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.