Apartheid: A Just War for Demographic Survival of Boer Afrikaners
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfdtX5LV9XU
South Africa was populated by White and Black settlers. The Whites arrived at the Cape in 1652, predominantly from the Netherlands, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, to find only the Bushman as indigenous natives. These were hunter gatherers whose mode of existence kept overall numbers small. In approximately 1770, the eastward migrating Boers came into contact with the southern migrating Xhosa Africans, originally from Central Africa, at the Fish River in the Eastern Cape. Population pressure disputes over the ownership of farming land and cattle resulted in what is known as the Cape Frontier Xhosa Wars. Many Boers then migrated north to found the Free State and Boer Republics.
One hundred years later, the first census in 1868 revealed a country of 1,134,000 of whom 50% were settlers originally of European origins, and 50% were Black and coloured settlers who arrived respectively from North Africa, or as slaves from the Far East.
In the next 80 years the European population decreased from 50% to less than 25%. By 1948 the census revealed South Africa’s population to be 11,957,000, of which Africans were 8,500,000 (79%) and Europeans 2,500,000 M (21%).
The advocates of a Boer Apartheid republic understood that exponential African population growth would, if unopposed, lead to them being ethno-culturally swamped — a major concern also of prominent Israelis and a motivating factor for Anders Breivik. To do nothing amounted to ‘national suicide’ of White South Africans. They also saw the breeding campaign as an act of war. Apartheid was their political Just War of Self Defense.
The choice before us is one of these two divergent courses: either that of integration, which would in the long run amount to national suicide on the part of the Whites; or that of apartheid, which professes to preserve the identity and safeguard the future of every race, with complete scope for everyone to develop within its own sphere while maintaining its distinctive national character.— Dr. D.F. Malan’s National Party in 1947. (1964-01-10: ICJ: Ibid (www.icj-cij.org): Counter-Memorial filed by Gov. of the Rep. of S. Africa (Books I-IV), p.473)
‘The ultimate objective of Apartheid is to implement ‘separate and parallel’ Bantu states, for complete self-goverment, after a period of transition. It will be a dual commonwealth in which the Bantustans will be constituent units. Self government is to be developed on the basis of tribal traditions, the objective being full democracy, but in the form most readily assimilated by the African…’ – Clarence B. Randall, advisor to President Kennedy, Counter-Memorial filed by Gov. of the Rep. of S. Africa (Books I-IV), p. 494; International Court of Justice (www.icj-cij.org)
Judge Jason G. Brent’s response to an individual doubting that the implementation of Apartheid was an act of Just War makes it clear that he, and by extension the pro-Apartheid movement, saw the ANC’s breeding campaign as act of war:
We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.
The roots of the political principle of apartheid are found in biology and ecology. The logic of apartheid is implicit in the competitive exclusion principle, a well known ecological theory. Simply stated the principle is that if you introduce 
two species competing for the same resources into the same niche, the ultimate outcome of their competition is predictable by comparing their rates of reproduction. The slower breeding species will always go extinct, unless it evolves a counter-strategy, a “behavioural shift,” that negates the competitor’s faster reproduction (see, e.g., Stalking the Wild Taboo, by Garrett Hardin: Part 4: Competition)
For animals such a behavioural shift would mean finding a food source that can sustain the slower breeding species, which the faster breeding species does not consume. In South Africa, Apartheid was legislated as a non-violent political and territorial defense, to exclude the faster breeding Africans from the slower breeding Europeans key resources — homeland territory and political institutions.
To impartially, rationally and reasonably analyse the nature and causes of Apartheid, the honest conclusion is that Apartheid was a Just War for Boer Afrikaner demographic survival because it was a measured response to the ‘Swart Gevaar’ (Black Peril) African breeding war.
As far as relations with the other peoples of South Africa were concerned, the National Party believed initially that its interests could be best served by following a policy of “separateness” — or apartheid. It felt that, only in this manner, would the Whites in general — and Afrikaners in particular — avoid being overwhelmed by the numerical superiority of the Black peoples of our country. Only in this manner would they be able to maintain their own identity and their right to rule themselves. — F.W. de Klerk submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC); 16 January 1997; my emphasis.
According to social geographer John Western in Outcast Cape Town (see also Arthur Kemp’s The Lie of Apartheid) the two primary motivations for implementing Apartheid were fear of demographic swamping due to the ‘swart gevaar’ and secondly the belief that segregation benefited all. This is enshrined in the ‘friction theory’ principle, to be discussed below. In fact Western states that if certain demographic factors had been different in South Africa, Apartheid may not have occurred: “Even once apartheid was legislated, the ‘Nationalists with all their Sowetos could hardly keep up with the Black demographic realities of rural-urban migration and absolute population increase. At immense cost, they as it were, ran as fast as they could, only to stay in the same place” (p. xix).
On the issue of Apartheid’s use of friction theory as a justified response, Western writes:
A central justification for [Apartheid’s racial residential segregation] viewpoint, that segregation is in the interest of all, is enshrined in the “friction theory.” The belief is simply that any contact between the races inevitably produces conflict. Thus, the minister of the interior, introducing the group areas bill to Parliament on 14 June 1950, stated:
Now this, as I say, is designed to eliminate friction between the races in the Union because we believe, and believe strongly, that points of contact — all unnecessary points of contact — between the races must be avoided. If you reduce the number of points of contact to the minimum, you reduce the possibility of friction. … The result of putting people of different races together is to cause racial trouble.
… The friction theory has some measure of sense to it, as may be illustrated by considering the work of Robert Sommer (1969, pp 12, 14 and 15), who wrote:
[Animal studies] show that both territoriality and dominance behaviour are ways of maintaining social order, and when one system cannot function, the other takes over… Group territories keep individual groups apart and thereby preserve the integrity of the troop, whereas dominance is the basis for intragroup relationships. … Group territoriality is expressed in national and local boundaries, a segregation into defined areas that reduces conflict.
The anti-Apartheid movement were very aware that Apartheid was legislated and implemented as a political response to ‘swart gevaar’ exponential black population growth. Consequently a non-violent option available to them was to remove Apartheid’s cause of concern. On 14 April 2011, Jus Sanguinis submitted an Official Request to EU anti-apartheid organisations, via EU High Rep. Catherine Ashton:
Prior or subsequent to the ANC’s M-Plan declaration of war against Apartheid did any EU anti-Apartheid organisation advise the ANC or any SA anti-Apartheid organisation to avoid/suspend the violent ‘liberation struggle’ campaign against the Apartheid Government?
Was there any advice to launch instead a non-violent cultural and political campaign to stop the African ‘swart gevaar’ breeding-war in order to demonstrate the ANC’s honourable intentions in line with Just War doctrine?
These questions are important to ascertain the responsibility of EU countries for the consequences of the anti-Apartheid campaign for South African Whites. So far there is no indication that EU countries or international agencies did anything to moderate the ANC’s campaign. Neither did they condemn the ANC’s ‘Operation Production’ campaign which guaranteed young men who signed up to the ANC free sex with women members; while ANC women were forbidden the use of contraceptives. Women who refused to be forcefully impregnated or used contraceptives, were accused of being Apartheid agents, which was punishable by being burnt to death by the necklace (see Witchcraft and the State in South Africa, by Johannes Harnischfeger).
Just War and the Tragedy of the Commons
Just War Theory is a derivative of International law, which deals with the justifications — theoretical or historical — for war and how and why wars are fought. The theoretical aspect is used by politicians or historians to determine whether a war can, or could be ethically justified, and what forms of warfare are, and are not allowed. The Just War tradition, or historical aspect of Just War Theory dates back to the concept of chivalry, or more specifically the codes of military honour conduct that have held currency with the military elite since the age of chivalry.
If we impartially and unemotionally examine the motivations for implementing Apartheid it meets all the requirements for a just war of self defense: It was a just cause to ensure Afrikaner demographic survival; it was a last resort; it was declared by proper authority; it possessed morally right intention; it had a reasonable chance of success; and the end was proportional to the means used.
The ANC’s anti-Apartheid movement on the other hand meets none of the requirements to be considered a Just War: The ANC had no just cause: The ANC could have non-violently ended their breeding war; which would have terminated the requirement for Apartheid. The ANC had no right intention: Apartheid raised Black living standards to the highest in Africa. The ANC had no proper authority: the majority of Black South Africans did not want Black rule. The ANC did not use proportional force: they implemented a people’s war of terror to induce the African population to join the ‘liberation struggle’. The ANC’s Declaration of War was not a last resort: The ANC’s declaration of war was founded on the Frantz Fanon and Black Liberation Theology principles that the native’s colonized mind can only be liberated by violence on the rotting corpse of the settler.
What if the high Black reproduction rate was not due to the ANC’s breeding campaign? Just War doctrine still works well enough to justify Apartheid because the policy of separate development was defensive, a last resort, and moderate compared to the threat posed. Apartheid was much closer to this ideal than other measures employed in ethnic conflict: slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and demographic swamping. Those who defend the Black struggle as generally not constituting a war and therefore not warranting a warlike response from the White authorities should note that Apartheid was generally non-military and peaceful, though state power everywhere ultimately depends on the monopoly of armed force. It might be argued that Apartheid was unfair, for example in the size of the Bantustans compared to White areas. But unfairness does not justify resort to killing. A political resolution would have been found if large numbers of Blacks had been dissatisfied enough to agitate for reform. Certainly any attempt to swamp Whites through rapid reproduction was unjustified because it reduced everyone’s prospects of a decent outcome and was sure to harden attitudes.
The ostensible purpose of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was to investigate the ‘nature and causes’ of Apartheid; so that these causes could be addressed and resolved. A fundamental primary motivation for implementing Apartheid legislation was White South Africans fear that the ‘swart gevaar’ (Black population explosion) would overwhelm Whites and lead to their racial displacement. The TRC totally and utterly ignored this avenue of enquiry, ignoring any and all evidence justifying the argument for Apartheid. Consider the following analogy. Imagine if you live in a dangerous neighbourhood and, sincerely believing that a car closely following you has malicious intentions, you speed up to get away from it and you are charged for speeding. A Judge who refuses you the opportunity to submit your subjective state of mind and fears into the court record as mitigation and who refuses your efforts at discovery to investigate the evidence of the intentions of the car following you, would not be acting impartially.
Rainbow Illusions: Truth and Reconciliation Fraud
“The [Truth and Reconciliation] Commission also said that there could be no healing without truth, that half-truths and denial were no basis for building the new South Africa, that reconciliation based on falsehood would not last, and that selective recollection of past violence would easily provide the mobilisation for further conflict in the future. If these are its criteria for the role of truth in promoting reconciliation, it has failed to meet them.” — John Kane-Berman, SA Institute of Race Relations; preface to The Truth About the Truth Commission, by Anthea Jeffery
Jus Sanguinis argues that the TRC was a fraud, because — in addition to all the arguments documented by Anthea Jeffery and others documented by Jus Sanguinis, not all included here for brevity’s sake — the TRC failed to make an impartial enquiry into the motives for Apartheid, in particularly Afrikaners’ well grounded fear of being swamped by the ‘swart gevaar’ (Black peril) population explosion.
In fact when it comes to population policy issues, the TRC made no effort whatsoever to enquire into any population policy-related matters, whether as political, economic or psychological causes of Apartheid’s coercive elements. This was despite it being common knowledge that countries with large populations of idle young men, known as “youth bulges”, account for 70–90% of all civil conflicts.
For these and other reasons documented in the Boer Volkstaat Petition, Jus Sanguinis agree with the conclusions of the Volksraad Verkiesing Kommissie (VVK), that the only way that Afrikaners could have avoided the fate of all European minorities in other post-colonial African states was for them to abandon their dependence on non-White labour, to negotiate an ethno-Volkstaat, where they would have formed the only and outright majority to rule themselves.
Consequently, our petition calls for: [A] International political and legal recognition for a Boer-Volkstaat in South Africa; or in the absence thereof; [B] The enactment of Jus Sanguinis right-of-return legislation by the relevant progenitor EU nations, for EU citizenship for African White refugees.
Printed copies of the Boer Volkstaat Briefing Paper (p.201) may be purchased for Jus Sanguinis fund raising purposes, at R150; plus postage.
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
Animal studies] show that both territoriality and dominance behaviour are ways of maintaining social order, and when one system cannot function, the other takes over… Group territories keep individual groups apart and thereby preserve the integrity of the troop, whereas dominance is the basis for intragroup relationships. … Group territoriality is expressed in national and local boundaries, a segregation into defined areas that reduces conflict.
Please explain.
Pay a lengthy visit to Los Angeles, Anon2. There you will find your explanation … plus a lot more just to drive the point home.
The best and safest explanation might be found in George Lincoln Rockwell’s “White Power” -the XV Chapter.
Principle of territoriality: in order to survive a race needs a homeland. Otherwise it will be destroyed. Multi-racialism finally means genocide. As proved by some biological experiments – including the one with the paramecium. It was verified using mammalians.
This principle is illustrated powerfully by the situation in different American and European cities.
The Leader Principle or Fuhrer Principle it is the rule by the best. As it was observed in the animal kingdom. At least at the social species. It is opposed to democracy – the rule of mob.
Breaking these laws will lead to chaos, war and finally to the extermination of one or another race that is involved. South Africa being such a case. Whites are exterminated by a competing race. A race with much more natural habits (in conformance with the natural laws) than the South African Whites. Better than anyone else maybe. Gifted by God with beauty, courage, resilience, power, and wit, yet to be exterminated by a not so gifted race living in a much more natural state – from these laws perspective.
@Razvan
Jews have proven that a group doesn’t need a homeland in order to survive and, indeed, thrive.
The law is valid even in this case.
When they haven’t a homeland they fought for one. And this is the very essence of Zionism.
They still had their ghettos and their quarters and their shtetl, sthot or dorf. Which means territory. Parts of other people homeland.
Every time and every Gentile-Jews relation started with a honeymoon – they were pretending to serve some “wise Emperor” (Napoleon III, Bismark, Friedrich the Great, Queen Victoria, Maria Theresa or Franz Joseph or even some Ottoman sultans) and ended in a total war and expulsion. Because the pain and devastation imposed on the occupied people was unbearable.
From their point of view the the homeland is something temporary, only to be depleted and left for another one when the slaves are too angry to take orders anymore. As a measure of precaution they also need a night asylum when chased out from every other place, or a trampoline to jump in another place.
They are waging war and occupying territories. Only by different means and different purposes.
Doing good work.
Apartheid in South Africa was not sustainable.
A White South Africa – What Went Wrong?
http://www.davidduke.com/general/white-western-nations-what-is-going-wrong_4236.html
The White Man’s Kryptonite: cheap, Non-White labor. I will bet dollars to donuts that on any archaeological dig of any mysterious White civilization that suddenly failed to thrive, digging a little deeper will uncover the importation of alien Non-White labor that not only could not be assimilated but overwhelmed them through superior demographics. We are seeing it now in virtually every White country all over the world.
@ Lara Johnstone …
An excellent contribution. Succinct analysis of the core issues. I shall be using it for future reference. Well done and thank you.
Something that has truly baffled me over the years is how, whenever I’ve heard one of these White South Afrikaners being interviewed on a web radio program – is how very much like they all are to these naive, brainless, self-loathing white Tea Party morons here in America. Almost all, to a man or woman, sound as though they are clueless about the realities of race.
But, here is the thing that amazes me most about them – these white people have not lived their lives in gated, exclusively white communities that sheltered them from a daily, up-close and personal exposure to the African blacks. These whites have been surrounded by not only blacks, but the most primitive and least intelligent, least civilized and most violent blacks in the entire world – every day of their lives! So, how can these whites be so clueless?
This deliberately falsified and unrealistic image of blacks that the jews media uses to brainwash and deceive naive whites about the truly dangerous and violent nature of blacks in order to program us to lower our guard around them – this tactic can work fairly well in white nations where whites still have large areas of their nation where blacks are not a large percentage of the population, and so whites who have not lived around large numbers of blacks seem to swallow that TV manufactured deceit and have a more romanticized and Utopian-minded view of blacks. But, this cannot be said about these South Afrikaners. So, I have to scratch my head and wonder – what is wrong with the White race that seems to prevent so many of our people from grasping the harsh and sometimes deadly realities of race and racial differences?
One other thing. When I’ve listened to web radio shows that interview these South Afrikaners, and when the discussion gets around to the black terrorists who are stealing the farms and raping, torturing, mutilating and killing the white farmers and their families – one thing I’ve noticed about the South Afrikaners and it’s been extremely disturbing to me. I’ve yet to hear any real righteous anger in the voices of these white men or women. What I hear instead, or what I think I hear – is the sound of resignation, the sound of an almost child-like whine of disappointment over the fact that the realities of race did not conform to whatever foolish racial Utopian ideas that these South Afrikaners had been brainwashed by their Judas Goat, treasonous Christian church leaders to ingest and believe.
This convinces me more than ever that ‘Christianity’, or at least the current version of Christianity which preaches Communist egalitarianism – is the mortal enemy of every man, woman and child of European descent on this planet.
Clinging to a religion which works to help the jews and Cultural Marxists destroy the white race and to destroy – instead of preserving – White Western Civilization – is a fatal weakness that Whites must cure themselves of and do it fast, because time is running out.
As an Afrikaner (I left South Africa 34 years ago because I saw total racial separation as the only solution, and not the farce called Apartheid) I can only agree with the points you make. Most of my fellow South Africans, in spite of having it rubbed in their faces 24/7, are STILL living in liberal la-la land and it’s anthem “Why can’t we just all get along?”:
As far as your question, “what is wrong with the White race that seems to prevent so many of our people from grasping the harsh and sometimes deadly realities of race and racial differences?” is concerned, yes, I too have sleepless night trying to figure this one out. I do believe, as you do, that the churches play a large role in this, but I imagine this isn’t the whole story.
@ Luke …
Yes, your assessment of Christianity is surely correct, although you are inviting opprobrium from our American readers, who are by-and-large more closely (and blindly) linked to Evangelicalism than almost anyone else in the world.
If you ever have the time, research or browse the TOO archives and you will find my moniker arguing (occasionally) for a complete rejection of organized Christian worship and belief. Yes, it is a slave religion. In essence, it was created specifically to combat the cruel extremism of the Roman Empire. After Rome fell, it had no further use, but others had different ideas. The rest is history.
You might find this webpage interesting: http://www.asatru.org/aboutasatru.php
Most Western ‘academics’, and millions of Indians (at least those who have been schooled) always argue that Hinduism is the world’s oldest religion. It is not. Man’s oldest religion is that once practised by native Europeans, before Christianity was imposed upon them by their rulers, using swords, torture, bribery, and other inducements.
And as others have pointed out, Christianity is just another form of Judaism. Therefore, those who believe we can slay the dragons that are afflicting us by simply becoming more ardent Christians have surely swallowed gallons of Cool-Aid, and are too deeply mired in fantasy.
Judaism is just one of the institutions we must totally destroy before our descendants (and their geographic neighbours) can finally experience self-respect, peace, mutual respect, and freedom.
You would have to explain why European imperialism occurred under Christianity without large-scale immigration up to around 1950. One theory might be that what we call Christianity was subverted by liberal egalitarianism, becoming a ceremonial cover for the new ideology. Original Christianity may be a slave religion, but most whites are descended from slaves, vassals and villeins.
Re South AFrican Whites….Stockholm Syndrome. And we are going to get another rubric from Scandinavia: Oslo something, we don’t know yet. Oslo…Ostrichism?
(btw, it is a gross distortion to conflate Judaism with Christianity. For example, Norway and Scandinavia generally are Lutheran (I think) and very hard on the jews-zionism-Israel. Compare and Contrast the OT to the NT.)
The outcome will be seen in the progress of the Progress Party.
I have yet to see a realistic assessment of how Norwegians feel. The JMSM reports do not accord with my experiences three years ago in Norway…the amount of stated concern by real people about immigration.
The estimated 100,000 Osloans in the street protest against Breivik was not large, given the population of Oslo and surrounding towns. Was there a protest in Bergen, or Trondheim?…pretty good sized cities. Norway’s White population is about 4.8 million. J
Yes I think you are right. Christianity is the problem and its Protestant doppelganger Freemasonry. Christianity is the feel good religion, it encourages its members to not to consider that people may be bad or their philosophy (Judaism). They blame that on the devil. This allows the rich quasi-Christians, who know they can emigrate–by suburb or country (they never admit this to themselves) to ignore ‘other peoples’ problems–”Hey I don’t feel bad about those blacks (killing you lot) AND I accept the racial egalitarian arguments because it’s easy to do so and it feels good to think well of the world–Hallelujah !”.
This thinking is widespread in the West because the Left, etc (and their Jewish controllers) have completely stamped out any other version of thinking as being considered legitimate. Freemasonry pushes this as an unassailable incontrovertible ‘truth’.
I met an Afrikaaner and his wife on holidays last year and he was in denial. They were both polite about it but when it came down to the crunch he just said well, when its no longer a pleasing place to live then I’ll leave. From the description his more honest wife gave of the ‘new’ neighbors –she said you could always tell where a Black was living because the front of their house were un-kept–he’ll be booking a ticket out in the next 10 years .
Because the Jews have so thoroughly bashed our people with the endless Holocaust, people are afraid to demand the reality of the matter.
In Australia, we have the ridiculous situation where Muslim refugees are waiting in Muslim Malaysia for refugee status to emigrate to a Christian country, where they of course they soon build a Mosque and set up in opposition to the indigenous people. Our political ‘class’ are so totally in thrall to the Left, the idiocy isn’t pointed out. These low class Muslims are then dumped in working class suburbs. But let’s not forget the other angle of these criminals. They strip out the brains from the 3rd world and they import them as Doctors and IT specialist. Screw the countries they leave behind. Same with their ‘liberation’ of the Aboriginals in Australia, destroyed by alcohol and pornography. This criminal coterie are never made to confess to their crimes. The European peoples are their next target.
Joe Webb [July 29, 2011 - 4:00 pm] …
I appreciate the point you are attempting to make Joe, but it simply isn’t good enough; it is not up to your usual high standards.
It has taken me several years of study to realize, but Christianity is killing Europeans, as it has done in ever larger numbers ever since the Reformation (N.B. the various Protestant faiths are in fact closer to Judaism than is Catholicism).
Prior to World War Two, the British Fascists (under Moseley) warned of the real reasons why the British population (close cousins of the Germans) were being incited into a war mentality. History (particularly Revisionist History) has since proven most of what they said and believed in back then, correct.
The joke doing the rounds of the British Union of Fascists at this time, was that the Jewish national anthem was, ‘Onward Christian Soldiers.’
You can see exactly the same kind of mind-numbing nonsense being repeated to further the aims of the NeoCons in Iraq. How many times have we heard spokesmen in Washington (not to mention G. W. Bush) paint the Iraq Invasion in terms of a “Christian Crusade”.
Europeans will never be fully free of this centuries old madness until they finally find the balls to reject the Christianity hoax in its entirety, and get back to their natural spiritual roots, which are in fact far closer to Shinto Buddhism and Hinduism than most realize … but going much further back in time than both.
This is exactly what the NSDAP encouraged during the 1930s (e.g. the SS symbol was taken from the Runic alphabet meaning “good luck and success”) and I must assume this is what intimidates those who might otherwise take the plunge and see the light.
Abraham (a mythical figure of the Hebrews who never actually existed) and his 200 year old wife belong in the dry and barren desert where people go mad in the heat of the day, and not amongst the lush fields of the greatest civilization of people the world has ever known.
We should invite them en masse to come to the US and make give them a particularly blighted region (e.g, Detroit) as a self-governing autonomous region for say, thirty years, and see what they can do with it. Thats the least we can do to make up to the Afrikaners for what external self-hating white leftists did to their country. In fact, if we are really serious about white survival, their plight should be a cause celebre among us.
i agree, and our government is always accusing us of being, “anti immigrant”, so let’s make them reveal that they are actually anti white race.
Most Afrikaners are not blind to racial reality , the Afrikaners gave up power due to many false promises . Alternatively we were threatened by international banker financial ruin via Henry Kissinger in conversation with Pik Botha and De Klerk even indicated that the USA threatened with war .Our history should be seen in the context of our country being occupied by the british bankers since 1902 and the loss of the boer republics and amalgamating them with the rest of South Africa wherein neither boer nor Zulu or any other tribe had any say . Lord Milner was clear that he intended causing the resultant trouble and all just for the wealth under our feet . The BoerAfrikaner are truly just a bit tired of all this international meddling by international money . We will not perish !
Those British criminals are at it again in Libya !
A polite correction is necessary … Marvelous Spirit.
The criminals you refer to reside (mainly) within the motorway (autobahn) ring-road that circles London, known as the M-25.
They have UK Passports, and many were born in England, but they are not ethnically English and never shall be.
Their ultimate headquarters is London’s Square Mile in the “City of Westminster”. And their uncrowned King is whoever happens to be the Senior Rothschild male of the day (who is traditionally dubbed, and I kid you not, the King of the Jews)
Oxford and Cambridge (along with Eton, etc.) are their principal recruiting grounds.
Please understand that over 60 percent of Tony Blair’s governments were made up of Jews (including advisors and senior Civil Servants) of the ethnic Ashkenazi/Kazar persuasion.
Apartheid was based on the absurd premise that blacks would be capable of creating fully fledged functioning states out of the bits and pieces of left-over land called “homelands”. But if that were correct, then the liberals were right and there would have been no need for homelands/apartheid in the first place.
The fact is that wherever European colonialism has taken place, the indigenous way of life has been destroyed and the natives have had to assimilate into European society. In North America and Australasia, this did not in the long run pose a threat to Europeans, because they were in the majority. In Africa, insufficient numbers of Europeans arrived. If European colonialism had not stopped in the 20th century, the same process as occurred elsewhere might have occurred in places like South Africa, Rhodesia and perhaps Kenya. In a way, colonialism was like musical chairs. When the music stopped, some Europeans had succeeded in dominating new lands, but others found themselves “standing around”.
Not once during apartheid (and before then) did the rate of black migration to white cities and farms slow down. The harsh fact is that the colonialists knew that countries can only flourish under white rule and that blacks were suitable as labour. Over time, the black elite would be Europeanised and assimilated at a pace set by Europeans, while the others would remain subservient. The colonialists assumed that the era of white domination would continue for a long time – centuries even. They could not conceive of a time when Europeans would lose their self-confidence, will to power and ambition.
Apartheid bought whites in SA time but could not, and was never seriously intended to, create a completely white state. Mining, industralisation and commercial farming in SA were always based on the premise of cheap black labour.
The great tragedy of European Americans is that their elites are CHOOSING to import millions and millions of non-Europeans into their country when they should have learned that once you lose the numbers game, you lose everything.
As Joe Webb so accurately says, liberalism is white supremacy with a smiling face. The liberals’ problem is that they will not wake up to the fact that, for a variety of reasons, the assumption that non-whites will assimilate to our ways IS NO LONGER VALID. Europeans are living off a rapidly dwindling store of political, demographic, cultural and economic capital. The remaining bastions of white power (SA is no longer one) need to pull up the drawbridge and take a stand.
Europeans didn’t lose their confidence or will to power. Jewish controlled media destroyed it.
Beautiful music on the video sound track .
So, are there any numbers as to ‘blacks killed’ during apartied vs Whites killed AFTER apartied in SA at this time?
Do you mean blacks killed by blacks, or blacks killed by whites? First of all, many more blacks were killed by blacks during Apartheid than by whites.
As for the number of blacks killed by whites during Apartheid vs: the number of whites killed by blacks after Apartheid, you know the answer: the number of blacks killed by whites during Apartheid was tiny compared to the number of whites killed by blacks afterwards.
And why didn’t White South Africans operate a succesful secession when they had the power, also military power? Or at least an ordered and slow transition to an integrated country. What were they waiting for? To have 100 million Black South Africans to do it? No, they were so confident and greedy to believe that they would be able to handle the situation forever. I wouldn’t look for help in Europe, but in China. As long as the Chinese got all the raw materials they want, they wouln’t care who is in charge or the name of the country they are dealing with. Look at Sudan.
for all the facts figures etc on apartheid south africa see http://www.mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot .com
every article that is posted on this web site gets filled with comments blaming everything on Christianity. no matter what it is about, luke will show up to attack Christians.
this article is about the plight of our race in south africa being refused entrance to white homelands by our governments. surely you’re aware that our governments aren’t Christian luke, in fact, they are all a bunch of atheists who think just like you.
while europe was entirely Christian, the muslims couldn’t get past the danube. but now that europeans believe in nothing but what their television tells them, like you luke, muslims are raping white women in norway. yeah boy smart guy, you’ve got all the answers.
anyway, to get back on topic, this crime that is being committed against white south africans proves that the criminals in control of our governments aren’t going to be happy until the whites in south africa are victims of genocide. and that is unacceptable.
The Christians are themselves the worst emenies of Christianity. The made it a race since 325 when they took a Pagan Roman king as the protector of their faith. Instead of accepting Jesus as he was (a non-White), they turned him into a Roman to justify Talmudic accusation against him that he was the product of Roman soldier’s rape of Saint Mary (sic). They even never allowed some non-White to become the head of Catholic or Protestant Church. Funny, though, the great majority of the followers of these churches are non-White, most Asians, Africans and South Americans.
There are 72 Christian denominations – most of which hate each other. One thing which unite them – is their leaders’ submission to Jewish power and hatred toward Muslims.
Not long ago, American Jewish icon, Dr. Noam Chomsky asked the same question on ‘Democracy Now!’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/chomsky-why-arabs-hate-us/
White South Africans made the same mistake that 18th/19th century white Americans in the Southern USA made: that they could exploit cheap black labor and come away with only good to show for it. In both cases and both countries, whites made a fatal misjudgment ever allowing large numbers of blacks to live among them–whether as slaves or as coolie laborers. Both institutions were doomed to failure over the course of time, and it did not take a prophet like Nostradamus to see that.
The great majority of Afro-Americans are not Native Americans but descendents of African slaves brought into the West by the Judeo-Christian White colonists. Those Black slaves provided the most cheap labor and free sex to some extent. With the dawn of industrial age – the Black slave became a burden and therefore, had to be disposed off. They were freed as the people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are being ‘freed’ by the ‘humanitarian’ West.
The difference between the success of Whites in the US and Australia and its failure in SA – was that while in the fist two cases, Europeans were able to ethnically cleansed off almost the entire Native population – they failed to do in SA.
Now, Jews are carrying out their European colonial ethnic cleansing experience in the Middle East.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/palestine-and-western-schizophrenia/
When a 6′ 4″ white man (politician) takes away the right of a 5’4″ white man (citizen; farmer carpenter, etc,) to carry a pistol on his hip. How will the little guy protect himself and his family from those who would destroy him???
When this same 6’4″ white man (politician) takes away the right of a 5’4″ white man to own and protect his wife and kids (equality, feminism, homosexuality, etc.) what or who will keep the family together??
Again, when the big politician has disarmed the little factory worker both literally by taking his weapon and figuratively by forbidding his use of physical threat over his woman, who has lost their NATURAL weapon?… (hint, the woman still has her beauty)
When white men are “equal” but black men are on average 1″ taller than white men, who will the free white woman choose??
When every idiot on the block is allowed to vote, guess what color, and how big, your new neighbor will be???
When all the machines are owned by the 6’1″ politician, (Big Brother) does it really matter wheather the job of operating those machines goes to a man or woman? black or white? Christian or muslim?