Monday, November 7, 2011

Apartheid - Part 3

Another wonderful piece written by Mike Smith on how we were made to believe that Apartheid was wrong. Check out his blog at http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/


This part explains the true nature of Black people, how violent they were and still are and why the Apartheid system was introduced. Just remember that Apartheid was also a system which prevented the Afrikaners / Boers to be oppressed by the English again. Even if you were not apart nor grew up with Apartheid laws, you simply need to look at the violence, rape, torture, hijackings, murders, corruption and many more "ills" that are contributed by Blacks in modern day South African Society to see why Apartheid was introduced in the first place and why it went on for so long.


Ever since Apartheid was abolished and named by the international community as a "Crime against Humanity", you can clearly see in what direction our society went. It went from a relative peaceful country (except for the violence caused by Blacks in the townships) that had little crime, to a country in chaos and about to burst out of it's seems with crime, racial hatred and corruption. 


Apartheid might be wrong in the eyes of many, but none of them is seeing what it prevented and what it accomplished in about 40 years and what was accomplished in less than 20 years by the same people who deemed Apartheid wrong. In less than 20 years of "freedom from racism, equal opportunity, equal rights and no discrimination", we have become the most violent society in the world (our crime stats prove just this). How do you explain this? When a system was in place that discriminated against non-whites, they lived in peace, they had higher education standards, more jobs, far less crime and actually tripled in numbers, yet under a "free democratic system", they are dying like flies. They have no educational standards anymore, less jobs, far more crime and since 94, more than 300 000 people have died from HIV / AIDS alone. How do you add up these figures and exactly how good is the current democratic system really? Looking at crime / death figures, the life under a democratic system is far worse than that of a so-called discriminating system where far less people died of illness and far less people were murdered. 


Which system is really a "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY"??
By Mike Smith
26 April 2010

Many white South Africans feel guilty about Apartheid, they feel as if they actually did something evil or bad, but that is totally wrong.

Ex president 
De Klerk apologised for Apartheid and so did the Dutch Reform Church Dominee, Swanepoel who also started pulling out his intestines about Apartheid and apologised on behalf of the entire church without any mandate from anyone of the congregation. Ds Swanepoel se derm uitrygery oor Apartheid

So when such “leaders” tell us how wrong we were, then we tend to believe them. But let us look at the truth.

Anyone who knows the history of South Africa will know that nobody suffered more on the soil of South Africa, no one has bled as much as the Afrikaners and their descendants the Boers. The Whites of South Africa and specifically the Afrikaners have nothing to be sorry for. In fact the Blacks owe them a tremendous gratitude and a gigantic apology for the way they treated Whites in the last 350 years.

The Afrikaners have a song that is taught to all Afrikaans kids from the crib and that every Afrikaner today knows. The name of this song is called, “Siembamba”. The lyrics are so heavy that I almost do not want to repeat it here. But it goes like this,

“Siembamba, mama se kindjie,
Siembamba, mama se kindjie
--draai sy nek om, gooi hom in die sloot;
trap op sy kop dan is hy dood.”

For our international readers I will freely translate and then explain.

“Siembamba, mommies little child,
Siembamba, mommies little child,
--Wring his neck, throw him in the ditch,
Step on his head, then he is dead…”

Believe it or not…this is a song Afrikaans people sing to their children while rocking them to sleep!

It records the brutality of the Xhosas who would indiscriminately kill white women and white babies during the nine Kaffir wars. Black men are mostly cowards who are only brave when in packs. They actually seldom engage in head on confrontation with White men. When they attack it is always in groups, while people are asleep. Their preferred targets are the elderly, women and children.

A common myth amongst foreigners and South Africans alike is that they think that before the White man came to Africa, Blacks lived in peace and harmony with nature and with each other.

This harmony with nature is not entirely wrong. It is the perception of “In harmony with nature” that is misunderstood.

People want to believe that nature is pure and good and that the lion lies with the lamb, but reality is far removed from that. When one sees how hyenas tear a live animal apart, how a praying mantis bites the head off her mate after copulation how the Streptococcus bacteria can destroy human flesh, one is left with a feeling that nature can be very cruel.

Nature amongst African blacks have always been very cruel. Blacks who supposedly lived in tune with nature were regularly eaten by lions, crocodiles, bitten by snakes, stung by scorpions and their numbers controlled by insects like the mosquito (Malaria) or the Tsetse fly(sleeping sickness). Yellow fever and Cholera were other forms of nature to control the numbers of Blacks...

But it has to be said that before the white people came to Africa, the most effective way Blacks controlled their own populations were with genocidal tribal wars...and cannibalism.

Let me point out some of the psyche of the Blacks in order to try and understand his petty jealousy and envy.

Amongst the Black communities it is not allowed for individuals to show ingenuity or individualistic prosperity. The moment one Black person starts to rise a little above the others, he will be the first one to be hammered down by the community like a nail in a wooden floor. Those who do prosper are ostracised by their black tribes and it will be said of them that they are not real blacks that they are whites with a black skin...

That mentality still persists to this day, but this petty envy is accompanied with an inbred, inextinguishable, brutality that the whites of Africa came face to face with and learned about the hard way.

Ever since the white man set foot on South African soil, he has been shocked and horrified at the brutality of the blacks. No matter how much the whites wanted to believe in the “equality of man”, they were sadly confronted only with the brutality and reality of Stone Age savages.

Blacks of central Africa sold other blacks they have conquered into slavery to Arabs, other black tribes and also to whites. The moment one tribe had a bit more than the others, they would be prone to a nocturnal raid by neighbouring tribes who would kill all the men, rape the women and children, steal the cattle and incorporate the women and children into their own tribes.

Tribes who were not strong enough would flee the area. In sub Saharan Africa it meant that nobody wanted to flee north, because they knew it was a desert where they could not survive. So the only way was to flee south. The weakest of the weakest tribes were right in the front, followed by a slightly stronger tribe, followed by ever increasing stronger tribes further north, driving the weaker ones south.

Roundabout the same time that whites first settled in South Africa, black tribes first entered South Africa. They were contemporary settlers of the area now known as South Africa. In some areas whites were the first and in others, blacks were the first.

Blacks moving South and Whites moving north looking for better grazing for their cattle eventually met at the Fish and the Kei rivers around 1770...About 120 years after the Whites first (permanently) settled at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652 . To put it into perspective, it was about the same time as New York was founded in the USA.

Who were these Blacks they met at the Fish River? They were the Xhosa. The Xhosa were fleeing from the Zulus who murdered them en masse. Even until today the word or name “Xhosa” in Zulu is synonymous with the word “coward”.

The animosity between the Xhosas and the Zulus goes back hundreds of years. Mandela and Mbeki, the two previous presidents were both Xhosas, but the current president, Jacob Zuma is a Zulu. Zulus and Xhosas hate each other more than they hate whites and that says a lot.

But why do the other Blacks of South Africa hate the Zulus? It goes back to “King” Shaka. Note I put “King” in inverted commas. Blacks can never be kings of any kind...before one can be a King, one should first be a MAN.

Shaka was a sadistic psychopath who committed genocide on a larger scale than Rwanda has ever seen. The Zulus wiped out entire tribes, entire cultures in what is today known as the Mfecane or Dfecane (Annihilation). Shaka’s terror was so great that Mzilikazi, the chief of the Matabeles fled BACK NORTH...direction where Zimbabwe is today.

Amongst all this chaos arrived the White man in the region of the Xhosas. They fought nine “Wars” against the Xhosa between 1811 and 1879. 
The Frontier Wars, Kaffir wars or Xhosa wars

Everytime the wars were about Xhosas stealing cattle and other livestock, burning down homesteads, killing not only white farmer families in the most horrific torturing ways, but also the coloureds who worked for the whites.

It was at the time of the sixth Kaffir war that Piet Retief decided to trek with the other Voortrekkers.

Piet Retief and his party thought they could negotiate and buy land from the Zulus, but they were massacred on a hill at the kraal of the Zulu King, Dingaan when they respected the wishes of Dingaan to leave their weapons outside.

Every man and boy, around 100 in total, were clubbed to death. Retief was the last to be killed, so as to witness the death of his comrades.

Dingaan then ordered all Voortrekker laagers to be attacked along the Bushman’s River. An orgy of violence started. Families were camped at Bloukrans, Dorinkop, Moordspruit, etc. Cowardly blacks would attack them during the middle of the night, killing everyone in the most horrific ways. Women were brutally gang raped and pregnant women were cut open, their babies killed in front of them while they still lived. Small children and babies were picked up by their feet and their heads smashed against the sides of the wagons.

Among the Voortrekkers , 41 men, 56 women and 185 children were killed. In addition another 250 or 252 Khoikhoi and Basuto that accompanied the Voortrekkers were killed. A girl called Johanna van der Merwe (12 years old at the time) sustained 21 assegai wounds, but managed to survive.

The Voortrekkers built the town Weenen (meaning wailing) at the site.

The Bloukrans Massacre
Throughout the following decades up until the present day the whites of South have experienced this petty envy and brutality at the hands of blacks. Examples are legion. Boers retaliated at Makapansgat where blacks savagely murdered whites in the most horrific ways. Hermanus Potgeter was tied down to a rock bed and skinned alive like an animal while still conscious, he died while the blacks ripped his organs out.

More lately we saw the brutal black on black 
murders with the necklace method . We saw blacks storming into white churches with AK 47’s and hand grenades, opening fire on the unarmed congregation such as at the St James Church massacre. We have seen everything from brutal Muti murders to the evil torture preceding the brutal killings of White farmers and their family members in Rhodesia, Namibia and also in South Africa, most of the time nothing stolen. More than 3000 White farmers and family members murdered to date since the ANC took over in 1994.

It is necessary to reiterate that this violent nature of blacks are not directed at whites only, so the black behaviour apologetics who claim that this behaviour is retribution for wrongs committed by whites against blacks, have no leg to stand on, because most often than not this black violent nature is directed at their own kind as we have seen with Shaka’s defecane, Muti murders and necklacing.

No, this brutality, this murderous, stealing and other asocial behaviour of Blacks could never and can never be reconciled with the behaviour of the deeply religious and pious Boers of South Africa.

This violent behaviour of blacks was one of the rationales for Apartheid. The other was cultural differences. More on that in the next edition. For now it is important to realise that whites in South Africa never wanted to rule blacks. Whites wanted to separate from blacks and stay as far away from blacks as possible.

.../ to be continued

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Apartheid - Part 2


Second post from Mike Smith on Apartheid.

You can find his blog here. http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

This part explains the different cultures, languages, heritage etc between the many different races in South Africa and why they were separated, not just White from Black, but Black from Black, Black from Indian, Indian from White etc. Ever since the White man set foot in Africa, he has noticed various wars between Black tribes, especially between the Zulu's and Xhosa's. Due to the fact that most races / cultures cannot get along, even if they are the same colour. Apartheid was a policy where different cultures and races would not mix, a lot like oil and water. You can mix oil and water as much as you like, and for a small period they will seem to become one, but given time, they both separate from each other again and go their separate ways. A lot can be said about different races / cultures and this "Oil / Water" mixture. When they are forced together, they will "pretend" to get along, but given time, one tries to control the other, and soon they separate again.

A Culture defines who we are, what we are and what we do, it gives us an Identity of where we belong, were we came from and where we are going. To take away someones culture, is to destroy that person and take away his identity in total.

F V de Wet


By Mike Smith
23rd of April 2010

Nobody can understand Apartheid unless they understand the diversity of the people of South Africa.

Let us start with the whites.

In South Africa there are several groups of whites. The two main groups are the Afrikaans speaking and the English speaking ones.

The Afrikaners are the descendants from mainly Dutch, Flemish, French, German and some other Western European backgrounds. The Afrikaners have a unique culture, their own language and they are mostly protestant.

The English speaking whites of South Africa are from mostly British background. They are made up of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish descendants...as well as a large contingent of ex Rhodesians. These English speaking Whites of South Africa can today not be referred to as British anymore. Very few hold British passports. They developed a unique accent and culture in South Africa and are fully South African today. Their forefathers came to South Africa long before there were any Whites in Australia or New Zealand.

South Africa also has other large white communities such as the Portuguese (300,000), the Greek (+/- 100,000) and the Jewish communities (70,000). They all have their own religions and cultures. The Portuguese are mostly Catholic, the Greeks are orthodox Christians and the Jews are mostly orthodox Jewish.

Further, South Africa has a Chinese population who arrived around 1870 to work in the gold mines until Chinese immigration was stopped by an exclusion act in 1904. The South African Chinese community is about 300,000 strong.

The Cape coloureds are also diverse and complex from a wide variety of backgrounds. Today there are the two main groups, Christians and Muslims. There is about 4 million coloureds in total.

It is commonly understood by most foreigners and also amongst many South Africans, that the coloureds are a mixture of Black and White ancestors. This is false. The coloureds as a group existed long before the Whites saw any Blacks for the first time around 1770 in the Eastern Cape about 1000km from Cape Town. This was 120 years after the Dutch settled at the Cape (1652).

The indigenous people of the Cape were the Khoi Khoi(Hottentots). They were almost 90% 
annihilated by a smallpox epidemic at the Cape (1703).

The Dutch also imported artisans such as bricklayers, carpenters, etc from Malaysia and Indonesia. These were the Muslims or Cape Malay people. The KhoiKhoi and the Cape Malay also intermarried and interbred. A small percentage of Whites also married coloureds, but it was actually very rare. A large amount of the passing sailors frequented coloured prostitutes. Today the Cape Coloured features vary from dark brown to almost White or yellow and their hair vary from peppercorn curly to straight black. Some have KhoiKhoi features and some Arabic or Malaysian. Today the Muslim and Christian coloureds have distinct and different cultures. Some speak a dialect of Afrikaans and some English.

In Natal we find most of South Africa’s Indian population. They total about one million and are descendants of indentured labourers (for the sugar cane plantations) and traders from India and Sri Lanka. They speak mostly English, but many still speak Tamil, Hindi or Urdu. Their religion is mostly Hindu but many are Muslim.
So far I have not even started with the blacks yet.

Most foreigners believe that South Africa has one group of Blacks that speak one language and have one culture. Nothing could be further from the truth.

South Africa’s Black population is not homogenous. There are several different tribes who all speak different languages and who have distinct and hugely different cultures.

There are main tribes such as the Zulu, Xhosa, Tswana, Venda, Ndebele, Sotho, Swazi and the Shangaan/Tsonga people. But it does not stop there, because these main tribes consist of smaller tribes. For instance the Xhosas are made up of Mpondo, Fingo, Thembu, Bhaca, Nhlangwini and Xesibe tribes. The Sothos are made up of North Sotho (Bapedi) and South Sotho (Basotho) tribes. The Tswanas are only a part of the main tribe known as the West Sotho. Other tribes that make up the West Sotho are the Kwena, Kgatla, Tlhaping, Tlharo, Rolong and Ngwato.

The Venda tribe is made up of mainly the Mphephu and the Lemba, but in total the Vavenda can be bordered off into 27 clearly distinguishable tribes.

The Zulus are made up of about 200 smaller tribes

The Swazis are made up from the Nkosi, Shongwe, Khumalo and Hhlatyawako tribes. The Northern Sothos are made up from the Pedi, Koni, Phalaborwa, Lobedu and Kutswe tribes....

And so I can go on...All in all South Africa has nine official Black languages, with 23 sub categories and innumerable dialects.

Yes, these different tribes of South Africa all have different languages, cultures and belief systems. The Vendas for instance have a special affinity to crocodiles. The Zulus consider themselves as a warrior tribe and they do not circumcise their boys when they are initiated into manhood, they have to kill a bull with their bare hands. The Xhosas on the other hand do circumcise their boys and therefore Xhosas consider Zulus as mere boys regardless of their age.

When a Xhosa and a Zulu work together and they have words, the Xhosa will first and always accuse a Zulu of being a boy, thus not a man.

Another remarkable piece of information that very few people know about is that the Lemba people who form part of the Venda tribe are JEWISH.

No. They did not convert to Judaism after meeting some Jewish immigrants to South Africa. President Kruger found them already with their Jewish belief system going back more than two thousand years. They migrated from the Kenya or Ethiopian regions. 
South Africa’s black Jews

I hope that the reader can see that South Africa is a palette of people, cultures and religions, but also note that I started with the white people who were leading in the atomic age into Africa and I ended with Blacks who are for all intents and purposes still nomadic Negro tribes stuck in the stone-age.

With this background, is it really so unimaginable and difficult to understand that the way of “Separate development” (Apartheid) was the best and fairest solution for the problems of South Africa?

.../ To be continued

Tuesday, September 13, 2011


Nie dat ek n probleem het met n "once-off wealth tax" nie, die probleem is dat hulle net verwys na wit mense en aandring dat alle wit mense geld gemaak het uit Apartheid. Kom ons stel die storie reg, ja wit mense het geld gemaak in daardie dae deur hulle besighede ens, nie van Apartheid nie. N besigheid het verkopers (besigheid wat diens of produkte voorsien) en dan is daar die kopers (mense wat gebruik maak van die dienste of produkte). Geen produkte of dienste voor 94 is verkoop of gekoop onder die handelsmerk "Apartheid" nie. So geen wit mens het geld uit "Apartheid" gemaak nie. As dit gaan oor die feit dat mense geld gemaak het tydens die jare van Apartheid, dan is dit nie net wit mense wat die tax moet betaal nie. Talle SWART, INDIER en ander besighede het ook geld gemaak tydens die Apartheids jare soos die Taxi bedryf, wat dan nog van die firmas en besighede wat in Soweto en ander swart gebiede ontstaan het daardie jare?


F V de Wet


Constitutional law expert supports wealth tax

2011-08-15 22:25

"Johannesburg - Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos came out in support on Monday of Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu's call for a once-off wealth tax imposed on those who benefited from apartheid"
"Not only is a wealth tax on white South Africans who earn a minimum amount of money constitutionally valid," De Vos wrote on his blog,Constitutionally Speaking. "It is also an important and welcome idea that must be supported by all right-thinking South Africans with even a smidgen of a conscience or common sense.The tax would be a small gesture towards reconciliation and redress, he said"
Hier is waar dit half snaaks raak. Hy beweer dat jy as wit Afrikaner, met n minimum salaris, n tipe tax moet betaal vir Apartheid
"If I had been born black and poor, I almost certainly would not have gone to University and I would almost certainly never have been a Law Professor at UCT [University of Cape Town], earning quite a nice salary, thank you."
De Vos criticised the FW de Klerk Foundation for rejecting the idea of a reparations tax, and for saying in a media statement that it would be unconstitutional to do so.
"Such measures are not 'reverse discrimination' or 'positive discrimination' but are rather 'integral to the reach of our equality protection'."
ConCourt ruling
De Vos cited a ruling that was handed down by the Constitutional Court, titled Minister of Finance versus Mr Van Heerden in July 2004.
In this case, Van Heerden had complained that parliamentarians who first joined parliament in 1994 were getting better pension benefits over a five-year period than those who were parliamentarians in the apartheid era.
"Mr Van Heerden, an old apartheid era parliamentarian, complained that the scheme discriminated against whites because the vast majority of new parliamentarians in 1994 were black and those who served before 1994 were mostly white.
"The court rejected this argument, pointing out that Mr Van Heerden was still going to be far better off in terms of his pension than any parliamentarian who entered parliament in 1994 for the first time."
De Vos argued that this judgment supported Tutu's idea of a once-off reparation tax, which the Archbishop again raised during a lecture at the University of Stellenbosch last week, in reference to a recommendation made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
"A once-off wealth tax imposed on white South Africans who earn more than a certain amount as a small gesture towards reconciliation and redress would almost certainly pass the Van Heerden threshold because whether one supported apartheid or struggled against it, one invariably benefited from it if one is a white South African (whether born before or after 1994)," said De Vos.
Annual tax
He would go even further and suggest that an annual tax be imposed for up to two years.
"Why not impose such a tax of – say – two percent or three percent of one’s annual income for a period of a year or two and then divert that tax into a special fund, administered by a respected panel of experts...
"How many school libraries could be built with that money? How many fully stocked laboratories could be built with that money? How many soccer fields and pavilions could be erected with that money? 
"How many new computer labs with internet access could be provided to students who now can only dream of having access to computers and the internet?," asked De Vos.
"The problem is, of course, that some white people – out of shame or ignorance or maybe a bit of both – do not want to admit that white South Africans almost all benefited from apartheid." 

Apartheid - Part 1


This is a series written by Mike Smith about Apartheid. Apartheid was something that was not fully understood by the youth of today, nor was it experienced in full by us. All we know, is that it was deemed "Evil" and a "Crime against Humanity". Due to this, I have searched far and wide, read many books and searched the internet constantly for something that could explain Apartheid to me in order for me to understand it. Everywhere I searched and read, all I saw was what the "Liberal Leftist" media mentioned which was a bit of a one sided story. They simply published bits and pieces of the so-called "Atrocities of Apartheid" and made it out that only whites were to blame for the "Crime Against Humanity". That is until I found this series, that told a different side of the story. 

So please read the other side of the story and make up your minds.

His Blog can be found here: http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

F V de Wet



By Mike Smith
22nd of April 2010

When we were children. We could never understand what the church minister meant when he said that all sins are sins and all sins are equally bad. It did not make sense to us, because telling a lie is not as bad as murdering someone...or is it?

Personally I believe that lying is far more dangerous than murder. Lying can kill entire civilisations.

You see...Lying is an art. There are many facets to it, but basically successful lying works like this:

You start with a massive lie. Some idiots will believe it, some will be mildly sceptic and a few intelligent ones will dismiss it as hogwash. Then you tone the lie down a bit, and those mildly sceptic ones becomes believers and the few intelligent ones who thought they knew the truth start doubting themselves and think, “OK, some of it might be true, but it is mostly bullshit”.

And so it carries on...you tone the lie down a little bit more until everyone accepts it as the truth.

See, people do not believe lies, because they have to, but , because they want to...But there are lies and then there are statistics...and then there is the truth. And that is what I profess to.

And so the lie of Apartheid and everything about it was started as a massive lie until Apartheid was accepted as a crime against humanity on the 30th of November 1973.
The Crime of Apartheid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid
Was it a Crime? A Crime against humanity?...or was it the fairest system ever created for multicultural societies?

These are the questions I want to explore in a series of articles.
“Why”, you ask?

This so called “Crime of Apartheid” is a daemon released from Pandora’s Box. It has far reaching consequences that were previously not considered. It has consequences and it is making people nervous...everyone from international corporations, international church organisations to sovereign nations are currently biting their nails...

What is the motivation to open Pandora’s Box? Does common sense not tell you to rather keep it shut? Do you really want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes?
When it comes to “The Crime of Apartheid”, the only motivation is GREED.
So who are these greedy people brave enough to open Pandora’s Apartheid Box? They are called

The Khulumani support group

Khulumani means “To speak out” in the Zulu Language.

So let us speak out. Let us not hold back anymore. Let us not pay 20,000 blacks R30,000 “restitution for suffering under Apartheid” like the ANC did after the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission”).

To understand it better I have to take you back a while to when us whites willingly handed power over to the Blacks in 1994...

We thought we had an honest deal. The deal was actually simple. We wanted the international community to lift all economic and sport sanctions against us so we could play Rugby and take part in the Olympics. In exchange we asked the ANC to stop planting bombs in shopping centres and landmines on farm roads, we told the international community that we were willing to bury the hatchet with the ANC, provided they do the same.

We wanted to bury Apartheid and build a fantastic country all working together to make the country even stronger than what it was. We thought it was achievable, because we always got on well with our Black domestics in our homes or our black colleagues at work.

We knew nothing about the communist agitations happening in the townships. Most of us, were political dunces at the time. Our political beliefs were very liberal after we left (brainwashing) school and entered the realm of Liberal activist student politics.

The reality was that when we buried the hatchet, the ANC continued the struggle. They have not at the time, neither now achieved their ultimate goal, which is a total communist South Africa...and therefore will continue the struggle until there is not a single white person left in South Africa.

How did I realise that the ANC was continuing the struggle?

I saw it with the TRC, I saw it with the introduction of Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment. I saw that the ANC was not willing to let it all go. They were not interested in burying the hatchet. The ANC was not interested in “A better life for all”.

The ANC was only interested in making as much money for themselves and screw the rest of all South Africans, Black or White.

The ANC equals Greed. Nothing will ever be enough. You cannot bargain or deal with them, because they will take everything you put on the table and demand more. It is futile to deal with these Marxist terrorists. Dealing with them will mean you will lose everything you have and they will not give up a single thing they have. You will keep on giving until you have nothing more to give, at which point you become expendable. That is when they will kill you. We as ordinary whites in South Africa are fast approaching that stage.

Along came the TRC who paid blacks in South Africa R30.000 each for their bullshit stories about how Apartheid oppressed them. The oppression and benefits will be dealt with in another article, but as far as I am concerned, when someone offers me R30,000 then I can also suck a brilliant story of oppression out of my thumb.
Make the sum people. R30,000 paid out to about 20 thousand black??? R600,million...is that enough?

So to take stock. We thought it was enough to hand over our country that we built with our money and our expertise. We thought it was enough to give them a first world country with a nuclear and space program. We identified every single black who supposedly suffered under Apartheid, we believed all their lies all 20,000 who came forward, we paid them restitution of R30,000 each...

But let me tell you, it was not enough, It will never be enough with these Marxist terrorist scum. No, they want blood. They want us to pay in blood...to the very last drop...more on that later.

They have started a court case in the USA against international companies who benefited from Apartheid. They name Land Rover (Leyland) and Mercedes who supplied vehicles to patrol the townships, they mention Oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell who ironically donated their headquarters in SA to the ANC that is now called Luthuli House. They name Barclays Bank who withdrew from SA and at the same time changed their name to First National Bank and continued to fund the ANC.
These same ANC scum now turns against their international masters and demands restitution...

But what about countries that supported the previous National Party?
We immediately think of Taiwan and Israel? Surely if you can claim restitution from international corporations who supported Apartheid then you can also claim restitution from countries who supported the Apartheid government at the time.
See, what I mean about opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box? The ANC should have left sleeping dogs lying, but no, greed has no brakes...

So let us see where this journey takes us. Let us see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
At the end of this series you will see that we never had any friends, nobody had any friends. Nobody is friends currently and nobody will ever be friends with anybody. Everybody lies about everyone else.

The biggest lie is the one that everyone believes about Apartheid.
These scavenges are all in it for the money and the power.

It is a dog eat dog world out there my friends, and we as White South Africans chose to be the EPOL biscuits.

.../to be continued.