The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Patrick McDermott Archive
White Politics and Secession in South Africa
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Bloubergstrand, Cape Town, South Africa. Credit: Unsplash.com.

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It seemed like an act of desperation. Twenty-five years after the fall of apartheid, South Africa’s Whites were counting on a Black man to save them from the corruption and malignancy of Black-majority rule. Its failure should have surprised no one.

By all appearances, Mmusi Maimane was a South African Barack Obama. Smooth and polished, he seemed like the ideal candidate to win just enough Black votes from the tottering ANC to fulfill the promise of a multi-racial democracy.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) had long been viewed as the party of White people, but that was a handicap when Whites were just eight percent of the population. The party traced its roots back to the Progressive Party, the liberal opposition during the apartheid era, but few Black voters cared about that. Instead, the party drew most of its non-White support from the nation’s “coloured” population, a mixed-race group that shared just one thing in common with the nation’s Whites: a mutual fear of Black domination in the allegedly harmonious “Rainbow Nation.”

Maimane was supposed to be the DA’s ticket out of this electoral dead end. The “Obama of Soweto” would lead them in the 2019 elections to a promised land where everyone would be treated equally and race no longer mattered.

It blew up in their faces.

The Afrikaners

It all could have worked out very differently. Nearly 30 years ago, in November 1993, President F.W. de Klerk convened his cabinet to inform them that he had accepted Nelson Mandela’s demands for majority rule in the new government. Upon hearing the news, Tertius Delport, one of his negotiators, was stunned. They had given in on virtually everything. Resolved to resign, he walked down the hall to confront the president directly.

When de Klerk opened the door Delport grabbed him by his jacket lapels and cried out, “What have you done? You have given the country away! You allowed children to negotiate!”

“What are you going to do?” de Klerk asked coolly.

“I intend to rally enough colleagues,” Delport answered. “Together with the Conservative Party caucus, you will no longer have a majority.”

“Then there will be civil war,” de Klerk responded.

It was not out of the question. De Klerk had always viewed the military with a mixture of suspicion and disdain. Many of them viewed him as a traitor. He had already removed Magnus Malan, his widely respected defense minister. In late 1992, he resolved to clean out the rest of the dissidents in the military ranks.

“We are not playing with children,” one of his ministers warned him. “We are governing because the Defense Force allows us to do so. … The top command could decide to get rid of us and seize power. And where are we then?”

That did not dissuade de Klerk. The following day, he suspended or forcibly retired 23 senior army officers in what later came to be known as the “Night of the Generals.”

When retired General Constand Viljoen entered politics in 1994 to launch the Freedom Front, some viewed him as the country’s last chance. Many thought him capable of raising an army of up to 50,000 men from various defense forces and civilian paramilitary units that were loyal to him. Anticipating this, General Georg Meiring warned de Klerk and then met with Viljoen to sound him out.

“You and I and our men can take this country in an afternoon,” Viljoen reportedly told him. “Yes,” Meiring replied, “but what do we do in the morning after the coup? The internal resistance and foreign pressures and the stagnant economy will still be there.”

For Viljoen, the lack of support from the armed forces was decisive. “I could have stirred things up in 1994—but for what purpose?” he later said. “I don’t think any action from my side would have resulted in a major part of the Defense Force siding with me.”

Viljoen’s decision was controversial among some Afrikaners, many of whom were more than willing to fight and die to save their country. Instead, Viljoen decided to use the threat of war to win an Afrikaner homeland — a volkstaat — by peaceful means. To placate him and his supporters, de Klerk and the ANC readily agreed to create a council to review the options. But it was just a ploy. Neither de Klerk nor the ANC ever took the idea seriously.

In the 1994 elections, the first held after the end of apartheid, Viljoen’s Freedom Front earned a little over two percent of the vote. The party was, and remains, an important voice for Afrikaners, as are advocacy organizations like AfriForum and Suidlanders, a civil defense group. But their power is limited by numbers. Whites are a small minority in South Africa. Conservative Afrikaners are just a minority within the minority.

Viljoen never had any illusions about this. His primary focus had always been the creation of an Afrikaner homeland. Consistent with the accord he signed with the ANC, a council was soon created to consider the creation of a such a volkstaat. But then, as now, the council soon faced a major obstacle: Afrikaners were spread too thinly across too many areas of the country for any single region to stand out as the obvious location.

The council considered several options, including one based primarily in the Northern Cape that eventually drew the endorsement of the Freedom Front (shown in the map below). Other proposals included carve-outs in and around Pretoria, where the largest numbers of Afrikaners live.

But each of these proposals would have required large numbers of Afrikaners to uproot and move to the new state for it to be viable. Instead, a 1993 poll indicated that just 29 percent of White South Africans backed the creation of such a homeland. Just 18 percent said they would consider moving there if one were created.

“Afrikaners do not want their own homeland,” Johann Wingard, chair of the council, eventually concluded. “They want to live anywhere in their beautiful country where they can make a decent living.” Interest in the idea soon dissipated and the council was dissolved. For many, the dream of a volkstaat seemed dead and buried.

Carel Boshoff, son-in-law of former South African Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd, had different ideas. In 1990 he bought a patch of land on the banks of the Orange River at the far eastern edge of the volkstaat proposed by the Freedom Front. The first few residents of the new Afrikaner town, called Orania, arrived the following year. The population has since grown to over 1,700, over a third of whom are children.

“They initially drew support from idealists,” said Dan Roodt, an Afrikaner activist. “They struggled financially in the beginning. In the early 2000s, you could buy a plot of land for a couple a hundred dollars. Now the price is 50 times that much.”

The town’s growth was powered by a strong desire for shared community and growing disenchantment with the rest of South Africa. It would have grown even faster if not for its commitment to using Afrikaner labor. “Orania does not use black labor,” Roodt said, “so it can’t build fast enough to build all the new housing they need.”

Orania had shown that the idea could work. And before long, public opinion would change.

Democratic Alliance

The Freedom Front — later renamed the Freedom Front Plus after it merged with the Conservative Party — was never the primary party of South Africa’s Whites. In the 1994 election, that distinction fell to the Nationalists under F.W. de Klerk. But there was also a third party contending for the White vote that year. The Democratic Party was barely a footnote, receiving fewer votes than the Freedom Front. But in time — and with the backing of most of the White establishment, the media, and a healthy dose of luck — it soon propelled itself forward to become the nation’s primary party for Whites, second in size only to the ANC.

In 1994, however, it was caught in a bind. Its traditional base of support had always been urban, politically liberal Whites. That became a problem when de Klerk lifted the ban on the ANC. Suddenly the party found itself being squeezed on both sides — by the ANC on the left, which drew away some of its White liberal support, and by the Nationalists on the right, who were viewed by most Whites as the only viable check against the ANC’s growing power.

Instead of capitalizing on this advantage, however, de Klerk fumbled it away. Thinking he could retain power and influence by working with the ANC, he allied with them in a post-election “unity government.” But this only alienated the Nationalists from their base of White voters. Worse, they were blamed for failing to stop the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which persecuted numerous White officials and military officers for their role in apartheid.

The Democratic Party took full advantage of the situation, challenging the Nationalists from the right in the 1999 elections. With the rallying cry “Fight Back!,” the party gained ground among White voters. After the election, the Nationalists continued to hemorrhage White support until 2005, when the party finally disbanded.

With its principal competition for White voters now gone, the newly renamed Democratic Alliance was free to expand its outreach to other racial groups, first to the “coloured” vote and later to the Black middle class. Like White establishment parties just about everywhere, it downplayed race and emphasized colorblind individualism and classical liberalism to maximize its cross-racial appeal. Using this strategy, it gained support in every subsequent election until 2014, when it peaked at 22 percent of the overall vote.

After that election, Helen Zille, the party’s leader, began looking for a successor. Her ideal candidate would be someone like Barack Obama, who was then closing out his second term. Mmusi Maimane seemed to fit the bill. With Zille’s backing, he drew overwhelming support from the party in 2015. The party then marketed him in ways that amounted to virtual plagiarism — including blatantly copying Obama’s “Hope” poster and substituting Maimane’s image instead.

But Maimane did not play along. He was not interested in being the Black face of a White party. If the DA wanted his leadership to reach Black voters, then he would force it to swallow his message — and that message was one of Black nationalism.

In his acceptance speech, he warned the party that colorblindness was not enough. “These experiences shaped me, just like they shaped so many young Black people of my generation,” he said, echoing the criticisms of South Africa’s woke left. “I don’t agree with those who say they don’t see color. Because, if you don’t see that I’m Black, then you don’t see me.”

It was not long before Maimane was locked in a power struggle with senior members of his own party, advocating for affirmative action and straying from its emphasis on non-discrimination. Under his command, the party soon came to be seen as ‘ANC-lite,’ and the DA’s White leadership was not happy.

Neither were some of its other Black leaders, but for different reasons. ”I feel powerless when my activists come to me and say they are victims of racism from senior people in the party, who say they should be grateful that the DA keeps them busy because otherwise they would probably be out stealing and killing people somewhere,” one grumbled. “I mean, what is that?”

The DA paid the price for these divisions at the ballot box. In the 2019 elections, the party lost ground for first time since 1994, failing to gain any traction against the ANC and losing White voters on the right to the Freedom Front Plus. The ANC also lost ground, but not to the “colorblind” DA. Instead, it lost votes to the explicitly Black nationalist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) under Julius Malema, who had pledged to “cut the throat of Whiteness.”

The lesson from the election was clear. In an increasingly chaotic nation, Black nationalism was the future. White voters and their parties had gone as far as they were going to go.

After the election, the knives came out. Helen Zille, the DA’s previous leader, was elected to a powerful party position by the old guard and she quickly challenged Maimane from within. Her predecessor, Tony Leon, chaired an internal party review that laid the blame squarely at Maimane’s feet. The Institute for Race Relations, an establishment-backed think tank, said he had abandoned the party’s cherished principles.

Maimane saw the writing on the wall, but he did not go quietly. At his resignation speech he called out the DA’s White leadership in explicit terms. “Over the past few months it has become more and more clear to me that there exists those in the DA who do not see eye-to-eye with me, who do not share the vision for the party and the direction it was taking,” he said. “There have been several months of consistent and coordinated attacks on me and my leadership, to ensure that this project failed, or I failed.”

Other Black party leaders followed him out the door. “I cannot reconcile myself with a group of people who believe that race is irrelevant in the discussion of inequality and poverty in South Africa,” said Herman Mashaba as he resigned from the party and as mayor of Johannesburg, the nation’s largest city.

Malema’s EFF released a gloating statement calling the DA a “White political party in which Whites and their interests as Whites must always dominate and come first.” Maimane was later seen hobnobbing with Julius Malema in what some called an emerging ‘bromance.’

Last November, the party overwhelmingly elected a new White leader, John Steenhuisen. He trounced his primary Black challenger, Mbali Ntuli, with 80 percent of the vote. The party, it seemed, was no longer pretending. Some are now questioning how it could possibly avoid a backlash by non-White voters in the next election.

Secession

Two decades ago, the idea of a White homeland in South Africa seemed dead in the water. Any area reserved for Whites that was too far away from the cities or from employment opportunities seemed impractical. Many Whites at the time also believed, or at least hoped, that South Africa would soon become the harmonious and prosperous multiracial nation that had been promised.

That hope is now gone. A worsening economy, ever-present crime, and rising corruption have all left their mark (detailed in my previous article, South Africa’s Protection Racket). According to public opinion polls, South Africans have grown increasingly pessimistic. The situation briefly stabilized when Cyril Ramaphosa replaced Jacob Zuma as president in 2018, but his promised reforms never materialized. Now public sentiment seems to be worsening again. The DA’s failed “colorblind” political strategy has only further darkened the mood among those who had hoped for more.

These negative views are most prevalent among Whites in general and in the Western Cape in particular, one of the few regions in the nation where Blacks are not a majority. In 2009, Whites in the province allied with the local coloured population and ousted the ANC in local elections. It has been ruled by the DA since then.

“Ever since the DA came to power in Cape Town and in the Western Cape one has heard a growing chorus from visitors that ‘It feels like a different (and better) country down here!’” wrote one local observer. “The public hospitals and schools work far better here than anywhere else in South Africa, the traffic lights work better, the city center is safer, there is less litter and generally there is better governance.”

Local rule was a step in the right direction, but some activists wanted more. In 2007, they formed the Cape Party to fight for genuine independence. The party never gained traction in the few elections it contested — partly because the timing was wrong and partly because voters inclined to support separatism already had a political home in the Freedom Front Plus.

Nine years of Jacob Zuma’s presidency changed that, however, and several new organizations have emerged. Following the success of the Brexit vote in Britain, CapeXit was founded in 2018 to seek independence through international law. Another organization, the Cape Independence Advocacy Group (CIAG), was launched in 2020.

It seemed like public opinion had changed, but independence advocates decided to sponsor a poll to be sure. Unsurprisingly, the poll found overwhelming opposition among Black voters. But it also showed that Whites now strongly supported the idea, especially those who were supporters of the Freedom Front Plus.

Coloured voters — who constitute a majority of the Western Cape’s population — were more divided. While most were not yet ready to endorse full independence, the majority (68%) agreed that the Western Cape should be given more power to choose its own policies. Advocates now believe that this bloc of voters can be won over, particularly if the nation’s economy continues to deteriorate.

These poll results, which drew wide attention, have put the DA in a box. Much of its White leadership privately supports independence, but it has remained publicly silent to avoid alienating voters both inside and outside the province who do not support the effort. The Freedom Front Plus, which has endorsed independence, sees this as an opportunity. They plan to challenge the DA on this issue in the upcoming 2021 municipal elections.

Despite this growing support, however, some have condemned the independence movement as unrealistic. “Fringe groups have long advocated for the secession of the Western Cape from the rest of South Africa,” wrote Pierre De Vos, a constitutional law professor at the University of Cape Town. “Obviously, the Western Cape is not going to secede and there is no chance of the creation of an independent state.”

“Even if the Western Cape Premier calls a referendum (he won’t), and even if a majority of voters vote for secession (they won’t either), the referendum will have absolutely no impact as the president and his party will have no legal or ethical obligation to adhere to the results,” he wrote. Critics argued that the ruling ANC would inevitably reject Cape independence, not least because the Western Cape and Gauteng, the two provinces with the bulk of South Africa’s White population, provide most of the tax dollars that line the ANC’s pockets.

Supporters counter that international law, not the South African constitution, is the final word on the matter. “Countries secede on a regular basis, and the constitutional law of the parent state is almost never an insurmountable object if the other conditions required by international law are in place,” wrote Phil Craig, CIAG’s co-founder. Political will, not constitutional law, would decide this issue, as it has in nearly every other case of secession.

Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan despite the latter’s objections. Kosovo seceded from Serbia despite Serbia’s objections, and with the International Court of Justice advising that there is no prohibition of the (unilateral) declaration of independence under international law. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Slovenia, East Timor, South Sudan. The list goes on.

Closer to home, did the previous South African constitution prevent the end of apartheid, or Namibian independence? Countries secede on a regular basis, and the constitutional law of the parent state is almost never an insurmountable object if the other conditions required by international law are in place.

Whatever the objections, the politics of the issue are clearly trending in the supporters’ direction. Numerous economic experts and political analysts now see South Africa entering a death spiral. Last year, the nation lost its last investment-grade credit rating when Moody’s downgraded it to “junk” status. Investors have been fleeing the country for years. According to IMF estimates, unemployment is fast approaching 40 percent. The Covid crisis has only made matters worse, contributing to widespread protests. At least one analyst estimates that if its existing economic policies are not reversed, the country faces economic and political collapse by 2030.

Despite such warnings, President Cyril Ramaphosa seems powerless to implement needed reforms. According to analysts at the establishment-backed Institute of Race Relations, power in the ANC has now shifted decisively to leftist Black nationalists. If Ramaphosa were to challenge the party’s top leadership in any meaningful way, they would remove him from office.

This worsening economic and political outlook will only heighten public support for secession over time. The final trigger could be an independence referendum in the Cape, an IMF bailout that imposes cuts on ANC-favored spending priorities, a forced removal of Ramaphosa by the ANC leadership, or a national election that forced the ANC into a governing coalition with the far-left EFF to maintain Black majority rule.

Regardless of the cause, if the Western Cape seceded, it would probably trigger similar efforts in other parts of the country. This might include some or all of the Northern Cape, which has similar demographics and is home to Orania. Another possibility is the Whiter regions in and around Pretoria and Johannesburg, which might also demand increased local autonomy. Absent that, many of these Whites might flee to a newly independent Western Cape, just as Whites fled Zimbabwe to South Africa during Robert Mugabe’s reign.

The Rainbow Nation’s days may be numbered, but now there is something new to hope for. An independent Western Cape would not be the volkstaat — nor indeed an ethnostate of any kind. But it would at least free the nation’s White population from the worst excesses of majority Black rule and reestablish the right of self-determination.

When reporters travel to Orania, they sometimes ask the residents why they chose to move there. “We want to build a better place for our children and ourselves,” one recently said.

It is a simple answer, one that anyone could have given, but now more people are beginning to realize that it is something that cannot be taken for granted. Self-rule has long been an aspiration for many White South Africans. Now, after all these years, it may finally be within reach.

Patrick McDermott is a political analyst in Washington, DC.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 150 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Dumbo says:

    I know little about South Africa, but why would the powers that be allow Orania or an independent Western Cape to survive? It would be easy for an evil government to do a little genocide, and it’s not as if public opinion would cry much over “racist white people”. The murders of SA white farmers get little news outside of the country. But good luck to them. In some ways, it feels like a “white people’s Israel”, s small new country surrounded by enemies. Only, not really a country, and without all the resources that Israel has. But in 50-100 years, if it survives and grows, who knows.

    • Agree: PolarBear, Irish Savant
    • Replies: @anon
    , @The Soft Parade
  2. unit472 says:

    That South Africas whites have gone in a generation from being the African Superpower ruling over 800,000 square miles and being a nuclear power too, to now simply needing their own Bantustan to provide a safe homeland for their children is astonishing.

    Yes the economic sanctions hurt but they, of necessity, would hurt the poorer less skilled black population harder and one wonders how long the US and UK would apply them once TV showed starving black babies in Soweto and with the collapse of the USSR, South Africa need not have feared any foreign military intervention. de Klerk was a total fool who sold his people out to win the approval of some powerless European leaders.

  3. lloyd says: • Website

    De Klerk’s wife was throat slashed and murdered in her own apartment. So he got retribution for his sell out. A South African Federation in post Apartheid South Africa was viable. South Africa is a huge country with a lot of natural resources. However the anti Apartheid movment while laudible for resistance to Apartheid abuses was absolutely dogmatic. It would be a unitary State or nothing. No shilly shalling like with solutions to Israel. Anyone who advocated it was politically destroyed. I recall a Maori doctor in New Zealand who advocated it. His credibility was destroyed by a television programme on Filipino medical fraudsters. Usual tactics by leftists. One point. I was impressed reading here on the state of South African freedom of speech and apparent non fraudulent elections. Perhaps America could learn a thing or two here before being too smug about South Africa.

  4. northeast says:

    You would think that South Africa would have taken the collapse of Rhodesia as a warning of what their future was going to look like under black rule and avoided that future at ANY cost.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @AnalogMan
  5. Anon[116] • Disclaimer says:

    De Klerk and Mandela both answered to the same paymaster, and there are photographs of one Mr George S**os with his arms around both of them, grinning like a Cheshire cat to prove it. The West sold South Africa to the communists to the degree that a KGB colonel by the name of Joe Slovo became one of the few high ranking whites within the ANC. As far as an independent Western Cape is concerned this will only come about by force of arms. The blacks will never allow a successful white state (especially one which was formally part of South Africa) to exist and show up their incompetence. Even tiny Orania is proving too much for them to stomach and calls are growing for it to be destroyed as it is (guess what?) racist. Prior to the release of Mandela from prison there was a referendum in which whites were asked whether they wanted to share power with he blacks, yes or no. I personally went around telling people to look North and warning them of the consequences. Mostly I got the reply “yes, but….”. We have an Afrikaans expression which translates as “If you will not listen, you will have to feel the consequences”. this has come to pass.

  6. anonymous[331] • Disclaimer says:

    South Africa won’t be stable over the very long term but I would give it until the 2040s before any melt down. That is 50 years of black rule yet enough stable time for people to wind down their affairs in an orderly fashion. It is the best you can hope for given whites were only 10% of the population. You have to be realistic about possibilities. The end of Apartheid was handled well.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @LogosRising
  7. @unit472

    “one wonders how long the US and UK would apply them once TV showed starving black babies in Soweto”

    You mean the way starving or bomb-shattered babies in Yemen are constantly on the Western TV news?

    The last TV starving babies I saw where a conflict was involved was in Aleppo (2015?), and it was part of an intelligence-organised campaign for a ‘no-fly zone’ to keep the jihadists in being and cripple Assad’s ability to strike them.

    • Agree: Occasional lurker
  8. @lloyd

    “De Klerk’s wife was throat slashed and murdered in her own apartment. So he got retribution for his sell out.”

    He’d divorced her two years earlier and married someone else’s wife.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    , @Dan Hayes
  9. Malan says: • Website

    Let me point your readers to this excellent book by Oxford Professor and South African R.W.Johnson: https://www.hurstpublishers.com/book/how-long-will-south-africa-survive/

    -How Long Will South Africa Survive?-

    Quote: ‘This book will undoubtedly be met with outrage among South Africa’s political and intellectual elite. If so, it will not be because of any great deficiencies in the text, but because of the grip of ideology on the country’s elite. By the same token, it will be hailed by some people in opposition circles simply because of the vigour with which it criticises not only South Africa’s current government, but the entire history of the ANC since the late 1950s, as well as for its devastating critique of African nationalism more generally.’ — Professor Stephen Ellis, Free University of Amsterdam, author of External Mission: The ANC in Exile, 1960-90″

    To learn more about the road to dissolve Apartheid and the terrible cruelties of blacks among each other: “My Traitor’s Heart, A South African Exile Returns to Face His Country, His Tribe, and His Conscience” author: Rian Malan

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  10. Dan Hayes says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    De Klerk: A thoroughly disgusting man!

  11. Dan Hayes says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    De Klerk: A thoroughly disgusting man.

  12. KenH says:
    @lloyd

    However the anti Apartheid movment while laudible for resistance to Apartheid abuses….

    Spare me. Abuses as opposed to the radical black ANC and all the black on white farm murders since 1994 and employment discrimination that has pauperized many middle and working class whites.

    The black death rate has greatly increased since the end of apartheid and SA now has one of the highest murder rates in the world so you might want to reconsider the “abuses” of the apartheid government.

    • Agree: Cauchemar du Singe
  13. Any white people left in SA have had ample opportunity to see the direction of that place, and act accordingly. There is no future for white people in SA, except on terms and at the mercy (should there be any) of the black majority. White people who are wiling to engage with blacks on their terms are welcome to it. White people unwilling to engage on those terms better leave quickly, as there is no other choice now, or in the future.

    Prevail absolutely or go to the wall. Those are the are the only options when dealing with black people all over the world. Nobody wants to say that, or deal with the implications, but that is the way it is.

    If we knew then what we know now, we would have picked our own cotton. As it is, we lost our nation to them. Pity.

    • Agree: Irish Savant
    • Replies: @Schuetze
    , @Realist
  14. @unit472

    White people need to leave South Africa for good. They deserve the murders for what they did to the African people. Now, Europe is a fool for letting in so many refugees but I’m sure you pale spirits would agree with me there.

  15. Their fate was sealed when apartheid ended. Just like the fate of the United States was sealed when segregation ended. You just cannot defy the Iron Law of nature.

    • Agree: Realist, donut
    • Replies: @TRM
  16. Miro23 says:

    Another way to look at this is to ask how long a race (group of ethnically and culturally related people) have occupied a land. If they’ve been there a long time (tens of thousands of years) then they’re physically adapted to the climate. For example Negros in Africa, Arabs in the Middle East or Europeans in Europe (Southern Europeans to the climate of Southern Europe and Northern Europeans to the climate of Northern Europe).

    The anomalies seem to come from the (very recent in historical terms), mass movements of people enabled by the 18th century+ “world globalization” – exploration/sailing ships/industrial revolution. Mostly a European thing and climaxing with the ethnic European exploration/settlement/control of a large part of the globe (Imperialism) led by the British.

    The resulting anomalies are, for example, Europeans in North/South America/Africa/Australia – settling parts with climates most similar to their European homeland. The immigration and settlement was often disastrous for the peoples with the better historical claim. For example the Incas and Aztecs of South/Central America, North American Indian tribes, Australian aborigines etc.

    It looks like a choice between [length of time of historic residence] vs. [might = right], and excluding the “We can run it better” claims. For example, Hitler running Russia more efficiently from Berlin, Israel making ex Palestinian land bloom, and the British giving India peace and an honest administration.

    The “length of historical residence” claim looks the strongest, legitimizing the return of lands to their natives (for example South America to its Indian majority, Africa to its Negro majority, South Asia to its Indian majority). The exceptions being where the natives were mostly wiped out and Might=Right is irreversible (for example North America and Australia).

    From this point of view, South Africa is the historic homeland of Negros and Europeans either live there as foreign residents or leave. Equally, Europe is the historic homeland of Europeans and Negros, Arabs and Asians either live there as foreign residents or leave.

    Being a foreign resident is not necessarily a bad thing – it just means that you’re renting the house rather than owning it,

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @TelfoedJohn
    , @jo shmo
  17. F*** THE PIGS!!!


    • Replies: @Anonymous
  18. Schuetze says:
    @Brian Reilly

    “Any white people left in the USA have had ample opportunity to see the direction of that place, and act accordingly.”

    The communist putsch in the USA is in its closing act. It is interesting that the proportions of blacks in the US vs SA are the inverse, yet BLM has accomplished their Marxist overthrow. Just as in the SA, the blacks have come to power through Jewish Power, the same jews who 150 years previously had been enslaving blacks.

    “Prevail absolutely or go to the wall. Those are the are the only options when dealing with black people all over the world. “

    Whites did not prevail in the south, nor did they afterwards in the USA. Increasingly is looks like they will not prevail in England or France. All across the planet, the magic negro has been placed on a pedestal and made sacred. It is no mere coincidence that this has happened concurrently with the rise of the new world religion “holocaustianity”.

    Norway and Sweden are also on the verge of becoming nigrified, which begs the question: “what proportion of the population must be negro before the jews can use negroes as a spring board to judeo-communist revolution?”. This is clearly the game plan and we are watching it unfold before our eyes this very moment. Just watch the BLM chimpouts today when Biden’s judeo-communist overthrow becomes fait accomplit.

  19. Schuetze says:

    Botha and Smuts are just as guilty for the downfall of South Africa as De Klerk. A decade after the Anglo-Zionist genocide of the Boers, they not only supported England in WWI, they actively attacked German colonies like Namibia throughout southern and eastern Africa. They even supported the Anglo-Zionist attack on Palestine.

    It was “The Cape Coloured Corps” that attacked Muslem Turkey in Palestine and helped pave the way for the Apartheid Israel while they moan and bitch about Apartheid South Africa. Whites putting their misguided hope and faith in Coloreds and then being betrayed has a long and sordid history, just read up on the history of Haiti.

    “In fact, Botha had made his mind up long before 1914: he would give the British the support they had wanted. Both Botha and his right-hand man, Jan Smuts, had participated in Imperial Defence Conferences even before Union in 1910

    The South African leaders saw their interests as being closely associated with the British Empire. Botha himself went out of his way to be helpful. Churchill wrote that in 1913 Botha had returned from a visit to Germany warning that the situation was ominous. ‘I can feel that there is danger in the air,’ the General had warned Churchill. ‘And what is more, when the day comes I am going to be ready too. When they attack you, I am going to attack German South-West Africa and clear them out once and for all’

    Not only did Botha and Smuts back the British, they took up arms against their own people, the Afrikaners:

    Outside government, there was strong opposition from another Boer war veteran, General JBM Hertzog. He had refused to accept Botha’s policy of reconciliation between English and Afrikaans-speaking whites and had been excluded from the government. Then, in January 1914, he broke with Botha to form the National Party. Hertzog argued that it was the right of each Dominion to decide whether it should actively participate in the conflict or not

    When a rebellion broke out among Afrikaners opposed to the war, the government had its hands full trying to put it down. It was not until early 1915 that Botha could finally take up command of the South West Africa campaign and lead his troops into the territory.

    https://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/south-africa-world-war-one-31-october-2018

    Botha and Smuts played a decisive role in the theft of Palestine the the founding of Israel. They founded The Cape Coloured Corps and allowed used them to attack on the Ottoman Empire:

    “These actions were decisive in paving the way for Allenby to break through to Damascus and ‘knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war’.”

    https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/cape-coloured-corps-and-first-world-war

    Botha and Smuts sold out South Africa to the Jews who owned the British Empire, just like De Klerk. If they had not only NOT attacked the German colonies and the Turkish Empire, but had rebelled against the Zionists and then denied South Africa’s resources and ports to the English it is likely that WWI would have come to an end at least 2 years earlier and untold millions would not have died. There would have been no Russian Revolution and no Spanish Flu, the US might even have remained neutral to this day.

    • Thanks: Neuday, Druid
    • Replies: @stevennonemaker88
  20. Garliv says:

    Truth be told there are factual reasons to regard Black African managed countries as hopeless. Trump is said to have referred to them as “shithole countries.” ( Maybe he did but it is also probable his enemies in the media made it up). No single Black African country has been managed well since independence. They are chaotic, crime ridden, corruption worse than anywhere, they don’t manufacture anything, cannot even feed themselves among hosts of other negatives.
    When Black majority took SA as a relatively prosperous country all they had to do is maintain standards while addressing disadvantages of Apartheid legacy on majority Blacks. Eventually SA leadership has made things worse. It is a country teetering on the brink of collapse or chaos or civil war. Just another African country. I sympathize with SA Whites and hope they find solution.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  21. anarchyst says:

    Apartheid was put in place to keep the normally warring tribes from decimating each other. As a result, South Africa became one of the most economically stable countries on the African continent. Despite the so-called “evils” of apartheid, there was a large influx of black immigrants into South Africa. Food was plentiful. Apartheid was able to “keep the peace” and was successful until communism’s “inventors”–(despite having arms agreements with South Africa) helped dismantle apartheid. The rest is history . . . South Africa is a “basket case”; its white farmers (producers) are being murdered. Farms that have been “appropriated” by blacks are being looted–not usable for farming anymore because anything of value is being sold for scrap. It is obvious that SA blacks have no propensity for farming…
    If one good thing comes of this, it will be the deserved “retribution” placed on the South African communists for being a major part in destroying this once-prosperous country. I would welcome the immigration of SA whites to the USA as they would be an asset to our country, but current American immigration laws do not allow for the immigration of whites to the USA, despite white genocide taking place.

    • Agree: Rich
  22. Sirius says:

    I don’t know enough about the present internal situation in South Africa to comment, but I do know enough about the past and present comparisons with Israel.

    I suspect that one of South Africa’s image problems in the 1980s was the actual name “Apartheid”, something the white leadership itself initiated. Not exactly a PR victory. Had they been more deceptive like the Zionists, perhaps they would have had less international opposition. Additionally, they didn’t have the “anti-Semitism” weapon to wield any time someone criticized them, which is still a powerful tool in the Zionist playbook.

    Also, the British did the Zionists a favor by partitioning off Palestine from Syria under the Ottomans (as well as another colonial power, France, keeping Syria from attaining its independence in 1920), giving the Jewish colonists a small area in which to control and focus their efforts. The British also established Hebrew as an official language of Palestine when hardly anyone in Palestine spoke it. The Jews had the might of the British Empire after WWI, and even then were still more or less only 5-8% of the population of the newly created “mandate”.

    By 1947 because of immigration the Jews were a third of Palestine, thanks to all the turmoil in Europe. They had a plan to expel as many of the 2/3 majority as possible while occupying as much of Palestine as possible. They had several new sponsors to help them out, most importantly the US, which aggressively promoted the UN Partition Plan, paving the way for a legal basis for their state.

    None of these conditions existed for the Whites of South Africa in the 1980s-90s. Nor was there an ideology or founding myth to bring in more Whites to South Africa, like there has been for Israel. Nor are there institutions all over the western world promoting the cause. Nor is there legislation against criticism of that racist ideology or its racist state, as it is with Zionism and Israel. Nor were billionaires buying influence in the US Congress or in the parliaments of Europe and making sure the state received not only huge amounts of aid but favorable trade deals as well.

    With all this mind, it seems to me that F.W. De Klerk got the best deal he could manage. The comparison is really no comparison at all. They only thing really comparable is the Apartheid itself, which many South African Black leaders (like Archbishop Desmond Tutu) have said is much worse in Israel than it ever was in South Africa.

    • Agree: Mustapha Mond
  23. Schuetze says:
    @White ghost go home

    “what they did to the African people”

    Bwaaaaa. Blacks hate other blacks far more than whites do, and who can blame them. They know that if the white man had never come that they would still be eating each other.

    • Replies: @Temporary Insanity
  24. “White people unwilling to engage on those terms better leave quickly….”

    No other country will take the largely impoverished Afrikaner underclass as immigrants (with the exception of Russia which shows interest in resettling farmers). It’s a bit like saying to some broke forty year old white (or black) with family in small town, Pennsylvania…..”The USA has no future for you, you’d better leave quickly.” Easier said than done.

    But if the white South Africans had the balls and determination (not to mention cheek) of blacks they would if need be walk to the Libyan of Morrocan coast, cross the Med with some people smuggler…and make themselves Europe’s problem….as thousands of Africans and others do every day. So many have done so, they have created a huge footpath, as straight as a theodolite, across the Sahara. The thing is that while conditions are bad…they are not yet sufficiently bad…sort of frog in a pot being quietly boiled.

  25. noname27 says: • Website

    There’s none so blind and stupid as a white libtard in South Africa.

  26. noname27 says: • Website
    @White ghost go home

    Oh yes, another basket case, piss pot nation like Zimbabwe is just what Africa needs. If you had an operational brain you would be seriously dangerous. LOL

  27. Ex-Saffer says:

    It’s Tertius Delport, not Deport, BTW, but whatever. I wasn’t paying full attention to the man or his doings when he was on the scene because I was too busy holding down a job, but since then I have more than made up for my lack of attention by grieving for my lost country for what feels like my every waking moment.

    Many of the South Africans I used to know now state their occupation as “self-employed” if their Facebook or LinkedIn profiles are to be believed. It’s not hard to guess what has happened to them and that they are increasingly reliant on each other for survival. My friends were all liberals – apparently still happily ignoring what their own nervous systems are telling them about their chances of survival – and some have chosen to surround themselves with Blacks, who are more likely taking rather than giving, in a doomed attempt at appeasement.

  28. Anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    White South Africans seem surprisingly weak and liberal to me, you’d think being surrounded by vicious blacks who want to murder them would make them more right wing but the parties they vote for are just as meek and liberal as mainstream parties in Western Europe.

    From what I’ve seen the average white South African defends the black majority and makes excuses for them, and they mostly dismiss claims of white genocide as “racist”.

    • Replies: @Neuday
  29. Creatura says:

    Stop selling people unattainable dreams. The Cape us never leaving and Orania will be filled with homeless blacks if the government decides so.

  30. Realist says:

    Why would anyone in the US give a shit about South Africa? This country is on the way out, done. Does anyone understand the ramifications?

    • Replies: @Alfred Muscaria
  31. “Self-rule has long been an aspiration for many White South Africans. Now, after all these years, it may finally be within reach.”

    Christian White South Africans were mere foot soldiers in the Jewish quest for literal gold and other precious things but now they can use the blacks and coloredsto do the same thing thus no more need of the white man… there will be no volkstaat!

  32. @Schuetze

    “They know that if the white man had never come that they would still be eating each other.”

    In the age of discovery, Africa and both the Americas were savage continents… and the basic traits are still evident in the non white Hispanic and African American population in the United States today.

  33. Realist says:
    @Brian Reilly

    Any white people left in SA have had ample opportunity to see the direction of that place, and act accordingly.

    In spades for the US.*

    * Pun intended.

  34. @Anon

    I can’t think of the expression you allude to but ‘kak en betaal’ might be appropriate here too !

  35. Syd Walker says: • Website

    Depressing to see how many “whites” who visit this website seem keen to emulate zionists in their selfish determination to dominate other “races” like overlords – and regret only the fact that they lack the power to do so.

    Apartheid in South Africa was never going to be sustainable in the long-term, and De Klerk (along with Mandela and the ANC) should be applauded for bringing that dead-end to a relatively peaceful end. South Africa is far from perfect now, as most of the commentators here want to remind us – but it does have a constitutional and moral basis for future prosperity for all, not just for a few.

    No, Israel and Apartheid South Africa aren’t directly comparable. The existence of a bigoted, one-eyed, self-obsessed, highly duplicitous worldwide Zionist Lobby gives the Israeli State an unfair advantage that it has benefitted from since long before 1948 and these days helps to fashion.

    But is it really a good thing to have an unfair advantage and to exercise that advantage ruthlessly and with cynical contempt for the interests of others? Only if you believe in-group supremacism is the way of the future.

    IMO these remnants of Iron Age tribalism are a pestilence on humanity. Our species must surely metamorphose into something more suited to our precarious global coexistence – and fast! Squabbling about “race” and territory is so petty-minded and passé.

    • Replies: @Sirius
    , @Wyatt
    , @Dumbo
  36. @anarchyst

    Whites should have carved out a whites only state in South Africa when they had a chance. But they controlled all of it and wanted it all with blacks close to them so that they could exploit them while trying to keep them apart in-situ with Apartheid. Apartheid didn’t work and hence the “coloureds” resulting from miscegenation (although many coloureds may have resulted from pre-Apartheid times and Apartheid may have been partly instituted to stop more of this). Australia was a whites only country (with only the original Aborigines to share with) but look the way it’s going lately – even a whites only South Africa may have opened up eventually as it seems to be the way of the world, or at least most of the white world for now.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  37. Rich says:

    One of the great tragedies of Africa that the South African military didn’t act to save its people. They are in deep trouble down there and I’m not sure tiny Oreana can save anyone when the masses of black savages attacks. 8% just isn’t good enough, 13.5% gets everything, at least in the US.

    • Replies: @Mustapha Mond
  38. @anonymous

    … enough stable time for people to wind down their affairs in an orderly fashion.

    And do what? Move to where? Look anywhere in the Western World and show me, aside from Poland, Hungary and perhaps Slovenia, where they can move that is not demographically headed toward what they would be leaving. Maybe Putin can do a ‘Catherine the Great’ type move and import them to shore up the border with Ukraine.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  39. bomag says:
    @White ghost go home

    They (White South Africans) deserve the murders for what they did to the African people.

    Said about Whites everywhere to cope with Black’s inability to build or maintain anything beyond village life.

    Europe is a fool for letting in so many refugees…

    A much more measured opinion than we get from most. The usual line is that Blacks must follow Whites around and punish them. Forever.

  40. @White ghost go home

    You know most SA blacks aren’t of indigenous tribes to region. Kinda prejudice to think all black Africans are alike, but it is very American in thinking. They are tribally quite diverse. I might be wrong here, but don’t the SA indigenous blacks have their own party and tend to support the Boer?

    • Replies: @Sam J.
    , @nokangaroos
  41. Dumbo says:
    @Miro23

    From this point of view, South Africa is the historic homeland of Negros and Europeans either live there as foreign residents or leave.

    Why? Not really. Afrikaners/Boers have been in South Africa for hundreds of years (since 1652), not much later than the Mayflower went to America. They have as much right to that land as Americans to theirs.

    Wheather is not a problem at all. The problem was that they were screwed over by the Brits (as usual! Are the Brits the Jews of the White Race? LOL).

    Also, that they did not try to completely remove Africans from their territory, but instead wanted to have slaves or cheap black workers (same problem as the southern U.S., really).

    The exceptions being where the natives were mostly wiped out and Might=Right is irreversible (for example North America and Australia).

    Irreversible? America is less than 50% white now, and most of it is now Latino (i.e. mixed-blood Amerindians). It’s going back to the Indians, in a way.

    Australia is different as Aborigenes were very few to begin with, but they will likely be colonized by China or other Asians people and will also disappear.

    Good bye White People! It was nice knowing you.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  42. Would the Bankers of London allow the whites to secede? I’m thinking no due to their and their ilk’s very visible presence in SA. Then again the dysfunction that is SA, they just might need a refuge for their various mining operations. Wonder when will the Chinese make their move in SA? Yes I do know the Bankers of London own China as well.

  43. Dumbo says:
    @White ghost go home

    What did they do to African people?

    Black Slavery was a curse mostly to the White man.

    If Europeans had not been so lazy and greedy, they would not use slaves and there would be zero Subsaharan Africans all over the world, as they never developed boats, or even the wheel. I’m not even sure if they were able to make fire before the White man told them how.

    • LOL: sher singh
  44. “Countries secede on a regular basis”… if approved by the African-Muslim majority in the UN.

  45. @White ghost go home

    Black people need to leave South Africa for good. They deserve the murders for what they did to the Khoisan people.
    Fixed that for you. Your ilk came into SA at about the same time as the Europeans.

  46. GMC says:

    Africa, America, Middle East or any other place in the world – keep everyone fighting each other while the Globalists tend to their agendas/plans and/or steal what they want while all those folks are fighting or killing one another etc. Everyone knows that once the whites build up a nice place , and the jews want it – they send in the niggers. Standard Operating Procedure. SNAFU

  47. Miro23 says:
    @Dumbo

    The exceptions being where the natives were mostly wiped out and Might=Right is irreversible (for example North America and Australia).

    Irreversible? America is less than 50% white now, and most of it is now Latino (i.e. mixed-blood Amerindians). It’s going back to the Indians, in a way.

    Agree with that. Northern European colonialists mostly finished off the North American Indians. But the Southern European colonialists (Spanish and Portuguese) rather decided to convert and enslave the South American Indians.

    Now they’re reverse immigrating back into North America, in fact, back to where they had previously lived for most of the previous 20.000 years.

    • Replies: @Rich
  48. pyrrhus says:

    “It could have all worked at differently”….No, it couldn’t..Submitting to Black rule is suicide, and there are no escape routes….

    • Agree: AnalogMan
    • Replies: @follyofwar
  49. Sirius says:
    @Syd Walker

    In my case, I only offered a comparative analysis. It’s a good thing that Apartheid in South Africa was dismantled. If only the same could happen in Palestine, but that looks to be a more difficult struggle for all the reasons I stated.

    • Agree: Syd Walker
  50. Anonymous[224] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    I have a lot of experience working with cops in my former job. I also have experience with active military (a lot of overlap, e.g., a lot of cops are in NG or reserves).

    Cops only care about pay and pension. Same with career military. Most cops are former military which is where most of their deracination occurred. As E. Michael Jones has pointed out, the military is the greatest tool for deracination the oligarchs/TPTB have.

    I don’t think the move from all-volunteer military to the current “professional” military in the 1970’s was anything other than a larger plan by the social architects. Certainly the 105-IQ soldier in WWII who could be trained in months to do complicated tasks is preferable to the current 90-IQ soldier who spends years in training and costs taxpayers $1 million/year to station overseas and will never see combat. The goal of the current U.S. military is multifaceted, but having large number of personnel (regular forces) is largely for purposes of deracination or indoctrination, not to fight ground wars. During the Iraq War in 2003, they were sending National Guard units from New Hampshire to drive trucks through Al Anbar as active duty regular forces stayed put doing their full-time military duty in Daegu or Okinawa.

    In the last 20 years we’ve seen how the social architects have used media, sports, politics, entertainment, et al., to raise military service and veterans to the point of veneration. This has worked to boost the role of the military as a tool for deracination.

    There is a whole military culture that the social architects manipulate and make compliant through phony patriotism and an over-the-top veneration of military service. And for the vast majority of enlisted military they quickly realize it’s to their benefit to identify themselves through their military service.

    Next time you’re in a blue-collar area notice how many window stickers you see related to military versus religious affiliation or even sports teams.

    Insidiously the social architects have been able to cultivate and expand the same deracination to family members of the enlisted military (notice things like, ‘Proud mom of an Army soldier’ window stickers you see in working-class areas).

    Higher education has been the factory to indoctrinate the millions of middle-class young people. The military has been the factory to indoctrinate and deracinate millions of lower and lower-middle class young people.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  51. Schuetze says:
    @Commentator Mike

    “Whites should have carved out a whites only state in South Africa when they had a chance.”

    What might have happened if the Boer’s had been able to hang on to South Africa is certainly far different than what happened after they were conquered by the Rothschild family and the Kazars. In any case once the jew had taken over the country exploitation of the negro was certainly on the menu, just as was genocide of the Boers.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
  52. anon[148] • Disclaimer says:

    There are many species of animals in all different species, and we accept that. Lions and cheetahs are cats, but they cannot live together, we accept that. Why can’t we accept the fact, that some human species, do not really like each other, and would be better off living separately?

  53. @Anonymous

    Boo the Blue.

    • Thanks: bomag
    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  54. @Rich

    “13.5% gets everything, at least in the US.”

    No, it’s the 2% who get everything, and feed table scraps to the 13.5% at the expense of everyone else.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  55. There’s still time to make quisling F.W. de Klerk an honorary recucklican.

  56. mwee says:

    Who were the good or bad guys in Boer Wars?
    Asking for a friend.

  57. @Mustapha Mond

    It’s hard for me to believe that the ethnic group of which you speak is a mere 2% of the population. How is this 2% counted anyway, especially with so much intermarriage?

    • Agree: Druid
  58. Wyatt says:
    @Syd Walker

    IMO these remnants of Iron Age tribalism are a pestilence on humanity. Our species must surely metamorphose into something more suited to our precarious global coexistence – and fast! Squabbling about “race” and territory is so petty-minded and passé.

    Cool. Explain how you deal with IQ 75 blacks who are more likely to commit petty as well as capital offenses than every other race combined.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    , @Syd Walker
  59. Neuday says:
    @Anonymous

    I’ve noticed that too, but I expect that the recent generations of SA Whites have been subject to the same or higher levels of White guilt propaganda than even we have in the US, and it’s quite obvious that full-spectrum propaganda works, which is why we only see more.

  60. Sam J. says:
    @Old and Grumpy

    The original South Africans were Bushmen and Hottentots. Totally different from the Bantus which moved in on them and genocided most of them from the North as the Whites moved up from the South. There were not many of them as they were hunter gatherers. Thew place was empty when Whites got there. The vast majority of blacks moved to South Africa after Whites made it worth living there.

    • Replies: @Garliv
  61. @Schuetze

    Thanks for this information. Insightful comment. The roots of many of today’s problems can be traced to at least ww1

  62. @mwee

    Although most wars are not totally black and white, The British empire where the bad guys. They invented the modern concept of the concentration camp and killed tens of thousands of Boer women and children. Then they had the nerve to claim the Germans where so terrible during their occupation of Belgium during ww1.

  63. Sam J. says:

    I can’t remember where I read this but I read that the reason that de Klerk and others decided to end apartheid was they were fucking kids from an orphanage and of course were blackmailed. There was a soldier that wrote a book about this (general maybe) but of course when he went to have it printed he was killed.

    I find this whole story plausible because…well it’s going on all over mostly run by the Jews. And now the Jews run South Africa while killing off their enemy the Whites. A lot of Jews moved from South Africa to the US after they fucked it up. We should ship them back.

    I hope the SA are able to make their own homeland. If they do they need to arm up before hand because they will probably be embargoed after the war starts with the blacks.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  64. Sam J. says:
    @mwee

    “Who were the good or bad guys in Boer Wars?”

    The English were the bad guys. They attacked the Boers who had been there since 1652. The reason they did so was gold was found there in large quantities and the Jews wanted it. I swear to God every damn time you find something fucked up the Jews will be involved. I don’t see how they manage to do so much evil. It must be tiring.

  65. Rich says:
    @Miro23

    There were about 1 million Indians in what is now the Continental United States at the founding of Jamestown. I believe there are now 7 million American Indians living on reservations and tens of millions of Americans who claim an Indian ancestor. That’s not exactly “wiping” them out. Friendly Indians very often intermarried, and prospered in their association with the Whites. Those that fought, suffered, but even the Apache and the Lakota who battled way past their inevitable defeats, now exist in higher numbers than before the Indian wars.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    , @Sam J.
  66. @Malan

    I chanced unto it a year ago – if even the paleo-Left give up like that,
    it is time to get out.

  67. Alfred says:

    In 1968, I went to Imperial College to study engineering. In our large class, with all the different engineering disciplines, there were around 300 students. Peter Hain (Jewpedia), the prominent anti-apartheid campaigner was in our class. I believe he is now Lord Hain. 🙂

    At that time, I could not begin to understand how this student with his cohort of supporters could study such a difficult subject and yet have the time and money to organise massive protests against apartheid all over the UK. I was quite naive. He was the leader of the “Stop The Seventies Tour campaign”, for example.

    I did not realise that he had the backing of the British Establishment – the Anglo-Zionists.

    The following year, he and his followers decamped to the much cushier subject of economics at Queen Mary College. The Wiki does not mention his stay at Imperial College for obvious reasons.

    It is now clear to me that what went on was an earlier version of a “color revolution”. These guys were organised, resourced and trained by professionals. That also explains his meteoric rise in politics. If you look at his Jewpedia entry, you will see that he is a member of the Steering Committee of the Constitution Reform Group. He is changing the constitution of the UK!

    MP Peter Hain’s story of parents’ anti-apartheid fight

    It is amazing that such a shit-stirrer should move away from the excrement that he made of South Africa. He should be forced to live in Soweto.

    Here is an article that explains how these “protesters” are trained and prepared these days.

    Hong Kong protest ‘hero’ Joshua Wong trained alongside the cream of Western-backed colour revolutionaries

    • Thanks: Mustapha Mond, annamaria
    • Replies: @anon
    , @Druid
  68. WJ says:

    There are a couple of web sites dedicated to South Africans trying to immigrate to Australia. Reading the open forum, the deceitful little turds consistently dance around the only reason they are leaving the country. Kind of the way people in this country talk about moving for “good schools”. I suppose the site is heavily moderated but my impression is that those people leaving are not the die hard Boers but the cosmopolitan urban liberals who obviously know the score but can’t allow themselves to express it. We all know someone like that.

    • Agree: Alfred
  69. @Rich

    At the founding of Jamestown emigres from Europe only comprised a miniscule portion of what is now a continental wide country, most of which had yet to be explored. Therefore, where did you come up with that figure that only 1 million American Indians lived in an area encompassing 3, 119, 885 square miles? Was a census conducted (lol)?

    • Replies: @Rich
  70. @pyrrhus

    There is an escape route for the South African Boers. Move to Russia. But definitely not the late, great USA.

  71. @Old and Grumpy

    The only ones with claims to being indigenous (Khwekhwena = “Hottentots”) have been absorbed into the “Cape Coloreds” who traditionally side with (liberal) Whites;
    the rest are not exactly love&peace either … the ancient joke that Bantus have white palms because they were on all fours when god painted them does originate in South Africa – but from the Herero 😀
    Not that it makes a difference …

  72. Alfred says:
    @Sam J.

    For the Jews, it is much easier to corrupt Black politicians than Afrikaner politicians. Obvious.

    The Opulent, Segregated, Hypocritical, Jewish Gated Communities of South Africa

  73. @Realist

    “Why would anyone in the US give a shit about South Africa? This country is on the way out, done. Does anyone understand the ramifications?”

    Because it is the blueprint for our displacement. If we allow white S. Africans to be genocided we will be next.

    • Agree: annamaria
    • Replies: @Realist
  74. @follyofwar

    “Why would anyone in the US give a shit about South Africa? This country is on the way out, done. Does anyone understand the ramifications?”

    Israel has a DNA test for this. Funny how race only exists if you want to emigrate there.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  75. Rich says:
    @follyofwar

    Hard to believe that studies can be made of the size of villages, numbers first encountered and areas used for hunting and gathering. Science is an odd thing for some people. The Continental United States was a vast, mostly empty place when Whitey came along.

  76. @Wyatt

    Explain how you deal with IQ 75 blacks who are more likely to commit petty as well as capital offenses than every other race combined.

    We know how the “progressives” will deal with them.

    They will build segregated walled-off communities protected by private security forces while telling everyone else they need to “celebrate diversity” and “open borders”.

    • Agree: annamaria
  77. Sam J. says:
    @Rich

    If it had not been for disease the Indians would have pushed the Europeans back into the ocean. The numbers that died were massive. Probably 90% or more.

    I’m not anti-White but we did take their country. At the time we really expanded they had gone back to mostly hunter gatherer and hunter gatherers always, no matter what race, fall to farmers. It didn’t help that the Indians were a ruthless, murdering torturing bunch of savages or a lot of them anyways that practiced genocide on any whites out in the territories. They treated us ruthlessly and got back the same.

    In South America an explorer went down the Amazon and wrote about all the huge cities full of people. When explorers went back 200 years later no one was there. They all died. The whole, cities in the jungle, was considered a myth until they found this fertile manufactured dirt called terra preta where the settlements used to be. They used laser imaging and found yes there were vast cities that the jungle had covered up so it was not a myth.

    • Agree: Occasional lurker
    • Replies: @Rich
  78. @follyofwar

    Hello fow.

    I had no idea of the exact percentage. I thought it was something like 3.5%, but wasn’t certain, so I just Googled the latest figures from various Tribal sources, and it seems they claim 2% (approx 6.9 million as of end of 2019, maybe 7, now.) Not sure of how they compute it. Maybe they’re hiding their numbers, but what for, I couldn’t tell you.

    Otherwise, I think the comment is quite accurate, unfortunately……..

  79. The Continental United States was a vast, mostly empty place when Whitey came along.

    Hmm … and how long after landing did the Europeans first encounter native Indians? A day, a week, a month, a year?

    Columbus wrote:

    There I found very many islands, filled with innumerable people, and I have taken possession of them all for their Highnesses, done by proclamation and with the royal standard unfurled, and no opposition was offered to me.

  80. Garliv says:
    @Sam J.

    Thew place was empty when Whites got there. The vast majority of blacks moved to South Africa after Whites made it worth living there.

    Oh boy.., here we go again! The concept of nobody’s land (terra nullius) was a legal and historical fiction for colonial West to grab and occupy land across continents. It is probably a bit creative than “our god gave us this land like 4000years ago and here we are to claim it!” Whites in SA created their own history and myths to justify colonialism and later Apartheid system. Nevertheless, the current generation of Whites have a right to self determination and they have part and parcel of SA; resurrecting dubious historical claims would badly hurt them.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Druid
    , @bomag
    , @Sam J.
  81. @Miro23

    From this point of view, South Africa is the historic homeland of Negros and Europeans either live there as foreign residents or leave.

    Blacks (Bantus) have been in South Africa for about the same (or less) time than the White Afrikaners. Only the San are really native, and there’s not many of them. The climate of South Africa is closer to the Mediterranean than the rest of Africa – so perhaps your logic means only Italians etc should live there.

  82. Realist says:
    @Alfred Muscaria

    Because it is the blueprint for our displacement. If we allow white S. Africans to be genocided we will be next.

    Too late for that…as I said this country is lost.

    • Agree: Druid
  83. @Alfred Muscaria

    My post never addressed South Africa.

  84. beau says:

    a homogeneous society works best.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
  85. annamaria says:
    @Garliv

    They should leave SA and relocate to those countries that have the white majority able to stand against the holobiz tribe.
    The SA is doomed. The west should provide humanitarian help to all SA whites willing to relocate.

  86. annamaria says:
    @anarchyst

    Expect the SA black murderers to show up as refugees in Europe. Whoever has been enforcing the policies of open immigration from Africa to Europe is the most hateful enemy of western civilization.

  87. Bernie says:
    @White ghost go home

    “They deserve the murders for what they did to the African people. ”

    Indeed. They should never have shown blacks the wheel or a written language much less feed them and give them medicines.

  88. Neoconned says:

    Waste of time and effort…..even if it is successful in the short term in the long term white women will get hooked on dope and become haremmates of black druglords as they are here…..your own women are always your worst enemy…..ready to stab you in the back or whatever….

    Then the borders will be poked and sniped by refugees etc which will evolve into full on murder raids…..leave while you still can….australia sounds nice…..New Zealand….Chile….

    • Agree: Druid
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  89. Neoconned says:
    @beau

    True…..but only off the African continent….the Sahara is your best friend…..

  90. annamaria says:
    @The Alarmist

    Hungary has a great program for white people willing to have large families. Russia offers free plots of land in Siberia for prospective farmers.

  91. anon[712] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dumbo

    “White People’s Israel”

    I don’t think the comparison is apt because the whites in places like Orania aren’t stealing anyone’s land or violently beating up people and herding them into small areas of the country while declaring that they are God’s chosen people. The whites of Orania just want to be left alone and don’t want to lord it over anyone, unlike Israeli Jews, who practice all of the former.

  92. anon[712] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alfred

    ” He is changing the constitution of the UK!”

    Just for the information, Britain doesn’t have a written constitution, it’s ruled by precedent.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  93. Better chant than AMERICA FIRST is NAME THE JEW

  94. Dumbo says:
    @Syd Walker

    but it does have a constitutional and moral basis for future prosperity for all, not just for a few.

    You’ve got to be kidding, in what planet are you living? How is getting poorer, more corrupt and more chaotic a recipe for prosperity?

    Our species must surely metamorphose into something more suited to our precarious global coexistence – and fast! Squabbling about “race” and territory is so petty-minded and passé.

    LOL, another dreamer hoping against all known evidence that humanity ‘learns” or “evolves” or “metamorphoses” into something else. Reminds me of revolutionary socialists in the 60s talking about “The New Man”.

  95. Anon[352] • Disclaimer says:
    @Garliv

    He never said it was nobody’s land. He specifically said it belonged to Khosi and Hottentot tribes and the current Bantu leaders are no less invaders than the white man. All true , btw.
    Why create a straw man , just address his points.

    • Replies: @Garliv
  96. Such a move has zero chance of succeeding. It will be SA writ large in that its economic and social success will increasingly contrast with the poverty and disfunction of the surrounding areas.. This will lead to blacks fleeing into the new statelet, eventually overwhelming the Whites and Coloureds. This is on the assumption that the SA armed forces don’t roll in to get their hands on the loot. International law? That’s funny. South African Whites will get zero support from the ‘international community’ who’d be more likely to apply sanctions on them in support of the black ‘freedom fighters’. If and when Orania gets wealthy enough and the rest of the country poor enough the same will happen there.

    I have spent a lot of time in SA and it beggars belief that the country’s Whites can remain so gullible.

    • Replies: @neutral
    , @Commentator Mike
  97. You can imagine how Western Cape secession will play out:

    1. ANC South Africa will fall apart even faster than it is now.

    2. Farmers will be persecuted and heavily taxed.

    3. Western Cape will take in farmer refugees from ANC South Africa.

    4. ANC South Africa will starve.

    5. The world will blame the white man.

  98. hotrod31 says:
    @Anon

    Everybody is an expert now …

    Talk of black or white violence or corruption is so divisive in its own way because it immediately paralyses one’s analytical thought processes.

    Suffice it to say, the governing parties and the ‘ruling classes’ of people in the former Apartheid era of South Africa had so much time to manage a gradual transition of [the] perceptions of power, to a moderate, more inclusive illusionary-democracy – but they were too pre-occupied satisfying their personal greed, milking the economy for their own short-sighted selfish ends. The power structure had decades to fortify the ‘middle-class’ with all races, to create a bulwark of fortified self-interest, (both real and imagined) but they didn’t use the opportunities, instead allowing racist divisions to fester and invariably dominate every facet of society …

    The very wealthy have had no problems with the [vert] violent degeneration and delinquency of the unemployed and unemployable (predominantly non-Anglo) youth because they have always had their safe-houses abroad to retire to. However, the ordinary working-class people of Euro-background and others have borne the cost of the fracturing of South African society and to witness this unfolding is extremely sad.

    It is even sadder to hear former South Africans who aided and abetted the racist divisions and brutal oppression, now look at South Africa and absolve themselves of any guilt … and smugly discount the disintegration as African inspired corruption alone. Where were these people when Donald Woods, Steve Biko, Ruth First and others were screaming out for sanity to prevail and for an end to the barbaric inhumanity inflicted upon the ordinary people of South Africa … both ‘black and white?’

    And infuriating as it is to deal with and/or witness in South Africa, the poorly educated Africans are now mirroring and mimicking the behaviours they had to navigate and contend with during the Apartheid years. Of course it appears so juvenile, or barbaric when viewed from the other side.

  99. neutral says:
    @Irish Savant

    I have spent a lot of time in SA and it beggars belief that the country’s Whites can remain so gullible.

    The reason for this is because a lot consume the US propaganda (both entertainment and corporate news media). So despite the reality of living with a large black population, they will still end up supporting BLM, white privilege, and other such stuff.

    • Replies: @AnalogMan
  100. @Priss Factor

    Yes, what just happened will wake up some white folks…

  101. Rich says:
    @Sam J.

    South America is a different story than North America, but friendly Indians in the South prospered with their association with the Spanish, often intermarried and escaped the savagery of the more vicious natives of the region

    In North America there were only 1 million natives, who were constantly warring with each other and often invaded, took their enemies land and enslaved the defeated. Whites carved a nation out of a wilderness and treated the defeated better than any of their fellow Indians would have. Nothing was stolen, the land was earned and nurtured.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  102. jo shmo says:
    @Miro23

    the return of lands to their natives (for example South America to its Indian majority

    uh, is there any country in South America where native Indians are a majority?

    I think most are majority white. Some are much whiter than the USA.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  103. Syd Walker says: • Website
    @Wyatt

    Explain how you deal with IQ 75 blacks who are more likely to commit petty as well as capital offenses than every other race combined.

    By rejecting the loaded premise on which your “question” is based.

    Essentially, you confuse culture with genetics.

    But there’s a more fundamental problem with your approach, It starts with the assumption that “The Other” is key to your biggest problems. A world in which everyone thought like that would soon descend into utter chaos and destitution. Fortunately, there are many people who don’t wallow in sectarian spite and seek solutions that benefit all humanity, not just their particular chosen few.

    The future – if there is to be a sustainable future for humanity – will be fashioned by people with a cooperative, generous and inclusive worldview. We’re not in the Iron Age any longer. In fact, we all just left the Holocene. This is the Anthropocene, in which the ever-more-evident inter-relatedness of all people and the whole planet demands a new level of intelligent cooperation.

    • LOL: Druid
    • Replies: @Wyatt
  104. TRM says:
    @notoneofthem

    Half wrong. The fate of the USA was sealed in 1913.

  105. @Irish Savant

    While Orania is admirable it is tiny, about the size of a European village. It has been growing too slowly and there have not been hundreds of other Oranias sprouting for it to be a viable long term solution for whites in SA.

  106. Druid says:
    @mwee

    The British (and their J’s) were the bad guys. The Afrikaners left the cape in the 1800’s in The Great Trek to get away from the British, conquered the interior and landed in the Transvaal – Johannesburg, etc. when gold was discovered there, the British/Jews attacked them, wanting to steal the gold mines, see The Jameson Raid, which initially failed. The Afrikaners resisted and the war was on. The British, when losing, resorted to scorched earth, burning farms, starving the boers, creating concentration camps where upwards of 25000 women and children died. The brits eventually won. The Afrikaners took back the country by vote in 1954 I believe. They instituted apartheid, which I grew up under as a non-white! I would still rather live in a fairer, white-run country because apartheid was no fun for me/us but black rule is disastrous!

  107. mcohen says:

    the afrikaner played a good game of rugby.
    one could say they won the game but lost the fight.
    whites were used by the british empire to build a country that extracted resources at a minimal cost by using cheap black labour.infastructure was built solely for this purpose.
    the military was armed as cheaply as possible with leftover ww2 weapons.
    the whole exercise was to use whites in s.africa to secure resources for multinational global mining companies.

  108. Druid says:
    @Alfred

    His tribal ilk were the first to run when black rule was instituted. They were masters at moving money out of the country. The USA is next, unfortunately!

  109. Druid says:
    @Garliv

    Agree, though the Bantu did originate in west Africa and killed their way south to South Africa. Time-wise I don’t really know!

  110. Garliv says:
    @Anon

    Kindly reread @Sam J comment. He claims Khois and Hottentot were “original” there but somehow the “land was empty” and other African tribes started migrating down south AFTER Whites made it livable. I still state that this is history according to settled Whites (Boers/British). They found all these indigenous African tribes there even though the land was sparsely populated. That doesn’t mean it was “empty” which, in case you don’t realise, is a code word for terra nullius land grab from Africa to Australia to Americas. If technologically advanced aliens land in some places in Australia and even US, they can declare the same as “land is empty..” and proceed to settle. I would provide several inks and books and archaeological research but it won’t help because we seem to interpret history very differently. Even Early British and Dutch settlers record their skirmishes with natives disproving claims “land was empty..”
    Whites in SA have right to self determination to maintain their culture, language and seek even a separate homeland within SA. And i do sympathise with them as they increasingly get swamped by majority blacks whose leadership is simply pathetic and corrupt, but i don’t buy their version of history. What’s indisputable is that regardless of how or when their ancestors settled and owned land in SA, these Whites are integral part of that African country.

  111. @Dumbo

    In some ways, it feels like a “white people’s Israel..

    The White Afrikaansers made it a land flowing with milk and honey. Dumbo nailed it.

    Yet black liberation is a wonderful thing, no? In S.A. it has now brought the awareness of White beauty back into vogue–that is, with the blacks in government who now daily beg Whites to salvage metropolitan infrastructures brimming with sewage in every gutter of every street–although scattered garbage mercifully covers a large amount of it.

    When last in Durban strolling along the Magic Mile was mugged on a Sunday afternoon by six good boys who because they were amateurs failed, bless them, everyone needs a job. Falling backwards with a napster in a headlock into the side window of a parked car I heard a loud POP, and thought shit, I’ve broken it, but no, and no problem, there was only an unconcerned black family inside.

    The Industrial Whites had moved outta the cities to private land and taken their factories and jobs with them. Blacks gotta shuttle back and forth. No loitering. Following the big liberation we saw a big change in White personality in that the Whites were now more outgoing to other Whites. In our guess it made them appreciate what they had lost and made them appreciate their own race. They were simply outgoing and effusive to other whites, whereas previously, to me, that had resembled mini versions of American indifference.

    Am hoping that here, President Harris will bring about an appreciation of Whites for other Whites. Long overdue.

  112. bomag says:
    @Garliv

    resurrecting dubious historical claims would badly hurt them.

    Point being it would hurt the Bantu more than the Afrikaners.

    Any indigene claim is problematic: cro magnon needs to give back to the neanderthal; gymnosperm give back to the angiosperm; heavy elements go back to hydrogen ions.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  113. Alfred says:
    @anon

    Britain doesn’t have a written constitution, it’s ruled by precedent.

    You are quite correct. But that is what they are supposed to be working on. Creating a Ministry of Justice was a step in that direction. They want to make sure that there is no independent judiciary.

  114. Miro23 says:
    @jo shmo

    …the return of lands to their natives (for example South America to its Indian majority

    uh, is there any country in South America where native Indians are a majority?
    I think most are majority white. Some are much whiter than the USA.

    It seems to depend in how you look at Mestizos. Only Bolivia is majority Amerindian. Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay are majority White. Columbia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela are majority Mestizo:

    https://www.amazon.es/photos/share/UfEUVoGrpE3dqMtkN0RwDTZg4MiYtRPLOeKye6YoFlg/gallery/-a0b75iKSmay-zS_iAUH1w

    Wikipedia.

  115. @anonymous

    Different ‘nations’ call them ‘Cultures’ if you wish have never succeeded in living in peace with each other, other than each having the right to rule over themselves, politicians care less for that as there aim is to rule over others. Democracy is a farce in a multicultural society, this, that South Africa has, will ultimately lead to conflict, it always does, history teaches that and conflict is always to achieve a political objective.

    anonymous[331], you’re lack of knowledge of history is glaring. National boundaries are ALWAYS accomplished by conflict.

    Look at the US today, the Constitution is in taters, easily circumvented by humans of questionable ethics. If the EFF gets into power they, as the current elites, just walk over it and wipe there asses with it, even thou they use it for gain.

    To say the end of Apartheid was well handled, stinks. My question to you, what difference has it made since the end of it seeing there is more shit today than there was at that time? What a load of BS.

    I say to hell with the Constitution as it does not protect me neither can I use it to protect myself against tyranny.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  116. Wyatt says:
    @Syd Walker

    People like you have a remarkable way of saying nothing despite putting down a lot. The premise is not loaded with anything untrue, numbnuts. When you look at crime stats and prison stats, any country in which blacks are a sizable minority results in them being a disproportionate amount of the criminals. It doesn’t matter if it’s a country with no history of slavery like Ireland or Canada or if the people there aren’t white at all, i.e., China.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africans_in_Guangzhou#Crime

    So what’s more likely? Everybody is a mean ol’ racist or there’s something about the average African that makes them incapable of functioning in societies based on law and order? Considering how fucked Africans are in their own homelands, particularly in countries like Somalia that had lower than average rates of colonialism, I would venture a guess it’s the blacks who present the issues, not anyone else. And considering that much of East Asia was under the British thumb for as much time as many African colonies and have only been free and self determining for about a half century and yet are doing better (with their average 103+ IQs,) I’m gonna say that race actually does matter.

    The future – if there is to be a sustainable future for humanity – will be fashioned by people with a cooperative, generous and inclusive worldview.

    Oh, what a lovely, kind-hearted sentiment. Why don’t you be the first to practice what you preach and go volunteer in South Africa like Amy Biehl did? She believed in the equality of the races and that blacks have the right to self-determine. If you’re so confident in universal human equality and whatever other dumb shit you’re saying, do what she did! Otherwise, I’ll put this in your native Australian. Fuck off, cunt.

    • Replies: @Syd Walker
  117. anonymous[129] • Disclaimer says:
    @LogosRising

    To say the end of Apartheid was well handled, stinks. My question to you, what difference has it made since the end of it seeing there is more shit today than there was at that time? What a load of BS.

    26 years after the end of the Apartheid most of the wealth is still in the hands of whites. That’s something positive that shouldn’t be dimissed. I believe it won’t be until 2040-50 when South Africa goes Zimbabwe 2001-3 on the remaining whites. That’s up to 50 years of enjoying one’s wealth in South Africa and make orderly plans to dispose of assets.

  118. In 1898 rabbi Joseph Hayyim Sonnenfeld refused to attend a reception in honor of KaiserWilhelm II of Germany. When asked why he replied: I had heard from my late teacher, R. Judah Leib Diskin of a tradition attributed to R. Elijah, the Goan of Vilna that “… the German nation had descended from Amalek … and how could I bless the divine name of a monarch who ruled over a people whose memory we have been commanded to destroy.”

  119. Sam J. says:
    @Garliv

    Big liar. I don’t say all of it was empty. Here’s EXACTLY what I said.

    “There were not many of them as they were hunter gatherers. Thew place was empty when Whites got there.”

    Thew=The

    oops

    The first sentence is a qualifier on the second and I assumed people had enough sense to understand that. I didn’t say “largely empty” because I had already qualified it from the sentence before. It would have been redundant.

    If I said the US western deserts are empty then everyone would know exactly what I mean. If I say a glass is empty would you jump up and down about there being air in it? People would think you a idiot if you did.

    You are either making shit up to quibble over nonsense or you’re just stupid.

    The fact remains that there was an extremely low population there because the Bushmen had no tech other than stone age. To properly make the place work you needed water and the tech to pump it bring it up or dam it for storage. If you’ll notice South Africa used to have a decent water system which is now falling apart as the Groids destroy it. Same thing happened in Rhodesia. They are not capable of keeping an irrigation system going. We should stop feeding these people as they ran off all the Whites that used to make plenty of food. Rhodesia used to have the largest citrus export business on the planet and they just killed off all the trees because…they are idiots.

  120. Sam J. says:
    @bomag

    “…heavy elements go back to hydrogen ions…”

    Uranium must go! It’s hogging all the neutrons. Uranist supremacy must be stopped.

    THE HYDROGEN LIBERATION FRONT

    • Agree: bomag
  121. Sam J. says:
    @Rich

    “…Nothing was stolen, the land was earned and nurtured. ..”

    Look I’m about as nationalistic as they get and pro-White to a fault but we stole their shit. Broken treaties, fake treaties where some wandering bunch was paid off and we grabbed the whole thing. We took their shit.

    That being said all the people who are complaining about it don’t have any intention of leaving the US and giving it back to the Indians they just want to scream epitaphs at Whites. They can fuck off as far as I’m concerned.

    This was bound to happen. I think it was Andrew Jackson that said something to the effect that we were not going to leave the land empty so the Indians could ride around on vast hunting grounds. Hunter gatherers always lose to farmers. It’s not like I’m for the farmers which is a much worse life. Hunter gathers had it made if you were not murdered by the next tribe over.

    • Replies: @Rich
  122. Syd Walker says: • Website
    @Wyatt

    “The future – if there is to be a sustainable future for humanity – will be fashioned by people with a cooperative, generous and inclusive worldview.”

    It may sound like a sermon. Sorry if that offends you.

    It was intended as no more than statement of the obvious. I believe it won’t be possible for humanity to survive – let alone flourish – in an era of ever more powerful and potentially destructive technology unless we do find a way to co-operate effectively. That’s very unlikely if it’s the norm to despise each other and glorify our own particular “race”/religion/prejudices etc at the expense of others.

    If you have an alternative proposal that has relevance beyond the boundaries of a gated community in which people of contrasting skin-colours are banned from entry, go ahead and suggest it.

    • Replies: @Wyatt
  123. Rich says:
    @Sam J.

    0That’s the leftist, anti-White propaganda you were fed as a kid. It’s not true. Wars were fought, tribes allied to the Whites prospered, those that murdered, raped and tortured White settlers, were punished. The continental United States was a vast, mostly empty land that could have easily been shared, except that hostile Indians, who for the most part, stole the land from earlier tribes, refused to honor treaties. In a hundred years kids will be taught that St George Floyd discovered electricity and cured polio. Don’t believe the calumnies published about European settlers.

    • Replies: @Syd Walker
  124. Syd Walker says: • Website
    @Rich

    The continental United States was a vast, mostly empty land that could have easily been shared, except that hostile Indians.. refused to honor treaties.

    Hi Rich. Do you have any references to back up this curious take on US history? Or is it just what you’d like to believe happened?

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Sam J.
  125. Rich says: • Website
    @Syd Walker

    The scholarship on this subject is so vast, I’m not sure where to start. If you really have an interest in scholarly arguments on the subject, Denevan’s ‘Native Population of North America before 1492″ presents some good essays. Naturally, under the leftist propaganda machine that exists today it’s difficult to get an honest argument on population because pretending that a stone age people, who left behind no cities, no large agricultural industry, and no great transportation network had populations that matched or exceeded European or Oriental people is mandatory.

    • Thanks: bomag
    • Replies: @Sam J.
    , @Sam J.
  126. Wyatt says:
    @Syd Walker

    It was intended as no more than statement of the obvious.

    This is why white lefties are despised like no other. You have the gall to insist that your viewpoint is obvious, even though it’s wrong. Everyone else gets along. The only people who don’t come from Africa and they have the predilection for assaulting, murdering, raping or thieving from everyone else. Anyone who is either honest and aware of crime stats or has to live among blacks understands the racial component of criminality. America, Canada and Brazil are melting pot nations with vastly different ethnic and racial compositions. You know what each has in common? Blacks make up a minority population in each, but they make up a majority or disproportionate plurality of the incarcerated criminals. How is it that you can get all kinds of different groups together, but the blacks end up behaving the same? That is to say, badly.

    These are basic bitch observations about patterns and behaviors that are contested only because they impugn the problem children of the world. Blacks are the most perfect political tools for leftists because no matter how much you invest in them, no matter how much they get a leg up from everyone else, they always fuck up as a group. America has spent collective trillions, spent more than was made in slavery, on trying to improve blacks and it has been a categorical failure.

    There are people in America today who came fresh off the boat from Vietnam not even speaking English and within 50 years, they’re doing better than blacks who’ve been here and able to generate wealth and knowledge for centuries. Even illegal Mexicans have less of a negative effect on America and they’re not even supposed to be here. I can literally go down to certain parts of town, speak broken Spanish and have a makeshift construction crew in about 15 minutes. I know for a fact that they are not as likely to steal tools or money than the blacks within the same town. They’re also more knowledgeable and more skilled. They make themselves valuable so that they can function in America.

    a gated community in which people of contrasting skin-colours are banned from entry

    You think this is what it’s about and that you’re wise to point it out, but all it tells me is that you’re dumb enough to think this is about skin color. That was the immediate red flag that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    It’s not the color, it’s the behavior. The skin color is just a convenient probability indicator for predisposition to violence, theft and sexual assault. Nearly all white West Virginia is one of the safest states in America. El Paso, Texas, 83% Hispanic, is one of the safest cities in America. There is not one city in America with a black population above 10% that rates as safe and the more blacks there are, the more dangerous it is. But this statistical reality isn’t that obvious to you, is it? But let me give you an example of this in your own country.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/violence-fears-after-members-of-vietnamese-african-communities-brawl-in-st-albans/news-story/a25547a27f04efdc1a43f7633afb4e68

    You know, for some reason, I couldn’t find Vietnamese in Australia (or anywhere, really) defending themselves from rampaging Chinese citizens, Indians, Arabs, Latinos or any other non-white groups. Why do you think that is? Why is that every other racial and ethnic groups seem to understand that open violence is impermissible in nations with basic, enforced systems of law and order?

    If you have an alternative proposal that has relevance beyond the boundaries of a gated community in which people of contrasting skin-colours are banned from entry, go ahead and suggest it.

    Just do what the Soviets did while breeding foxes. Select for high intelligence, amiability and aversion to violence and allow only them to breed. Technically, you could limit African reproduction so that only the most functional are allowed to have children and make them comparable to everyone else. It would have the effect of accelerated evolution over a relatively short (in evolutionary terms) period of time.

    The question is why though. Why should we spend trillions on fixing Africans? Why are they owed the blood and treasure of foreigners just so that they can be functional? They weren’t screwed over by the European colonial powers. The British did much worse to India and the Indians are on the rise, hindered principally by their own ethnic culture and limited space. Africa is amazing for resources and farmland, but the natives are so incompetent, they manage to fuck up feeding themselves with the working farms they stole from whites.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50586514

    Just out of curiosity: did you know that the Obama administration was funding Al-Qaeda and ISIS through the CIA and State Department? Did you know that Donald Trump cut the funding to “moderate rebels” and the attacks against Syrian civilians stopped? I wanna know if you knew that.

    • Replies: @Syd Walker
  127. Syd Walker says: • Website
    @Wyatt

    Thanks Wyatt

    Yes, I’m well aware of the evil role played by Obama and his Administration in the Syrian and Libyan conflicts. Overall, (so far!) I’d rate Obama as an even bigger war criminal than Trump. If you doubt that I’ve long been a critic of the Obama/Biden Administration’s foreign policies, check out my Twitter timeline. I’ve been posting there since before 2011.

    Anyhow, I think I now have sufficient information about your opinions on this topic.

    I’m puzzled that you use “black” and “white” as descriptors of “race”, but also claim “It’s not the color, it’s the behavior. The skin color is just a convenient probability indicator for predisposition to violence, theft and sexual assault. ”

    In that case, if skin colour isn’t really relevant, how do you know a “black” is truly a “black”? Is it by examining an individual’s criminal record and defining them as “black” if they have lots of convictions? Can you see a problem with that type of analysis?

    As I expected, you can’t really answer the question I pose in my fourth and final paragraph. Insofar as you present proposals, none of them are scalable to a global level. Any political leader idiotic enough to try imposing these bigoted ideas on the world as a whole would probably trigger a cataclysmic world war. If attempted at a national level only (eg within the USA), he or she would likely cause civil war and subsequent immiseration of the entire country.

    I’d prefer to stand in solidarity with real leaders such as Dr Cynthia McKinney.

    McKinney showed more balls during her brief period in the House of Reps than 99% of the gentile beige-skins who’ve occupied Congressional seats over the last 50 years. See for example her grilling of Rumsfeld and Myers – two “white” criminals who never expected to be called to account for their treasonous actions on 9/11.

    https://newsofinterest.tv/video_pages/politics/people/cynthia_mckinney/mckinney_rumsfeld.php

    Since leaving Congress, McKinney has earned a doctorate. Impressive for a mere female who you seem to think shares with other Afro-Americans a “predilection for assaulting, murdering, raping or thieving from everyone else” .

    But we all have specialities. McKinney has been very effective at challenging neocons, but her command of vulgarity and verbal abuse is doubtless far less advanced than your own.

    • Replies: @Nahalnetuno
  128. Wyatt says:

    I’m puzzled that you use “black” and “white” as descriptors of “race”, but also claim “It’s not the color, it’s the behavior. The skin color is just a convenient probability indicator for predisposition to violence, theft and sexual assault. ”

    You solved your own puzzle. It’s far easier to identify the groups using the names everyone already knows than to come up with some bullshit term that requires more words than is needed. Having already read your comment through, I figured out what your problem is. You don’t read things through thoroughly and you already have a judgment rendered even though you don’t even get the premises correct. Look at the italicized word above. Do you understand what that means, dipshit? If I thought all blacks were irredeemably unintelligent and belligerent, I wouldn’t have suggested what I did because it wouldn’t be possible to find blacks with usable IQs, would I?

    Unlike you, I’m smart enough to understand what the bell curve actually means. There is a spectrum for intelligence and ability that has positive correlations with social ability. Asians, whites, hispanics and most other groups fall within respectable parameters that, with a decent culture, produces functional civilizations. Meanwhile, the clusterfuck that is sub-Saharan Africa, Baltimore, Detroit and Chicago are shitholes with one singular, unifying commonality. There is no all encompassing, CIA sponsored drug trade tearing Uganda apart like in Central America, no constant NATO proxy warfare in South Africa like there is in Ukraine. There is no great effort to fuck with Africans in Africa like American intelligence agencies do in the rest of the world, especially to the same degree) and blacks still manage to fuck up resource and land rich nations.

    So we can say decisively that you’re fuckin’ stupid, exacerbated by the fact that you think you know better because you have a moral position that is based in this fairy flowerchild “peace and help and understanding” bullshit (from your still very white country, mind) while others have to deal with the realities of African hostility like those Vietnamese you were so good enough to ignore. People like you can never answer the question, “how does 50,000 years of evolution in complete different biomes create no differences in temperament, intelligence or future thinking skill?” When critical thinking has to be applied, you can’t even read the test instructions through. If there ever was such a thing as white privilege, it is the privilege of white, left-leaning retards to be wrong about something and still assert that they’re correct.

    As I expected, you can’t really answer the question I pose in my fourth and final paragraph.

    I did. You just don’t like the answer. It’s also the only viable solution that doesn’t involve culling huge swathes of the black population, but the population boom in Africa, coupled with the inability of Africans to provide functional governance, secure foodstuffs and access to potable water, will ensure that a culling is not if, but when.

    And nobody gives a shit about your preening white ass complaining about “bigotry” because anybody intelligent enough to look at an FBI crime report and concludes (correctly) that blacks present a greater danger than any other group is a bigot. Even wealthy blacks realize the dangers that others like them pose and they clear the fuck out of the ghetto the moment they have the power to do so. Beyond that, you have nothing but these vague, lacking logistics and structure ideas on how to improve things. Oh, let’s be more kind and compassionate and caring. Ironclad plan you got there, emu-fucker.

    I’d prefer to stand in solidarity with real leaders such as Dr Cynthia McKinney.

    Well done, boy. You found ONE. Out of 40 million in America and 1 billion worldwide, you know of one. I know of at least two jews (just 6 million US or 15 million worldwide) who were hard critics of the neo-cons. Gilad Atzmon and Russ Feingold both oppose(d) neoconservatism and the Bush administration for kow-towing to Israel. See? I already doubled your count and these were just the ones I could remember off the top of my head. I can match you an American injun too. Ryan Dawson has done a lot more to clue people into the fucked up relationship between America and God’s Chosen than this black woman I vaguely recall hearing about.

    But because you are a leftist and therefore special needs, let me get the wiki definition for “Cherry-picking fallacy:”

    “Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.”

    But we all have specialities. McKinney has been very effective at challenging neocons, but her command of vulgarity and verbal abuse is doubtless far less advanced than your own.

    Left leaning idiots are always the same. You’re more concerned with pretending to be smart and increasing your social standing than you are in understanding reality as close to 1:1 as you can. You are ungodly amounts of pretentious, you can’t read for shit and actually interpret the meaning that is intrinsic to what I said. How you can see fit to condescend to me is almost cliche in how common it is. I will say it again so it sticks.

    You [i]think[/i] you are smart for having a [i]moral[/i] position, but you offer no solutions to problems presented and then want to belittle my analysis not because it is non-factual, but because you don’t like it. Take me up on the offer. Go to Johannesburg South Africa for a week, really hang out with the darker locals and if you haven’t been burned alive for being white, we can have a discussion about it.

  129. Syd Walker says: • Website

    Thanks for your reply Wyatt.

    You seem to believe you’ve already answered my key question which was about proposing feasible solutions for humanity as a whole. I don’t think you even understand the question.

    I’ll pass on responding further, which will give you more time and opportunity to vent your angry and embittered rhetoric on others who may take it more seriously.

    • Replies: @Nahalnetuno
  130. Anonymous[361] • Disclaimer says:

    A lot of the problem with white South Africans is there seems to be almost zero unity between the two main groups, Afrikaner and English. They really seem to dislike each other, maybe more than either dislike blacks.

    It seems that the foundations of white South Africa are inherently fragile because of the beef between Afrikaners and English that persists strongly to this day.

    I’ve noticed that many of the white South Africans I’ve spoken to will criticise the other white group far more than they do blacks.

    • Replies: @Wyatt
  131. @northeast

    South Africa under B.J. Vorster specifically threw Rhodesia under the bus as part of Vorster’s new foreign policy of improving relations with neighboring black states.

    Additionally, it should be pointed out that while Zimbabwe was not well governed the land seizures and thus general collapse did not begin until 2000.

  132. Sam J. says:
    @Rich

    “…under the leftist propaganda machine that exists today it’s difficult to get an honest argument on population because pretending that a stone age people, who left behind no cities, no large agricultural industry…”

    While I can agree that the left is plague a lot of the rest of what you wrote is nonsense. The Indians had vast cities. They never got close to the technological level of Europeans but there were a lot of them.

    In South America this guy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Orellana

    went down the Amazon and found vast cites. You read about it in this book.

    “The Discovery Of The Amazon: According To The Account Of Friar Gaspar De Carvajal And Other Documents”

    No one believed him because for 200 years or so no one went as far as him. When they did there was no one there. Now we’re finding through laser mapping these vast cities and this strange dirt called terra preta, (amazing stuff), that they manufactured either on purpose or by accident. Likely on purpose.

    Here they talk about it but at the same time they are idiots. They say,”…We don’t fully understand why this flourishing society disappeared centuries ago…”. That’s because they are complete buffoons and want to blame the disappearance on Whites or some mystical reason but the fact is that disease that the natives had zero immunity to wiped their asses out. The continent of Europe, Asia, Africa India etc. are all tied together and eventually any disease works it’s way around this vast territory. A territory so vast as to make disease more deadly.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132130-300-long-lost-cities-in-the-amazon-were-once-home-to-millions-of-people/

    A great book on plagues. This book is a HAVE TO READ. Major excellent work. As a matter of fact anything written by him is good.

    “Plagues and Peoples” by historian William H. McNeill

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_and_Peoples

    The same happened in North America. Saying the US was empty is really only later after vast and I mean vast amounts of people were wiped out. The early explorers brought them but the diseases spread well before most explorers finally got around to really exploring the US in total. Hell it wasn’t until Lewis and Clark Expedition 1803 that we went across the continent.
    An early explorer in the Southern US was Hernando de Soto and a book about his explorations is

    “Hernando de Soto: A Savage Quest in the Americas”

    A good book to read but it does drag a bit in places but you will learn a lot.

    Now the final question does the US belong to Indians. NO. I believe and there’s a great deal of evidence to prove that Europeans got here way, way before the Indians during the ice age and were mostly wiped out by the comet strike on Greenland about 12,000 years ago. Most of those left were killed by the Indians. Early Spanish explorers found tribes that looked to be nothing more than Whites.

    That doesn’t change the fact that we did the Indians dirty but that’s what most of history is is doing people dirty.

  133. Patrick is correct in pointing out that a mostly white “Free State” would not have been workable in South Africa. As he himself notes, the notion was a non-starter because large numbers of Boers would have had to pack up and move to the pure white state- a dubious proposition since whites at around 8-12% of the population already controlled almost 80% of the land, including the best land. Why would they pack up and move from such a nice position? No wonder the notion found few takers. The deal under apartheid offered to blacks by Botha et al, was a similarly laughable non-starter, as the “loser takes all” Bantusans and their chopped up, fragmented land areas and petty funding demonstrated,

    .
    The “enclave alternative” of Orania has a mere 1700 residents and is a miscellaneous non-entity- just a tiny white settlement. Botha would have doubled over in laughter. McDermott says that Orania shows a separatist idea could work, but Orania has already been substantially achieved in mostly white suburbs, where pricing and tight zoning regulations keeps out the vast majority of blacks. The same pattern has worked for whites in the USA, where separation de facto, in schools, neighborhoods, work and worship has lsargely been achieved.

    .
    As for De Klerk fumbling- he drew some tough cards from the deck. The White Right Alternative” rejected a separate white state on a specific bloc of land, and sought to continue rule primarily with the failed “Bantusan” policy and by continued brute force.. All of these were losing long-term hands, particularly given the disinvestment movement and continued overseas sanctions. De Klerk’s “triangulation” approach stalled because he relied mostly on the ANC alliance, and did not cultivate a mass-based coalition among coloreds, whites and moderate blacks as a backstop to counter-balance the ANC. His deal should have been with the ANC, yes, but ALSO that other coalition as balance..

    1

    Patrick says:
    (Two decades ago, the idea of a White homeland in South Africa seemed dead in the water. Any area reserved for Whites that was too far away from the cities or from employment opportunities seemed impractical. Many Whites at the time also believed, or at least hoped, that South Africa would soon become the harmonious and prosperous multiracial nation that had been promised.)

    Actually most whites looked to preserve the advantages and privileges they had enjoyed before Mandela, without the snarling openly racialist face of apartheid that had brought so much international opposition. They were not so much interested in happy-clappy multiculturalism, as they were in removing the sanctions and hindered movement (such as SA airlines being banned), along with overseas investment, painful barriers that they deeply resented.

    1

    Patrick says
    (That hope is now gone. A worsening economy, ever-present crime, and rising corruption have all left their mark (detailed in my previous article, South Africa’s Protection Racket). According to public opinion polls, South Africans have grown increasingly pessimistic. The situation briefly stabilized when Cyril Ramaphosa replaced Jacob Zuma as president in 2018, but his promised reforms never materialized. Now public sentiment seems to be worsening again )

    .
    What Patrick doesn’t mention here is that most whites were always pessimistic or at least cynical. Why? Because they knew they had long enjoyed a game rigged for their benefit and privilege. The bill for the long party, at least partially, came due in 1994 and after. Furthermore whites knew that in an open market with free competition, many of the jobs they held would be lost to blacks fair and square, which is precisely why whites implemented the special rigging of the “colour bar” – a white protectionist measure that shut blacks out of the much touted “free market.” It is ironic that those whites who rail against “wasteful” government or “government interference” were among the foremost beneficiaries of precisely that under the apartheid state, which created, as respected white journalist Allister Sparks suggests, a sort of white socialism. As Sparks notes in The Mind of South Africa (1990), in its efforts to provide high-paying jobs for whites, the country -QUOTE: “eventually acquired the largest amount of nationalized industry of any country outside the Communist bloc.”

    In short White South Africans were among the foremost practitioners of “state socialism” in the world, with their “white socialism” variant under apartheid.

    1

    Patrick says
    (The Rainbow Nation’s days may be numbered, but now there is something new to hope for. An independent Western Cape would not be the volkstaat — nor indeed an ethnostate of any kind. But it would at least free the nation’s White population from the worst excesses of majority Black rule and reestablish the right of self-determination. )

    Whites at 8% of the population, have no need for anything so dramatic as secession which is a long shot in any event. Such would be rejected by a black majority that can be manipulated easily by leaders shouting alarms about “return to apartheid” and so on. Secession is dead on arrival, unless a large bloc of blacks can be found to support the same in cooperation with the whites – good luck with that.

    But whites have already achieved practical separation through their gated communities, zoning regulations, price-barrier suburbs and localist political influence. Behind these walls, they can continue to enjoy their higher incomes, much better paid jobs, better business prospects, massive land holdings and massively better wealth than the blacks. With these main white building blocks already in place, who needs secession?

  134. Sam J. says:

    “…What Patrick doesn’t mention here is that most whites were always pessimistic or at least cynical. Why? Because they knew they had long enjoyed a game rigged for their benefit and privilege…”

    You act like Whites just wandered into South Africa with all these roads and water works and stuff already set up for them when the fact is they built the place from scratch and the majority of the Blacks came from the North. Far North.

    There was nothing but dirt when they got there. Morally they have the right to throw out all the Blacks not descendant from Bushmen of which there are very few.

  135. Sam J. says:
    @Syd Walker

    “references”

    He’s wrong about this. In the book I referenced

    “Hernando de Soto: A Savage Quest in the Americas”

    Hernando de Soto saw a vast amount of abandoned villages that had been abandoned way before he got there. Later all signs of the villages were gone leaving the impression that no one had ever been there. The reason was a die of possibly as high as 90% of the population. Maybe the worst plague ever.

    Where people make a mistake is they take the “true” statements of later people who came to the Americas after the plagues had burnt off the population. What they found was an empty land with a few hunter gathers. That being the optimal lifestyle for a people who had been complete ruined. Their civilization was completely destroyed.

    • Agree: Syd Walker
  136. @Syd Walker

    Is this Wyatt guy always this bitter racist or is he making a special effort? Your calm probing reveals that this racist does think blacks are irredeemably unintelligent and belligerent, but he is also describing himself pretty much.

    He next compounds his ignorance with statements such as this:

    “ I’m smart enough to understand what the bell curve actually means. There is a spectrum for intelligence and ability that has positive correlations with social ability. Asians, whites, hispanics and most other groups fall within respectable parameters..”

    Actually this is not what Murray’s Bell Curve argued. Murray did not single out and condemn blacks as beyond “acceptable parameters”. This is Wyatt’s racist interpretation. And the same “acceptable parameters” he touts brought us the mass murder of millions of Jews and Poles in the Holocaust by those cool white Germans, and another ten million or so by “acceptable parameter” white Russians in the Holodomor, and another 50-60 million or so in “acceptable parmeter” Asians under “Chairman” Mao. Whoops, there goes the fool’s self-styled “understanding”.. LMAO..

    In his flatulent excretions, Wyatt then mentions “blacks still manage to fuck up resource and land rich nations.” But this actually pretty much describes white nations like those resource rich Germans who started 2 world wars that killed over 30 million people, or those nice white Russian, with even more rich resources, that killed among their own another 10 million or so to establish “socialism,” plus those wonderful Asians in resource- rich China who iced among themselves another 50-60 million. Whoops- there goes that blowhard Wyatt again, as dumb as a sack of wet rocks. He must do this for a living..

    Blowhard Wyatt then imagines himself some sort of “expert” on evolution, but it is clear this ignoramus doesn’t understand the first thing about the subject. He says:

    , “how does 50,000 years of evolution in complete different biomes create no differences in temperament, intelligence”

    But notice how the “expert of effluvia” cannot even cite a single credible scientific source to back up what he says or insinuates. Using the dummy’s approach, if these “biome” are so responsible, then they created the murderous mindset and actual action that led his Nazi friends in Germany to murder tens of millions of Jewish and Polish people? And maybe the cold-climate steppe was responsible for Comrade Stalin’s mass murder of additional millions, or aided along the mass-murdering smilin Mao to the odd tens of millions. Maybe the retarded Wyatt is right- for all of these mass murderers ancestry is from cold climate biomes so it must be “true” per his bogus “biome theory”. LOL..

    But you say, what about those evil blacks and their crime mentioned by “expert of effluvia” Wyatt? Sounds dire, but his much touted white “role models” actually exceeded blacks in criminality, depending on the era measured.

    As shown by conservative authors Michael Barone (The New Americans 2001) and Thomas Sowell (Ethnic America 1981), for example, the cold-biome white Irish exceeded blacks in murder rates, out-of-wedlock births and street mayhem for decades. The Italians had higher murder rates than blacks in various years of the 20th century. When older murder rates are looked at, touted cold-biome “role models” look even worse than blacks.

    Dullard Wyatt talks about FBI statistics. OK, let’s go with this argument for a moment and use FBI stats and equivalencies.

    According to the FBI SHR data, in 2011 the black homicide rate was around 17.51 per 100,000. This is relatively high but often surpassed by whites- it just depends on the time period you want to study. The supposedly more self-restrained Dutch of Amsterdam posted a whopping 47 per 100,000 in the 16th century, higher than any rate ever recorded for New York City, Irish and all. In Maryland the rate at which unrelated European adults killed was 29 per 100,000 adults per year in the mid 1600s. In white Virginia it was 37 per 100,000. The supposedly more virtuous Yankee peoples in colonial America in the Chesapeake posted a rate of 12 per 100,000. (Epstein and Gang 2010. Migration and Culture, Vol 8)

    White Oregon posted a rate around 30 per 100,000. (Randolph Roth- Homicide Rates in the American West) Using modern FBI formulas, white Los Angeles County in the 19th century ran up a body count of about 414 homicides per 100,000. (McKanna 2002. Race and Homicide in 19th Century California). Nor is the West unique. Studies show the heavily white Scotch-Irish Kentucky-Tennessee borderlands posting a rate of 24 per 100,000 starting in the 1850s. All of these are higher than the black FBI rate of 17.51 per thousand. Whoops- there’s goes Wyatt’s “biome theory” again- cue the sound of a flushing toilet.

    Already debunked on his “biome theory”, the pathetic poltroon presumes to pronounce on Jews, talking bout he knows of “only two” Jews who were critics of neo-cons. Actually, if the dummy knew anything about Jews he would discover that there are thousands of religious Jews that want nothing to do with interventionist neo-conism, or its secular parallels, or indeed the Zionist project either in the US or today’s Israel. Whoops, there goes his “expert opinion” again.. I don’t know what makes this boy so dumb but it really works.

    As for south Africa, my Jewish friends have visited multiple times in the 2000s and hung out with the “darker locals” and have had no trouble at all, and have not been “burned alive” contrary to the claims of the manure-filled mouthing of our rather dull “biome theorist.“

    Finally the dullard then talks about “cherry-picking” but then himself presents a crock of cherry-picked bullshoet bout “biomes”, Jews etc. What he is lacking in intelligence, he more than makes up for in ignorance.
    .

    • Replies: @Nahalnetuno
  137. @Syd Walker

    This bitter boy Wyatt must have some sort of obsession complex. Maybe the black kids kicked his ragged butt when he was going to skool, so he is now this big blowhard expert on the blacks. Let’s look at some more pronouncements of the pathetic poltroon:

    He blathers about “everyone else gets along, except for you know, those eeeevill blacks. Cue ominous musics.. but back in the REAL world, credible conservative historians (Sowell 1981, 2005, Barone 2001) show that assault, murder, riot, incarceration, etc etc was heavily a white Irish specialty for decades in the US. Even Italians at one time posted higher murder rates than the blacks..

    Our bitter-boy “race expert” then adds the next statement to his already overflowing crock of feces. He says:

    “There are people in America today who came fresh off the boat from Vietnam not even speaking English and within 50 years, they’re doing better than blacks who’ve been here and able to generate wealth and knowledge for centuries.”

    But on another thread he was on there whining about Asian immigrants who were taking away American jobs. And what he fails to realize about Vietnamese immigrants are that most were not “fresh off the boat” non English-speakers. Most did indeed speak English and most came by air, not “boat.”
    As for Vietnamese doing better than blacks, sure, but they have almost caught up with whites in the very short 50-year time span as far as income, even though according to blowhard, they supposedly are “fresh off the boat.” Using the blowhard’s reasoning, this means they are “better” than whites who have been in place for centuries, to reach such heights in such a short time. And indeed Asian median household income at %87, 243 exceeds white income at $67,937, an approximate 22% Asian advantage . Using the dummy’s “comparative” approach, this means Asians are “better” than white people. (US Census 2017).
    https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017.html

    The dullard then talks about how he can go to town and speaka da “broken” Spanish and have a “makeshift” crew in about 15 minutes. Well whoop-dee-dee! Using his “bro gringo” approach, this means Mexicans are better than white people, because they will sign on to work his BS low-paying projects Oh joy, muchacho…
    :

    [MORE]

    Bitter-boy then says skin color is the key “probability indicator for predisposition to violence, theft and sexual assault.” Wow, well this must mean white skin, for in several decades of US history, whites have led in violence, theft and sexual assault. Just the slavery era makes the initial case, but in subsequent eras, as the conservative scholars referenced above show, whites were the leading “indicators.” As conservative Michael Barone 2001 says in paraphrase: “back then law and order was essentially an Irish problem and said Irish exceed blacks in murder rates and out-of wedlock rates.”
    Then there is that white skin “indicator” internationally. It sure explains violence- just ask 8-10 million murdered Jews and Poles. Rape? Hey white skin explains it, check those white Russians who were the biggest userso f rape during their advance into Germany during WW2, with at least 1 million white victims. But those cool yellow Japanese were doing pretty well with their mass-raped “comfort women.” Theft? Oh yes white skin must explain that too- just ask the murdered corpses and looted billions perfected by those white “role models” of Germany.
    Oh yes, let us all hail bitter-boy’s “skin indicator” theory… lmao..

    The dummy then touts affluent El Paso as a paragon of virtue and assures us, in his simpleton way, that its all due to race. But this is bogus. Poverty, among several other factors, plays a heavy part in the mix of variables that impact crime. He carefully skips that however. But it is easy to cherry pick cities like the dummy. Let’s do a little cherry-picking with mostly black Birmingham Alabama- 80% black, and run by black people! Surely this would be an easy test case for bro-gringo’s “nice white people don’t do crime” theory. How can it fail?

    Using FBI violent crime per 100,000 stats (UCR 2011), of the top 19 violent cities, most of those with white majority populations are MORE violent than Birmingham which is 80% black. Birmingham at almost 80% black is LESS violent than heavily white, AND white ruled Pensacola FL, Greenville SC, Gainesville, FL, Myrtle Beach FL, and Panama City, FL. Birmingham also beats white majority and white ruled Oklahoma City, OK scene of one of the most costly terrorist attacks on US soil (by white nationalists in 1995), and that famous white country music venue, Nashville, TN.

    He also touts “safe” West Virginia due to” nice white people.” And West Virginia is about 93% white and run by Republicans. White Perfection! But 2018 state stats show that white and pure West Virginia (only 3% black) has HIGHER murder rates than some states with a higher black population including evil New York (17% black), and evil New Jersey (13%) – with both of these run by “the liberals.” (Wikipedia- Homicides by State).

    Chow! There goes bitter-boy’s “nice white people are such good “role models” on crime approach.. lol, debunked again! He will now scurry back to his computer to cherry-pick some more stats, but his “race explains everything” approach is still a crock of feces just on principle, no matter what he cherry-picks.

    The dummy boasts his observations are “basic bitch”.. whoo,, what a badass…. He is right, they are bitch-ass observations by a punked-ass fool. But now, he, mighty keyboard warrior, will get back at those negroes who cleaned his sorry clock in skool! Chow mein choppa!

  138. @Nahalnetuno

    Edit- From ‘all’ to “Most of these are higher”- early Yankees exempt.
    You are also lectured on “whether you knew” Obama “funded” ISIS and Al Queda, as if bitter-boer is such an expert now on the Middle East. No credible source is given for this claim, but it would be nothing unusual to fund one faction to fight against another faction. The CIA has done it for decades, and white Ronald Reagan funded violent Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, and funded right-wing terrorists in South America. White Reagan also transferred advanced arms technology to China during his administration.
    https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=njilb
    So bitter-boer’s “oh those evil bleks” snarling is once against exposed as selective. If its white people doing the same thing then he remains silent.

  139. @Neoconned

    Yes, Australia, where police drag white people out of their cars and beat and terrorize them for “violating lockdown.” Sounds great.

  140. Wyatt says:
    @Anonymous

    I mean, who would trust the English…anywhere? They backstabbed their way into an empire, stealing anything from whites they couldn’t take from natives. The history of the British Empire is one of the most horrendous studies of duplicitous statecraft, proxy war engagement and good old fashioned massacres for convenience.

    I’m of the opinion that the British should be forced to pay indemnities to all of their former vassals to the point that England would never be a viable, first world nation again. There’s just such evil to the English that I’m no longer surprised when I read a story that goes like, “so here’s how the British fucked over this group of people.”

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  141. @Wyatt

    Yeah, but didn’t most nations tend to abuse and take from other peoples if they had the power and the shrewdness / strategy to do so effectively? Brits were just really good at it.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  142. AnalogMan says:
    @lloyd

    De Klerk’s wife was throat slashed and murdered in her own apartment. So he got retribution for his sell out.

    You must be joking!

    As part of De Klerk’s payoff for betraying his country, he got a nice new Greek mistress, divorced his wife and buggered off to Greece with his new squeeze. The murder of his ex-wife was probably just a bonus.

  143. AnalogMan says:
    @northeast

    South Africans did not need the example of Rhodesia. They had seen many examples, from Ghana in 1958, through Congo, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, the entire African continent, one by one they went the same way. We tried to tell you, but you wouldn’t listen.

    South Africa was betrayed by its politicians. I knew it was just a matter of time when they betrayed Rhodesia. They were not going to fight for us. First time I was ashamed of my country.

  144. AnalogMan says:
    @Anon

    Prior to the release of Mandela from prison there was a referendum in which whites were asked whether they wanted to share power with he blacks, yes or no.

    I beg to differ. That’s not what I voted for. The referendum was about whether there should be negotiations with the terrorists. The promise was that any negotiated settlement would be presented to the voters in a separate referendum. That promise was a lie.

    The whole bone of contention was the policy of Apartheid. This policy envisioned the Balkanization of the country, with each national group getting its own independent homeland. The way it was being implemented obviously favoured the Whites. The Communists rejected the whole concept, and wanted to take over the whole pot as a unitary state. I didn’t much care what they did with the rest of the country, as long as we kept a piece for ourselves.

    The Western Cape would have been the ideal place for a White homeland; the first European settlement, at a time when the nearest Babuntu was hundreds of miles away in the Eastern Cape.

    We got nothing. That bastard De Klerk gave away the whole farm.

    Even Singapore would have been a better model.

  145. AnalogMan says:
    @neutral

    Very true, but only part of the story. The Afrikaners were religious Calvinists; they had three racially segregated versions of the Dutch Reformed Church. Then one of their Coloured co-religionists (can’t think of his name) became head of the World Council of Churches, which started a campaign to convince them that Apartheid was a sin!

    This was so effective, especially among the church “tannies” (aunties), that it turned their brains to mush. These are the people who, even today, insist that we can still “make it work”. When I finally left SA, the wife of a former colleague asked me why. I explained that SA was finished. Doesn’t exist any more. Her response?

    “Well, if you’re so negative, then maybe you should just leave.”

    So I did.

    Savant is right. The level of delusion is incredible. Mostly because they can’t change it, and they can’t escape it, so they make a virtue of necessity.

    (Hi, Sav. Have you cleaned up your comments section yet?)

  146. @RadicalCenter

    Perhaps, but it is still no badge of honor to be the superior criminal.

    It might be of interest that the island of Albion was used by the Continentals much like the USA and Australia was used later. A place to send your criminals and delinquents. So we could say Britain, much like the Jews, is a State founded by mostly criminal elements.

    To find a truly peaceful state it seems we must go back to the Germanic Hollanders in the time of Tacitus. Who said of them, they were the best and strongest people in all of Germany, but they did not take slaves and they did not attack anyone unless provoked. I believe the Holy Charlemagne put an end to that effrontery.

  147. @unit472

    They developed nukes because of threats of military intervention by USA and UK ,not USSR .

    You don’t need nukes against guerillas .

  148. I am fully supportive of the Volkstaat. It’s sad it’s come to this when the Boers built South Africa, but the rest of the nation is a lost cause. The ideal solution would be the restoration of the Bantustans, but that doesn’t seem feasible any more.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick McDermott Comments via RSS