Monday, 25 February 2008

How bad was apartheid?

Apartheid was the cause celebre of the latter half of the last century. It was the only one which united all moral and principled people. Opposition became a kind of morality play by which we could all demonstrate our worthiness. In my case I gave up eating Outspan oranges (replacing them with an Israeli variety) while others made even more draconian sacrifices to bring down the hated regime.

And of course the wheels started falling off in the late eighties and the system collapsed entirely in 1994.

The common image of SA was that of a violent seething cauldron with the lid kept on only through the means of a highly militarized police state. Gun-toting police and soldiers on every corner no less, whites fearfully barricaded behind multiple layers of security. If true, this would indeed have represented a damning verdict on the system.

However, it was not true.

In fact it grotesquely misrepresents the real situation. SA in fact, even in the latter decades of apartheid (the most violent time) had a police/population ratio of about 1:2000. This was lower than in most other countries, including advanced Western ones such as the USA, France and Germany. Military spending as a proportion of GDP was also lower than in most Western states. It’s anecdotally indicated that most whites left their doors unlocked at night until well into the eighties.

And by the way, since ‘freedom’ was gained in 1994 there have been an incredible 300,000 murders, despite a huge ramp-up in the numbers of police. Just like India has become an outsourced destination for call centres, SA has become one for crime management. It now stands proudly as an international centre of excellence for money laundering, international prostitution rings, drug-trafficking and child pornography services.

So how bad was apartheid?

Well, it should first be realized that South Africa as a state was the creation of (white) European immigrants. It was run for their benefit, blacks were seen as a source of cheap labour, to be kept out of sight and sound as much as possible. They were not permitted to own land outside designated areas and were of course effectively excluded from the political system. They were deprived of various other rights, frequently humiliated and subjected to rough justice.

None of this was nice, but in terms of cosmic injustice it doesn’t even register. Comparatively few people were directly killed by way of the system. Sure, executions of blacks were at a rate which made GW Bush’s Texas seem almost liberal, and then there was the infamous Sharpeville massacre.

Let’s talk about Sharpeville. 69 people killed. Let’s assume that they were all killed in cold blood (they weren’t, in fact). But how in God’s name has this become a byword for state terrorism and criminality? Leave aside the tens of millions killed by the systems of Stalin PolPot and Mao. Four million have been killed in the Congo. When Robert Mugabe sorted out Matabeleland in the early eighties (well after Sharpeville) he, within the space of six weeks, killed more than 2000 civilians. Most of the dead were killed in public executions involving between one and 12 people at a time. And he was a hero to us in the West at this time. I could in fact list 1000 other examples incomparably worse than Sharpeville or anything else under apartheid.

It should also be borne in mind, as I've mentioned in other posts, that nobody – nobody - treats, or treated Africans worse than they do themselves. It was the first thing that hit me when I went there. Africans themselves know that, which partially explained why they flooded into apartheid SA at every opportunity and at great personal risk.

The only ones, in terms of lousy treatment of Africans, to give the Africans themselves a close run are the Arabs. Arabs see, and treat, Africans as lesser humans. And they don’t make any apologies for it (their ‘holy’ book justifies it, by the way). And they still do it. Associates of mine in Abu Dhabi recoil in horror at the thought of allowing blacks into the UAE. They believe deep down that they should be treated as slaves.

Hindus see blacks, literally, as the lowest form of life

So why then, given that its offences in comparative terms were small beer, did apartheid and SA draw such odium? Let me think. No, can't think of any reason, seems no logic to it.

Ha wait! Of course – the South Africans were white! Silly me. I forgot, only whites are racists. 

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

So yiu've finally come to your natural home, justifying apartheid.

well done, you fat pervert prick

Anonymous said...

Anon,
Savant is not justifying Apartheid. He is just pointing out that in SA blacks were not that bad off in comparison with other African countries before or since.

And yes, I do believe that black South Africans were right to overthrow the racist regime but what has happened since is god awful.

Skot German said...

Blacks cannot build White civilizations, only Whites can do that. Blacks may not have liked apartheid, but I bet the majority of them prefer it over what they have now. Apartheid was probably the only way to maintain White civilization in South Africa.

I suppose, technically, SA is a democracy with one person having one vote. Why do so many feel that democracy is the most important thing in life? One may be poor, hungry most of the time, live in constant fear of crime, have sewage running in the streets and have no social services, but, by God, he can vote.

Rhein said...

It wasn't a racist regime it was a realistic regime. They knew what would happen if they let go of apartheid and guess what, they were right. And your statement "but what has happened since is god awful" further proves it.

Anonymous said...

They were not of the same race as Helen Suzman and were infringing their monopoly.

SAVANT said...

Not sure what point anonymous 12.41 is making??

Anonymous said...

Helen Suzman, of what ethnic origin was she? Did she oppose apartheid because it was good for her tribe?

doodler said...

Savant
Helen is Jewish - liberal sole MP of the Prog party in 70's - this is an antisemitic post - suggest you delete it

Anonymous said...

Well maybe SA was better off with Apartheid but it was naive to think that it could last forever. You can't ignore a sizeable portion of the population like that. As for the alternatives.. it's a tough isn't it.

SAVANT said...

Thanks Doodler. I prefer to let these things in and be judged for the rubbish they are. Don't these guys have enough problems without looking for more (i.e. attacking Jews?)

Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha you lot are so innocent!

As 'for Infringing their monopoly' you lot are going to find out the hard way what that means.

'nobody-treats, or treated Africans worse that they do themselves. ...Africans themselves know that, which partially explained why they flooded into apartheid SA at every opportunity and at great personal risk.'

now, thanks to Helen Suzman and the Anti-apartheid movement the society which drew these immigrants no longer exists and has been replaced with something much worse.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Savant, for having the courage to post this. It is so interesting to see how the most disgusting atrocities are perpertrated every day by blacks against whites and fellow blacks, but there is not a peep from the civilised world. Ian Smith and his government ensured a safe environement for all the inhabitants of Rhodesia - but he could not be tolerated, he was white, he was evil: sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Robert Mugabe is the epitome of evil, running a real dictatorship... what do all the anti-racist do-gooders have to say - NOTHING. Mugabe is black. The same situation obtains with the "New" South Africa today.

When you actually look at what Apartheid was about, (and do not just accept liberal hatred of what liberals are incapable of understanding because of their idolatry of equality), you see that it was a rational response - an attempt to defend a bit of civilisation on the Dark Continent. Apartheid may not have ensured equality, and it may not have been perfect, but it ensured a greater proportion of justice for ordinary whites and blacks. Bullies were brought to book. Crime and murder were punished. In black run South Africa crime goes unpunished because the Black Bullies are in government. The present black thugocracy of SA only looks after the illiterate ANC elite.

Keith_SA

Anonymous said...

When I accessed this site today, I was warned by Google that someone has complained that it is objectionable" - "did I wish to continue?"

Isn't it amazing how powerful the truth is. The only answer that leftist liars can come up with is an attempt to ban it (the truth). They cannot deal with facts, and are so insecure that like Hitler and Stalin they can only edit, censor, ban and kill - when they have the power. Keep safe and keep strong in the truth, Savant.

Keith_SA

Anonymous said...

Mark my words, Apartheid is coming back - to an embattled White community near you!

J. Potgieter

Chris said...

Apartheid in SA is not dead, it's alive and well. Except it's now called Affirmative Action and it uses the law to exclude whites from most jobs, contracts, tenders, etc. Oh yes, and it discriminates against whites, which is why the world ignores it. Before anyone says anything about SA whites deserving it, the whites it now discriminates against were either toddlers or not born yet during the apartheid days.

Wolfgang said...

Apartheid is not defensible but "democracy" has done South Africa no favours. The Mandela years immediately following the 1994 transition proved too good to be true - A combinaton of "Madiba Magic" and the momentum of a strong economy, first-world administrative norms and well-establised infrastructure. For a few years it looked like we might buck the African trend; sadly reality seeped in and proved otherwise. Having grown up & lived in in SA for over 40 years I sadly felt compelled to uproot my life to restart elsewhere, and am now settled in Ireland. SA had the potential to be a phenominal country and even a world force. The Nationalist Party, originators of Apartheid, won the 1948 by the narrowest of margins. It could have gone the other way with a substantially different outcome. So what do I believe?
(a) Democracy means not just rights but also obligations. You should not be allowed to enjoy the one without meeting all the requirements of the other. (b) "Progress to democracy" should never allow perpetrators of crime to end up with more rights, or cost the state more money, than the victims of the crime. (c) In modern western society people have too many options, too many freedoms, too few obligations to make a non-selfish contribution towards maintaining and building on the achievements of their forefathers. (d) Laws should be vastly simplified and standardised across countries so that we can reach the fair decisions more quickly more often, without getting tied up in expensive and frustrating red tape. People need to see justice getting done.(e) Corruption and incompetence in any public office should be ruthlessly stamped out. Both are evil cancers that rapidly and insidiously kill society from within. (f) Individuals applying for any position of importance in society should be rated according to their deeds and actions based on universally objective standards and assessed by suitably qualified and impartial individuals - This criterion alone would change the world for the better. (g) A healthy respect for the law amongst the entire population, including political leaders, is a good thing. (h) One-man-one-vote has too many flaws to be universally applied. Voters should earn voting power based on criteria like contribution to society. (i) The vast majority of people are going to vote for and/or support persons of a similar background to themselves, at the expense of objective criteria. We'd like to think that we have evolved beyond this but fundamentally we haven't. Blacks support blacks, whites support whites, Muslims support Muslims, Zulus support Zulus, etc. The sooner we accept that we are in this sense all tribally, religoiusly, nationally or racially blinded the better.

Wolfgang said...

Apartheid is not defensible but "democracy" has done South Africa no favours. The Mandela years immediately following the 1994 transition proved too good to be true - A combinaton of "Madiba Magic" and the momentum of a strong economy, first-world administrative norms and well-establised infrastructure. For a few years it looked like we might buck the African trend; sadly reality seeped in and proved otherwise. Having grown up & lived in in SA for over 40 years I sadly felt compelled to uproot my life to restart elsewhere, and am now settled in Ireland. SA had the potential to be a phenominal country and even a world force. The Nationalist Party, originators of Apartheid, won the 1948 by the narrowest of margins. It could have gone the other way with a substantially different outcome. So what do I believe?
(a) Democracy means not just rights but also obligations. You should not be allowed to enjoy the one without meeting all the requirements of the other. (b) "Progress to democracy" should never allow perpetrators of crime to end up with more rights, or cost the state more money, than the victims of the crime. (c) In modern western society people have too many options, too many freedoms, too few obligations to make a non-selfish contribution towards maintaining and building on the achievements of their forefathers. (d) Laws should be vastly simplified and standardised across countries so that we can reach the fair decisions more quickly more often, without getting tied up in expensive and frustrating red tape. People need to see justice getting done.(e) Corruption and incompetence in any public office should be ruthlessly stamped out. Both are evil cancers that rapidly and insidiously kill society from within. (f) Individuals applying for any position of importance in society should be rated according to their deeds and actions based on universally objective standards and assessed by suitably qualified and impartial individuals - This criterion alone would change the world for the better. (g) A healthy respect for the law amongst the entire population, including political leaders, is a good thing. (h) One-man-one-vote has too many flaws to be universally applied. Voters should earn voting power based on criteria like contribution to society. (i) The vast majority of people are going to vote for and/or support persons of a similar background to themselves, at the expense of objective criteria. We'd like to think that we have evolved beyond this but fundamentally we haven't. Blacks support blacks, whites support whites, Muslims support Muslims, Zulus support Zulus, etc. The sooner we accept that we are in this sense all tribally, religoiusly, nationally or racially blinded the better.

Anonymous said...

A beatifull country with beatifull people of all colours, unemployment percentage so high, hiv percentage to high, crime done by real dangerouse assault rifle weilding people who place no value on human life, followed by desperate peoples doing desperate deeds, the management all greedy to take , most ex-crims themselves now vindicated.
South Africa - I fought and nearly died for You, many times, and would have gladley given my life for You. South Africa what happend to You ? You have become so bad, I had to leave all that I loved.

On foreign soil I now call home
I stand steadfast and alone
ashamed of what you have become
a carcas, maggotts and bones, a stench of life lost,
power at civil human and Gods cost

At some point one has to ask :
How much blood can I lose before I die ?


Sean...

Anonymous said...

I believe strongly in Reincarnation, I really do and I hope you Savant comes back as a Black African for several lifetimes.
Who the hell do you think you are and no I am not black or Muslim at all but I you disturb me.

SAVANT said...

anon 22.19.. and your point is? Do you diagree with the post, think it's wrong? Then let's hear it.

And by the way, there ain't no reincarnation - Ozymandias told me.

Anonymous said...

South Africa has (among other things) gold and diamonds. People like Joe Slovo and R Kasrils, and the UK equivalents such as Hodge [Oppenheimer] and Peter Hain, wanted - just as in the USSR - minerals to be controlled by Jews. There was also control over money. These are the reasons all the Jewish-controlled media made up the crap about apartheid. They didn't give a sh*t either about whites or blacks, or about socialism or democracy. Just like the USSR. Look who controls these things now and try to estimate how profitable they are. The South Africans used to talk about 'communists'; no doubt they weren't allowed to say what they emant. Or maybe - like savant - they didn't know.

SAVANT said...

Re last comment: Despite wht you might think, I'm open to the idea that 'Jews' are manipulating all the awful stff around us, including in SA. Problem is, I just don't see the evidence or the patterns. For every Jewish involvement in supporting apartheid, for example, you can get an equally compelling evidence of Jews (like Slovo) opposing it.

This is all presented as 'ah but you don't understand how they';re devilishly doing this to pull the wool over the goys' eyes'. Well, maybe they are, but the evidience is pretty thin.

As I said, I'm open to being persuaded, but not by drawing extravagent patterns where none really exist.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Funny enough, the attitudes towards blacks of every group described is the sane one, while we are deranged.

Obviously, this doesn't mean we should treat them like they're not human. But what whites did in SA is something we could do in Europe until we piss our immigrants enough so that they leave. lol

Anonymous said...

Could the msm indoctrinared european and american whites please study the history of SA.
If Apartheid was unfair it literally means that no country is allowed to defend itself against invasion.
The boer republics were taken away by the empire and every attempt after to restore land that was legally obtained in every sense of the word was met with a universal attack orchestrated by first the round table group and later the cfr.
Blacks never caused the end of apartheid but Kissinger did with one phone sal.
What happened to south africa is exactly what is happening to other white countries and concerned whites will be silenced like the boers where
study this well Europe this is your future .

Anonymous said...

www.mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com
read the truth about apartheid

Zarky said...

How many of you posting here actually lives in South Africa?

What makes you all living abroad experts in South African affairs?

You only know what the media feeds you!

If you like we could trade places and you may move to our beautiful mandela topia and experience it fist hand!

Piet said...

Zarky - you're taking the piss, right?

Anonymous said...

Blacks went from a population of 3 million to 35 million overthe centuries.

Possibly will decline from 35 million due to the forthcoming famine.

Anonymous said...

Didn't a lot of Mugabe's rivals go to apartheid South africa to save themselves from being genocided out of existence?

Anonymous said...

http://www.sunray22b.net/jews_and_communism_south_africa.htm


siege of SA

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p--5_Benson.html

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Laager said...

As the UN said:
"We must never allow it to happen again"

For readers not up to speed on this subject:

[1]
During the 42 years (1948-1990) of formal apartheid 7,000 people of all races died at the hands of the security services. (Figure accepted as testimony by the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission)

[2]
In the first 4 years of apartheid free South Africa, between the abolition of the apartheid laws and the introduction of black majority rule (1990-1994) about 14,000 black people died. About 12,000 as the result of black on black violence and about 2,000 at the hands of the security services sent into the townships to keep the warring factions apart. They ended up having to defend themselves from the rampaging mobs.

[3]
In the 18 years since democratic black majority rule (1994-2012) about 328,000 people of all races have died violent deaths. Within that figure are about 40,000 white people.

Death Rate Summary
[1] 7,000/42 = .5/day - apartheid
[2] 14,000/4 = 10/day - apartheid free
[3] 320,000/18 = 50/day - full democracy majority rule

The UN also passed a resolution declaring Separate Development [Apartheid] "A Crime Against Humanity"

Right now it seems as if the UN and the silent liberal media have justifiably earned the 'Egg On Your Face" award for their total silence on what is happening in South Africa today. (Laager posts ends. All emphases mine.)

So how bad was apartheid?

How stupid are the UN?

Piet said...

How stupid are the UN? Laager asks.

Laager, they're not stupid. The agenda was to destroy first white rule, then the white race in SA. They succeeding. They don't give 2 fucks about all the porch monkeys getting offed in the meantime.

Anonymous said...

"During the 42 years (1948-1990) of formal apartheid 7,000 people of all races died at the hands of the security services."

How many of those 'saintly' 7,000 people who died were resisting arrest? Or evading police? Or trying to kill them with a knife, machete or firearm? Hmmm?? Or were ANC terrorists? Hmmm??

Where's the outcry from the anti-White media and the UN regarding the 4,031 White farmers and 68,779 Afrikaners that have been murdered to date by Blacks in less than twenty years of Black rule? Hmmm?? How many White women and young girls were raped by these savages before being murdered? Hmmm??

Where are the denounciations from sanctimonious politicians and liberals and calling for an international boycot against the anti-White government that openly discriminates against Whites far more blatantly than Blacks have ever experienced during Apartheid, and has allowed these racially motivated murders ("hate crimes") against Whites to take place? Hmmm??

Jon

* http://ajkraad.wix.com/genocide-museum

SAVANT said...

Jon, I agree. My point about the 7,000 was that, for a country in a de facto insurrection situation these numbers were tiny, fewer than 200 a year. Discrimination? Yup, true as well.

Dingo Barnesworth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Don't blame slavery or even racism on the Arabs.

Both the Torah and even Jesus--that's right, Jesus of Nazarus--speak approvingly of the institution of slavery in our Holy Bible. And the Jews celebrated genocide thousands of years before that word was coined by a Jewish intellectual to describe one inhumane aspect of WWII.

Anonymous said...

http://southafricatoday.net/south-africa-news/think-again-before-you-call-yourself-a-supporter-of-the-new-south-africa/
See link for facts about apartheid.

Anonymous said...

http://mikesmithspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.de/2011/06/opening-pandoras-apartheid-box-part-32.html?m=1

Who the land belonged to.

Anonymous said...

It was written by Juju Mkize.
THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT RACISM
<<< How the hell can we believe you Mr President >>>
"South Africans are psychologically sick as a result of the violence inflicted upon the majority of the country’s people during the apartheid era", President Jacob Zuma said.
This is getting really old! The history of black South Africans has always been that of violence, death and destruction - NOT inflicted upon them by white people in this country.
Shaka Zulu, during his 10-year reign butchered more than 2 million black people in South Africa, not counting the deaths during mass tribal migrations to escape his armies. He had his warriors clubbed to death upon the merest sign of weakness. He neither took a legal wife nor fathered a son, for fear that his heir would plot against him, and had his concubines executed if he discovered they were pregnant. When his mother died, he massacred thousands of his subjects so their families would mourn along with him. Shaka retained his throne through the worst kind of sheer terror, vast mass executions, torture and mindless butchery.
His brother, Dingane, was no better. He took power after the assassination of Shaka and started his reign by butchering those loyal to Shaka.
THAT, amongst many other horror stories of black-on-black violence, is the history of Black South Africa.
During the Apartheid years it was not better. Factional fighting and tribal conflict was again the main cause of violence and death amongst black South Africans.
During the Apartheid era, from 1948 to 1994, the average life expectancy of black South Africans had risen to 64 years, on par with Europe's average life expectancy. Infant death rates had by 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. The African population in South Africa increased by 50%.
Deaths due to political violence during apartheid:
21 000 people died in political violence in South Africa during apartheid of whom 14 000 died during the six-year transition process from 1990 to 1994.
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.
During the period June 1990 to July 1993 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 killings and taxi and turf war violence.
The security forces caused 518 deaths (5.6%) throughout this period.
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.
In this country TODAY as many as 18 000 people are murdered EVERY year. ...and those are the official statistics. More than 400 000 people have been murdered in South Africa under ANC rule. The past 20 years have been the most violent in the history of this country since the death of Shaka Zulu.
...and NONE of it has anything to do with WHITE people or Apartheid... but I guess if you repeat the lie often enough you actually start believing the drivel coming from your mouth, Mr. Uneducated President !!!


Anonymous said...

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/afrikaans-identity-under-huge-pressure--fw-de-kler

Jacob said...

"South Africa as a state was the creation of (white) European immigrants. It was run for their benefit, blacks were seen as a source of cheap labour, to be kept out of sight and sound as much as possible. They were not permitted to own land outside designated areas and were of course effectively excluded from the political system. They were deprived of various other rights, frequently humiliated and subjected to rough justice" and then you go on to say that other people were worse, which implies that the above wasn't eso bad. In addition you don't source your atrocities. Yes I suppose that there was a double standard in attention, but that shouldn't make the above any better.

Jacob said...

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2013/12/was-apartheid-south-africa-really-that.html

SAVANT said...

Jacob, South Africa's Whites recognised that blacks are substantially different, inferior, and that living with them as citizens with the same rights simply was not possible. Events since 1994 have amply supported this position. If White SA was so bad for blacks why did millions of other Africans risk life and limb to get there?

The big mistake Whites made was not to do their own low level manual work. Gardening, domestic chores etc. Had they done this they could have effectively shifted blacks to the bantustans.

Anonymous said...

Savant,

Thank you for your post. As a white South African that grew up during apartheid in a conservative (note to liberals: this does not mean right wing) household and serving in the military for nearly 10 years I saw apartheid from both sides. It was not always pretty but it also was not all bad as it is made out today. Sure there were people who abused the system for their own personal benefit, but show me a political system where that does not happen; and yes, I agree that wrong is wrong.

What apartheid did was separate cultures that cannot possibly co-exist in the same space. Blacks are inherently violent and cannot be trusted to care for the safety of other others - there, I said it. This was the main motivator for the system of apartheid. After the Anglo-Boer war the Afrikaner was a conquored nation who returned to the ruins of their homes, their livestock wiped out and their field burned to the ground. Probably much like a Germany 45 years later, but like the phoenix, both rose from the ashes and build a state that responsibly cared for all their inhabitants. I know because as a national service man I slept in schools build for blacks in townships to prevent them from being burned down - remember the ANCs slogan was liberation now, education later. I also worked in the black Thembisa hospital during my training as a operational medical orderly where we got first hand experience of black on black violence and where we treated multiple gunshot and stabbing victims daily. My best work beign supervised by a surgeon on stiching up a young boy's lip that was cut open by razor wire intended to keep different factions apart.

So what is the big deal about being able to vote? Can you eat a vote? Does it cure your illness? Does it provide you with education? Does it protect you from harm and ensure your safety? I would gladly surrender my vote for that. However, allowing uneducated masses that can be bribed with a piece of chicken and a T-shirt to make informed decisions on economy, domestic and foreign policy, etc. borders on idiocy.

The only way to establish peace in South Africa is to have self governing areas where each group can rule themselves. Unfortunately reality has shown that where africans receive handouts, they will leave perfectly good opportunities to obtain the free goodies. Look at the UN and WFP in Africa; these two organizations have been the worst curse possible bestowed on Africa.

The ideas of separate homelands were based on the same principles that gave Lestho and Swaziland their independence. Black africans knows that they cannot rule themselves fairly - don't take my word for it, look at the rest of Africa and show me a single beacon of success. So if giving somone a territory where they can govern themselves are a crime against humanity, self rule must indeed be very wrong. Incidentally these homelands are still tribal areas today with a parallel government of traditional leaders funded by taxpayers. The only difference is that the are not officially independent and are not included when counting who own the land in SA.

But hey, we are crying about spilled milk. The only absolute is that history repeats itself. We have seen that when Dingaan murdered the first Voortrekkers who engaged in a treaty with him; again when the traitor FW de Klerk (may the gods curse him into his 10th generation) handed the country over to black rule for 30 pieces of silver, and now withbthe invasion of Europe by those who believe they have a right to be there.

Europe is at war but you do not want to acknowledge it because it is damn inconvenient. Remember:Si vis pacem, para bellum. If not, kiss your freedom goodbye, and prepare to be slaves in your own countries.

Anonymous said...

I have lived in South Africa for 68 years, I am Jewish but unfortunately I or any of my friends did not manage to own any gold or diamond mines. Quite a few of them however did start businesses which succeeded in employing many white and black south africans, affording them the opportunity of educating their children as well as putting food on the table.
It's amazing how today as in the past, any problem which arises finishes up being the fault of the Jews. We must surely be the "chosen people", chosen to be blamed, chosen to be killed, chosen to be chased out of any place they might make their home.Of course there were people like Slovo, Kasrils, Goldreich etc. who supported the abolishment of apartheid but were outnumbered by the jews who were not involved and just wanted to be left alone in the status quo unfortunately. Their thinking being that whatever happens we'll be blamed as seems to be the case now. The majority voted against the National party although there were a few who did.
I disagree entirely with the assumption that black people are the "animals" as made out in this blog.I have interacted with many at township and street level and found even today a tremendous amount of goodwill amongst ordinary people. This is not to say that the government we have to endure is not an utter disaster who have systematically engineered out anyone with a semblance of ethics or brains but only a desire for self enrichment. This unfortunately affects the livelihood of not only middle class south africans but mainly the poorest of the poor.

SAVANT said...

@Anon 11.08. My position on the Jewish role in SA and all other parts of the West is this: Not all Jews are involved in or support the destruction of White/Western civilisation. Maybe it's only a minority that does. However, Jews are overwhelmingly over-represented in every movement working towards this end. And they are correspondingly under-represented among those of us fighting back. So you can draw your own conclusions.

Another thing I'd add: Do you not consider that maybe everyone else is not out of step with you? I mean, do you think that everyone else, throughout history, has somehow, through sheer perversity, taken to blaming Jews?

Blacks as animals the position of this blog? I don't think so. The prevailing view I'd say is that they are - on average - far less intelligent than Whites and much more prone to criminality and welfare dependency.

Anonymous said...

And the everyday Jew in SA although not necessarily the re-incarnation of Trotsky they virtually all harbour uber liberal sentiments. Support the chain of organizations that ultimately lead back to those that do.

Now of course abandoning ship like rats down a hawser that the job is finally done and are some of the most insular and arrogant people to boot.