Among other declarations with which this usually well-informed writer has taken up the cudgel in behalf of his friend Mr. Rhodes, he has called the Boers "utterly detestable," "guilty of indecencies and family immorality," and even so "benighted and uncivilized " as to preclude the possibility of writing about them. All this he is reported to have said about a race that has been lauded beyond measure by the editors of every country in the world except those under the English flag. The real cause of it all is found in the Boers' disposition to carry their own burdens, and [91] their disinclination to allow England to be their keeper. Their opinions of justice and right were formed years ago in Cape Colony, and so long as their fighting ability has not been proved in a negative manner, so long will the Boers be reviled by the covetous Englishmen of South Africa and their friends.

The Boer of to-day is a man who loves solitude above all things. He and his ancestors have enjoyed that chief product of South Africa for so many generations that it is his greatest delight to be alone. The nomadic spirit of the early settler courses in his veins, and will not be eradicated though cities be built up all around him and railroads hem him in on all sides.

He loves to be out on the veldt, where nothing but the tall grass obstructs his view of the horizon, and his happiness is complete when, gun in hand, he can stalk the buck or raise the covey on soil never upturned by the share of a plough. The real Boer is a real son of the soil. It is his natural environment, and he chafes when he is compelled to go where there [92] are more than a dozen dwellings in the same square mile of area.

The pastoral life he and his ancestors have been leading has endowed him with a happy-go-lucky disposition. Some call him lazy and sluggish because he has plenty of time at his disposal and "counts ten" before acting. Others might call that disposition a realization of his necessities, and his chosen method of providing for them.

The watching of herds of cattle and flocks of sheep has since biblical times been considered an easier business than the digging of minerals or the manufacture of iron, and the Boer has realized that many years ago. He has also realized the utter uselessness of digging for minerals and the manufacture of iron when the products of either were valueless at a distance of a thousand miles from the nearest market. Taking these facts in consideration, the Boer has done what other less nomadic people have done. He has improved the opportunities which lay before him, and has allowed the others to pass untouched.

[93] The Boers are not an agricultural people, because the nature of the country affords no encouragement for the following of that pursuit. The great heat of the summer removes rivers in a week and leaves rivulets hardly big enough to quench the thirst of the cattle. Irrigation is out of the question, as the great rivers are too far distant and the country too level to warrant the building of artificial waterways. Taking all things into consideration, there is nothing for a Boer to do but raise cattle and sheep, and he may regard himself particularly fortunate at the end of each year if drought and disease have not carried away one half of this wealth.

The Boer's habits and mode of life are similar to those of the American ranchman, and in reality there is not much difference between the two except that the latter is not so far removed from civilization. The Boer likes to be out of the sight of the smoke of his neighbour's house, and to live fifteen or twenty miles from another dwelling is a matter of satisfaction rather than regret to him. The patriarchal custom of the people provides against the lack [94] of companionship which naturally would follow this custom.

When a Boer's children marry they settle within a short distance of the original family homestead; generally several hundred yards distant. In this way, in a few years, a small village is formed on the family estates, which may consist of from five hundred to ten thousand acres of uninclosed grazing ground. Every son when he marries is entitled to a share of the estate, which he is supposed to use for the support of himself and his family, and in that way the various estates grow smaller each generation. When an estate grows too small to support the owner, he "treks" to another part of the country, and receives from the state such an amount of territory as he may require.

Boer houses, as a rule, are situated a long distance away from the tracks of the transport wagons, in order that passing infected animals may not introduce disease into the flocks and herds of the farmer. Strangers are seldom seen as a result of this isolation, and news from the outer world does not reach the Boers unless [95] they travel to the towns to make the annual purchases of necessaries.

Their chief recreation is the shooting of game, which abounds in almost all parts of the country. Besides being their recreation, it is also their duty, for it is much cheaper to kill a buck and use it to supply the family larder than to kill an ox or a sheep for the same purpose. It is seldom that a Boer misses his aim, be the target a deer or an Englishman, and he has ample time to become proficient in the use of the rifle. His gun is his constant companion on the veldt and at his home, and the long alliance has resulted in earning for him the distinction of being the best marksman and the best irregular soldier in the world. The Boer is not a sportsman in the American sense of the word. He is a hunter, pure and simple, and finds no delight in following the Englishman's example of spending many weeks in the Zambezi forests or the dangerous Kalahari Desert, and returning with a giraffe tail and a few horns and feathers as trophies of the chase. He hunts because he needs meat for his family and leather for sjam-bok whips with [96] which to drive his cattle, and not because it gives him personal gratification to be able to demonstrate his supreme skill in the tracking of game.

The dress of the Boer is of the roughest description and material, and suited to his occupation. Corduroy and flannel for the body, a wide-brimmed felt hat for the head, and soft leather-soled boots fitted for walking on the grass, complete the regulation Boer costume, which is picturesque as well as serviceable. The clothing, which is generally made by the Boer's vrouw, or wife, makes no pretension of fit or style, and is quite satisfactory to the wearer if it clings to the body. In most instances it is built on plans made and approved by the Voortrekkers of 1835, and quite satisfactory to the present Boers, their sons, and grandsons.

Physically, the Boers are the equals, if not the superiors, of their old-time enemy, the Zulus. It would be difficult to find anywhere an entire race of such physical giants as the Boers of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The roving existence, the life in the open air, and the freedom from disturbing [97] cares have combined to make of the Boers a race that is almost physically perfect. If an average height of all the full-grown males in the country were taken, it would be found to be not less than six feet two inches, and probably more. Their physique, notwithstanding their comparatively idle mode of living, is magnificently developed.

The action of the almost abnormally developed muscles of the legs and arms, discernible through their closely fitting garments, gives an idea of the remarkable powers of endurance which the Boers have displayed on many occasions when engaged in native and other campaigns. They can withstand almost any amount of physical pain and discomfort, and can live for a remarkably long time on the smallest quantity of food. It is a matter of common knowledge that a Boer can subsist on a five-pound slice of "biltong"—beef that has been dried in the sun until it is almost as hard as stone—for from ten to fifteen days without suffering any pangs of hunger. In times of war, "biltong" is the principal item in the army rations, and in peace, when he is follow- [98] ing his flocks, it also is the Boer shepherd's chief article of diet.

The religion of the Boers is one of their greatest characteristics, and one that can hardly be understood when it is taken into consideration that they have been separated for almost two hundred years from the refining influences of a higher civilization. The simple faith in a Supreme Being, which the original emigrants from Europe carried to South Africa, has been handed down from one generation to another, and in two centuries of fighting, trekking, and ranching has lost none of its pristine depth and fervour.



With the Boer his religion is his first and uppermost thought. The Old Testament is the pattern which he strives to follow. The father of the family reads from its pages every day, and from it he formulates his ideas of right and wrong as they are to be applied to the work of the day. Whether he wishes to exchange cattle with his neighbour or give his daughter in marriage to a neighbour's son, he consults the Testament, and finds therein the advice that is applicable to the situation. He [99] reads nothing but the Bible, and consequently his belief in its teachings is indestructible and supreme.

His religious temperament is portrayed in almost every sentence he utters, and his repetition of biblical parables and sayings is a custom which so impresses itself upon the mind of the stranger that it is but natural that those who are unacquainted with the Boer should declare it a sure sign of his hypocrisy. He does not quote Scripture merely to impress upon the mind of his hearer the fact that he is a devout Christian, but does it for the same reasons that a sailor speaks the language of the sea-farer.

The Boer is a low churchman among low churchmen. He abhors anything that has the slightest tendency toward show or outward signs of display in religious worship. He is simple in his other habits, and in his religious observances he is almost primitively simple. To him the wearing of gorgeous raiment, special attitudes, musical accompaniment to hymns, and special demonstrations are the rankest sacrilege. Of the nine legal holidays in the Trans- [100] vaal, five—Good Friday, Easter Monday, Ascension Day, Whit Monday, and Christmas—are Church festival days, and are strictly observed by every Boer in the country.

The Dutch Reformed Church has been the state Church since 1835, when the Boers commenced emigrating from Cape Colony. The "trekkers" had no regularly ordained ministers, but depended upon the elders for their religious training, as well as for leadership in all temporal affairs. One of the first clergymen to preach to the Boers was an American, the Rev. Daniel Lindley, who was one of the earliest missionaries ever sent to South Africa. The state controls the Church, and, conversely, the Church controls the state, for it is necessary for a man to become a factor in religious affairs before he can become of any political importance. As a result of this custom, the politicians are necessarily the most active church members.

The Hervormde Dopper branch of the Dutch Reformed Church is the result of a disagreement in 1883 with the Gereformeerde branch over the singing of hymns during a [101] religious service. The Doppers, led by Paul Kruger, peaceably withdrew, and started a congregation of their own when the more progressive faction insisted on singing hymns, which the Doppers declared was extremely worldly.

Since then the two chief political parties are practically based on the differences in religion. The Progressive party is composed of those who sing hymns, and the members of the Conservative party are those who are more Calvinistic in their tendencies. As the Conservatives have been in power for the last decade, it follows that the majority of the Boers are opposed to the singing of hymns in church. The greatest festival in the Boer calendar is that of Nachtmaal, or Communion, which is generally held in Pretoria the latter part of the year.

The majority of the Boers living in remote parts of the country, where established congregations or churches are an impossibility, it behooves every Boer to journey to the capital once a year to partake of communion. Pretoria then becomes the Mecca of all Boers, and [102] the pretty little town is filled to overflowing with pilgrims and their "trekking" wagons and cattle. Those who live in remote parts of the country are obliged to start several weeks before the Nachtmaal in order to be there at the appointed time, and the whole journey to and fro in many instances requires six weeks' time. When they reach Pretoria they bivouac in the open square surrounding the old brick church in the centre of the town, and spend almost all their time in the church. It is one of the grandest scenes in South Africa to observe the pilgrims camping in the open square under the shade of the patriarchal church, which to them is the most sacred edifice in the world.

The home life of the Boers is as distinctive a feature of these rough, simple peoples as is their deep religious enthusiasm. If there is anything that his falsifiers have attacked, it is the Boer's home life, and those who have had the opportunity to study it will vouch that none more admirable exists anywhere. The Boer heart is filled with an intense feeling of family affection. He loves his wife and chil- [103] dren above all things, and he is never too busy to eulogize them. He will allow his flocks to wander a mile away while he relates a trifling incident of family life, and he would rather miss an hour's sleep than not take advantage of an opportunity to talk on domestic topics.

He does not gossip, because he sees his neighbours too rarely for that, but he will lay before you the detailed history and distinctive features of every one of his ancestors, relations, and descendants. He is hospitable to a degree that is astonishing, and he will give to a stranger the best room in the house, the use of his best horse, and his finest food. Naturally he will not give an effusive welcome to an Englishman, because he is the natural enemy of the Boer, but to strangers of other nationalities he opens his heart and house.

The programme of the Boer's day is hardly ever marred by any changes. He rises with the sun, and works among the sheep and cattle until breakfast. There at the table he meets his family and conducts the family worship. If the parents of the married couple are pres- [104] ent, they receive the best seats at the table, and are treated with great reverence.

After breakfast he makes his plans for the day's work, which may consist of a forward "trek" or a hunting trip. He attends to the little plot of cultivated ground, which provides all the vegetables and grain for the table, and spends the remainder of the day in attending to the cattle and sheep. Toward night he gathers his family around him, and reads to them selected chapters from the Bible. From the same book he teaches his children to read until twilight is ended, whereupon the Boer's day is ended, and he seeks his bed.

During the dry season the programme varies only as far as his place of abode is concerned. With the arrival of that season the Boer closes his house and becomes a wanderer in pursuit of water. The sheep and cattle are driven to the rivers, and the family follows in big transport wagons, not unlike the American prairie-schooner, propelled by eight spans of oxen. The family moves from place to place as the necessity for new pasturage arises. With the approach of the wet season the nomads [105] prepare for the return to the deserted homestead, and, as soon as the first rain has fallen and the grass has changed the colour of the landscape, the Boer and his vast herds are homeward bound.

The Boer homestead is as unpretentious as its owner. Generally it is a low, one-story stone structure, with a steep tile roof and a small annex in the rear, which is used as a kitchen. The door is on a level with the ground, and four windows afford all the light that is required in the four square rooms in the interior. A dining room and three bedrooms suffice for a family, however large. The floors are of hardened clay, liberally coated with manure, which is designed to ward off the pestiferous insects that swarm over the plains.

The house is usually situated in a valley and close to a stream, and, in rare instances, is sheltered by a few trees that have been brought from the coast country. Native trees are such a rarity that the traveller may go five hundred miles without seeing a single specimen. The Boer vrouw feels no need of firewood, however, for her ancestors taught her to cook her [106] meals over a fire of the dry product of the cattle-decked plains.

Personal uncleanliness is one of the great failings that has been attributed to the Boer, but when it is taken into consideration that water is a priceless possession on the plains of South Africa, no further explanation is needed. The canard that the Boers go to bed without undressing is as absurd as the one of like origin that an entire family sleeps in one bed. Yet these fictions constantly appear, and frequently over the names of persons who have penetrated into South Africa no farther than Cape Town.

The Boer here depicted is the representative Boer—the one who shoulders his rifle and fights for his country; the one who watches his cattle on the plains and pays his taxes; the one who tries to improve his condition, and takes advantage of every opportunity for advancement that is offered. There is a worthless Boer, as there is a worthless Englishman, a worthless German, and a worthless American, but he is so far in the minority that he need not be analyzed.

[107] There is, however, a Boer who lives in the towns and cities, and he compares favourably with other men of South African birth. He has had the advantage of better schools, and can speak one or more languages besides his own. He is not so nomadic in his tendencies as his rural countryman, and he has absorbed more of the modernisms. He can conduct a philosophic argument, and his wife and daughters can play the piano. If he is wealthy, his son is a student at a European university and his daughter flirting on the beach at Durban or attending a ladies' seminary at Bloemfontein or Grahamstown.

He is as progressive as any white man cares to be under that generous South African sun, and when it comes to driving a bargain he is a match for any of the money sharks of Johannesburg. For the youthful Boer who reaches the city directly from the country, without any trade or profession, the prospects are gloomy. He is at a great disadvantage when put into competition with almost any class of residents. The occupations to which he can turn are few, and these have been still further restricted in [108] late years by the destruction of cattle by the rinderpest and the substitution of railways for road transport. His lack of education unfits him for most of the openings provided in such a city as Johannesburg, even when business is at its highest tide, and a small increase in the tension of business brings him to absolute want.

The Boer of to-day is a creature of circumstance. He is outstripped because he has had no opportunities for development. Driven from Cape Colony, where he was rapidly developing a national character, he was compelled to wander into lands that offered no opportunities of any description. He has been cut off for almost a hundred years from an older and more energetic civilization, and even from his neighbours; it is no wonder that he is a century behind the van. No other civilized race on earth has been handicapped in such a manner, and if there had been one it is a matter for conjecture whether it would have held its own, as the Boer has done, or whether it would have fallen to the level of the savage.

Had the Boer Voortrekkers been fortunate [109] enough to settle in a fertile country bordering on the sea, where they might have had communication with the outer world, their descendants would undoubtedly to-day be growing cane and wheat instead of herding cattle and driving transport wagons. Their love of freedom could not have been greater under those circumstances, but they might have averted the conditions which now threaten to erase their nation from the face of the earth.

Source: Oom Paul's People. by Howard C Hillegas. Published in 1900. Chapter four.

Closing comment. I was asked back in February on another blog what book I could recommend on the Boers & I pointed out this fine book & this chapter in particular.

Sunday, 18 July 2010

The Mandela Myth

Mandela is widely held to be “one of the greatest statesmen in the world”. This seems to be based on these six pillars:

    1. Martyrdom. A closer look at this “self sacrifice” is not convincing. Mandela was jailed following an open trial, under one of the best judicial systems. It has never been suggested that this trial was perverted or corrupt. He was found guilty of contravening the laws universal to the land and more than that, he had promoted a policy of terrorism. He had plans to disrupt law and order and impose a terrorism which would result in the maiming and death of many good and law abiding persons, children and elderly. When subsequently imprisoned, he was offered release provided only that he would renounce his support of violence. He would not. Accordingly, he remained in prison. Later, by the most extraordinary inversion of innate justice he was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace. It may well be that the Nobel Prize committee will, in retrospect, attempt to distance themselves from it.
    2. He saved South Africa from a blood bath. When persons spoke, prior to independence, of an impending “blood bath” they were imaging the events as they had previously occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. These past “blood baths” were not as much exercises in retribution (the veiled threat to South Africans), but simply sprees of looting and rapine. There was probably no possibility whatever of South Africa as a whole rising in this way, because of a well formulated social infrastructure, with an effective police force (operating entirely within an open judicial system) and the other components of a stable society.

    Such was the relationship between the communities under apartheid rule in South Africa that an intrinsic stability, and for that matter mutual respect, existed [1]. There were, of course, the well recorded “insurrections”, but a critical look at the numbers will demonstrate that these were by a minute percentage of the population. “The Blood Bath will come” was an emotively convenient threat, much along the line “if you don’t give me your ball, I will ask my daddy to beat you up”. This phrase and its implied emotive threats, was something conjured by those who were intent on destroying an existing system by inducing fear.

              Far from demonstrating that Nelson Mandela was responsible for “preventing a blood bath”, the evidence points in the opposite direction. He founded and was the head of an organization which promoted bloody massacres of civilian populations [2]. Not only that, he was leading the ANC which effected a bloody suppression on their own “recruits” in the ANC army-in-exile. The truth and Reconciliation Commission ruled that these ANC activities were a “gross violation of human rights” [3].

              A blood bath did occur, but after “independence” and after universal suffrage, when Mandela was in command. Part of this was black on black violence during the build up to the first election, reported to have claimed more than 20,000 black lives. Did Mandela stop that blood bath? Short answer: No.

              The slaughter still continues with the selective execution of isolated (white) farmers by the thousand and the phenomenal homicide, mostly associated with robbery.

              Under a “liberated” black government the “blood bath” happened more slowly than the other African atrocities. The difference was that “world opinion” did not want to believe that this was happening after an “independence” which they had promoted. Slowly accumulating statistics of killings do not make headlines.

              The looting of South Africa did occur but in a different way from the rest of Africa. What distinguished the looting of South Africa from other historic rampages in Africa was that it was slower and politically engineered, under the leadership of Mandela. The initial looting was by “cold theft” engineered by the ANC by the subtle stripping of the assets under various legislated ploys such as “black empowerment” and “affirmative action”. This was followed by massive corruption, embezzlement and fraud perpetrated by individual members of the ANC, on their own account.

              Later the avalanche of confrontational crime, murder, hijackings and wide spread theft cascaded throughout the country as criminals began to appreciate that under a black government there were now no longer the same restraints against lawlessness as there had been under white government.

            3. Mandela exemplified pacifism, as claimed in his well publicized comment: “Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC, MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe) was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement would be created soon, so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle.”

            Mandela founded the MK and became its leader immediately after he had been acquitted from his first trial. This gives credibility to his initial arrest since Mandela had been actively promoting terrorism. This earlier acquittal underscores the judicial objectivity of Mandela’s first trial, such that he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted (although it subsequently became clear that he was intent on promoting violence).

            The reason for what Mandela called “the initial passive resistance” was not that he did not want violence, but simply because there were no funds to run a military campaign. Mandela was hardly the organizer it is claimed that he was. Further he had little support from the black population, despite the consistent emotive rhetoric about a “suppressed people”. At that date the “armed struggle” was an empty fantasy. It was later conceded by the ANC that this was no more than a propaganda strategy primarily geared towards mobilizing mass political support. Mandela was simply garnishing inability with virtue.

            4. Mandela was dispassionately objective. This attribution later allowed him to act as an international mediator over a wide range of political and legal issues. How objective was he? A demonstration of his lack of impartiality was his speech in Havana on 26 July 1991. Nelson Mandela supported the Cuban version of the battle of Cuito Cuanavale by saying: “The defeat of the apartheid army (at Cuito Cuanavale) was an inspiration to the struggling people in South Africa! Without the defeat of (sic) Cuito Cuanavale our organizations would not have been unbanned! The defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale has made it possible for me to be here today! Cuito Cuanavale was a milestone in the history of the struggle for southern African liberation!”[4]

            Chester Crocker, with his backing of CIA knowledge and with arguably a more arms-length objectivity, saw it quite differently [5]. If one accepts Chester Crocker’s countering opinion, Mandela’s views can be regarded as grossly distortive “Black Consciousness Propaganda”.

            5. Nelson Mandela personified opposition to black oppression. Undoubtedly Mandela was symbolic to the large and unsuccessful peasant populations, implying that they also, via their vicarious surrogate Nelson Mandela, could triumph over the white civilization. This re-ignited the symbolism of Mahatma Gandhi, who also had a reputation for pacifism. Ironically he was also a lawyer who obtained, from the British Government, the benefit of training in law. But his “pacifism” must also be doubted [6].

            Far from “rescuing” the masses from impoverishment, the income of most peasant South Africans has decreased since “independence”. Small numbers of selected elite blacks, on the other hand, have become exceptionally wealthy.

            6. He exhibited supreme statesmanship as President of South Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth. Prior to the release of Nelson Mandela and the truce offered to the ANC, Mandela and the ANC were approached by South Africa’s very successful financial and industrial cohort. This was as an “economic truce within a political truce”. It must be remembered that the entire population of South Africa, in distinction from the rest of Africa and most of the rest of the world, were the beneficiaries of the extraordinary successful system evolved by Colonialism. In pre-independence meetings with ANC, notably in Lusaka, the high probabilities are that the cohort wanted to explain to the ANC that they would be inheriting a jewel. It would have been pointed out to them that damaging this financial axis would damage the entire country, probably in an irreparable fashion. Those affected by damaging the South African economy would be the most vulnerable - the poorest.

            There could have been no other reasons for the Lusaka meeting other than that portrayed here. Paternal, as it might have been, for Mandela to heed this cautioning from the people then in power was vital to the future welfare of the entire population of South Africa and beyond.

            The preservation of South Africa’s economy depended upon Mandela’s leadership. With huge international and internal support no politician could have had a stronger mandate than Nelson Mandela.

            Despite such support and despite august warnings, Mandela failed totally to protect the existing structures and within a short period after “independence”, it became clear to the financial and industrial core of South Africa that the ANC would proceed on its own agenda, which would destroy the industrial/financial infrastructure of South Africa [7].

            This resulted in the financial axis, exemplified by Anglo American, Liberty Life and Old Mutual, rapidly exiting. While powerful companies in South Africa had sufficient resources to relocate into the First World, many lesser businesses did not and remained trapped. Therefore individuals, seeing themselves threatened, emigrated en masse [8], thus further reducing the professional and other skilled resources of the country and so by a cascade damaging the financial benefit which had made black South Africans the best cared for, best educated, healthiest and most affluent in (at least) sub-Saharan Africa.

            Once in office, Mandela took control of only one portfolio, Race Relations, which was unlikely to be controversial and could hardly fail. However, in the circumstances, this instantly invested him with more virtue. He took some interest in the military where he tried to ensure the language of operation was not English. He was rapidly over-ruled, having displayed an astounding lack of common-sense, let alone a lack of statesmanship. For the rest he delegated to his ministers showing little interest in their management and so effectively abdicating any leadership.

            Therefore Mandela failed as a politician by not recognizing the extraordinary infrastructure which he and the ANC had inherited. He failed to protect it and failed to support the existing structures in a way which could multiply South Africa’s past success. The jewel which was South Africa – in stark contrast to the rest of Africa - should have been obvious to the blindest. But Mandela permitted the progressive erosion of the South African infrastructure by nepotism and crime at an administrative level and by gain-seeking individuals - primarily those with political connections to him – and who were (nominally) under his “statesmanship”. Most of the “statesmanship” purported to originate from Mandela’s office was in reality orchestrated by the now defunct Thabo Mbeki. An illusion of his political capacity was thrust upon him by a surge of worldwide emotion which obscured his limited intrinsic abilities.

            Mandela abandoned his role as leader of the country after the least possible period and while it still needed stable leadership. However, he was in office long enough to accumulate a substantial wealth, which further distanced him from the increasing poverty of the population under his control [9].

            No saintly asceticism here.

          Conclusion. The greatest condemnation that must be levelled at Mandela was his failure to accept that with universal franchise all playing fields had been levelled. He failed to demand that the future success of individuals and groups would depend upon their intrinsic capabilities. Instead, he over-saw an astonishing exercise which effectively said that the groups coming into power should have their past inferiority recognized by being given advantageous benefits in the form of black empowerment, affirmative action and similar. This shows the hollowness to his oft quoted statement:

          “I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve.”

          Further, those persons who had previously created the successful socio-financial axis were intentionally and unfairly discriminated against [10]. This inflicted a substantial deprivation of human rights and an injury to those individuals who had historically created for their communities from the parched earth of what had been a derelict country when they arrived.
          This paper aims to be factually correct. To ensure veracity Mandela and others are invited to respond correcting any inadvertent errors.


          1. In a separate essay it will be posed that the black population, if extremists are excluded, fully recognized that the basis of apartheid was no more than the natural and expected protection by the white population of their complex culture and material social creation. The indigenous population recognized that apartheid was not a system of malice and far from exploiting the indigenous culture, it offered the opportunity for the indigenous population to enter the realm of capitalist Christian Democracy.



          4. Castro Ruz, Fidel Alejandro and Mandela, Nelson (1991). How Far We Slaves Have Come. N.Y.: Pathfinder Press. pp. 18–20. ISBN 0873484975.

          5. Crocker, Chester A. (1992). High Noon in Southern Africa: Making Peace in a Rough Neighborhood. W.W. Norton. ISBN 0393034321. “In early October the Soviet-Fapla offensive was smashed at the Lomba River near Mavinga. It turned into a headlong retreat over the 120 miles back to the primary launching point at Cuito Cuanavale. In some of the bloodiest battles of the entire civil war, a combined force of some 8,000 UNITA fighters and 4,000 SADF troops destroyed one Fapla brigade and mauled several others out of a total Fapla force of some 18,000 engaged in the three-pronged offensive. Estimates of Fapla losses ranged upward of 4,000 killed and wounded. This offensive had been a Soviet conception from start to finish. Senior Soviet officers played a central role in its execution. … Huge quantities of Soviet equipment were destroyed or fell into UNITA and SADF hands when Fapla broke into a disorganized retreat… The 1987 military campaign represented a stunning humiliation for the Soviet Union, its arms and its strategy. … As of mid-November, the UNITA/SADF force had destroyed the Cuito Cuanavale airfield and pinned down thousands of FAPLA’s best remaining units clinging onto the town’s defensive perimeters.” Crocker was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Reagan Administration

          6. Gandhi, also famed for pacifism, actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians in Natal into the army during the Zulu war. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimise their claims to full citizenship.

          7. Anglo-American Corporation has moved almost all its gold interests out of South Africa.

          8. Semi-official figures state that one quarter of the white population has emigrated. The true figure will be considerably higher.

          9. The number of “Mandela Trusts” is obscure, but there are at least three. Best known is the Mandela Children’s Fund. Totally separate and less known is the Nelson Mandela Trust, holding funds available to Mandela personally. One of the scams relating to “Nelson Mandela Signed Artwork” was expected to make for the Nelson Mandela Trust (i.e. Mandela personally) 200 million Rand (USD 20million) in two years. Clearly there are immense funds in Mandela’s purse.

          10. See “The Parallels of Nazism with the ANC”

          Tuesday, 29 June 2010

          Diane Abbott MP - A Racist & Champagne Socialist?

          Sunday, 27 June 2010

          Boer war memorial vandalised

          Click below to go to original article…


          Sunday, 30 May 2010

          Stop Boer Genocide Protest at UK Parliament.

          This is a great development. My brief comments are in blue for clarification.

          Stop Boer Genocide protest, UK parliament.

          Boers demonstrate against ethnic-cleansing targeting them in South Africa.

          Westminster, United Kingdom -- On Saturday morning, 8 May 2010, around 20 Afrikaners, referring to themselves as “Boere” [ because that was what the Boer population segment was historically called before the term Afrikaner was imposed onto ALL White & other Afrikaans speakers ], conducted a “silent protest” in Parliament Square against what is known in South Africa as “Plaasmoorde” – Farm Murders.

          With their mouths taped up and without chanting any of the slogans on their placards ranging from “More than 3,000 farmers murdered since 1994” and “Families butchered everyday” to “No farmers, no food” and “Boer genocide = African famine” they symbolized the silence of the world press when it comes to the reporting of these genocidal killings.

          Apart from two high profile murders which had enticed a couple of media reports for a week or two, these often very gruesome murders have gone largely unnoticed.

          Man holding Orange Free State Vierkleur flag.

          When asked what the aim of the protest was, the organizer of the event, Wynand Krüger, said: “ Whilst we acknowledge that South Africa’s rampant crime leaves every citizen and tourist very vulnerable, we wanted to emphasize the ethnic nature of what we consider to be targeted attacks in order to scare and intimidate white farmers off their land.

          “Do you realize that Genocide Watch recently raised South Africa’s threat level to Stage 5 out of the 8 possible stages of Genocide [ Genocide Watch raised the threat level to Stage 5 in 2002 & has recently stated that it is considering raising it to level six due to recent developments ], referring to Boers and refugees as the potential victims? That is why we also chose to display Boer flags here today; we consider “plaasmoorde” to constitute a process of ethnic cleansing that echoes the concentration camps of the Anglo Boer War.

          * “No-one believed it then and no-one is believing it now. Our people need, and would be very thankful for, another Emily Hobhouse, hence the protest here in Parliament Square.”

          ANC-government ‘racially-prejudiced against ethnic minorities’

          One protester also commented that the ANC-dominated government’s failure to adequately address farm murders, as well as its racially prejudiced policies towards ethnic minorities since Nelson Mandela stepped down, left her feeling marginalized and unable to identify with the new South Africa, its flag and the idea of a Rainbow Nation any longer. “The ANC preaches one thing, but practices another”, she said.

          Another protester wanted to know why Mr Mandela was so quiet on the farm murder issue, especially since the ANC defended Julius Malema’s singing of the genocidal hate-speech song “Kill the Boer”.

          * “Mr Mandela won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, where is he now? Last year he shared a stage with now president Zuma, thereby endorsing Zuma and the ANC during the previous election.”

          Bean Earle, chairman of the Jack Hindon Scouts in the UK, said: “the frightening statistics of more than 3,360 farmers being murdered in more than 10,000 attacks since 1994, the ANC’s failure to discipline Julius Malema for his hate speech and calling for Zimbabwe-style land grabs, the fact that South Africa can now be mentioned in the same breath as Zimbabwe and Iraq (both listed as at stage 5 by Genocide Watch) when potential genocide is discussed, as well as the knock-on effect of these factors on dramatic drop in the food production in Sub-Saharan Africa, all send a multitude of shivers up one’s spine. It is therefore unsurprising that there are serious doubts about the prospects for a peaceful future in South Africa. “

          Despite the protest in Parliament Square being a silent one, those present hoped that the message got across loud and clear, he said. jackhindonscouts.blogspot.com



          This type of protest is essential in trying to get the truth out about this genocidal situation.