The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Apartheid In Black and White: Survivalism, Not Racism (Part 2)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL 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 once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Monomaniacal Westerners—they have one thing on their minds: it begins with an “R”—have come to think and speak of apartheid as a theory of white supremacy.

It was not.

The policy of “separate development,” as it was admittedly euphemized, was not a theory of racial supremacy, but a strategy for survival.

But first: To perceive the fundamental way in which the Afrikaner and American creeds differed early on we must first examine the former’s ideas of what a nation and a state were, respectively.

America, being a rib from the British ribcage, was built on liberal individualism; Afrikaner culture was first and foremost grounded in the survival of the Volk.

This is not to say that Afrikaners were not fiercely individualistic; they were, even more so than early Americans.

For the Boers, however, the nation encompassed “the land, the culture, the terrain, the people.” The state, on the other hand, had no such prestige for the Boers, who regarded it as just “the coercive apparatus of bureaucrats and politicians.” Against this apparatus, above all, the Boer rebelled.

The 19th century found him still resisting majority rule, by which time Americans had thoroughly submitted to it. Although the Boer’s outlook remained passionately political, his preference was for parochial self-rule.

It might be said, then, that if in the Americans the vagaries of the frontier bred an atomistic individualism, those same vagaries bred in the Afrikaner a very different attitude, namely, a keen sense of the collective and the need to preserve it. “The worth of the nation is even higher than the worth of the individual,” exclaimed one Volk philosopher.

To the existential threat which they faced on the Dark Continent, Afrikaners therefore responded by circling the wagons metaphorically (much as they had done, literally , during the 1830s) and devising the corpus of racial laws known as apartheid.

“We shall fight for our existence and the world must know it. We are not fighting for money or possessions. We are fighting for the life of our people,” thundered Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd (1958 – 1966).

Prime Minister D. F. Malan (1948 – 1954) had already used different words for the same sentiment, announcing his devotion to, “My God, my people, my country.”

Malan’s successor, Prime Minister Strijdom (1954 – 1958), believed unswervingly that if they were to survive as a group, the whites of South Africa would need to retain a position of guardianship, and that ultimately, white hegemony was indispensable for the good of all.

The Cape Town-Stellenbosch axis of the nationalist intelligentsia, which was the most influential lobby in Malan’s National Party (NP), almost without exception defended apartheid not as an expression of white superiority but on the grounds of its assumed capacity to reduce conflict by curtailing points of interracial contact.

The intellectuals who heralded from the University of Stellenbosch phrased the issue thus:

“The granting of political rights to the Bantu, of the kind which would satisfy their political aspirations, was altogether impossible in a mixed community, since such a step would endanger the … survival of the European population. If this danger was to be avoided, and at the same time the Europeans were not to violate their own conscience and moral standards, a policy of separate development would prove the only alternative.”

To that end, a “tortuous social structure” was erected to keep blacks from forming a political majority in South Africa proper. Africans were assigned to homelands in accordance with tribal affiliation, still a central organizing principle across Africa. These “black satrapies” were to function as “national and political homes for the different Bantu communities”; in the “Bantustans,” blacks were to exercise political rights.

ORDER IT NOW

Hermann Giliomee—author of the grand historical synthesis, “The Afrikaners: Biography of a People”—agrees that Afrikaner anxieties were overwhelmingly existential, rather than racial. Giliomee is adamant that the apartheid policy did not spring from “racist convictions or antiquated religious doctrines” (even if these convictions were at times present in specific Afrikaners themselves), but from an overriding need for security. For leading thinkers in the NP such arguments almost completely missed the point because the security of the Afrikaners as a dominant minority, and not as a race per se, was what concerned them.

Giliomee, a liberal historian who opposed apartheid (as this writer did), contends that “apartheid was not uniquely abhorrent and had much in common with Western colonialism and American segregation.” Another of the historian’s apparent heresies has it that “attempts to depict the nationalist leaders as proto-fascists showed a poor understanding of both the Nazi and the Afrikaner nationalist movement.”

In retrospect, it is easy for me to see the merits of Giliomee’s argument for “the essential moderation of Afrikaner nationalism.” Anybody who lived, as I had lived, among Afrikaners during the apartheid era can testify that crime and communism were foremost on their minds.

To rationalize the Kafkaesque laws of apartheid, Afrikaners spoke of the Swart Gevaar (which meant the “Black Threat”), and of the Rooi Gevaar (the “Red Threat”).

My Afrikaner friends would regularly admonish the American mindset for its incipient liberalism: “They demand majority rule, but look around you at the rest of Africa! Anglos simply don’t understand what’s at stake.”

 

This is an historical account of how the Afrikaner intelligentsia viewed a policy against which the writer and her family fought. A writer need not agree with it to chronicle and analyze it.

Part 1 is “Apartheid In Black And White: Truth About The Afrikaner.”

Citations are in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South-Africa” (2011) by ilana mercer

 
• Category: History • Tags: Afrikaner, Apartheid, South Africa 
Hide 83 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Sean says:

    The ethnically and culturally English population in Rhodesia behaved much as the Afrikaners had, so it is a desire for secure existence that drives the creation of such a warped sytem. I think most countries are driven by that same desire and political mistakes such as Apartheid are an effect rather than a cause of the situation.

    The same people who thought Apartheid was motivated by racism said Zionism was racism. The South African government is going to put obstacles in the way of white emigration, but eventually things will get so bad that all whites who can will leave despite ever increasing bureaucratic obstacles put in their way . Unfortunately there are a lot of poor and /or farming whites who cannot leave, and the end of the story will be hard to take.

  2. indocon says:

    Was division of South Africa ever considered when apartheid was ending? Something like how India and and Pakistan split cold have worked in South Africa.

  3. Daniel H says:

    The white/boer should have settled for 25% of the South African land mass as their homeland, ceding the remainder to blacks. Together with similar arrangements in Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia and Namibia there would have been plenty of room for whites/bowers to secure the futures for themselves and their posterity. But the whites wanted to control all of the land under their dominion, now they have nothing that is secure, and many are itching to leave. It is not too late for South African whites. They can defy the government, take up arms and create their homeland. Question, though, is their will and courage to do so?

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @Anon
  4. Mr Deeds says:

    White South Africans need to put their cash into cryptocurrency and high tail it abroad. Geoarbitrage is going to be vital to their survival. http://www.cryptogeography.com/geoarbitrage-cryptocurrency-5-good-countries-live-cheaper-better/

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  5. @Mr Deeds

    “High tail it abroad”

    This can be done when you are 25 years old, single, no dependents, college degree. I know because I left Southeast Michigan and indeed just about everywhere else is less dreary.

    I’ve got no patriotism, my relatives are long gone, the property sold for little anyhow.

    From another country I can scoff at Polish-Americans I knew from Flint whose life boiled down to worrying about outbursts and wonder why they lack the initiative to leave.

    But here is the reality-

    Their property (Or Boer farms) are worth little and so is their money…what they have of it. My grandmother’s house in Detroit, worth $ 400,000 in 1986, sold for $70,000 and my brother told me this was a fortunate thing.

    Australia and New Zealand don’t care that you want a nice Anglo-Saxon run country to live in. Neither does Canada, or many whites would move there. Obtaining a visa is well-nigh impossible. I tried at age 26 to get into other countries. Very difficult. They don’t want you, don’t care about your problems.

    So the Boers are stuck like some of the Polish-Americans I knew in Flint. They had families young, went to work in the local service sector back in 1988 when Mandela was still in the joint and never anticipated a situation like this.

    Now they are 50 and stuck. Their house and property worth nothing. No country wants them, they are too old, too broke, lack a niche skill.

    So it is very easy for townies on this site who live in bearable situations to say that. But try being born into an average white working middle class place that goes South.

    In the US, it is hard enough for whites to get out of internal third worlds in their own country. But Boers are trapped in Africa.

    The British South Africans long since left. They cashed in the chips back when property was worth a shit and left for London. But the Boers, with no ancestral connection to Holland (They’re mostly a 17th century mixture of French Hugenot and German without much Dutch blood anyhow or it is distant) have nowhere to go.

  6. @Daniel H

    “The white/boer should have settled for 25% of the South African land mass as their homeland, ceding the remainder to blacks.”

    Seriously, how long do you think it would have taken for the Black Africans to come after the White South African territories, especially given Europeans’ penchant for hiring/enslaving cheap labour?

    To Ms. Mercer’s point, Cult Marxists consider it racism for a white European to wish for her or his heritage to survive for posterity.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
  7. dearieme says:
    @Sean

    “The ethnically and culturally English population in Rhodesia behaved much as the Afrikaners had”: no they didn’t. Wildly inaccurate.

    The second Rhodesian I ever knew was what was then called “coloured”. He went to school with white boys. He went to their houses after school for tea. That bears no resemblance whatsoever to apartheid.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Sean
  8. @Jeff Stryker

    Eastern Europe is depopulating, the Visegrad countries are defending endangered white culture, and there’s good farmland. Time for chartered ships to ferry Boer farmers to Europe to seek asylum from incipient genocide?

    Australia seems like a natural fit for South Africans, but probably not the best for access to unused farmland for the displaced farmers.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Anonymous
  9. Moi says:
    @indocon

    The Brits played undivided India for a sucker. Indians and Pakis are one people.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @TheAHA
  10. Grady says:

    The Stellenbosch intelligensia quietly parted ways with the apartheid government before the early 1960s, when they realized that independent, self-sufficient bantustans were a pipe dream. The white South African public were too greedy to let go of enough land, and too dependent on the black workforce to allow proper states to be assembled, yoking the bantustans to South Africa in perpetuity, whatever the intentions of the ideologues.

  11. anonymous[259] • Disclaimer says:

    Good luck, Ebola Chan!

    Comments on the Nairaland thread “White Demon Worshippers Trying to Spread Ebola Using Witchcraft” show a mix of seemingly genuine fear and utter skepticism at the claims that Western medics are in fact devil-worshipping, fear-spreading witch doctors who want to rob Africans of their organs.

    One Nairaland user commented on the shrine accusation post: “I ask you this: Why is everyone running from the white doctors? It’s because they will infect you with Ebola.”

    RACIST 4CHAN USERS DELIGHT AT THE PANIC THEY HAVE STOKED

    http://www.vocativ.com/world/nigeria-world/ebola-4chan-anime/

  12. To rationalize the Kafkaesque laws of apartheid, Afrikaners spoke of the Swart Gevaar (which meant the “Black Threat”), and of the Rooi Gevaar (the “Red Threat”).

    According to Douglas Reed the so called “Black Threat” was overblown, as usual, by the Reds who typically sow hatred in their quest for permanent revolution. He states that black youth would be sent to Moscow to learn the arts of terror and then would return home and terrorize the countryside with predictable results.

    My Afrikaner friends would regularly admonish the American mindset for its incipient liberalism: “They demand majority rule, but look around you at the rest of Africa! Anglos simply don’t understand what’s at stake.”

    Reed also addresses the problem of modern, Commie perverted liberalism, which is bogus liberalism.

    Americans certainly don’t understand what’s at stake. For instance most are clueless about another major threat, i.e., political Zionism.

    Americans concerned about what’s going on in South Africa today would do well to read Reed’s short book, The Battle for Rhodesia which, though it deals with the past, explains the situation today much better than Mercer does. Strange thing is that she is close to the truth when she says that apartheid was not originally based on racism. However, it’s not survivalism as she claims because the black white enmity is artificial as well and has long been stirred up by the usual suspects with aspirations of global hegemony.

    • Replies: @anon
  13. @Jeff Stryker

    This can be done when you are 25 years old, single, no dependents, college degree.

    Fred Reed and many others know that it can be done when you’re an old flatus too. There are tons of old white geezers who retired and live well in several Asian countries as well.

    … I left Southeast Michigan and indeed just about everywhere else is less dreary.

    Dreary describes the steadily deteriorating situation in the USA well, and I agree that just about everywhere else is much less so.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  14. @Lockean Proviso

    It is about visas and citizenship. If you have money and skills, you can go anywhere.

  15. Anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel H

    naive no matter how small an area whites have it is always more prosperous than non white areas and non whites want it first they want to live there then as their numbers grow they want enough power to begin to take it, be it a school a city a nation. Od course all that happens is they transform it into the shithole they came from the biological reality is there are no shitholes only shit people.

  16. @Jeff Stryker

    A South African woman at my church was able to get her kids out of SA to Oz. She couldn’t get them into the US because of Obama’s misrule, but had no problem with getting them to Oz. She’s Boer too.

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Jeff Stryker
  17. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @jacques sheete

    black white enmity is not artificial any more than english irish flemish walloon spanish basque all life forms on this planet are in an existential struggle with every other humans developed nations to minimize conflict jews invented empire wars anti imperialism multiculturalism anti colonialism racism to destabilize target nations they wished to paristically colonize. colonialism empire etc are bad ideas if you need a area for expansion its best to eradicate every last male if not every last human other wise youre better off doing without. especially if there’s jews around they live to exploit those natural animosities

  18. @jacques sheete

    I’d rather have moved to Dubai and later the rest of Asia at 25 than spend an entire lifetime in Flint as a celibate and then MAYBE move to Philippines at 65.

    I’ve missed out on the “Chimpouts” and not had to worry about “Brown Pride” and its been a long time since I was around whiggers or rednecks. I missed out on 9-11. I missed out on the fun economic decline in the Bush era to the point where parts of the Rustbelt and US interior look like third world countries. I’ve missed out on all the garbage.

    I don’t care at all and feel incredibly lucky to have lived elsewhere.

    Many, many white men are as patriotic as I am. Many simply walk off.

    It has been 11 years since I set foot on US soil and I am grateful for it.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  19. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Whites in the Ukraine in the 1920s and 30s had it as bad or worse that today’s SA Boer farmers. The Bolsheviks did deliberately starve to death a million plus Ukrainian White Christian farmers in the Holodomor.

    This was one of the main causes of World War II as the Germans and various anti Communist in Central and Eastern Europe saw the Ukrainian Holodomor as what Bolshevism/Communism would mean for all of Europe.

    The Boers are a tough people and I think they will come back to survive and rebuilt somewhere – in some part of South Africa or the Central African Republic, Namimbia or in a break away state in Brazil or best best one of those “stan” countries in the former Soviet Union. Russia has already given refuge to some more prosperous SA Boer farmers.

    I can’t understand why we haven’t started a movement to resettle displaced SA White farmers in North Dakota – the Boers will just have to learn to do ice hockey along with rugby.

  20. The picture, blood thirsty Zulus, in my opinion is misleading.
    When the Boer war between Boers and British was to begin, a Boer general warned his wife that this war would be quite different from the wars against Zulu’s, Bosjesmannen and whatever tribes and peoples existed in S Africa.
    Repeater rifles against javelins.

    That there were no cultures in S Africa also is nonsense, a Zulu army with javelins, clubs, etc, succeeded in annihilating a small British force with repeater rifles and shrapnel cannon.
    The loss of life on the Zulu side must have been enormous, in order to assemble such an army, and let it fight, a political organisation must have existed, as Vansina decribes for kingdoms in middle Africa.

    Of course the Boers stole land, as the white settlers in the USA stole Indian land, killed Indians , and brought deadly diseases, either intentionally or unintentionally.
    That the present blacks in S Africa are unable to rule themselves, clear to me, that they’re even destroying their country by expelling the whites, also pretty obvious.

    But who, morally, in hindsight, is to blame ?
    How would African societies have developed without white interference ?
    Nobody knows.

    Zuckermann, as a young man in S Africa, met a few of last original inhabitants.
    Few people know about mining and metallurgy in S Africa before th whites came, Dutch, to begin with, though at first we did little harm there, just a port for ships on their way to the East Indies, to take in fresh water, vegetables, letting the sick recover.
    Alas common sense never seems to have ruled the world, a sensible cooperation between black and white now seems out of the question.

    Jan Vansina, ‘The Children of Woot, A History of the Kuba Peoples’, 1978, Madison
    Jan Vansina, ‘Kingdoms of the savanna, A history of Central African states until the European occupation’, London 1966
    Richard F. Burton, ‘First Footsteps in East Africa’, 1856, 2000, Köln
    Steven Feierman, ‘The Shambaa Kingdom, A History’, 1974 Madison
    Solly Zuckermann, ‘From Apes to Warlords, an autobiography, 1904- 46’, London 1988
    The archaeology of Africa, Food, Metals and Towns’, ed. Shaw, Sinclair, Andah and Okpoko, London and New York 1993

    • Replies: @bj
  21. iffen says:

    All these thousands of years of civilization and no one has been able to figure out how to leave and take prime agricultural land with them.

  22. Truth says:
    @Quartermaster

    There’s this rumor going around that Obama is not the president anymore.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
  23. @Quartermaster

    Move from South Africa to Atlanta or Detroit? What’s the point? Remember the Cambodian refugee who survived the “Killing Fields” only to be shot dead in Los Angeles.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  24. JoeFour says:

    Those interested in a more exhaustive discussion of apartheid from the perspective of an outspoken white South African should take the time to read Mike Smith’s series of articles on that subject. His blog is no longer active but archived at the following link. (Scroll down — his apartheid articles are listed a ways down on the right side.)

    http://archive.is/FkLCx

  25. @Truth

    There’s this thing called past tense, but it requires lower time-preference to appreciate the distinction.

    • Replies: @Truth
  26. Whipping up black white enmity at any time, from whatever side, is always used to keep everyone down. So if you’re defending either one side or the other, you’re on the wrong side.

    • Agree: Truth
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    , @bj
  27. @Jeff Stryker

    Remember the Cambodian refugee who survived the “Killing Fields” only to be shot dead in Los Angeles.

    Who was killed by Asian gang members either as a botched robbery or a hit ordered by Pol Pot. Plenty of Asian crooks in Asia.

    In 1996 when he was killed, he was 55. Which was the life expectancy in Cambodia at the time.

  28. @Jeff Stryker

    It has been 11 years since I set foot on US soil and I am grateful for it.

    So are we Jeffy, so are we. Please don’t come back.

  29. @indocon

    So, you think the partition of the Indian Subcontinent was a good thing… perhaps the one million who lost their lives in one month might have had a chance not to get caught up in the mess!

  30. Apparently, something was wrong with the whole system of Apartheid, otherwise notwithstanding the western interference, it would have eventually collapsed under the weight of its unchecked hubris!

  31. Moi says:

    Sorry, but black Africa is for black Africans–all others are interlopers.

    • Replies: @Fran800
  32. dearieme says:
    @Moi

    The British government had intended that India would become independent as one country. It was Jinnah who insisted on two because, perhaps rightly, he didn’t trust Nehru and company. Why don’t you read some history?

    • Replies: @Moi
  33. TheAHA says:
    @Moi

    Completely false. This ‘Indians and Pakistanis are one people’ nonsensical cliche perpetrated by ignorant Indian and Pakistani diasporas couldn’t be more wrong. British India was the entity that was partitioned into India and Pakistan, not India-India. As in, not unified India. Pakistan did not emerge from India nor was British India anything other than a colonially-consolidated bunch of territories without any singular Indian identity from the ethnic or linguistic perspective.

    Pakistanis do not look like Indians, they have different languages and are ethnically different as well. The only major common ethnicity between them and Indians is Punjabis and Punjabis are 2% of India, 50% of Pakistan. Pakistani Punjabis also have different ancestry to their counterparts across the border, or at least to a considerable extent. There have always been big time cultural differences between the peoples who would constitute Pakistan as of 14 August 1947 and who would constitute India as of 15 August 1947.

    • Replies: @Moi
  34. @obwandiyag

    Whipping up black white enmity at any time, from whatever side, is always used to keep everyone down.

    Bingo!

    After the “fun” ends, the money bag crowd picks up everything for pennies on the dollar, pretends to “rescue” the situation, and rules with an iron fist forever after.

  35. Moi says:
    @TheAHA

    I wish you knew what you’re talking about. Won’t tell you more than this–my grandpa was a close friend of Muhammad Iqbal, the great poet/philosopher and the intellectual father of the idea of Pakistan. I do believe I know what I’m talking about when I say Indians and Pakistanis are one people–they are all from a land known as Hindustan.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
  36. Moi says:
    @dearieme

    Jinnah was for a united India/Hindustan but wanted certain assurances that Muslims would be protected as citizens who had a different religion and culture, and not be overwhelmed in a Hindu-majority independent India. When Jinnah failed to get the assurances, it was only then he raised a demand for a separate country.

    YOU go read some history.

  37. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Weren’t the Rhodesian settlers generally of middle class English stock? They seemed to have more of a liberal and middle class English sensibility, unlike the Boers. The Boers rebelled against the British because the British outlawed slavery and promoted more rights for blacks and coloureds.

    • Replies: @bj
    , @Sean
  38. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @dearieme

    Yes, the culture was quite different. The Rhodesians had a culture of middle class British paternalism and aristocratic noblesse oblige towards the blacks. The Afrikaners had a quite different attitude and relationship with the blacks.

    • Replies: @bj
  39. bj says:
    @Anonymous

    The Boers rebelled against the British because the British outlawed slavery

    The Boers rebelled against the British because The Boers did not want to be slaves of the British Empire. The Boers did not practice chattel slavery after they left the cape in the early nineteenth century. The London Missionary Society had great influence in the British government and projected Protestant guilt over Britain’s role in the slave trade onto the Boers. You are repeating the classic scapegoating of the Boers by British exceptionalism.

  40. Anonymous[136] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lockean Proviso

    They won’t give up the Afrikaans language, so not a natural fit.

  41. @Moi

    I work with a lot of Indians and we just touched on this issue during lunch. Even within India they don’t always consider themselves one people. Maybe they’re not too different from Americans; it depends on whom you ask.

  42. Binyamin says:

    Wrong and wrong again. There is no moral equivalence between America’s founding fathers and the founders of apartheid South Africa. The main players of American revolution were inspired by the ideals of European Enlightenment. In contrast, the founders of the apartheid state got their inspiration from the Nazi concept of racial purity and superiority. The notorious prohibition of mixed marriages act was straight out of Hitler’s rule book and his obsession with the purity of the ‘volk’. Incidentally, the legal prohibition of interracial sex only applied to white/non-white cases. In contrast there was no prohibition on black/asian , black/’coloured’ or asian/ ‘coloured’ marriages. Therefore, the apartheid ideology regarded white genes as so superior as not to be contaminated by inferior genes.
    To say that the aim of the apartheid rulers was to create separate homelands for blacks where they would enjoy equal rights is a grotesque parody. Almost immediately after the National Party came to power in 1948, black communities were brutally ethnically cleansed from the best areas of South Africa and herded into Bantustans (black homelands). 89% of the best area was reserved exclusively for whites while the blacks were given 11%. The country’s best beaches had ‘no blacks’ sign at key points. Blacks were subjected to daily humiliation in their own country.
    It is fair to point out that since majority rule was installed in South Africa, its black citizens have generally treated whites far better than the way they were treated by the white population during apartheid’s heyday. The apartheid state, in addition to its neo Nazi roots was a gigantic welfare state for its Afrikaner population. No wonder the modern day Afrikaners have such a chronic sense of entitlement. And to all those retards ranting about ‘white genocide’, let me remind you that since apartheid’s demise, the white population has grown in South Africa by 6.7%. Some of you lot probably think its fake news.

    • Replies: @bj
    , @anonymous
  43. bj says:
    @Anonymous

    The Rhodesians had a culture of middle class British paternalism and aristocratic noblesse oblige towards the blacks.

    Let me correct you….The Rhodesians had a culture of middle class British paternalism and bureaucratic condescension toward black Africans. The Afrikaners are a white Africans. They are not colonialists, as were the British.

    Most Jews and British descendants have left South Africa, but the majority of Afrikaners remain. They are competent, intelligent, and honest. South African infrastructure will collapse if the Afrikaners are killed by racial hatred and envy. The blacks elites know it and prosper because of Boer hard work and intelligence.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  44. I read this article with out much thought, or analysis, so I am going with my gut here. As I read this my thoughts were that this author is excusing apartheid, if not genocide. Forward to today, and the agenda 21 plan to herd us all into 200 square foot quarters, which I don’t agree with. So, when can I invade Bill Gates’ 40k square foot mansion (an idea I like), and justify my presence with the law of survival, i.e. the survival of the fittest. This validates Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians, our genocide of the American indigenous peoples, etc. “Honey get my .308 we’re going house hunting”.

  45. Sean says:
    @dearieme

    http://jonjayray.tripod.com/weyl.html

    Thus, white Rhodesians are an elite element within the English-speaking world in terms of psychometric intelligence. This finding is reinforced by visual impressions. Salisbury whites appear larger, healthier, more vigorous, alert and bright than London whites. Beatniks, transvestites and obvious homosexuals are conspicuously absent. Among the reasons offered for the intellectual superiority of white Rhodesian children were: (1). The Group Test is a much better instrument than the subjective opinions of teachers for winnowing out gifted children from the mass. (2) Rhodesian policy is to exclude immigrants who lack jobs, thus minimising the influx of unskilled, uneducated and incompetent elements. (3). Since the white minority must provide managerial, scientific, professional and intellectual leadership for the Africans as well as the Europeans, the demand for elite elements is enormous. Rhodesian officials estimate that 15 per cent of their white population consists of professionals and highly skilled technicians as against 10 per cent in the case of white South Africans and only 6 per cent in the case of the British. (The tests showed that the Coloured and Asiatic children made quantitatively insignificant contributions to the 130+ IQ group.)

  46. @indocon

    Yeah, India and Pakistan. That’s working real well.

    • Replies: @Dagon Shield
  47. bj says:
    @obwandiyag

    I agree…oligarchy uses the ancient divide and conquer strategy to rule mankind.

  48. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    Yes Rhodesians were middle class, but my point was hard times make hard people. In other words it does not much matter what the characteristics or sensibility of the population are, given a threatening situation that country or people will act so as to survive.

  49. bj says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Repeater rifles against javelins.

    Repeating rifles did not come into widespread usage until late in the nineteenth century. The Boers fought the Zulus with single shot muzzle loading elephant guns. In the Battle of Blood River, fifteen thousand will trained and led Zulu warriors attacked less than 500 Boers within a lager of wagons. About 6000 Zulus were killed by the concentrated fire of the elephant guns from a selected defensive position. The Zulus and Boers were determined and capable warriors who respected the others will and courage, as only fighting men can respect their enemies.

    First part of the Battle Of Blood River and the creation of Natalia, the short-lived Boer Republic in 1838/39. Jan Lamprecht presents a detailed analysis of why the Boers left the Cape where they were ruled by the British and how it was that they came into conflict with the Zulus which ended in massacres of Boers and eventually the great victory at the Battle of Blood River. Jan did this video in 2015 for the anniversary of the Battle of Blood River.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  50. bj says:
    @Binyamin

    Listen to Julius Malema inciting racial hatred and genocide against the Boers.


    Malema singing shoot to kill, shoot the boer

    • Replies: @Anon
  51. (((Mercer))), you lived among the Afrikaners during the apartheid times. Were you gathering information that you and your rabbi father could use against them for getting rid of apartheid? Did the Afrikaners figure out what you were really up to, i.e., gathering the kindling wood for the cannibal pot and that’s why you and your family were kicked out of South Africa?

    (((Mercer))), you’ve got to give up your South Africa schtick. You are the flip-side of the sophist Jew (((Molyneux))). His babblings are becoming more unhinged. He has no idea what true philosophy is. He’ll babble about IQ and then he starts his usual hierarchy: Ashkenazi Jews, Northeast Asians, whites, Hispanics, blacks. His mother was an Ashkenazi Jewess (German) and he’s a Jew so he will shill for his tribe first. Jews are not the smartest tribe ever and had nothing to do with the creation and development of the West. Remember, the West is not black/Asian/Jewish/Muslim. I listened to a youtube he did about Bolsonaro’s stabbing in Brazil. He did his usual schtick about free markets, but he can never fully articulate what is needed to have free markets. His libertarianism is nonsense. He babbled about how it was the women in Brazil who caused problems because they voted for the bolsa – welfare payments. He uses a lot of emotion to describe situations. Brazil is 55% black. That is the reason it is a mess. (((Molyneux))) mentioned Brazilian average IQ is 87 but said this IQ cuts across all ethnicities in Brazil. No. It is 87 because blacks have the lowest IQs and they are 55% of the population. Brazilian white IQ is about 95-100. He thinks the bolsa welfare payments cause women to hate men and are very bad. The bolsa is what let’s black Brazilians buy the basics, i.e., food. The bolsa is for the black population. He babbles about cronyism, but this is just the whites trying to protect their assets. Brazil cannot compete in the world economy because it is 55% black. He thinks libertarianism can help Brazil. This guy is insane.

    The whites will have to leave South Africa because of the number of blacks there are. Then South Africa will collapse.

  52. Anon[390] • Disclaimer says:
    @bj

    Malema’s party got 6% of the vote in 2014, and polls consistently in the single digits. They need to be closely watched, but it seems as if they were primarily viewed as useful idiots whose primary role was humiliating Jacob Zuma in parliament. He is losing control of his organisation, no doubt being destabilised by the ANC, and had to flee his party’s elective conference in Midvaal because he was besieged by disgruntled members. The ANC has undermined any nascent black opposition and the EFF doesn’t seem to have enough going for it to resist ANC subversion, and Ramaphosa has stolen the only policy that could have won the EFF support: “land hunger”.

    Your video was made before he had his stomach stapled went on a diet, so this was at least 2 years ago.

    The last time Malema shot anything was when he fired blanks from an AK-47 above the heads of his own supporters in a stadium a few weeks ago. The gun was given to him by his (white) bodyguard, and it promptly led to charges being filed.

  53. Daniel H says:
    @The Alarmist

    Whites could easily have established procedures for secure borders and national integrity, with the military muscle to back these procedures. And who gives a damn what the world thinks. Lets face some facts: the whites wanted all of life’s convenience that cheap labor provided. They couldn’t imagine parting with it, now they have nothing. No nation. No security. No opportunity and no future. All because of shortsighted greed. Japan, for instance has done perfectly fine, and will continue to do fine, without having imported millions of coolie labor. South African whites worshipped money before they worshipped volk. They lose. But as I said, it is not too late. An armed revolt against the government. A declaration to the world on what the borders of the new white state will be, and a rock hard deal with the Chinese will secure their existence and that of their posterity. Question: do they have the will to do this?

  54. @ontopofitall

    Don’t know about Pakistan but yes, India is doing just fine. Sure, one half of the people are in not very good stead but the other half is, which is to say over a half billion people… wish we could say the same thing about half of the people in America!

  55. Truth says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Great!

    Then tell your buddy to fill out another application.

  56. @Chris Mallory

    Why? I’m not a hood rat or Mestizo who committed petty crimes or fathered out-of-wedlock kids.

  57. Rogue says:

    You know what? Arguments about historical morality are utterly pointless .

    What Ilana says is all valid and true but, quite frankly, there is only one rule – and it’s the only rule: those who rule get to make all the rules. It’s a tried and tested formula and historically the only rule that ultimately counts.

    It might be a rough rule – but ultimately, what actual difference does it make?

    Or as some Greek lotsa generations ago said: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

    Difficult to argue with that.

    However, by contrast to what I’ve just stated, White SA handed over power – when not forced to – to a hostile enemy that they’d been enemies with for centuries. And then meekly and feebly hoped that these same traditional enemies wouldn’t be mean to them.

    Maybe not the wisest course of action.

    Of course, it was shitbag politicians who surrendered the country to Black rule – and not the popular will of the White electorate. Who woulda thunk politicians could be so dishonourable?

    White SA is a tragic case for being SELF-FLUCKING-INFLICTED.

    As a White South African I get flucking angry at the couple of individuals who thought that a Nobel peace prize, or whatever, was a reasonable swap for surrendering 350 years of their own peoples existence in Southern Africa.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  58. anonymous[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @Binyamin

    Lots of good points in your post and I agree with most of what you said.

    However, you should know that America is a fascist state and it was for day one.

    It’s not a coincidence Hitler admired America and the English Empire.

    He admired what the founding fathers had done to the native Indians and it seems that he got eugenics from America.

    “The main players of American revolution were inspired by the ideals of European Enlightenment.”

    “Enlightenment” isn’t really what you think. It would be more exact to call it darkness.
    “Enlightenment” gave us the worst mass murderers in history. w/o “Enlightenment” no french revolution, no american “revolution” no coup d’état by the Bolsheviks in Russia etc..

    “The notorious prohibition of mixed marriages act was straight out of Hitler’s rule book and his obsession with the purity of the ‘volk’. ” …..hum….And of course in America mixed marriage was always legal…or maybe not…

    If you want to know why America is a fascist state you should read a very good book by Lew Rockwell. ” Against the State”, should be mandatory reading for all Americans and not only Americans.

    Of course you don’t need to be a libertarian -I’m not- to understand why this book is almost a “masterpiece”.

  59. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @bj

    Well the British beat the Afrikaners, and it was British paternalism, noblesse oblige, “bureaucratic condescension” – whatever you want to call it – that was quite generous and accommodating towards the Afrikaners and their aspirations in the postwar period and the Union of South Africa.

  60. Anonymous[184] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rogue

    However, by contrast to what I’ve just stated, White SA handed over power – when not forced to – to a hostile enemy that they’d been enemies with for centuries. And then meekly and feebly hoped that these same traditional enemies wouldn’t be mean to them.

    You’re probably quite young, so I suggest that you learn a little bit more about South Africa’s position in the 1980s. Defaults, ballooning deficits, double-digit inflation, the slaughterhouse of the Border War. Crazies in the security forces trying to hold the line. The collapse of the Soviet Union gave them the opportunity to cut the deal they desperately needed, but Janusz Waluś and Clive Derby-Lewis screwed that up.

    Of course, it was shitbag politicians who surrendered the country to Black rule – and not the popular will of the White electorate. Who woulda thunk politicians could be so dishonourable?

    1992 referendum. They weren’t turkeys voting for Christmas either, they knew that the game was up.

    • Replies: @Rogue
  61. @Chris Mallory

    What’s your hard-on?

    You actually get puffed up on patriotism when not complaining about how awful your life is in the US.

    Or are you just a black who feels I am the most racist guy on this site.

  62. Rogue says:
    @Anonymous

    Well, first of all, Mr Anon, let me state that I’m indeed quite young – if you call mid 50′s young.

    Lest you get the idea that I think the old, White-ruled SA should have serenely continued on with not a care in the world, that is absolutely not my position.

    After years of negotiating with the Black “liberation” groups, the useless White government simply handed over power. They did not even secure a federal model for SA, which at least would have been something.

    However, I would have gone for complete separation – a proper Apartheid – with all ethnic minority groups having essentially the old Cape province as a country – and no discrimination – and the Blacks given the rest of the country.

    I’ve had this discussion for years with a number of people. Some say it would have been impossible. I say, difficult yes – impossible no.

    Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago.

    The 1992 referendum for Whites was about continuing negotiations with the Black “liberation” groups – and nothing else.

    Economic sanctions hurt the SA economy but did not cripple it. It was the recalling of foreign loans that made the economic situation far more serious.

    But you are correct about the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe giving the Apartheid regime a reason to believe that communism as a governmental and economic model had been discredited. Sadly, they were wrong.

    The main point is this, we (White SA) had it in our power to create a destiny that would have been far better than what exists today. However, that power was surrendered and a more foolish course of action is difficult to envisage.

    Now we must merely react to what happens – we are no longer in charge of our own destiny.

    Those who rule make the rules – and there’s no other rule.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Hanoodtroll
  63. @bj

    Suppose you’re right about repeater guns.
    However, you do describe superior western weapons.
    ‘Great victory’, great in numbers killed.

  64. Rereading the article, glancing through the comments, I wondered ‘did the whites who invaded S Africa behave different from the migrants now entering the USA and Europe ?’.
    As to the future of S Africa, without the whites the land will go under in chaos, poverty and criminality, is my expectation, the blacks, my idea, are unable to rule themselves sensibly.
    Maybe the same in Europe and the USA, whenever those with migrant background will be, say, half the population.
    ´Als die Deutschen weg waren, Was nach der Vertreibung geschah: Ostpreussen, Schlesien, Sudetenland’, 2005, 2007, Reinbek, Adrian von Arburg, Wlodzimierz Borodziej, Jurij Kostjaschow, Ulla Lachauer, Hand-Dieter Rutsch, Beate Schlanstein, Christian Schulz
    ‘When the Germans were gone, what happened after the expulsion’.
    Economic decline, inferior products, Skoda for example, Tsjech, became a good car just after VW had taken over the factory, after the USSR collapsed.
    I saw the factory on the inside in 1965, primitive.
    17th century Holland became the Netherlands through the discrimination of catholics, this in fact went on until 1960, when most Dutch began losing their faiths.
    Among catholics, it was said ‘the rich said to the priest “you keep them stupid,we keep them poor”‘.
    Even now, in the (former) catholic ares, south of the river, feeling of being second class citizens exist.
    So I wonder, was Apartheid so unique ?

  65. lavoisier says: • Website

    This is an historical account of how the Afrikaner intelligentsia viewed a policy against which the writer and her family fought. A writer need not agree with it to chronicle and analyze it.

    Well at least you are honest.

    I never considered myself to be a racist by this definition–one in favor of discrimination based on skin color. But I would certainly be considered a racist by the modern definition–one who does not believe that all the races of man are equal in their behavioral capacities.

    I remember when all were cheering the ascension of Mandela to the throne and the end of apartheid. Although I was only in high school I knew then that this development would eventually mean the end of a modern civilization previously called South Africa. I also recall being called a racist by my more enlightened but less prescient colleagues at the time.

    I often wonder how those who are so certain that all men are created equal explain the very different civilizations created by the various tribes of humanity. Do they ever wonder if what they believe so firmly–we are all the same–makes any real sense?

    Last night they explored the crime in Chicago, which is overwhelmingly black induced, and the blame was put squarely on Democratic leadership. Never a word on the biological propensity, well studied, of the propensity of far too many black people to do stupid things and engage in violence. No, it is liberal policies at fault, not black dysfunction that is almost certainly based at some level on genetics.

    If there is ever any hope of the various tribes of humanity to function and coexist reasonably in a republican form of government, the fiction that all men are created equal must be exposed for the lie that it is. Then, and only then, people can be judged solely by their merits–the content of their character.

    The talented tenth should stop defending the dysfunction and stupidity of their less talented tribal members.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  66. Fran800 says:
    @Moi

    And European countries are for Europeans (i.e. whites). All Africans should leave. They are interlopers of the most venal kind.

  67. Anon[970] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rogue

    The main point is this, we (White SA) had it in our power to create a destiny that would have been far better than what exists today. However, that power was surrendered and a more foolish course of action is difficult to envisage.

    As I alluded to, the killing of Chris Hani in 1993 by two loose cannon whites fatally weakened the NP government. Until then, negotiations were deadlocked, and power-sharing, entrenched clauses and a strong upper-house were all on the table. The evening after Hani got shot, Mandela (who had no official position) had to go on state TV to steady the boat, calming blacks, and reassuring whites, and he averted a civil war. At that point, it was all over for the NP.

    • Replies: @Rogue
  68. @lavoisier

    “Blame the Democratic party”

    Black violence soared to highs in the Reagan era because of crack cocaine. It is not political, but merely the arrival of a new drug that creates an underground economy.

  69. @Rogue

    However, I would have gone for complete separation – a proper Apartheid – with all ethnic minority groups having essentially the old Cape province as a country – and no discrimination – and the Blacks given the rest of the country.

    I’ve had this discussion for years with a number of people. Some say it would have been impossible. I say, difficult yes – impossible no.

    It most certainly would have been impossible.

    Bulk (>50%) of the White population were/are in Gauteng, far inland.

    It would have meant complete uprooting of everything they had. Their property, their neighborhood, their life. All would have gone.

    Look this thing existed as long as it could. There is no place on Earth where 10% of the population can control the rest forever. Even in present day Israel, the closest analogue, Jews are a majority. Or else they would have been gone too.

    • Replies: @Rogue
  70. bj says:

    The following quote is an example from the outstanding history of South Africa by Harry Booyen taken from original sources in the Boer community of South Africa. It is real family history, not the bullshit that passes for history in Anglo-Zionist Empire. The British Empire is the great evil unleashed in South Africa. If the Afrikaners had been left to fight and negotiate with the Xhosa, Zula, etc. the result would be much different than the hell British oligarchy created in South Africa.

    The African Zulu and Xhosa were complex, powerful, kingdoms ruled by hereditary monarchs. They were a militaristic iron age people. They manufactured their famous aseigi spears, which were formidable edged weapons with which these tribes conquered most of Southern Africa. The British destroyed these African kingdoms with treachery and Gatling guns and today the propagandists blame the Boers. This is similar to the blood libel perpetrated by the usual suspects on the German people with the famous HoloHoax!

    “In this civil war(US Civil War) and its aftermath in the South, we may find much of what would eventually drive the policy of the United States towards South Africa in the 20th century. While the relationship between White and Black in the United States was that of master and slave, that in South Africa was one of competing civilizations and cultures. The American experience does not apply to Africa, nor is it understood there. But any American sense of guilt certainly is eagerly exploited on the Dark Continent. This would eventually cause American Liberals and African Monsters to become the strangest of bedfellows.

    One hundred years after this war(US Civil War), American politicians would attempt to link the American experience to the South African experience without having any insight into the realities of Africa. It would eventually lead to enormous human misery in South Africa and the loss of South Africa as an integral part of the West.”

    https://www.amazon.com/AmaBhulu-Birth-Death-Second-America/dp/0992159016/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

  71. bj says:

    The South African hate speech legislation is being installed by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. Organized Jewry presumes to rule the entire planet and destroy free speech and freedom of inquiry of all humanity that does not subscribed to Jewish Privilege as gods chosen people, chosen to rule mankind. This is Jewish supremacist racism, yet they run around shouting racist and anti semite at anyone with an aversion to being enslaved, coerced, and ruled by Jews.

    Jan Lamprect interviews Dr. Peter Hammond on their African experience.

    http://historyreviewed.com/?p=250

  72. bj says:

    Government by Deception: Psychopolitics in South Africa-Jan Lamprecht

    The end of colonialism in Africa was greeted around the world with great enthusiasm. But African independence in the last forty years has not brought the many hoped-for improvements in the lives of black people. Could the new problems facing Africa actually be worse, far worse, than anything in the past? Will the colonial era one day be seen as Africa’s “Golden Age?” The most developed countries in Africa lie on its southern tip. South Africa in particular is regarded as the “super power” of Africa and as the only nation on the continent to ever have attained First World status. The political developments in South Africa and Zimbabwe might decide the fate of Africa as a whole. Many of Africa’s leaders today repeat a propaganda line taught to them by the Russians. They blame all of Africa’s ills on white people and on Western colonialism. This is the Great African lie. If black people continue to uphold this lie, they, as an entire race, may yet be discredited by the shenanigans of Marxists and dictators on the African continent. It is time for everyone to admit the truth. This is the first step towards solving the problem.

    https://www.amazon.com/Government-Deception-Psychopolitics-Southern-Africa/dp/0963294733

  73. Rogue says:
    @Anon

    I think you assume too much.

    Apart from anything else, a civil war back then (which I absolutely do not accept was inevitable) would have been far better for Whites than the same today.

    Not that I would have wanted such a scenario for any of the people of the country. I’m not a bloodthirsty twat.

    I have zero ill will towards the Blacks, but we should not live together. Hundreds of years of discord surely proves this.

  74. Rogue says:
    @Hanoodtroll

    You are wrong.

    Riding to Mars on a bicycle is impossible. Flying there with modern rocket technology would be difficult but not impossible.

    A political separation of the races, or at least some of the races, in SA back in the early 90′s would have been analogous to the latter scenario of flying to Mars – difficult but not impossible.

    Racial separation of different ethnic groups has happened several times in the 20th century.

    But White SA surrendered the power to own their own destiny. So this is just academic bollox right now.

    • Replies: @Hanoodtroll
  75. @Rogue

    Racial separation of different ethnic groups has happened several times in the 20th century.

    True, but in all of these cases the areas that got detached had a local majority of the corresponding ethnic/religious groups (Ireland-N. Ireland) . That wasn’t the case in SA. So I am curious about the exact contours of this potential Volkstaat.

    The only other ‘option’ was to exterminate the Blacks altogether, a-la the Naive Americans. No one had stomach for that.

    As such, I think the Whites took the best possible course of action. Too bad even the best case scenario may still not be enough to save them.

    • Replies: @Rogue
  76. Rogue says:
    @Hanoodtroll

    True, but in all of these cases the areas that got detached had a local majority of the corresponding ethnic/religious groups (Ireland-N. Ireland) . That wasn’t the case in SA. So I am curious about the exact contours of this potential Volkstaat.

    The old Cape Province, or at least most of it. And not exactly a Volkstaat, but rather a homeland for Whites, Coloureds and Indians – plus any other ethnic minorities such as Chinese. Also, a complete end to Apartheid and all racial discrimination amongst these aforementioned groups.

    The Blacks in this “new” SA would have been financially compensated to leave for the utopia of Azania (the rest of current SA) and, under no circumstances, given the franchise if any remained for whatever reason.

    Bear in mind that back then (early 90′s) the Cape Province, certainly the Western part at least, was still more White than Black – although Coloureds outnumbered both.

    Obviously, racial issues would still have surfaced in this new SA, but it would have been a lot more manageable in my opinion. Generally speaking, Coloureds and Indians have greater affinity for White culture than Black culture.

    Oh well, one can dream. Unfortunately, it’s just that now – a dream.

  77. Ilana Mercer, how do you feel about having your name associated with a web site that, just in the last month, has promoted medieval anti-Jewish calumnies, denial of the holocaust, and now pins 9/11 on the Mossad?

  78. @Sean

    The South African government is going to put obstacles in the way of white emigration, but eventually things will get so bad that all whites who can will leave despite ever increasing bureaucratic obstacles put in their way .

    Indeed, the South African government has been fighting to block white emigration for many years now. The Brandon Huntley case is a good example; see this brief article from South Africa’s biggest Sunday newspaper:

    https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2010-11-27-white-south-africans-refugee-bid-overturned/

    Query: WHY do South Africa’s rulers want to block white emigration? Why don’t they say “Good riddance, and don’t let the door hit you on your way out”? After all, these esteemed statesmen blame the white minority for all of the country’s problems.

  79. Ex-Saffer says:

    Obscure bit of South African history: Did South African Jewry at some point, probably the 1970s, petition the Apartheid government to be racially reclassified as something other than White? I have not been able to corroborate this. I understand that, as opposition to Apartheid took hold, Jews became concerned that they would be associated with it and, in any case, most were privately opposed to it even as they benefited handsomely from it.

    If this did indeed happen, the answer must have been a resounding no. At minimum, it would have caused problems for the military: all able-bodied White men had no choice but to serve a year or two doing so-called National Service. Jewish men were not exempt, though most discovered upon being called up that they were Orthodox and ate only kosher. This was an entirely practical ruse: there were only two military facilities that provided kosher food, one at Cape Town, and one at Pretoria, both being comparatively pleasant places where the danger of dying in battle was zero.

  80. Ex-Saffer says:

    As anyone who escapes a psychic prison always feels: pure exhilaration.

  81. bj says:

    The first genocide of the Twentieth Century was perpetrated in the concentration camps of the Free State Republic and the Transvaal by the British Army under command of Lord Horatio Kitchener. The families of the Boer Commandos who refused to surrender their freedom to become slaves of the British Empire were given reduced rations and starved to death. Twenty seven thousand woman and children were deliberately murdered. So began the blood stained Twentieth Century!

    The British burning of the farms and herding of women and children into concentration camps has cost the lives of 33 of the 58 Booyens family members listed in the dreaded camps in the two territories–more than half. Of the forty-seven children listed in the camps, twenty seven die there–57%.

    https://www.amazon.com/AmaBhulu-Birth-Death-Second-America/dp/0992159016/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

  82. Corvinus says:

    “Monomaniacal Westerners—they have one thing on their minds: it begins with an “R”—have come to think and speak of apartheid as a theory of white supremacy.”

    It’s not a theory, it’s fact. Apartheid was the EPITOME of white supremacy.

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 become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.