Saturday, April 2, 2011

Eugene Terre’Blanche

Memorial service to be held for Eugene Terre’Blanche 

A memorial service is being held for slain right-wing leader Eugene Terre’Blanche in Ventersdorp on Saturday.

The former Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) leader was allegedly murdered on his farm a year ago by two farm workers. 

Terre’Blanche’s family, friends and some AWB members are expected to attend Saturday morning’s memorial on his farm, where he was found murdered.

Meanwhile, tensions between the Afrikaans speaking and black community rose during the suspects’ court appearance, with police having to separate the two groups with a barricade.

The murder trial is set to get underway in May.


Pandora’s Box 25

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 25: Stumbling on the Banks of the Rubicon 

By Mike Smith
22 March 2011 
Can one pinpoint a date when Apartheid actually ended?

Many people today think that Apartheid ended on the 2nd of February 1990 when De Klerk made his speech to unban the ANC, the SACP and to release Nelson Mandela, but this was just the conclusion to some decisions that were taken much earlier.

Apartheid officially ended on the 2nd of August 1985 in an old observatory in Pretoria.

Our story left off the last time with P.W. Botha who started the great betrayal of the whites of South Africa.

We will pick up the story again in 1985, when P.W. Botha was about to deliver his disastrous “Rubicon Speech” on the 15th of August of that year.

The speech is today fully attributed to P.W. Botha, but in fact he never wrote the original speech himself. The story of South Africa’s Rubicon is a fascinating one.

In September of 1984 violence erupted in the black townships after the ANC and Marxist agitators introduced their “People’s War” and stepped it up.

In July 1985 a state of emergency was declared as a short term measure, but it became clear to the NP that more long term solutions needed to be found for black inclusion in politics in South Africa.

This obviously excited the investors and creditors of South Africa.

It is said that a banker lends you an umbrella when the sun is shining… and then wants it back when it starts to rain.

This is exactly what happened in March 1985 when Chase Manhattan Bank led a string of other banks to the South African Reserve Bank and demanded their money back…immediately.

Economic pressures and threats of disinvestment were the order of the day. One company after the other, from Kodak, to Mobil and Barclays bank started to withdraw from South Africa.

In the days running up to the Rubicon Speech, Foreign Minister Pik Botha was assigned to go state South Africa’s future course in Europe and former UN ambassador Carl von Hirschberg was assigned to do the same in the Far East. Neil van Heerden a senior Foreign Affairs official was assigned to prepare African leaders for the speech.

Von Hirschberg had to wait several days for a flight to Taiwan and Japan. During this time he decided to write a ten page draught speech for President P.W. Botha.

But why did Von Hirschberg have this sudden urge to write a speech for the president?

A few days prior to him writing the speech, on the 2nd of August, a secret, clandestine meeting of the National Party, took place in Pretoria in a building called the Ou Sterrewag (Old Observatory), which served as a conference facility for Military Intelligence.

What the crux of that meeting was is still shrouded in mystery and probably only known to the attendees at the time. According to an interview with Chris Heunis, conducted by his son twenty years after the event, the main decision was to include blacks in the cabinet.

According to F.W. De Klerk who was one of the attendees of the meeting at the observatory, the meeting took certain decisions to enable Chris Heunis to embark on a new initiative in negotiations with blacks.

De Klerk describes the Sterrewag decisions as the end of the whole ideology of grand apartheid and as an initiative that had the potential of persuading the world that real change was underway. Noted in an article by historian Herman Gilomee on Politics web 20th of August 2008

In the same article Gillomee stated that Carl von Hirschberg, Deputy Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, recounted:

"When I met Pik in his office after the Sterrewag meeting, he was bursting with enthusiasm. He could hardly contain himself. It was his account of the policy changes agreed to at the meeting that I used in the draft I prepared as an input for PW Botha's Durban speech. It is my clear impression that PW had agreed to these changes, so I was not particularly concerned that he might reject them."

These National Party conspirators, including the President himself, unanimously and without the knowledge of the public that voted them into power, decided to end Apartheid and hand the country over to Marxist terrorist Blacks.

They wanted to make this public in a speech by the president at the congress of the National Party (NP) of Natal on the 15th of August 1985 in Durban. The emissaries such as Pik Botha and Von Hirschberg had to go out and prepare the world for this speech.

The Rubicon Speech was intended to in part diffuse the township violence that showed no signs of abating and also to preclude the adoption of tough sanctions by the USA and other industrial nations against South Africa. In the end it had the opposite effect.

Whilst in Europe, Pik Botha basically promised the world that Apartheid has come to an end and that it will all be made known in a speech by President P.W. Botha. Foreign minister Pik Botha was just relaying the decisions that were taken at the secret meeting held at the Ou Sterrewag, but he was not sure if the president would eventually include it all in his speech.

Nevertheless, according to Werner Scholtz, a South African diplomat who attended the briefings in Europe, "Pik Botha spoke with great enthusiasm and several times said: Gentleman, we are crossing the Rubicon".

What happened next is described by Les de Villiers in his book “In sight of surrender” page 88.

“On Friday morning 9 August 1985, when he arrived back in South Africa, Pik Botha was met by Von Hirschberg, and his deputy minister Louis Nel. Together they proceeded to the VIP lounge at Jan Smuts Airport and reviewed the speech draft. Botha made a few changes. Over coffee that morning the foreign minister inserted the following line of his own: “I believe that we are today crossing the Rubicon. There can be no turning back”. This, he felt would dramatize what was bound to be a momentous and dramatic break with the past and the beginning of a new era of race relations.”
Enters F.W. de Klerk.

At the time he was the NP leader in Transvaal and also the minister of Education and development. In 1985 de Klerk was seen by the political scientist Robert Shrirre as the “main conservative obstacle in the cabinet”.

That is right. The man we today view as a liberal traitor in the NP was once one of the most conservative.

The full role of De Klerk in the Rubicon speech has never been established but it is rumoured that he played a major role in diluting and watering it down. As I have said, he was one of the attendees at the Sterrewag on 2nd of August 1985, but did not like the new direction that was decided upon.

Allister Sparks wrote an article in the Washington Post of 19 August 1989 in which he says, “ De Klerk is said to have pressed Botha into drafting his so-called Rubicon speech in 1985, a defiant warning that he would not change the white minority’s hold on the country.”

It is not sure why president P.W. Botha decided to change his mind. Some say he was angered by the speculation of the press making expectations after the Sterrewag meeting, some say he was upset with Pik Botha’s over-enthusiasm and “over-promissing” to European and American emissaries.

On the late afternoon of Saturday the 10th of August, P.W. Botha told Chris Heunis that he was not prepared to make a “Prog-speech”…referring to the liberal opposition Progressive Federal Party.

On the 14th of August, a day before the Rubicon speech, President P.W. Botha summoned some cabinet members to a meeting. De Klerk would state later:

"That morning PW Botha demanded to know who was involved in providing inputs for the speech. He picked up all the inputs and threw them on the table."

He then said:

"I will not make that speech. I shall make my own speech."

He then read them a speech that was compiled by Daan Prinsloo who was an official in his office. It had some of the elements and recommendations made by ministers Pik Botha, Chris Heunis and Barend du Plessis. The introductory comment warned about raising expectations too high.

The cabinet was gob smacked, stunned into disbelief.

Chris Heunis later told his son in an interview, "We sat there like a bunch of little children, listening to him reading his speech to us. No one protested, in fact everyone nodded in agreement."
On the 15th of August in front of a capacity crowd in Durban, screened live to a world audience of more than two hundred million, P.W. Botha delivered his final speech and said that he “was not prepared to lead White South Africans and other minority groups on a road of abdication and suicide.”
He further said,” Destroy White South Africa and our influence, and this country will drift into factional strife, chaos and poverty.”

"Don't push us too far", he warned at one point with a wagging finger, confirming the stereotype of the ugly, staunch and irredeemable Afrikaner.

P.W. Botha had poor communication skills. After the Rubicon speech, the press dubbed his ramblings the Rubik’s Cube because it puzzled the world.

Instead of crossing the Rubicon, P.W. Botha got cold feet, made an about turn and headed straight back for the Laager.

Later on, both Pik Botha and Carl von Hirschberg said, that of the original draft speech only one line remained, that of the reference to “crossing the Rubicon”.

The speech was completely rewritten by Daan Prinsloo and P.W. Botha.

On 17th September 1992 Pik Botha released the original draft to “The Star” and claimed that “he wrote it”…an obvious lie. Von Hirschberg wrote the original draft. Pik only added one line.

Nevertheless he said that if P.W. Botha delivered the speech in its original form, Nelson Mandela would have been released five years earlier.

The world wanted reforms. They wanted blacks in power. P.W. did not deliver. The world felt tricked by Pik Botha who promised them Apartheid was about to be ended and P.W. Botha who refused to cross the Rubicon.

Within weeks after this disastrous speech about 430 International Banks came knocking at the door of Gerhard de Kock, at the time governor of the SA Reserve Bank…all wanted their loans back immediately…threatening to seize South African assets abroad.

The South African situation was dire. It was only the Swiss Banker Dr.Fritz Leutwiler who saved South Africa from total bankruptcy back then.

The results of the Rubicon speech was an $11 million dollar outflow from South Africa in the years 1985-1988.
Les de Villiers write on page 96 of “In sight of surrender”… 

“In a matter of only five years since 1985, South Africa lost 25 billion rand that would otherwise have been available for housing, education, hospitals and other social programs.”

Dr. Chris Stals, the later governor of the Reserve bank concluded; “ The post-Rubicon events of 1985 had a devastating effect on the South African economy and contributed largely to unemployment and unrest.”

The Rubicon Speech was one of the greatest watershed moments in South African Politics. Instead of diffusing the violence, the sanctions and the disinvestment campaign, it stepped it up a few notches.

Today it is difficult to understand what went through the mind of P.W. Botha at the time.

He was the one who started the ball rolling towards black inclusion in politics called “Power sharing” and the ending of Apartheid. He created the Tricameral Parliament and included Coloureds and Indians in the government of South Africa. He scrapped several Apartheid laws such as the mixed-marriages and immorality acts, and later the Group Areas Act as well as the influx-control measures.

Delivering the original Rubicon speech and handing over the country to blacks would have been a natural progression of his policies. It was a fait accompli…Alea iacta est! Why did he decide on a 180 degree turn?
It could be that he realized that he would lose his power to a black president and wanted to cling to power. Maybe he was afraid of a Communist invasion and violent pogrom.

Robin Renwick, British ambassador to South Africa, maintains that the security chiefs had persuaded the president to enforce the status quo with strict security measures.

Businessman, Anton Rupert speculated that a critical intervention was a threat by De Klerk, Transvaal NP leader at the time, to withdraw his party from the NP’s parliamentary caucus. Today it is incomprehensible to think that it was the conservative De Klerk who held P.W. Botha back on the banks of the Rubicon. One can only speculate.

All it did was to delay the inevitable by four years, at a cost that almost destroyed South Africa.

On exactly the same day (15th of August) four years later in 1989, F.W. de Klerk became the new State President after P.W. Botha was forced to resign by his co-conspirators of the Ou Sterrewag.

Almost immediately after coming to power F.W. de Klerk started stepping on the dagger that P.W. Botha originally inserted into the backs of the white South Africans…

F.W. de Klerk finally started implementing the treacherous decisions taken at the Old Observatory on that fateful day of the 2nd of August 1985…but more about that in the next edition.

Main Sources:
• “In Sight of surrender” by Les de Villiers, 1995

Pandora’s Box 26

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 26: The role of Government, and what Treason actually means

By Mike Smith
25th of March 2011

Part of this series is not only to uncover the true facts about the Apartheid era, but also the rationale behind the thinking, the feelings and the mindsets of the people during this troubled period in our history.

One aspect that foreigners and the youth who have not lived through Apartheid, find difficult to comprehend is in the question they ask; “How could you just give the country away to black Marxist terrorists on a silver platter?”

Truth is that the whites of South Africa did not give the country away. We were betrayed, not defeated. We were betrayed by our leaders: Sold out, double crossed...

If we want to accuse the likes of F.W. de Klerk, Pik Botha and Roelf Meyer of being traitors than we need to know exactly what their roles were, what exactly treason is and then look at exactly what they did. We then need to evaluate and look at ourselves and determine if we are justified in branding them, “traitors”.

So let us first see what exactly the role of government is.

Most people if asked, “Why do we need government?”, will tell you that we need them to take our tax money and build roads, dams, houses for the poor, etc…This is however not true.

Law has been part of man since his primitive days. If you take two men and put them on an island, they will immediately start making rules and therefore laws.
The reason for making laws is to prevent them from using force against each other and in so doing ensure the survival of both.

It can therefore be seen that man survives by reason, by using his mind.

Further, man has certain individual rights. The right to life, the right to liberty and the right to pursue happiness. Of these, the right to life is the primary and most fundamental right.

If these rights are taken away or suppressed it means that man can no longer use his reason to survive and eventually everyone will die.

In a group of people you will always have some that are physically stronger or intellectually better than others. When one person discovers that he can get what he wants by taking it from others, he says that he can survive without reason. Such a person will be initiating force. The initiation of force is always immoral as opposed to the retaliation of force which is not only moral, but necessary for continued survival of the individual.

If someone initiates force against you, you have a right to defend yourself or to use retaliatory force in order to survive or continue your liberty and your pursuit of happiness.

But what if you are smaller than the other person, a woman or a child, or elderly…maybe the other person has a weapon and you do not. It means that you will die or your fundamental rights will be taken away from you.

For that reason we need a government. The ONLY job of a government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. The only way in which they can do it is to have the monopoly on the usage of force.

The initiation of force can either come from outside the country or from inside. Therefore we need a police service to protect the citizens from those inside the country who wants to initiate force and an army to protect the citizens from the initiation of force from outside.

The usage of force needs to be objective and therefore we need a law system that is fair and objective to create a society in which the citizen’s individual rights are guaranteed.

It is not the job of the government to tax the citizens and spend their money on grand projects. Taxation itself is a form of extortion and therefore the initiation of force. Government can be funded in other ways such as charging fees for services rendered, administering state assets like a trust fund, donations, etc. There is not a single government department that cannot run self sufficiently.


Most people think that the government draws up a constitution to protect the rights of the citizens. Not so.

History has shown that although man instituted government to protect the rights of citizens, more often than not, those exact governments become the greatest threats to those rights.

A constitution is a set of laws that specifically apply TO THE GOVERNMENT not to the citizens.

A proper constitution limits the power of government, by telling it specifically which actions it is allowed to take and excluding all others.

The government has NO power to do anything that is not specifically designated by the people to it. Government is therefore not above the law. A proper constitution has at the core of every enumerated power granted to government, the protection of individual rights.

But a piece of paper is not enough to stop a government from acting tyrannically or steal from its citizens. That is why I use the word, PROPER constitution. The East German GDR was also found on democratic principles and even had a liberal constitution.

For that reason there needs to be a separation of powers and certain checks and balances in place.

If one group in government becomes too powerful they can become a danger to the citizens. By separating the powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches, a further limit is placed on the power of government.

Checks and balances further limit the power of government, by splitting the powers up into many hands. If one branch of government abuses its power or undermines the individual rights of the citizens, then its members can be removed by the other branches. This is called impeachment.

If all of this fails, then the right of the citizens to defend themselves or as it is called in the USA, “the right to bear arms” against a tyrannical government comes into play. The last check on government is an armed populace. Ultimately, the only thing that can prevent the use of force is the threat or use of greater force. To this end, the people are the ultimate check on government.

Only an armed population has the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. Governments are well aware of this. That is why in all dictatorships the ownership of guns are outlawed to the ordinary citizens.

In a proper democracy, various political parties with different policies compete to run the government. The one who wins gets a mandate from the public to run the government and to a certain degree implement their policies, provided that they do not undermine the individual rights of the citizens. For that reason there are the opposition parties to keep them in check and regular elections. If they act out of control, they can be voted out.

However, voting has some disadvantage as well. A government can hide behind a claim of being legitimately elected and can introduce small doses of policy that the public might not agree with and the public will accept it because they have a high pain threshold. With the ability to vote, people will be far less likely to resort to violence to end government abuse. In the end they say, “Well, we will just vote them out at the next election”.

Justice delayed is often justice lost and some things simply cannot wait a few years until the next election.

Treason: About M.I.C.E. & M.E.N.
The Leagal definition of treason is

The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Most of the role-players at the time of capitulating to Marxist terrorist scum, such as F.W. de Klerk, Pik Botha, Roelf Meyer, et al, are aware that the whites of South Africa today view them as traitors. This can be seen from the sniping comments on online news articles about them. It is hard to find any white person in South Africa nowadays who do not see them as such.

In an interview with Murray La Vita of Beeld the Afrikaans daily, De Klerk acknowledged that he knew white South Africans viewed him as a traitor today. He also said that it did not bother him at all.

He has no regrets and no bad conscious about what he and his group of Sterrewag conspirators did. What is the psychology of such people.

What causes treason? A man does not just wake up one day and decide to betray his country and his people. There are several motivators why he does it. When one studies the psychology of patriotism and treason one comes up with reasons why people betray their countries and nations and why others stay loyal.

The Acronym M.E.N. stands for Morals, Empathy and Nation. These are the attributes found in patriots. They have a strong sense of morals, they are empathetic to the plight of others especially their own ethnic group and they tend to have a strong sense of belonging…of Nationalism.

The acronym M.I.C.E stands for money, ideology, coercion, and ego.

In the past, it was believed that the biggest reasons for treason were Money and Ideology. Coercion, the act of blackmailing or threatening through death or violence played a minor role. Lately it has been found that the Ego is the greatest contributing factor for treason.

Of the personality disorders found in spies and traitors, the two most common are antisocial personality disorder and narcissism. The traitor has a massive sense of self and allegiance solely to himself. He feels nothing for others. Experts say disproportionate numbers of pathological narcissists are at work in the most influential reaches of society such as medicine, finance and politics

Such people are born traitors. There is not much one can do to change them. That is why treason carries the death penalty in many states around the world.

In Dante’s “Devine Comedy” he and the poet Virgil travels into Hell in the first part called “Inferno”. Dante passes through the gates of Hell, which bears an inscription, the famous phrase "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate", or "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

Before entering Hell completely, Dante and his guide see the Uncommitted, souls of people who in life did nothing, neither for good nor evil.

On their way through the nine circles of Hell, they pass many bad people, but the innermost circle, the last one before hell proper… is reserved for traitors. In Hell proper Satan the ultimate traitor against God is bound.

And that is what will be the fate of those who betrayed us. They will one day stand in front of their Maker and will have to explain themselves.

Now that we understand what a government is suppose to do…what the social contract between the government and the public is…and what TREASON is, we can start to think back to the time of the National party in the P.W. Botha to De Klerk era. We can now start to think if what they did were unconstitutional and ultimately TREASON.

Does their acts fullfill the definition of treason above?

Below is a full page advert in a Newspaper from the time of P.W. Botha, (one of many) paid for by using taxpayer’s money. It spells out the policy of P.W. Botha and the NP of the time. The date is 2 February 1986. Six months after his Rubicon speech in which he promised the people that he “Was not prepared to lead White South Africans and other minority groups on a road of abdication and suicide.” 

ANC man reluctant to pay council

ANC man reluctant to pay council....

Cannot see why he should pay if others don't

Mar 31, 2011 

 A man nominated by the ANC to stand as a ward councillor in next month's local government elections does not see why he should pay the R27000 he allegedly owes the Ekurhuleni Metro. 

"Nobody is paying their bills . so how do you expect me to pay," asked Nkosinathi Shabalala, son of Joseph Shabalala, lead singer of Grammy Award- winning group Ladysmith Black Mambazo. 

Nkosinathi Shabalala has been nominated to stand as a ward councillor in Katlehong, east of Johannesburg. He declined to reveal how much he owes his municipality, but did not deny the figure of R27000. 

He said he had not been paying his water and lights bill because his neighbours had also not paid for services. 

Molefi Thibedi, outgoing ward councillor in the area, showed The Times a bill that revealed that there was about R27000 outstanding on a property Shabalala bought in January 1995 for rates and services. 

Said Shabalala: "To be frank and honest, when I arrived there, [the previous owner] was owing maybe R40. Whatever costs of water and electricity that are [there] are mine. 

"I don't know which side you entered Moleleki extension 2 when you went there, but if you were to take your car right now, go back there, door to door, nobody is paying their bills. 

"So now, how do you expect me to pay? Why should I pay?" 

When asked if the refusal to pay services bills by an ANC councillor would set a bad example, Shabalala made an about-turn. 

"No, I will pay. But even if I was to pay, it would not make any difference to the Ekurhuleni municipality because people are not paying," he said. 

"My payment won't make any difference. It is just a drop in the ocean." 

He added that he was not obliged to pay his bill as he was not yet a councillor. 

"I am not a councillor, I have not signed any document that says I am a councillor," he said.
Shabalala's unpaid bill is not the only allegation he is faced with. 

Last Friday, ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe was asked to intervene after a Katlehong resident claimed at a meeting that Shabalala had threatened to kill him. 

Lolo Dabata, a member of the local ANC Youth League branch, approached the Alberton Magistrate's Court for a protection order against Shabalala, whom he claims threatened his life through a mutual friend. As the alleged threats were made through a third party, the order was not granted. 

Shabalala denied making any threats. 

Dabata said he told Mantashe about the alleged threats at a public meeting on Friday, when Mantashe went to the area to listen to complaints about the lists of ward councillor nominees.
"After the meeting, Mantashe came to me and took me to Mthuthuzeli Siboza, the mayoral committee member for community safety in Ekurhuleni, and asked him to assist," Dabata said.
Siboza confirmed this. Mantashe could not be reached for comment. 

ANC spokesman Brian Sokutu said: "Our position on this is that no member of the ANC is allowed to intimidate anyone. It is against the constitution of the ANC and the country to do so."
Shabalala said Dabata lost to him in the nominations race and his claims could be sour grapes.

"It is not my fault the ANC chose me. It is for ANC to decide on a better somebody to somebody to lead the community," he said. 

Sokutu said the party was more concerned about a candidate having a criminal record than an unpaid bill. 

"What we are concerned about is [whether a candidate] has criminal record. 

"If he has made an arrangement to pay the bill, then it is not a problem. If not, he has to make an arrangement for payment," said Sokutu. 

Cele Likens Police Force to Jesus

Cele likens police force to Jesus.... 

Apr 2, 2011

National police chief Bheki Cele has likened the SA Police Service to Jesus Christ and his 12 apostles. 



He said that if even Jesus and God had criminals in their midst, it was to be expected that there would be criminals in the 193,000-strong police force, Beeld newspaper reported on Saturday. 

"Jesus Christ had an organisation of 12 people... among those 12 there was a criminal who sat with Jesus every day," Cele was quoted as saying at a police cars handover ceremony in Pretoria on Friday. 

"Even when Jesus berated him [Judas], he denied that it was him who was a criminal.
"In the Garden of Eden, there were two people. God himself did an inspection every morning. One day, He could not find them. They were hiding, because they had committed a crime," he said. 

"If you will find criminals amongst two people, then you will find criminals in an organisation with 193,000 members," Cele said. 

Beeld said that in the past seven months, some 254 police members in Gauteng were arrested for alleged involvement in robberies and corruption. 

Top cop Richard Mdluli and several of his colleagues were arrested this week for their alleged involvement in a murder that was committed in the late 1990s. 

This is not the first biblical comparison used in SA politics. 

President Jacob Zuma was criticised a few years ago for saying the African National Congress will rule until Jesus comes. 

In 2008, a provincial ANC leader likened Zuma's suffering in the then corruption case against him to what Jesus had gone through. 

Civil service corruption rife

Civil service corruption rife....

01 Apr 2011
Hartdegen writes a regular column for
There was a time when the term ‘robbed’ referred to housebreaking, theft from a motorcar or cash stolen from a till. It was a loosely-used term and when people talked about “being robbed” they would evoke surprised “Ooohs” and “Aaahs” from the few dinner party guests entertained last Saturday.

But not any more.

Sit at a dinner table and everyone at the table will tell of at least one instance where he or she has been robbed. That’s how endemic crime is within our society.

But the term takes on a whole new meaning when it is applied to our own police force, our own government officials, our national departments – like the Department of Public Works or Human Settlements – and to every sector of government, whether national, provincial or local.

Because that’s what’s happening right now to the millions of taxpayers in South Africa. 

They are – we are – being robbed by our own government employees and their cohorts.

Billions of rands that have been lost in rampant fraud and corruption are at the heart of an investigation by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) run by Willie Hofmeyr

He says at least R2-billion has been stolen from the South African Police Services in dodgy contracts often negotiated by police officials with undisclosed interests in the contracting companies who secured the tenders.

He’s investigating the construction of 33 police stations built at a cost of R330-million or more because of “significant irregularities”.

Worse still, more that 50% of the 10 000 housing contractors that have been contracted to build houses for the poor under the government housing programme are under investigation for shoddy workmanship, billing too much for the work done or for building ghost houses that don’t even exist.

The picture is really bleak:

- The people who are supposed to be protecting us are actually fleecing us. In fact the corruption is so widespread in SAPS that only the top 20 cases – involving R2-billion – are being investigated;

- The contractors who are supposed to be building homes for the poor are buying new cars and fancy lifestyles with the money they’ve got from us instead of building homes and making a fair profit;

- The municipalities – all the ones in North West province anyway – are guilty of widespread corruption and maladministration;

- The Public Works Department is spending money on suspect leases that enrich a privileged few;

- The SABC – supposed to be an unbiased news service – is so rotten that allegations of serious criminality are being investigated.

The list just goes on and on.

And what does the national government do? Nothing at all it seems.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, furious bandits from Zandspruit turn Beyers Naude Drive into a virtual war-zone by burning tyres and hurling rocks at passers-by while they protest over a lack of service delivery.  The police turn on them with rubber bullets.

Perhaps it’s hardly surprising that there is no service delivery from councils and government departments if the money that was supposed to be used to deliver services has been filtched by the contractors or by crooked public servants hell-bent on enriching themselves.

The people of the Zandspruit community want electricity, houses, water and sanitation. They might not be entitled to it but they want it nevertheless.

Just as the contractors want a fancy lifestyle and will secure it by any means – even by stealing your money and mine through dodgy contracts drawn up and signed by dodgy public servants who’ll get a kickback for the trouble.

What do we ordinary South Africans do?

Firstly, we should be able to change the government through the tried and tested mechanism of the ballot box.

But that’s just not going to happen is it?

Because while the residents of Zandspruit demand better housing, free electricity and running hot and cold water, the reality is that they will go back to the polls on Election Day and vote for the African National Congress anyway.

The majority of people in South Africa, it seems, appears to make no connection between a crooked government and the electorate that put it there.

Secondly, can we get back the money that’s been wasted?

I doubt it because even if Hofmeyr’s band of investigators successfully prosecute those guilty of corruption, fraud and maladministration – and successfully seize their assets too – the bulk of the money is still gone.

The money has been spent in a frenzied buying spree to capture a lifestyle and a lifestyle has no asset value to realise.

So how do we prevent these widespread instances of fraud, theft, corruption and maladministration?

We don’t.

After 16 years of democracy, our country appears to be even more corrupt now than ever before – and the nouveau riche are enjoying their homes, their cars and their holidays because you and I are paying for them.  

We hand over our money to the South African Revenue Service or the local municipality so it can be misappropriated as soon as we’ve paid it.

How depressing is that?

You see our own government is robbing us. What is this country coming to?

The only way that we might achieve some change is to make sure we use our vote in the upcoming local elections even though the reality of that is the majority of people – like those who are protesting up and down Beyers Naude Drive – will keep the ANC in power.

For them – and so many other South Africans – democracy is the ANC.

And that just sucks.

But for those few of us who do still believe in democracy then every one seat lost might be one more vigilant investigator who’ll work tirelessly to stamp out corruption.

Because that’s actually what South Africa needs right now.

Voters Extremely Dissatisfied

Voters extremely dissatisfied - survey


Only one in 10 South Africans has expressed satisfaction with the performance of local government, according to a recent survey by African democracy institute Idasa.

Idasa has released its latest service delivery survey, barely three weeks ahead of the important local elections due to be held on May 18 across the country.

A similar poll conducted by the institute in 2006 showed that at least 39.5% of South Africans were satisfied with service delivery by municipalities, while the latest finding shows that this level of satisfaction has declined rapidly.

In terms of the constitution, service delivery is the prime responsibility of local authorities, while the provincial and central governments act as the channel for funding.

The Idasa survey interviewed 2 375 adult South African citizens in 21 municipalities in Mpumalanga, Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal and North West, and offers three reasons to explain this decline in support.

It also asked whether declining citizen satisfaction with local government performance might impact on the outcome of the poll.


According to the survey results, the first reason for dissatisfaction is that the service delivery gap (the gap between what people expect and what government is realistically able to deliver) is increasing as citizens expect government to do more on the promises made by campaigning politicians.

The second reason is the lack of responsiveness of the council to the issues identified by its citizens as most important to them, like inadequate water provision and lack of good local roads.

"This suggests many priorities are decided at national level, leaving councils with limited power to address their constituents' priorities and weak consultation and participation processes," the Idasa survey said.

The final reason is that citizens assess their local governments not only on the basis of poor service delivery, but also take into account weak communication, lack of transparency, increased corruption and nepotism.

"It will be very interesting to see how these perceptions inform the voting behaviour of citizens during the upcoming local government elections," the survey said.

Increasing unease

An independent political analyst, Daniel Silke, said in reaction that the survey reinforced others of its type and information that was largely already known.

"What surveys like this do is create a sense of increasing unease among the most powerful political parties, especially the ruling African National Congress," he said.

Silke said that the upcoming local elections may herald a change in voter patterns as many begin to examine and question just what politicians have done for them, rather than the brushstroke support of one party or another.

"The increasing dissatisfaction means that individual politicians will be examined closely as voter patience starts running out. But that doesn't mean that another party, such as the Democratic Alliance would benefit from the fallout," he said.

Silke said this dissatisfaction could translate into support for independent candidates or voters deciding not to cast their votes.

He said that part of the DA's election strategy centred on voter education, with the message that if one party doesn't cut it, then another should be given the chance for the next five years.

"The DA is definitely trying to capitalise on this concept, however, it is still to be seen if the voters will accept it yet," he said.

Marthinus Van Schalkwyk

Minister of Environmental Affairs & Tourism

Marthinus Van Schalkwyk


Premier of Western Cape Province                                             (21 June 2002 - 28 April 2004)

Minister of Environmental Affairs & 
Tourism of the Republic of South Africa                                      (29 April 2004 - 10 May 2009)

Marthinus Van Schalkwyk is well known as the last leader of the National Party, before it imploded, pathetically, into the ANC. Below follows a short biography of the man who betrayed his colleagues, his constituents, the Afrikaner people and democracy in South Africa. He chose his own lowly interests over those of the people he promised to protect. He sold out his own kin. There is no lower thing.
As a young man Marthinus Van Schalkwyk had been chairman and a founding member of an organisation called “Jeugkrag”, which painted itself as an organization for Afrikaner youth disenchanted with the Establishment. Jeugkrag broke ranks with the NP and had even met the exiled ANC. It would later emerge, however, that while he was leading his supposedly independent youth movement, he was securing secret state funding for it. And, without the knowledge of fellow Jeugkrag leaders, he himself was on the government payroll. He was working as a double agent from the start, lying to his colleagues. If I had worked with this guy I would have punched him in the throat. A man with no principles and even less conviction.
In 1990, Van Schalkwyk was doing all he could to tie himself to De Klerk – then leader of the NP and President of South Africa, and by 1997 he had management to wiggle his way to the top of the shitpile. “Kortbroek” – as was his nickname amongst hardliners because of his sycophantic subservience - was chosen as leader of the NP for the 1999 general elections. At this time the National Party (or to be precise, the NNP at that stage) had the stated goal of being meaningful opposition to the ANC Leviathan.
There was a popular urge for such a situation, and the NP was more successful than expected. And on an even more positive note, it had formed an alliance with the Democratic Party in 2000, which effectively gave them control over the Western Cape Province.
More than a million ordinary South Africans had put their trust in Marthinus to do as he promised. The people tasked him, gave him the mandate, to try keep the corruption inherent in one-party systems at bay. Yet in 2001 Marthinus had his National Party break off from the Alliance, and entered into talks with the ANC. The discussions first lead to a ‘cooperation agreement’ between the ANC and the NP, but soon events took a more fundamentally tragic turn. The ANC offered Marthinus a ministerial position and in return for aligning the NP completely with the ANC. Marthinus took the miserly whore-money, disenfranchised a million citizens, and handed the hard won Western Cape over to the ANC. In August 2004 it was announced that Van Schalkwyk was disbanding the NP and would afterwards become a member of the ANC.
This was the ANC’s grandest moment. How they must have chuckled.
The only opposition they faced was effectively destroyed. The NP officially disbanded in April 2005, as Marthinus went from stating in 2003 that the ANC was "failing the poor" and had abandoned "principles like unity, equality and patriotism that have nothing to do with skin color", to bleating at the official disbandment of the NP that he “would personally encourage other NP leaders and members to join the ANC”. He effectively told his constituents, half a million people, to go to hell. He made the country less democratic, less just. He made our society just a little more cynical, and for that the name of Marthinus van Schalkwyk should go down as a stain on this country’s history. May his children shame him thusly.

Marthinus van Schalkwyk
New National Party (NNP)
Party Leader
Marthinus van Schalkwyk, 39, has been a longtime National and New National Party member.
He was a political science lecturer at universities in Johannesburg and Stellenbosch.
In 1990 he was elected to parliament and has been deeply involved since. Van Schalkwyk and his party hope to bring together all South Africans into the new political environment "based on proven core values and Christian norms and standards."
In 1997, Van Schalkwyk was appointed executive director of the NNP. Later that year, he became party leader. His predecessor was F.W. de Klerk, who has now retired from politics.

NNP Party Profile
Polls indicate that the New National Party currently places a distant second or third to the African National Congress (ANC). The NNP labels itself as eager to confront the key issues facing South Africa today - and always willing to battle them with the ANC.
The NNP, however, has some image-building to do before it can attract certain voting blocks. The "New National Party" is the same "National Party" that decades ago invented the word "apartheid." Now it describes itself as the party that initiated democracy.
The NNP was the ruling party in South Africa for 46 years. Now, as support has dwindled, some party leaders are defecting to others, such as the Democratic Party or the ANC. 

Van Schalkwyk and company have sold out their voters for political positions. 

In the business world Van Schalkwyk's betrayal of his mandate would have resulted in his dismissal by shareholders. 

Informally, he is referred to by his detractors as kortbroek (lit. "short pants"), a name he earned because of his boyish appearance and lack of political experience when compared to his predecessor, F.W. de Klerk.

A significant part of the white Afrikaner population views him as a weak politician who destroyed the old National Party in order to rescue hisown political skin by marrying the NNP with its old opposition, the ruling ANC.

He was however one of the few nationalist politicians who remained active in politics after the decline of the National Party and took a high profile like FW de Klerk did with the coming into being of the Rainbow Nation in 1994.

Pandora's Box 27

Opening Pandora's Apartheid Box - Part 27 - The Internationalists setting the stage for the Utimate $ell-out 



By Mike Smith 27 March 2011

Following the P.W. Botha’s disastrous Rubicon Speech, the USA passed the Comprehensive Anti Apartheid Act or (CAAA). (passed by the Senate 78 to 21, the House by 313 to 83)

It was the last straw. The isolation of and sanctions against South Africa were the worst that any country in the world had endured up until that time. It was total it was complete. No more Mr. Nice Guy…no more carrot, only stick.

President Ronald Reagan tried to veto the CAAA, but congress would have nothing of it. This override marked the first time in the twentieth century that a president had a foreign policy veto overridden.

There would be amongst other things a ban on all loans to South Africa, even to black owned charities and companies. A ban on all exports to South Africa including fuel, crude oil, weapons, technology such as computers and services to the police and army. A ban on all imports from SA such as steel coal, arms, farm products uranium, textiles. There was a permanent ban on the import of Kruger Rands. South African Airways planes could not land anywhere in the USA anymore…And to drive the message home…Congress approved a $40 million “Assistance to those harmed by Apartheid” donation…Which meant more money from the the West to aid the Marxist terrorist ANC, SACP and PAC.

The act also required that a report from the president be made every twelve months. If “Substantial progress” was not made…more sanctions would follow. Including the seizing of deposit accounts of South African citizens abroad.

These sanctions could only be lifted under five conditions.

1. The release of Nelson Mandela and all so called “Political Prisoners”…read Marxist terrorists, Communist agitators, bomb planters, saboteurs and mass murderers who caused atrocities against the all the citizens of South Africa including blacks, coloureds, whites and everyone inbetween.

2. The repeal of the State of Emergency and the release of all persons detained under it.

3. The unbanning of “Democratic political parties” and the permission of free political process.

4. The repeal of the Group Areas Act and the Population Reggistration Act.

5. Agreement “To enter into good faith negotiations with truly representative members of the black majority without preconditions”.

Not only did the NP government experience pressure from the entire world instituting severe sanctions, sports and cultural boycotts against it, it also experienced pressure from big business inside South Africa.

Shortly after the Rubicon speech, in September 1985, Gavin Relly of Anglo American led a delegation to Lusaka to have talks with the ANC greatly enhancing the status and international standing of the banned terrorist organization…classed by the CIA at the time as one of the ten most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world.

Mike Rosholt of the gigantic Barlows group in October 1985 went chest to chest with P.W. Botha. P.W. previously told business leaders that they “should stick to business and leave politics to the politicians”.

Rosholt made it clear to P.W. Botha that in South Africa there was no longer any clear distinction between political and socio-economic issues. They were inextricably linked.

In 1987 Chris Ball of Barclays bank financially assisted the ANC by placing an advertisement in several English newspapers on the organization`s 75th birthday. They also made loans to the ANC. P.W. Botha ordered an inquiry and charged Chris Ball. Justice Munnik of the Cape Supreme Court found that, despite his denials to the contrary, Chris Ball was fully informed beforehand what these loans would be for. Ball resigned and emigrated to the UK. So did Tony Bloom of the Premier Group and Gordon Waddell, CEO of Anglo-Vaal and former son in law of Harry Oppenheimer, owner of Anglo American who was also the greatest shareholder in Barclays Bank.

Harry Oppenheimer maintained that he had no prior knowledge of or granted approval for the Gordon Relly trip to Lusaka.

It has to be added that before 1994 Anglo American controlled about 80% of all the stock on the Johannesburg stock Exchange. Today, 17 years later, they still control about 80% of all the stock on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.

In 1987 Dr Van Zyl Slabbert of the Progressive Federal Party led a delegation of 60 academics and influential whites to talks with the banned ANC in Senegal. This was in total defiance of the NP government.

Inside South Africa society was threatened by another monster, the Introduction of the Maoist “People’s War” and Operation Vula the ANC/SACP. Operation Vula (Vula means open-up in Xhosa) was commanded by Mac Maharaj an Indian Communist. It was the decision of the ANC to shift their focus from 20% Civilian targets to 80% civilian targets.

The result was chaos and brutal mass murder of black citizens accused of disloyalty by the ANC Marxist terrorists. The now famous necklace method was used daily to kill so called informers and terrorize the black population into supporting the ANC. A state of emergency was declared to restore law and order.

Outside of South Africa, on the Angolan Border with Namibia the combined Communist forces of Cuba, The MPLA, East German and Russian military advisers were launching major offensives against UNITA a South African ally, but were thoroughly defeated at the Lomba River or what was later dubbed the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale.

All over the world mass Rock music concerts calling for the freeing of Mandela and the ending of Apartheid.

To make things worse for the National Party, the Right was on the rise. In 1982 another threat arose caused by P.W. Botha himself. The Conservative Party of Dr. Andries Treurnicht was created after the Conservatives in the National Party split off. They were strongly opposed to P.W. Botha’s policies of “Power Sharing” with blacks. They started gaining so much popularity that they became the official opposition on 6th of May 1987 displacing the liberal PFP by gaining 27% of the support. The liberal PFP could only muster 14% of the vote. The NP since they came to power was always on the right of the opposition…

For the first time since 1948 the National Party found themselves, left of the opposition. The NP had 52,3% of the vote.

Nevertheless the NP thought that this gave them a mandate to continue the process of handing power over to the Blacks, because 52,3% and 14% from the PFP as well as the 2% of the New Republican Party basically ensured a two thirds majority on the LEFT of the political spectrum. Their assumption was wrong…criminal in fact.

Nevertheless, not only did South Africa face massive escalations of Communist agitated terrorism and violence threatening civil war from inside the country, but also an amassing of Communist conventional forces and onslaught from outside, but the worst was that Western Capitalist from outside South Africa as well as from inside were financing the Marxist terrorists.

Never in the known history of the white race has the ENTIRE WORLD ganged up against such a tiny nation of five million whites, mostly Christians, such as they did towards the end of twentieth century at the Southern tip of Africa.

In September 1989, when F.W. de Klerk took over from his predecessor P.W. Botha, South Africa was on the ropes. The South African currency had fallen to 36 US cents, compared to $1.40 a decade ago. Unemployment lines were growing daily. Prices in stores were soaring. The inflation rate stood at 16%. At the centre of South Africa’s problems at the time stood a national debt of $20.5 billion Rand.

In October 1989 the American Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Herman Jay Cohen warned De Klerk that the new Bush administration would institute punitive measures of its own unless South Africa took legislative action before June 1990 to abolish Apartheid.

In 1992 during the Angolan elections, Cohen would declare the elections free and fair despite all other observers disputing this and the evidence of major electoral fraud to the contrary evincing. Shortly after this Cohen resigned and went to work for the Angolan government as a foreign agent and later also worked for the mass murderer Robert Mugabe as a foreign agent.

Nevertheless, after F.W. de Klerk came to power, he was basically given six months to end Apartheid or South Africa would, economically and therefore militarily, be destroyed.

The severity of sanctions against South Africa is contained in three books, namely “In Sight of surrender” by Les de Villiers, “South Africa: The sanctions report”, by The Commonwealth Secretariat and “Race for Sanctions”, by Francis Njubi Nesbitt.

There can be no doubt that these sanctions crippled South Africa. It was hurting to the bone. Later on, De Klerk would consistently deny the impact of sanctions on South Africa, but the truth is rather different. There is however a very good reason for De Klerk’s denial at the time…It will be revealed later.

For now, it is important for us to consider the circumstances of the time, because this was the reality of the situation faced by President F.W. de Klerk and the other NP “Talking Heads” on SABC television such as Barend du Plessis, Pik Botha and Chris Heunis at the time.

It cannot be emphasized any more…by the time de Klerk came to power South Africa was on the ropes, being pummeled and pounded by about 150 other nations across the world. Friends were scarce…We were on our own. The message was clear, “Give the country over to blacks UNCONDITIONALLY or face complete ruin.” 

Pandora’s Box 28

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 28. De Klerk 1989 – 1990

By Mike Smith
27th of March 2011

In an interview with Murray La Vita of Beeld the Afrikaans daily, De Klerk acknowledged that he knows white South Africans viewed him as a traitor today. He also said that it did not bother him at all.

Verraaier? Daai naam pla hom nie

                                                 Oudpres. FW de Klerk gesels in die kantoor 
                                                                  van die FW de Klerk-stigting in Plattekloof, 
                                                                    noord van Kaapstad. Foto: Jaco Marais

Die stem waarin hy oor sy vrou praat; oor die “bietjie heimwee” na hul plaas; oor die keer toe hy by die dood omgedraai het – dít is ’n sagte stem.

Die stem van ’n man wat ook ’n foto van sy ma langs sy lessenaar het.

’n Man wat sy geliefde Latyn-onderwyser in herinnering roep.

Maar wanneer oudpres. FW de Klerk gevra word om terug te kyk op Suid-Afrika se grondwetlike demokrasie wat nou ’n jong volwassene van 20 jaar is, praat hy met ’n ander stem.

Ineens hoor ons daardie stem wat op die oggend van 2 Februarie 1990 uit die parlement in Kaapstad alle uithoeke van die wêreld bereik het: “Die tyd vir onderhandeling het aangebreek.”

Dit is die stem wat ook in die Victor Verster-gevangenis buite die Paarl gehoor is deur ’n man wat gesit en TV kyk het.

“Dit was ’n asemrowende oomblik, want in een ingrypende daad het hy die situasie in Suid-Afrika feitlik genormaliseer. Ons wêreld het oornag verander.”

Oudpres. Nelson Mandela het destyds gesê: “ ... vir die eerste keer in amper 30 jaar gaan my foto en my woorde, en dié van my kamerade, in Suid-Afrikaanse koerante verskyn.”

Ironies is dit dan dat die man wat “die situasie in Suid-Afrika feitlik genormaliseer het”, nou sê: “Ek meen daar is rede tot groot kommer vir alle gebalanseerde Suid-Afrikaners wat ’n hoë prys op ons demokrasie plaas.

“Die elemente van federalisme in die Grondwet is in gevaar; die vryheid van die pers is in gevaar; die vryemarkekonomie is in gevaar; en die onafhanklikheid van die regbank is in gevaar.

“As daar ooit ’n tyd was vir die burgerlike gemeenskap om toe te tree tot die debat en tot aktiewe optrede met betrekking tot hierdie vier sake, dan is dit nou.”

Ons gesprek vind plaas in ’n konferensievertrek in die gebou in Plattekloof, noord van Kaapstad, vanwaar De Klerk se FW de Klerk-stigting bedryf word.

Die vertrek word onder meer versier deur groot doeke van Bettie Cilliers-Barnard en Cecil Skotnes en ’n bronsbeeld van ’n aanstormende olifant.

Op die tafel waarby ons sit, is nog ’n bronsbeeld: van ’n hand waarin ’n vrouefiguur lê.

Dit simboliseer die geboorte van iets nuuts in die hand van God, sê De Klerk.

“’n Vriend van my, Fana Malherbe, het dit gedoen. Toe ons nog ons plaas Wildepaardejacht (in Klein-Drakenstein, naby die Paarl) gehad het, het my vrou (Elita) my ’n slag verras.

“Sy het hom gevra om twee lewensgrootte perdekoppe te maak wat in die wind hardloop soos wilde perde.

Toe ons die plaas verkoop, het ons daai twee koppe wel na ons nuwe huis in Kaapstad gebring.”

Hulle was tien jaar lank op die plaas en woon die afgelope twee jaar in Fresnaye.

“Ons was baie lief vir die plaas, maar vier jaar gelede was ek amper dood. Ek het ’n kolonoperasie gehad (weens kanker), maar uiteindelik goed daardeur gekom. Maar ek was twee weke lank in ’n koma.

“En toe ek nou begin beter word, het ek myself begin afvra: As ek nou iets sou oorkom ... my vrou, synde ’n Griekse burger, maar wat sal aanbly in Suid-Afrika, kan sy alleen op die plaas bly? En die antwoord was néé.

“Toe het ons besluit om die plaas te verkoop en stad toe te trek. Ons is baie gelukkig in ons nuwe huis.

“Daar is nog so ’n bietjie heimwee by my na die plaas, maar nou ja, ons ry ook minder en kan meer tyd tuis deurbring en minder op die pad.”

In sy hoedanigheid as voorsitter van die FW de Klerk-stigting sowel as die Global Leadership Foundation tree De Klerk oor die wêreld heen op as spreker en neem hy deel aan vredeskonferensies.

“Aan die begin was die hooftema: Hoe het die wonderwerk in Suid-Afrika gebeur? Die wêreld het dit beskou as ’n wonderwerk. Maar ekself het ook moeg geword daarvoor en die pad was al stofgetrap ná ’n stadium.

“Toe het ek begin praat oor die bestuur van multikulturele gemeenskappe. Oor die uitdaging.

“Want ten grondslag van die meeste van die gewelddadige stryde deur die wêreld lê in die mislukking om multikulturele gemeenskappe behoorlik te orden en te bestuur.”

Hy praat ook oor die lesse wat ons geleer het met betrekking tot onderhandeling. En oor leierskap.

Of oor globalisering vanuit ’n Afrika-perspektief. Maar soms praat hy oor iets heeltemal anders.

“Ek het verlede Saterdag opgetree by wat genoem is Survivor’s Day van kankerpasiënte. Want ekself is ’n oorlewende van kanker.

Daar was 300 mense in Durbanville in ’n skoolsaal bymekaar wat almal kanker gehad het of nog behandel word daarvoor, maar wat as gevolg ook van die moderne wetenskap daarin slaag om ’n normale lewe te lei ondanks die kanker.”

Kanker dwing jou tot diep nadenke.

“As ’n mens ’n dodelike siekte kry en as gevolg van mediese ingryping en met die genade van die Here gespaar word en teen verwagtinge in selfs herstel, soos dit met mý die geval was, dan kom die besef by jou tuis: Maar ek het ékstra tyd gekry!”

Sy stem is hees.

“En ek het myself afgevra wat gaan ek dóén met daardie ekstra tyd. En dit het vir my ’n nuwe inspirasie gegee om te sê ek is gespáár.

“Om wát te doen? Om pósitief ’n bydrae te probeer lewer. ’n Mens kan natuurlik nie op élke lewensterrein ...

“Jy moet volgens jou talente en jou ervaring.

So ek het met nuwe energie my begin toewy aan wat ons doen hier by die FW de Klerk-stigting en by die Global Leadership Foundation waar ons internasionaal advies gee aan regerings – nie vir wins nie – in die ontwikkelende wêreld ten opsigte van goeie regering en om beter ekonomiese vooruitsigte te skep.”

Het die Suid-Afrikaanse regering al van hierdie dienste gebruik gemaak?

Stadig plooi ’n glimlag oor sy gesig.

“Nee. En ek twyfel of hulle mý sal nader.

“Ek dink hul oordeel sal wees dat ek bevooroordeeld is. Hulle weet dat ek op partypolitieke vlak oortuig is dat die ANC te groot en te sterk is en dat opposisiepolitiek in Suid-Afrika versterk moet word.

Ons het ’n mooi demokrasie op papier. Ons sal eers ’n werklik gesonde demokrasie hê as daar onsekerheid ontstaan oor wie die volgende verkiesing gaan wen.

“Om dít te bereik glo ek die ANC moet skeur en ek dink hy gáán skeur.”

Ja, stem hy saam, hy kan ’n stywe pas handhaaf.

“Ek is geseën met baie energie. Ek word nie gou moeg nie. Ek kán hard werk en ek geniét dit om hard te werk.

“Dit klink ’n bietjie selfverheffend om dit so te stel ... Ek voel baie jonger as wat ek is en ek handhaaf ’n tempo van ’n ietwat jonger mens. Tewens, ek het besluit ek wil leef asof ek 69 is.

“Ondanks die feit dat ek volgende jaar 75 word. Vir my is dít die norm:

“Hoe was ek toe ek 69 was? En ek probeer my aktiwiteit op dieselfde vlak hou as wat dit toentertyd was en nie in ’n mate selfbejammerend te word – ek is nou ’n ou man nie.”

Hy glimlag.

“Maar ek wil nou darem ook nie te jonk wees nie; daarom het ek 69 gekies en nie 59 nie.”

Hy en Mandela “het nogal goeie vriende geword”.

“Omdat hy oud is, pla ek hom nie, maar ons bel op verjaardae mekaar.

“Ons het al by mekaar geëet aan huis. Ons sou nóú by hulle gaan kuier het toe ek ’n slag opgegaan het hier rondom die Wêreldbeker, maar toe is my vlug vertraag en moes ons die afspraak kanselleer. Ons het ’n goeie verhouding.”

Hy het al baie verguising beleef; is al vir ’n verraaier uitgekryt.

“Ek is oortuig dat wat ons gedoen het, nie ék nie – ons, van 1989 af tot 1994 in die béste belang van almal in Suid-Afrika was en dat ons ’n katastrofe afgeweer en voorkom het; dat ons honderdduisende lewens gered het wat ingeboet sou word in ’n vernietigende stryd wat hierdie land tot stóf sou vernietig.

“En daarom,” sê hy “as iemand my ’n verraaier noem, ontstel dit my nié, want ek glo ek het niemand verraai nie, maar met my foute en al, my wérklike bes probeer om juis almal se belange ten beste te dien.”

Hy en sy vrou het ’n “fantastiese verhouding”.

“Ek deel alles met haar. En dikwels as ek te juridies raak, is sy die een wat sê: ‘Maar wat hiervan? En wat daarvan?’

En sy vul my aan op ’n wonderlike manier.

“Sy gaan órals waar ek gaan saam met my. Dwársdeur die wêreld. Want ek het min tyd oor as ek na my ouderdom kyk en élke oomblik saam met haar is kosbaar.”

But was he a traitor or a victim of circumstance? We need to look at this serious accusation of treachery in an objective manner. In the old South Africa as well as during the Anglo Boer War, the punishment for treason was the death penalty, as it still is amongst many nations of the world.

At the same time of P.W. Botha’s reign during the 1980’s, F.W. De Klerk was Minister of Education. The school set work books suddenly started to change. Kids had to study all sorts of pro-black anti-white books such as “To kill a Mockingbird” and “Fiela se Kind” (Fiela’s Child). Dutch works such as “De Onrustzaaier” to invoke sympathy with Communist agitators were shoved down the children’s throats.

On the television, programmes such as the Cosby Show, Webster, later the fresh Prince of Bell-Aire, etc were shown that portrayed blacks as educated and the same as whites.

It was clear that a machine was in operation. A propaganda machine that was suppose to prepare our minds for the final takeover by Marxist Communist forces. F.W. de Klerk as the minister of Education was one of the major gears in this machine.

De Klerk at the time of the Rubicon Speech in 1985 was a staunch Conservative in the National Party. He was actually seen as a “major conservative stumbling block” by journalists such as Allister Sparks of the Rand Daily Mail who exposed the so called Mulder-gate or Information Scandal.

Nevertheless, as we have seen, De Klerk was the man who held P.W. Botha back on the banks of the Rubicon.

How conservative was F.W. de Klerk really? He was on the one hand in favour of segregated Universities, but on the other hand supported equal financial support to all schools. Was he a hypocrite, a “Tweegat-jakkels”, (a fox with two burrows)? This trait of F.W. de Klerk would evince throughout his life. The ultimate question needs to be asked. What made F.W. de Klerk change his ideology from one of the most conservatives in the NP government to that of one of the most liberal?

We know that in the early 1990’s he paid a serious of visits to Russia. Even visited the mausoleum of Lenin. Did F.W. de Klerk undergo Communist re-education?

How could such a conservative man be the one who ultimately gave the country away to black Marxist terrorist scum?

Within four years after the Rubicon Speech on exactly the same day, 15th of August 1989 De Klerk became the new president of South Africa, through a Palace revolution inside the NP which was a de facto coup d'état orchestrated by him and Pik Botha and the other conspirators of the Ou Sterrewag meeting in 1985.

The time was right for a new man to implement the decisions taken at that clandestine, cloak and dagger meeting. P.W. Botha groomed Finance Minister Barend Du Plessis as his successor, but the NP caucus chose F.W. de Klerk…”The man with the smile”…

That is how the newspapers and the rest of the media dubbed him. Whenever you saw F.W. de Klerk in a photograph or on television he always had a smile or a glitter in his eye. He radiated optimism. In fact he had the face of the perfect traitor. He was the perfect Pide Piper.

By the time F.W. came to power, people were tired of the face of his predecessor P.W. Botha.

P.W. Botha’s always serious and cynic face for the past ten years had become the subject of comical songs such as “Sit dit af” (Switch it off) by gay musician Johannes Kerkorrel who were referring to P.W. Botha’s constant talking head on SABC television.

Also Pieter Dirk-Uys a gay comedian started an entire satirical age against the National Party and P.W. Botha in particular, mocking him licking his lips and wagging his finger.

When De Klerk entered the stage, there was no more mocking…only praise and hope.

De Klerk, who is a chain smoker, never smoked in public or on the television. His perfect smile was regularly checked and cleaned for the cameras. His suit jackets swapped in order for him not to stink of smoke before important meetings. Everything about him was a false front. De Klerk became the new smiling puppet of his masters the major Anglo American business people involved in SA, and their spy agencies such as the CIA and MI6. He was their man that would deliver the riches of the treasure chest of the world into their laps.

Nevertheless, De Klerk was chosen to finally “Cross the Rubicon”.

Almost immediately after coming to power he started implementing the policies drawn up after the clandestine meeting at the old Sterrewag.

In September 1989 he allowed a demonstration of 35,000 dissident blacks, agitated by Communist forces, known as “The Big March” in full contravention of the State of Emergency.

On the 15th of October 1989 Walter Sisulu and seven other Marxist terrorists (sorry, political prisoners) were released. With De Klerk’s permission, they were welcomed back into Soweto at a huge ANC rally…the first in 25 years.

In the days after the fall of the Berlin Wall on the 9th of November 1989 that marked the end of the Cold War and the assumed end of the Communist threat to South Africa, De Klerk, on 16th November 1989 declared all beaches open and scrapped the Separate Amenities Act a cornerstone of Apartheid.

On 24 November 1989 he scrapped the Group Areas Act another cornerstone of Apartheid, in four “free settlement areas” that allowed blacks to live in white areas.

On the 13th of December, De Klerk entertained Nelson Mandela, a convicted Marxist terrorist, prisoner and mass murderer to a full banquet at Tuynhuis, his official residence in Cape Town…our equivalent of the White House…at full taxpayer expense.

One would think that all these gestures would have had a positive effect on the violence in South Africa at the time. Wrong! Quite the contrary.

As early as September 1989 the reports started streaming in via Roger Thurow of the Wall Street Journal, “Eleven dead in Mitchell’s Plain, four dead in Lavender Hill, and two dead in Khayelitsha. In all, church groups said 25 people died (police confirmed 12 deaths) and more than 100 were injured in the black townships around Cape Town…

Nevertheless the opening of parliament in the 2nd of February 1990 was drawing nearer. About 500 journalists from all over the world were congregating in Cape Town to hear F.W. de Klerk’s speech at the opening of parliament…would it be another disappointing Rubicon speech?

At this stage we need to halt and think what I said in Part 26 about the role of government, what the constitution is and what F.W. de Klerk did.

Remember that the constitution is a set of laws to control the government, not the people. The constitution is a set of laws spelling out what the Government can do…everything else is forbidden. The constitution states the basic individual rights of its citizens such as the right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. The sole purpose of government is to protect those rights.

When the South African public voted the National party into power (again) in 1987, they expected the social contract between the citizens and the government to be upheld and the government had no right to act outside of their mandate to rule as stated in the constitution.

So far we have seen that the National Party held a secret meeting at the Old Sterrewag a Military Intelligence conference place, on the 2nd of August 1985 and completely outside of their mandate conspired to hand the country over to Black Marxist Terrorists. This in itself is enough to try the entire previous NP government for conspiracy to commit treason.

The scrapping of the Separate Amenities Act as well as the Group Areas Act allowed dangerous Blacks and Coloured criminals into White communities . It endangered every single basic right that we allowed the government to exercise.

If one thinks back to the legal definition of treason, then not only were they betraying the citizens of South Africa, but actively supporting its well known enemies.

The release of legally convicted and highly dangerous terrorists such as Walter Sisulu and other Marxist terrorists without them having to denounce violence was a crime against the people of South Africa…Black and white…for the subsequent violence, terrorism and downright murder that followed across South Africa were directly orchestrated by them. It was a direct cause of F.W. De Klerk’s premature ejaculation to keep the Anti-Apartheid whores of the world happy.

I do not know how to emphasize this enough. We should never forget what a Constitution is and the limits it sets on government.

Within days of coming to power and within a few months thereafter, F.W. De Klerk and the NP were not only criminally acting against the constitution and outside of their mandate to rule, but also deliberately caused treason against ALL South Africans.

The government was constitutionally bound to protect ALL its citizens against the initiation of Force. The NP government was supposed to protect the safety of all its citizens.

History speaks for itself. The NP and De Klerk as State President. Failed magnanimously in their basic tasks as a government within the first few days of him coming to power.

1989 was not even out when we should have had them all on the stand for treason or conspiring to commit treason.

Considering that SA had the death penalty in place for treason in those days, I would say that F.W. de Klerk should consider himself lucky that he is still alive today. History shows the public killing their leaders for far less than what he had done

Anyway..If you think that was bad…wait for the next edition where more evidence of treason will be revealed. 



  • Premier of Western Cape Province (21 June 2002 - 28 April 2004).
  • Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism of the Republic of South Africa (29 April 2004 - 10 May 2009).
  • IT TOOK ONE DAY FOR HIM TO DEFECT TO THE ANC......................