Friday, February 24, 2012

Taking on the experts on the land issue: Why a bitter “Race war” is unavoidable in South Africa

By Mike Smith
23rd of February 2012

Ever since I wrote
Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box part 32: Who does the land belong to? we have seen a lot of people sit up straight probably thinking for the first time about the lies the ANC tried to force feed the public for the past 100 years...That whites stole the land of blacks. That the 1913 land act disowned blacks of their land.

Many famous people read this blog, although they will never admit it. I know Helen Zille, Thabo Mbeki, Pieter Mulder , Beeld editor Tim du Plessis and many more frequent this blog.

That is why Pieter Mulder could stand up for white history in parliament and rubbish the lies of the ANC, saying that enough proof exists that blacks were historically never in the Cape, West of the Kei River. He is 100% correct.

A storm erupted in the media after he threw a thunderflash in the chicken coup. He came under severe personal attack, mostly from the ANC and their supporters, but also from some liberal academics.

Then in a series of articles, I again focused the attention of the public about the land issue on the historical facts...
Mulder, the land issue and the truth about who the land belongs to

I even showed how the famous traditional healer and black historian Credo Mutwa told the truth that it was the blacks who stole the land from the Bushmen (San-people) and committed genocide against them, not the whites.
So who stole the land from whom?

Then I challenged the best lawyers and the best historians to an open debate on this issue so we could settle the matter once and for all and move on. As could be expected the silence was deafening.

Actually when I was thinking about the “best lawyers” I had the descriptive Afrikaans word for a lawyer, “regsgeleerde” in mind, meaning literally “someone learned at law”.

The last person I had in mind as an “expert learned at law” was the fairy queen of UCT Prof Pierre de Vos who in 2004 won a case against a Cape Town gay bar called “Sliver” for discriminating against his coloured lover, Marcus Pillay. The bouncers also severely assaulted both. He is obviously liberally biased.
Read the pathetic details here

Nevertheless Pierre de Vos has probably read the facts presented by me, like the Feinberg and Horn Study that proved that contrary to common belief, the Land Act of 1913 resulted in as much as 65% more land for blacks, not less. This fact was already pointed out by Blacks journalist Jacob Dlamini in 2010 in an article called JACOB DLAMINI: Was Natives Land Act SA’s original political sin?

The entire Land Act of 1913 can be read here The 1913 land Act

So two days ago, almost straight after my challenge, the learned professor De Vos decided to launch a pathetic tirade against the facts presented.
The historical amnesia of Pieter Mulder

Right from the start the arrogant proffie (or is that spelled with an m?) tells us whites that we all want to bury Apartheid.

Say what? I for one want the debate in the open. That is why I named my series of articles, soon to be a book, “Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box”
“Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box”

Then the self loathing proffie wanted us to share his guilt feelings by harping on about “the injustices committed by our forefathers against black South Africans”.

Whose forefathers? Not mine. My forefathers were only good to blacks. Employed them, fed and clothed them. Built schools for them, hospitals, universities, etc. Maybe he is speaking about his own forefathers and the imaginary injustices he constantly nurses in his warped liberal mind.

Then he goes one…” This Stalinist yearning to whitewash the past and to try and make us forget about the role white people played in the exploitation and dispossession which occurred during the periods of colonialism and apartheid”

He is right about the Stalinist part of whitewashing history, but the only ones I see wanting to do that is the ANC. I and most White South Africans are proud of our history and we have nothing to be ashamed of. Proffie De Vos should not include us in his self loathing guilt trips.

He’s tirade continues with the ANC swear words of “white Settler”…when he said: ”Mulder is only one of a long line of white settlers”…

As far as I am aware, Pieter Mulder is a South African born citizen who has only ever held one citizenship in his entire life. He is further an Afrikaner. There is no Afrikaner homeland from where he could have colonizsed or settled from or where he can go back to. Afrikaner culture and language is unique to only one country on earth and that is South Africa (I include Namibia that I concider a legitimate part of SA since 1914). The Afrikaners of SA are totally indigenous.

In his rush to “prove” how whites dispossessed black land and “forced Blacks” onto farms, the learned proffie copied and pasted directly from Wikipedia about the Glen Grey Act of 1894. So I see… that is where he gets his knowledge of the law from…Wikipedia.

What the proffie forgot to tell us is that the Glen Grey act was a British experiment that applied only to one location (now called a township), the Tambookie location outside of Queenstowns after the place got so overcrowded, because of the Xhosa’s own created famine of 1856-1857 in which they killed all their cattle and burned down their crops because a teenage prophetess called Nongqawuse told them that it would make the whites disappear into the sea.

It wiped out 4/5 ths of the Xhosa population, the rest dwindled with their skeleton bodies through white areas scratching for food in bins. The whites saved them from their own self induced genocide. If it were not for the whites taking pity on them and feeding them there would be no Xhosa people today. Yes. That is what you get for interfering with nature, today the “Xhosa Nostra” rule South Africa.

Nevertheless the proffie created the dishonest impression that the act applied to the entire SA and all its blacks. It did not.

Further the act gave each black family a farm of four morgen (about 0.86 hectares in SA). The word “Morgen” is the German word for “morning” and one “morgen” equated to the land one man could plough with an ox in a morning from sunrise to midday.

So after getting a farm the size of eight football fields the British said the blacks had to pay tax just like all the whites. But the black farmers as we know are useless and were not as productive as the whites so they could not pay the tax. In order to do so they send the kids and women out to go and work for the whites in town.

This practice of sending the children and the women to work and the men sitting in the sun all day drinking beer is still practiced today in SA and has always been the practice amongst blacks for time immemorial.

This natural custom of the blacks, the proffie in his infinite wisdom wants to call oppression and enslavement. What rubbish. The sign of a truly deficient leftist intellect.

Nevertheless the proffie continues with his lies and distortions by saying “The most important provision of the Act stated that Africans could no longer buy, lease, or in any other manner acquire land outside a scheduled area, except by acquiring that land from another African, and Europeans were prohibited from buying or leasing land from an African.”

As I have mentioned before, the Native Land Act of 1913 never referred to “Africans” and “Europeans”. It did not refer to Blacks and whites. It only referred to “Natives and other people”.

His interpretation of the law into an “African” and “European” or “Black” and “White” context is a gross distortion of the truth. Under “African” or “Native” the Afrikaners definitely qualify.

Further the law applied to both sides equally, so if the act denied “Natives” the right to buy land from “Other persons” it equally denied “Other Persons” the right to buy land from “Natives”. So either both sides benefitted or suffered equally under the law.

But as I have pointed out there was an escape clause, like in every law, as the proffie should now, seeing that he considers himself an expert.

It said “Except with the approval of the Governor-General…”

As I have pointed out blacks and whites continued buying land from each other…

Quoting from Dlamini’s article…

“Between 1913 and 1936, for example, Africans bought about 3200 farms and lots outside of native areas. What’s more, the 1913 act was not retroactive, meaning that Africans who already owned land outside of the native reserves could not have it taken away from them. Feinberg and Horn say that between 1913 and 1924, under the governments of Louis Botha and Jan Smuts, there were 302 exemptions granted, amounting to 35% of the total. Between 1924 and 1936, when JB Hertzog was in power, there were 565 exemptions granted, amounting to 65% of the total. “

In his eagerness to show how the white man’s laws was bad for the black man he cites from Feinberg and Horn: “Rapid population growth among Africans and soil erosion in the reserves (partly due to over-grazing) seriously undermined African agriculture.”

Excuse me, but “Rapid population growth”, “soil erosion through over grazing”, etc are fully self inflicted by the blacks themselves and totally preventable by blacks themselves. How can you make whites responsible for the sexual behavior of blacks and their inability to grasp scientific farming methods?

The proffie continues: “And, after 1948, the reserves became the cornerstone of a key part of the apartheid system, the homelands.”

Exactly. It is the land they legally settled and bought themselves out of their own free will. Apartheid gave them self rule and fully assisted them every year with billions of rands.

The proffie who is apparently a constitutional law expert, reckons that in section 25 of the constitution the government has the right to expropriate land at will if it is in “public interest”.

Funny then that Section 25 actually means the opposite and is there to actually prevent the expropriation of land.

It starts with “No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.”

So here comes in what we know as “Lawyer speak” and it opens so many loop holes of interpretation that the law looks like a Swiss cheese.
What is “Public interest”? Who is “The Public”,? It says that “the state must take “reasonable and other measures”? What is “Reasonable”? What “Other measures”? What are the criteria of judging something “reasonable”? Who makes up the criteria?

Nevertheless you can see the constitution here. The part I am talking about is on page 8
The constitution of South Africa

I will tell you what these terms mean in Communist Newspeak. “The people” means the communist elite in the ANC and the SACP. “Public interest” means the interest of the communist elite.

And this is the problem with the way the law is written, because it is full of vague words like “reasonable” and “adequate”. What is reasonable? What is adequate? How long is a piece of string?

He then further twists the constitution by saying: “ this end the property clause therefore does not require expropriation of land in accordance with the “willing-buyer willing-seller” principle. Nor does it require the payment of market value for that land in all circumstances.”

What an utter distortion of the constitution that clearly states in 25(2) and (3) that property may only be expropriated in terms of the law taking various things into account. It is further “subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.”

Things that should be taken into account are the current use of the property, the history of how the land was acquired, the market value, etc

But 25(4) says that “The public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources; and (6) property is not limited to land.

So who is “The Nation”? Is that the Majority of the people? No “The Nation” refers to the communist elite. And their commitment to land reform is clear.

And property is not limited to land. So what is property? Your car, your furniture? Your bank account? Your wife?

Wake up people! Property is anything the “Nation” decides it to be. If they decide tomorrow that white people’s land houses cars furniture, mines, banks etc, needs to be expropriated, they will do so without batting an eyelid.

See what I mean when I say that the constitution is not worth the paper it is written on? According to that piece of toilet paper they can legally take away everything you own whenever they feel like it.

The South African constitution is nothing but a license to genocide of whites in South Africa. If the ruling party, their courts and their supporters decide that it is in “public interest” to take away the mines, the land, the businesses the cars and all property whites own, then they will. It is their ultimate aim.

That is why they are trying to undermine the judiciary and move their cronies into chief justice positions and get constitutional law academics like the proffie into their camp.

If they succeed and pass their legislation there will be nothing whites or any minority for that matter will be able to do, except defend their property with their lives or go to war.

In the end, and ultimately, South Africa is steering down the path of an unavoidable race war.

The former ANC terrorists who are now the top class officers of the SANDF

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

by Mike Smith

SANDF - South African National Defence Force

The Afrikaans media reports that the CO of the Tempe military base in Bloemfontein, Brig. Gen. David Mongezi Cebeni (47) was arrested after he had a fall out with a drug addicted 22 year old prostitute who use to be married to a Nigerian.

Apparently he refused to pay her for services rendered and when the lady got stroppy he hit her and threatened her with a pistol.

Monday morning he was back at his job.
General beats up prostitute
ex-Husband says she is a naughty girl


Communist academics do not want white Afrikaner asylum seekers in the USA

By Mike Smith
22 of February 2012

Here are two links about a white Afrikaner family who wants to remain in the USA and are claiming asylum status, saying that they will be victims of racism if they return to South Africa.
We want out of SA
White Afrikaner asylum seekers for the USA

This family is 100% correct. With racial quotas for university entry, AA, BEE, racial quotas in sport, etc, this minority family will definitely be discriminated against.

However, in order to find support for their claim, their lawyer went around and asked a few academics if they would support such a claim.

One of the academics he discovered was none other than liberal (communist) white Afrikaner author and currently professor of creative writing at Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee Professor Mark Behr.

The other was another communist academic called Dr Dennis Laumann of the Memphis University.

Start of quote:

“Professor Mark Behr, of Rhodes College, in Memphis, Tennessee, and Dr Dennis Laumann, of the University of Memphis, have rejected requests that they help the family.

"I am not interested in assisting Afrikaners claiming discrimination in a non-racial, democratic, post-apartheid South Africa," wrote Laumann.

"In my scholarly opinion, there is absolutely no basis for their allegation - whatever evidence they may present."

Behr - who is an award-winning South African author - said he did not believe the law firm would find "any fair-minded scholar" to support the family.

"If the people your firm seeks to represent are in any way victims of racism, it is, sadly, only a racism of their own making, in their own minds.

"Let me add, too, that I speak as a white Afrikaner, from a family of farmers, people who themselves lost farms they owned in Africa, and with my own profound empathy for all people who live off the land in South Africa," replied Behr.

End of Quote:

If you do not know who Mark Behr is then allow me to inform you. He was born in Tanzania (Tanganyika) and his family lost their farm to the communist scum of Julius Nyerere.

His family then fled to SA and identified themselves with the Afrikaners. The kids went to Afrikaans schools and attended the Dutch reform church. Mark Behr was a member of the Drakensberg boys choir and later conscripted into the SADF, serving a stint on the border as a Marine.

After he left the SADF he went to study at the Afrikaans university of Stellenbosch where he became a spy for the Aprtheid government.

Wikipedia says this about his time at Stellenbosch, “While a student there, Behr became an agent for the South African apartheid government, which was committed to monitoring the activities of students on university campuses in order to prevent political insurrection.

Undergoing a process of political radicalization himself, he later turned double agent and spied on the South African government on behalf of the African National Congress, one of the major anti-apartheid organizations (and, since the 1994 elections, the governing party of the new multiracial democracy).

You know what he did? He committed high treason. You know what the penalty for high treason is?? In the old SA he would have been hung.

I am surprised that the American government allows such a piece of trash communist spy into their country. Not only that, they allow him to teach at a College where he can poison the minds of young Americans. But the pious conservative white Afrikaner refugees are not welcome in the USA. Go figure.
Who is Mark Behr?
Who is Dennis Laumann?

So who stole the land from whom?

By Mike Smith
21st of February 2012

We all know that blacks in SA never had any written language so they never recorded their history...well not in the way we understand.

Today if you tell blacks that they never had a written language then they will point you to the cave paintings of the San (Bushmen) people and claim through association that they did have a written language.

This exact technique is used by ANC general secretary Gwede Mantashe, who is also chairman of the SA Communist Party.

Mantashe is a Xhosa who tries to steal the history of the Khoi and the San people to prove he has a claim to the Cape.

Truth is that the Khoi-San people were genetically totally distinct from the Bantu who came from Central Africa.
Khoisan, San, or Bushmen, are genetically divergent from other humans

So how did blacks record their history?

It was the job of the witchdoctor or Sangoma.

To be trained as a Sangoma used to take about 20 years and the candidate would be trained from about the age of four. Not only the plant and animal medicine would be subjects of study but also the oral traditions, beliefs and history of the tribes would be his forte.

The sangoma is therefore a walking talking university, encyclopedia, and an all-in-one “man of all wisdom”.
I own two books by Vusamazula Credo Mutwa, the pope of Black African beliefs and religion. The first one is “My People” (1969) and the other is “Indaba my People”.

In his books he traces the history of the South African Blacks back to the Hutus and the Tutsis.

He knows not only the history of his own tribe the Zulus, but also the history of all the black tribes of South Africa.

But if history of the blacks were only oral, how did they guard against the fabrication of tales or the addition or omission of knowledge? How does one ensure the continuation of the basic truth in oral history?

According to the Zulu shaman Credo Mutwa, they would remember and record certain distinct characteristics of people. Like Boer President Paul Kruger was well respected amongst the blacks and was known for being able to imitate the sounds of any bird on the Highveld of South Africa. His whistling was so legendary that the Blacks of Pretoria named the township of Mamelodi (The Whistler) after his whistling expertise.

Anybody who wants to understand the black mindset, needs to read Credo Mutwa.

Now having said that, we know that blacks in SA are extremely superstitious and scared of snakes.

Nevertheless if one ignores the reptile conspiracy stuff , in an interview with the conspiracy theorist David Icke, Credo Mutwa tells a little bit of the history of the Blacks and the San or Bushmen people.

You see it is quite simple. Unlike the Bushmen, the blacks never recorded their history in written form. But the Bushmen did and their rock paintings from the Drakensberg, scattered to the Kalahari, tells of their persecution and destruction by the black tribes who invaded their lands in SA. The Xhosas for instance did so much killing of the San and stealing their wives that they have actually incorporated the click sounds of the Bushmen language into their own Nguni language.

Four days ago, Dimwit Communist Gwede Mantashe kicked off the debate when he said
The land question is at the centre of the struggle

Excuse me? What struggle? Isn’t the ANC suppose to have suspended their struggle in 1994?

Here is a clear admission from the boss of both the ANC and the SACP that they have NEVER relinquished their “Struggle”.

So who are they still struggling against, now that they have the entire country already? Well just take a look in tomorrow’s newspaper when another report of a murdered white farmer will be in there and you will know the answer.

Then came his cracker phrase...” He said historians needed to focus on the indigenous people of South Africa.”

As if they weren’t already…

Nevertheless, what does that mean? It means that historians should ignore or bury the white history of SA and focus on the manufactured bullshit oral black history.

“The first war in the country (with colonialists) left what they call the 'Khoisan Genocide',” he said.

He is right…the first colonialists to have killed the Bushmen en masse were the Bantu people. Credo Mutwa affirms it.

Mantashe went on….”“We are fighting the monster at the same time. The ANC is fighting against racial exploitation and the SACP against economic exploitation.”

So guess who in their minds are racially and economically exploiting the blacks? They have told us in no uncertain terms that we are the enemy and that they are waging war on us.

So without further ado, let me show you the interview with Credo Mutwa, the Bantu historian telling of how the blacks committed a genocide against the San and Khoi people. He even describe the obvious genetically differences between the two races. Also how Credo Mutwa refers to the “Drip-Drip genocide” and compare it to what is happening to whites in SA at the moment.

Who were the first people, and where did they go?

The ORIGINAL peoples of Southern Africa, were the slight, small-built San people, i.e. Bushmen hunter-gathers. As common with hunter-gatherers, the preservation of the wildlife and landscape was and is strong in their beliefs. Like the western Red Indians or Australian aboriginals they hold large natural features to be sacred and have various taboos on the killing of animals in certain places and a strong belief in the transference of the spirit. They imbue the animals with life and spirit. In particular, they link the small animals that hide in the earth to their buried dead, and ascribe to them powers of divination and prophecy.

Before we go any further, we need to describe the genocide. If I refer to 'negros' it's to enable us to keep in mind the immense size difference between these peoples and the (pure) Bushmen who stand about as tall as a European 11 year-old.

The Genocide in recent history

The small-bodied Stone-age Bushmen hunter-gatherers inhabited the region along side Khoi-Khoi (Hottentot negros). At some period before 300 AD, communities of (negro) Bantu groups – were living in the interior. What happened next was paralled all over the world: The Bantus discovered or were shown iron tools and began to farm. The larger (negro) Hottentots took up iron knives and the farming too and the Bushmen were pushed towards the hostile desert areas. We should be clear what 'pushed' means. It means ethnic clensing and genocide. The reason we can be so precise is that this was still going on within living memory - is still going on.

In Natal, in the 19th century, a military genius, Shaka, had moulded the formerly insignificant (negro) Zulus into a powerful Zulu fighting force and developed an economy of war. This involved wiping out other tribes and taking their women. As they expanded, other negro tribes were put under pressure again, and again they moved south and again they took the lands from the Bushmen, killed the men and raped their women: activities witnessed by white settlers in the 20th centuary. And just as in America, or Tazmania, the stronger and larger incomers (both Bantu and Hottentot) killed and enslaved the weaker and recalcigent aboriginal hunters, devastated their game, diverted their water, raped their women and stole their land for farming and cattle. From the 17th Century, the incoming white settlers developed a ranching-centred style of agriculture just like the Bantu peoples and, as their numbers grew, more and more Bushmen were enslaved, left to die or to escape to the desert: their forests cut down, their lands gone.

Laurens Van der Post described the Bushmen as the original natives of southern Africa, outcast and persecuted by all other races and nationalities. He said they represented the "lost soul" of all mankind, a true noble savage.

And the genocide continues - these gentle people are not only being pushed further into the Kalahari desert interior, but just last year, the Botswanen government passed new laws prohibiting more hunting, making life impossible for the few that are left.

The drip drip genocide of a people continues.

We know, that when the Nguni (including Zulu, Xhosa and Swazi peoples) came to dominate modern southern Africa: just like the later Boers, they killed the Bushmens' spirit game, they cut down the great forests covering the Bushmans' sacred hills and ploughed the sacred ground;

Have you noticed the silence amongst historians and lawyers??

By Mike Smith

22nd of February 2012

So since Pieter Mulder threw a piece of fireworks into the chicken coup, The lawyers and great historians of SA are all dead quiet. Nobody wants to stick his neck out.

Professor Herman Gillomee is sweating, because if he oust himself, he will either be attacked by his intellectual brothers in the ANC or by historians who know the truth. He is the last one you would expect to choose sides.

Who owns the land? That is the question!

Let us ask the lawyers and historians and let them give us their expert opinions.

Let us not fuck around. Let us take the ANC to court with their hate speech that whites stole the land of blacks. Let us find out exactly what land was stolen by whom at what time and let us see the title deeds. Those people who are guilty should go to jail. That includes blacks who stole land from whites.

That is what I always said in my series. Let us open Pandora ’s Box on Apartheid. Let us get this debate in the open and solve it once and for all.

I want the best Scientists; I want the best Historians and the best Lawyers to give their expert opinions in this matter. I even want a Mickey Mouse politician like Gwede Mantashe to voice his stupid opinion.

I want the debate out in the open. Let us go for it. Let us see where Pandora’s Apartheid box leads us. Let us once and for all settle this debate. Who does SA belong to?

This is going to be very interesting if it goes to court, because it will put all former colonial countries on trial. It will mean that Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA, etc will all be on trial. And if the whites of SA have to vacate the land then so must all the other Colonial countries.

Further, It will mean that some former European power would have to absorb the white SA people, India and Sri Lanka would have to absorb the Indians from Durban and the Malaysians of the Cape would have to go and live in a foreign country where they do not understand the language, the customs or the way of life. How do you unscramble the omelette?

I do not care. The wanted to open Pandora’s Apartheid Box so now I am all keen. Let’s go for it!

Afrikaner Blood

Inside the kommando camp that turns boys' doubts to hate


Thick clouds of diesel smoke fill the air outside a run-down guest farm outside the town of Carolina in Mpumalanga. As the stench dissipates, a group of boys, aged between 13 and 19, spill from the bed of a rusty truck. The trip from the city to the country was long and hypnotic in the old jalopy.

As part of their indoctrination the boys were ordered to wipe their filthy boots on the South African flag

It is after midnight when the boys heft bags full of military clothing. "There are old blood stains on my uniform," one of them says, as he trades his sneakers for army boots.

Shouted orders ring out. The harsh intimidation begins immediately. Groaning, the boys raise 4m tent poles among the cowpats dotting the grassland. The large army tent will be their home for the next nine days.

Thirteen-year-old Jano, the youngest at the camp, spreads his sleeping bag on the bumpy floor. He is at the camp because he wants to prove to his father that he isn't a sissy but a real man, he says with a shy smile.

At 18, Riaan is already a little more self-assured. His lily-white skin is recovering from acne. "I want to learn how to camouflage myself in the veld." He, too, seems excited to be camping out and playing soldier, as if he's living an adventure out of a boyhood novel.

But soon they will realise this survival camp is different to others held in the veld.

The boys run from the tent to the mess hall. Before them, under the glare of fluorescent lighting, stands 57-year-old Franz Jooste. Old army decorations gleam on his apartheid-era uniform. The uniforms of the boys also come from that era.

"We're going to make men of you all," he tells them in Afrikaans.

'Protecting its own people'

Jooste is the head of the Kommando-korps, a small, little-known right-wing group bent on breeding hate and banking on some young Afrikaners' sense of not belonging in the new South Africa to get there.
On its website, the Kommandokorps describes itself as an elite organisation "protecting its own people" in the event of an attack, it writes, necessary "because the police and the military cannot provide help quickly enough".

Last year, it signed a saamstaanverdrag (a unity pact) with the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) and the Suidlanders -- a small whites-only group that is awaiting the racial apocalypse -- to coordinate their security strategy together.
The organisation claims to have trained more than 1 500 Boere-Afrikaner jongmanne in defence skills over the past 11 years. Jooste, who spreads his message by e-mail and in newsletters, says that 40% of boys sign up themselves. The rest are volunteered by their parents.

The teenagers at the camp all know crime horror stories and feel responsible for protecting their families. "We always have to lock our doors at night," 18-year-old Nicolas says. "This camp will teach me how to protect my father and mother, and little brother and sister."

At 4.30am on the first morning of camp, the boys are sent out on a 2km run in their heavy army boots, down a rocky country road filled with potholes. The organisation aspires to instil discipline through sweat. The war of attrition has begun. Indoctrination takes root best in exhausted ground.

Sixteen-year-old EC is in the middle of the panting troop. He is one of the smallest boys here, a childlike teenager who is thrilled at being able to shoot his paintball gun.

'I don't like racism'
"I want to be able to defend myself. And I am also doing this for my paintball career," he says with a smile. His mother is a single mom and sent him to the camp because she feels it will be good for her boy to be surrounded by men.

After they catch their breath, we talk about their country. The teenagers say they believe in the idea of the rainbow nation but the contradictions soon emerge.

"People generally get along pretty well," Riaan says. "We have to fight racism." EC has two black friends, Thabang and Tshepo. "I don't like racism."

"I don't know what apartheid is," Jano says. "But a long time ago, Nelson Mandela made it so everyone has the same rights." Then EC adds he would never marry a black woman and Jano says he is afraid when he walks past black people.

The group is called to a small field next to the community hall. They line up in military formation while a camp leader unfolds the old South African flag. They fill their lungs with air and start singing: "Uit die blou van onse hemel, Uit die diepte van ons see, Oor ons ewige gebergtes waar die kranse antwoord gee."

Some struggle with the words of the apartheid national anthem.

Meanwhile, Jooste sits in the mess hall. Kitsch paintings of buffalos, elephants and rhinos hang on the walls, and the wicker furniture is covered in zebra print. He looks through the glasses on his nose at the camp's schedule. It is written down in military style and every minute seems accounted for.

Proud veteran
There are slots for self-defence techniques, radio communication and how to patrol, as well as lectures on patriotism and the history of the border wars.

Jooste is a proud veteran. He fought on South Africa's borders with Zimbabwe and Mozambique and in Angola. He is scarred, he says, by what he calls treason; while
he was fighting for the white regime, his leaders were making peace with Nelson Mandela.
After his army service, he was active in the AWB.

Before his most important lecture, "Die vyand en bedreiging" (The enemy and the threat), Jooste boasts that it will take him just an hour to change the boys' minds. "Then they'll know they aren't part of the rainbow nation but part of another nation with an important history."

His cadets sit cross-legged on the ground in the mess hall. When he speaks the teens listen quietly. "Aside from the Aborigines in Australia, the African black is the most underdeveloped, barbaric member of the human race on Earth," he says. He tells the boys that black people have a smaller cerebral cortex than whites and thus cannot take initiative or govern effectively.

"Who is my enemy in South Africa? Who murders, robs and rapes?" "Who are these creatures?" he asks. "The blacks," he answers.
He picks up the current South African flag and lays it before the entrance to the mess hall like a doormat. He orders the boys to wipe their filthy army boots on it. They laugh uncertainly, then they do as they are told. Only Nicolas stands back.

Jooste tells them that they should love the old South African flag and the old national anthem.

Fear and superiority

An extreme form of patriotism runs through groups like this one; the cadets at this camp are taught that the country should not return to apartheid but, rather, they must work to acquire their own independent nation. Jooste last year got elected on to the Volksraad Verkiesing Kommissie (People's Council Electoral Commission), a group that fights for Afrikaner nationalism.

Hermann Gilomee, a renowned writer on Afrikaners and an extraordinary professor in history at the University of Stellenbosch, says apartheid stemmed from two sources: fear and a sense of superiority. You can still see them in Jooste. The primary fear is for the loss of Afrikaner identity -- their culture, language and symbols -- as a separate people. Jooste is desperate to conserve this sense of separateness and create a new generation of Afrikaners who carry his ideas. It is his mission to indoctrinate young Afrikaners like Nicolas, Riaan, Jano and EC, who are struggling to determine their position in the country.

Born after the end of apartheid, they feel unwanted, says Unisa associate professor Eliria Bornman of the department of communication science who did research on Afrikaner identity. "They know they're different from the rest of the population. Any leader can take their frustration and channel it in a negative way."

Outside the tent, the cadets are made to crawl across the ground, army-style, gripping a wooden beam they call liefie in their arms, their knuckles bleeding. "Persevere! You've got to learn to persevere," Jooste shouts. The sound of crying rises from the rearmost ranks. Jooste's assistants, older members of the Kommando­korps, grin as they take photos of the boys with their cellphones.

EC is struggling. The beam weighs almost a third as much as he does. The nights, too, are hitting him hard. "We sleep on the ground and our sleeping bags get wet. In three nights, I've slept six hours. Every day I think about giving up." But his paintball career seems to keep him going.

'You should hate black people'

The next night they move from the army tent to a nearby forest where they set up two camps. They each get one small tin of canned beans or vegetables to eat and warm themselves near the fire. At first light, one of the groups launches an attack. With the sleep still in their eyes they point and shoot their paintballs.

The young faces are increasingly marked by exhaustion as the days pass, yet the boys seem to grow more and more confident. "The training has taught me that you should hate black people," EC says. "They kill everyone who crosses their path. I don't think I can be friends with Thabang and Tshepo anymore."

Riaan repeats what he has learned in nine days almost word for word. "There's a war going on between blacks and whites. A lot of blood will flow in the future. I definitely feel more like an Afrikaner now. I feel the Afrikaner blood in my veins."

Jooste insists his job is to teach them to defend themselves. He doesn't want to force the boys into any particular direction. "All we want to do is channel the feeling they already carry within them. We don't want them to hate."

But in nine days, boys who once carried a budding belief in South African unity have become toughened men with racist ideas.

At the end of the camp the two boys who performed best are selected. They will get the next course, the gevorderde weerbaarheids kursus (advanced preparedness course), for free. There the paintball guns will be traded in for the real deal.

Watch video here

Monday, February 20, 2012

Mangosuthu Buthelezi's Online Letter

Mangosuthu Buthelezi

17th February, 2012

Dear friends and fellow South Africans,

I have been called many things in my life, some positive and some insulting. By now I know not to take it to heart. Character is not what other people believe you are, but what you are regardless of who is watching.

After three decades of delicate reconciliation efforts, the ANC has again turned up the volume on its anti-Buthelezi rhetoric. Among the latest barrage of jabs and insults is an article published in Isolezwe on 2 February, penned by Dr Makhosi Khoza, Chief Whip of the ANC in the KwaZulu Natal Legislature.

Dr Makhosi Khoza

"an individual desperate to hog headlines and to position herself as a paragon of moral excellence better than all, the messiah within the ANC". 

 Dr Khoza sets herself the goal of "researching" my ties to the ANC's beginnings. But because she starts with the wrong questions, and from a foundation rooted in propaganda, her conclusions are deeply flawed. She asks "Where did he go wrong, that he turned against the struggle" and is he "ashamed about what he was supposed to do and did not do?"

This is not an honest academic enquiry, and it doesn't take long for Dr Khoza to abandon that pretext and label me "a sell-out".

By her own admission, Dr Khoza was a child in the seventies when I founded Inkatha, and later when the ideological rift opened between Inkatha and the ANC. Thus she has no direct memory of our liberation history before the ANC's People's War and her understanding of my legacy was formed at the height of the ANC's vilification campaign against me.

As a man who lived our liberation history, who knew and worked with the founding fathers and pioneering leaders of our struggle, I feel a responsibility to educate Dr Khoza. She is one of a generation of South Africans who knows only what the ANC chooses to tell her. That is a tragedy indeed.

The ANC's centennial celebration has focused on the Presidents of the Party, starting from its founding President, Dr John Langalibalele Dube. Accolades are heaped on the ANC's leaders as though each was a paragon of moral excellence devoted entirely to South Africa's liberation.

Dr Khoza would be surprised to hear that Dr Dube was also labelled "a sell-out".

On 16 December 1930, the Communist Party organized a massive pass burning just outside Durban. It ended in four deaths and widespread harassment by the Police. It also led to one activist, Eddie Roux, accusing Dr Dube of being "a sell-out". That was seven years after Dr Dube had been accused, during an annual conference, of "doing nothing about the worsening native situation".

In September 1935, General Hertzog's Bill on the Representation of Natives was before Parliament. It provided for four white senators to represent all African interests. Government convened regional conferences to discuss this legislation. My father, Inkosi Mathole Buthelezi, attended the Natal conference, as did Dr Dube, Professor ZK Mathews, Selby Ngcobo and Albert Luthuli.

Luthuli, Ngcobo and Mathews were part of a younger generation of leaders in the South African National Native Congress, and they were alarmed by Dr Dube's approach, which they considered too soft. They sought to meet with him to express their concerns, but Dr Dube, who was already old and becoming unwell, proved disinclined to entertain the views of these young men.

I mention these two moments in our history to show that we who engaged the liberation struggle were flesh and blood. We were subject to opposition and misinterpretation, both from our enemies and our comrades. Politics was always a factor. There were always those who sought to make a name for themselves. And the younger generation always questioned whether the older generation was as passionate as they were.

The ANC's airbrushed version of our past impoverishes our understanding of ourselves and drives a wedge between us made of nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It is easy to criticize leaders. Dr Khoza will recall the criticism levelled against her from within her own Party in June last year, when the ANC Youth League in KwaZulu Natal called her "an individual desperate to hog headlines and to position herself as a paragon of moral excellence better than all, the messiah within the ANC".
That is called an ad hominem argument, Dr Khoza, when one attacks the person rather than debating the issue. Such as when you write that I sold out my nation by corruption, for personal gain, and I now want history to pardon me. You are pulling this out of thin air. The record of history doesn't support your attack.

Neither does President Zuma's speech to which you refer in Isolezwe.

President Zuma never mentioned me in Mangaung on January 8th. I was present, at the ANC's invitation, based on the historical ties between our parties, and I never once heard him utter my name.

The statement referred to in Dr Khoza's Isolezwe article is the full statement of the ANC's NEC on the occasion of the centenary celebration. It is a substantial document, which was given to the media. But when the President delivered his speech from this document he left out the part where the ANC accused me of having failed the mandate they had given me to keep our people focused on the liberation struggle.

It would have been difficult for President Zuma to say this in my presence, because he knows it to be a lie. I did precisely what Inkosi Luthuli and Oliver Tambo asked me to do when they urged me to accept leadership of KwaZulu. We hoped to undermine Apartheid from within. My position as Chief Minister gave me the authority to reject nominal independence for KwaZulu, which rendered the grand scheme of Apartheid untenable. I thus achieved exactly what I had been tasked with achieving.

In a show of bad faith, Dr Khoza omits one line from her quote of the ANC's statement. In that line, they admit that the above is true.

History has not judged me harshly, Dr Khoza, nor has it punished me. My vilification has come at the hands of the ANC. In fact, history may very well remember me like this -

"- while allied to the Zulu royal house, campaigning for recognition of the king and working to save folklore, poetry and customs from extinction, (he) also continued to look forward to a day when all South Africans would have representation in a common parliament. He never treated these as mutually exclusive, nor did he promote any other than peaceful, constitutional means for their realization."

You may be surprised again, Dr Khoza, to learn that that is how history remembers Dr Dube, on page 261 of the book titled "The First President: A Life of John L. Dube, Founding President of the ANC".

History looks through the eyes of many observers, and takes the facts into account. History is not constructed by the ANC. It is merely distorted.

Yours in the service of the nation, 

Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi


Wednesday, February 15, 2012

South Africa's bloody freedom

Barbara Simpson, "The Babe in the Bunker,"
as she's known to her KSFO 560 radio talk-
show audience in San Francisco, has a 20-year
 radio, TV and newspaper career in the Bay
Area and Los Angeles

It’s sad. A once prosperous country with a thriving economy is turning into a bloody mess and sliding into a 21st century Third-World status.

No, not Zimbabwe, which after becoming “free” devolved into chaos, starvation and economic helplessness under its “elected” dictator, Robert Mugabe.

It echoes Iraq, now that it’s “free” and has “elections” and, of course, there’s the ongoing “Arab Spring” touted by the U.S. and the West as a move to democracy and freedom.

The one person I’ve met who has the clearest vision of the truth about South Africa, before and after apartheid, and the implications for the United States is writer, commentator and, yes, philosopher of reality, Ilana Mercer.

She lays it out in explicit and, quite honestly, frightening detail in her new book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot – Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa.”

Mercer’s book sees the patterns in the dissolution of a government and a country supposedly on the road to democracy as the politicians and power brokers embraced socialism/Marxism. She doesn’t pull any punches, whether writing about blacks or whites.

Mercer was born in South Africa and lived there until the 1960s, when her father, Rabbi Ben Isaacson, moved the family to Israel because of harassment by the apartheid government.
In the ’80′s, she returned to South Africa. She married, had a child and then emigrated to Canada. Ultimately, the family settled in the United States.

I was especially interested in her book because I’ve been to South Africa twice, not as a tourist, but spending time with people who live there, talking with them, seeing how they live, reading local newspapers and seeing it, not through rose-colored glasses, but as it is. It led me to pursue the horrors of Zimbabwe as well. The pattern is clear and almost identical.
Unfortunately, the blindness of our country continues, most recently with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg traveling in Africa.

She visited Tunisia and especially Egypt, where she aimed to “listen and learn” as that country makes a “constitutional transition to democracy.”

Has she seen the rioting, burning and beating as the Arab Spring “flowered”?

During an interview with Al Hayat Egyptian television, Ginsburg ventured her opinion and advice to Egyptians as to how to structure their new constitution.

This woman, a justice on the United States highest court, who took the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” advised Egypt not to pattern its government after ours.

Ginsburg said she “would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. …”

She said they should use South Africa’s constitution as a model.

Leaving aside the propriety of her demeaning her own country, it’s clear her South African sympathies blinded her from the reality of that “free” country.

Has she seen South African crime statistics? There are more than 50 murders a day. It leads the world in child and baby rapes, to say nothing of adult rapes. The number of white farmers and their families, including children, targeted, brutally tortured and sadistically murdered on their own farms or in their own houses, some 4,000 since apartheid ended in 1994, literally making farming in South Africa the most dangerous occupation in the world. Car-jackings are a daily occurrence with drivers frequently kidnapped and murdered. Commonplace home invasions and robberies force people to live like prisoners in homes protected by walls, electric fences, trained dogs, hired guards, alarm systems, motion detectors inside and out, safe rooms and, if they’re able, weapons – although they’re illegal.

I’ll never forget the South African newspaper report I read while I was there. It was about a white driver carjacked by blacks, taken from his car and thrown off a cliff before his car was stolen.

So much for a modern constitution governing a free country. Words on paper mean nothing if the rule of law doesn’t work. Clearly, South Africa, no matter what government press releases or the travel brochures say, is a dangerous country for visitors, businesses and for its own citizens, regardless of skin color.

The overall body count in that country since the people were “freed” from white rule is estimated to be more than 300,000 and increasing every year. There’s black-on-white crime, black-on-black crime and black-on-every-other-skin-color crime. It’s crime often perpetuated with police and government acquiescence. So much for life under “free black rule.” Corruption is corruption.

The enormity of what’s happened in South Africa since Nelson Mandela took power after apartheid may be shocking in its violence, but it didn’t surprise Mercer. She knows history and sees the transition from the goal of democratic freedom to the form of dictatorship and slavery existing there now.

In introducing her book, Ilana Mercer calls it “Rambo Nation,” and she doesn’t pull punches:
“When South Africa was governed by a racist white minority, it was scorned by the West and treated as Saddam Hussein was, with boycotts and sanctions. Now that a racist, black-majority government controls the country; that it is as violent as Iraq, Liberia, or the Congo and rapidly becoming another Islamist-friendly, failed African state, it is the toast of the West.”
Mercer’s book shows the dissolution of a government and country supposedly on the road to democracy as the politicians and power brokers embraced socialism/Marxism. She sees parallels in our country.

Ironically, Feb. 11, was the 22nd anniversary of Mandela’s release from prison and the beginning of his elevation to the presidency and now, virtual sainthood.

Nothing negative can be written about him, and world media are complicit in the massive, politically correct cover-up of the gradual destruction of that country.

But Mercer lays it all out. If you can handle the truth, read her book. She is one brave woman.

And the Killings Continue

This is a 10 minutes extract from the stunning documentary 'War of the Flea' from director Rian van der Walt published in 2011. It contains shocking information on the genocide that is being carried out under ANC-rule in the 'new' South-Africa against the white minority of the 'Afrikaners' by farm killings or 'plaasmoorde'. It was shown at an international conference in the European Parliament in februari 2012, in the presence of farmers' spokesman Henk Van de Graaf and hosted by Philip Claeys, member of the European Parliament for the Vlaams Belang-party. The full movie is 93minutes. Did you see it already on your TV-screen? We neighter. Compare this to the worldwide hysteria in the time of 'apartheid' and draw your own conclusions... (Note: 'war of the flea' means 'guerilla warfare').

Please visit the Youtube-channel of the makers:

(NL) Dit is een schokkend deel van de Engelstalige reportage 'War of the Fleas' over de genocide op blanke boeren in Zuid-Afrika onder het ANC-regime. Zag u het op uw TV? Wij ook niet... Vergelijk dit even met de mediahysterie ten tijde van de apartheid... Een vertaling in het Nederlands wordt voorbereid.

Buthelezi V Zuma

IFP leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi

Buthelezi warns Zuma on corruption

14 February, 2012
"Corruption is the bane of our country," he said during debate in the National Assembly on last week's state of the nation address.

Buthelezi described corruption as a fundamental threat to South Africa's constitutional democracy.

"Yet, sir, you shy away from this issue."

He said a measure of Zuma's leadership could be taken less by what the president had said than by what he had not said.

"How can we embrace hope when our leadership refuses to acknowledge the many problems confronting our country, or the causes that lie at their root? Year after year, the state of the nation address shifts, without ever addressing previous failures."

Buthelezi said it was an "unspoken fact" that corruption had resulted in the axing of two ministers, Sicelo Shiceka and Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde.

"The national police commissioner, Mr Bheki Cele, is still suspended pending an investigation into corruption.

"The Speaker of the KwaZulu-Natal legislature, Ms Peggy Nkonyeni, and MEC Mr Mike Mabuyakhulu are facing corruption charges in court," he said.

Two of the nine provinces had "all but collapsed" and the administration of the state was "in shambles".

"Limpopo has been rendered bankrupt through corrupt activities and five of its departments have been taken over by national government....

"In the Eastern Cape, the education system has completely collapsed due to maladministration and corruption, forcing national government to intervene."

In Gauteng, the provincial government had sought help from the National Treasury for its health department, which was on the verge of collapse.

The Free State had sought help after discovering financial mismanagement and non-compliance in supply chain processes in its police roads and transport department.

"How, Mr President, do we explain the contamination of public service and commercial interests? It is fatal and yet pursued relentlessly from the lowest to the highest levels of government.

"Too many, and I dare say the overwhelming majority, are trying to make money on account of holding public office, being in politics or exercising public power."

Last year, Special Investigating Unit head Willie Hofmeyr told MPs that 20 percent of South Africa's procurement budget -- between R25 billion and R30 million -- was lost to corruption each year.

"According to Transparency International's 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index, South Africa is perceived to be becoming more corrupt with each passing year."

This perception was rooted in reality.

"On a scale of 0 (being highly corrupt) to 10 (being very clean), we have fallen from a ranking of 5.1 in 2007, to 4.1 in 2011.

"The unspoken fact is that we are on the verge of joining the ranks of dysfunctional states, as the effects of corruption debilitate all spheres of life," Buthelezi said.

The IFP leader, who turns 84 this year, also criticised Zuma for his support, last Thursday, of the SA Democratic Teachers' Union (Sadtu).

"Mr President, you praise the trade unions, and even Sadtu, as if they should be thanked for doing less than the full measure of their destructive capabilities.

"Praising the SA Democratic Teachers' Union for its diligent teachers was a step too far in placating the unions."

The ANC-aligned union continued to act like an organisation "hell-bent on destroying the future of our children", and should be rebuked, not praised, for its actions, he said, to cries of support from opposition benches.

"Instead of acting like responsible educators, some members of Sadtu have, on numerous occasions, proven themselves irresponsible, unprofessional and unfit to educate South Africa's learners."

Buthelezi also suggested that the ruling party was too close to the country's four major banks.

"Another major policy mistake is maintaining the four retail bank policy and tolerating the collusion and other restraints of trade openly practised by our banks."

A lack of "real competition" meant they were not forced to take risks they did not want to take, forcing all the "risky business" onto the Industrial Development Corporation and the Development Bank of Southern Africa.

"It would seem as if your government, Mr President, has a greater commitment to serving the banks than the people we represent."

On the economy, Buthelezi said Zuma had not explained how two sectors that should be booming as a result of high international demand --agriculture and mining -- were "in reverse due to government's many policy failures".

Another unspoken fact was that the latest Global Competitiveness Rankings of the World Economic Forum highlighted how corruption, wasteful expenditure and government red-tape was increasingly hindering business development, SMMEs and investment in South Africa.

Buthelezi said there was a "disconnect" between the government and the reality of everyday life in South Africa.

He told Zuma his address had lacked accountability.

"[It] lacked accountability on the crisis in health, the crisis of education and the crisis of corruption.

"What you have said looks good on paper, but what you have not said can prevent the fulfilment of the best-laid plans."