http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gxumw_iSAg

Good question. I know many of the answers, but am not in a position to reply in depth (too complex for a few sentences). I also have not enough time, being involved in too many day-to-day problems, having recently (successfully) relocated to a new country at an advanced age.

In short, the whites did fight back, and how. This what you see now is a South Africa that is demoralised after defeat, just like the old Germany was after WWII, and the system is doing all in its power to keep them in that state of mind b ymeans of wiping out their history and reeducating them with lies. Anyone that sees throught these lies and wants to resists by force will be neutralized (recent example – the Boeremag saga, contact Dr. Dan Roodt of PRAAG for details).

A lot of the answers are contained in the period 1980 to 1989 (to be more precise, one should go back to the period of prime minister H.F.Verwoerd), when much of the resistance culminated and ended in defeat by means of treason by our politicians. The fighting was on two fronts – first of all the military fight during the South African border war (two front war – at the border, and then the internal war – see the book People’s War by Anthea Jeffery), where I was a combatant (as a national service man), and then the political struggle inside South Africa. A lot of that history has not yet been documented, but some literature has seen the light. If you want a more in depth information, one could always contact the Freedom Front Plus party (left-over of the old Conservative Party), where a lot of knowledge about those times have been preserved, and where on could get contact to old SADF (S.A. Defence Force) senior officers (the good ones), who would be too prepared to tell their story and that of the old South Africa. Another good source of information is the http://www.afrikanervolksparty.org. The language barrier however would be a challenge, but the Boer and Afrikaaner is fluent in English, but his literature where you can find in depth background, is in Afrikaans.

I always saw white South Africa as a microcosm of the West, and that one should study what happened there in order to understand what is happening in the West, and why the masses turn liberal in their thinking, even if they are not so in their hearts. South Africa was like a miniature Germany in many respects (race, nationalistic, etc.) and then was turned (by treason and coercion). And was sold out at the highest level by their own Prime Ministers and State Presidents. One needs a South African David Irving, because there is nearly as much revisionist material to be uncovered about that period of Apartheid which the world prefers not to know about anymore.

In fact, I fear that that history is very much in danger of getting lost forever, as the time witnesses are slowly passing away. Most stories will then land in family possession, for it is expensive and political incorrect to publish much of it, and one can just hope that those family members, of a younger and reeducated (as in Germany) generation still have an interest in the happenings of our generation and those before us.

And when people confront me about South Africa and Apartheid, I ask them if they understand what happened to the old Rhodesia, and for that matter everything in the movie Africa Addio, for those are also key events that led to the fall of the last African domino South Africa, which held a key to the prevention to the downfall of the past WWII West, believe it or not. See the scarce book, The Plot against South Africa, by Klaus Vaque, now old and in retirement, which paints the Big Picture of South Africa’s key roll in the international conspiracy that is in the final stages of creating a World Republic (title of one of three books in a series by Dr. Claus Nordbruch, not yet translated).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuldRCHNAYQ

and if you like the backing music she chooses, which you should, here it is in full.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdUtborIaiU&feature=related

Allow me to place one of history’s earlier reels into the projector for a moment. People have forgotten, if they ever knew, that the FDR-Churchill announced policy of unconditional surrender of the Axis powers was, at least at the time, widely condemned as intrinsically immoral. As it was, of course. The fact that, if it is now mentioned at all, it is mentioned as proof of the resolute greatness of these heroic men is to me irrefutable evidence of a scandalous degree of Judaization of Americans’ mind-set—and more, of their very capacity to make sound moral assessments. The fact that this issue is but a single, tiny cell of the animated cartoon that is now the almost universally received version of the meaning of World War II is too obvious to belabor. (Apropos which, one need not share the rather more than less favorable sentiments toward AH and Nationalsozialismus of Hadding Scott, fender, Luke, Chechar, and many other regular commenters to find himself freely granting—once his eyes have been opened to the Tribal role in the war’s planning, execution, and propagandizing—that AH was no more than the fifth or sixth worst world leader alive during that period. [I think, incidentally, that Michael Colhaze might just agree with this assessment.])

My point is that, feeling obliged to test principle against instruction taken from the past, I decline to embrace unconditionality, at least in secular matters. Put otherwise, unconditionality is not a bus I shall board, even if it condemns me to irrelevance (or worse) in discussions of the white plight.

… even if it condemns us to fight with one hand tied behind the back.

On that point I would disagree. I would encourage Whites to fight with both hands, while finding ways to make sure their opponents are hobbled.

MacDonald said that things may get so bad in the US, that it could be compared to Stalin’s reign (he mentioned the enemy using bullets to the head to silence people, once the Anti-Whites have enough power).

I would suggest that in the future (and not too distant) Whites will not think well of us for being reserved. They deserve people who will stand up for them. As Whites, we haven’t had anyone stand up for us in generations. Even the vaunted WWII Generation more or less surrendered to mass immigration, forced integration at gunpoint, mixed marriages, an end to property rights (serving who a business chooses) and free speech (demonizing anyone who supports Whites).

We should be the first to actively support Whites, as Whites, because they are under attack for being White, and no one defends them. I never in my life had a White elder really offer serious support to me as a White person being targeted. This is what we owe those Whites now being born into such a potentially horrific situation.

You make some very good points. Those who have no interest in fairness will only smirk when you tell them how unfair they are being. Haven’t we all seen the crooked smile of a used car salesmen when we say, “but you promised this car was in good working order”. The other side knows they are being unfair.

However, it is useful to point out to Whites that the game is rigged and that they cannot win under the current regime. But, I am not a fan of what has been called Universal Particularism – as I understand it briefly, the idea that first we establish that all groups have a right to exist and have homelands, and then as a subset, claim our right as Whites to be one of the groups that gets to exist.

As the kids say, epic fail. Blacks, browns and Jews are not interested in playing any such game. Now, if it is used to awaken Whites to their plight, then very good. But if we hope for some groovy trans-racial rave party, in which Jamal, Pedro and Abe demand that Whites have rights too, we are smoking something. Nor is it psychologically healthy to be looking to other groups to give us permission to exist.

If you’d be so kind as to emend the sentence above to read “Every book ghostwritten for him spoke of his animosity toward Whites,” I could agree with 100 percent of your comment rather than all save that sentence.

Funny! Well, I must say Obama is so narcissistic, and so utterly self-confident in the face of contrary evidence, that I once believed he could have written them (two books about the minutia of his life?)

But, Obama’s recent performances have been so weak (when he actually has to speak and think without teleprompter) that I’ve lowered my estimate of his intelligence. Also, although being stuck with Donald Trump in an elevator is my idea of Hell, I do find it amusing that no one even entertains the thought that Obama might take him up on his offer to release his college transcripts for $5 million.

We all know they would prove embarrassing.

Nor do I see how one can build a useful analysis (whether useful is understood in a pragmatic or a principled sense) of much of anything more consequential than playground activities on such a weak-tea conceptual foundation as “fairness.” In its vagueness it is profoundly unprofound and indeed smells badly of the modern racial-grievance-speak that has already done white people of the West incalculable harm. It is precisely the kind of term that, say, Virginia Abernethy would never use, especially in her classroom, a classroom that Fenria and several others on the apposite thread regretted, with understandable sadness, that they were never fortunate enough to be enrolled in.

Last but not least, given how many defenders of Ann Coulter recent threads have turned up (not a phenomenon I am in se critical of, please note), I see no excuse for bashing the far, far more intelligible and defensible (albeit clearly not always entirely praiseworthy) actions of Jared Taylor. How many of those who have commented on TOO’s threads have been subject to the sort of abuse, including threats to property and life, that Taylor has? If Kevin MacDonald, who has worn and walked in the same shoes, respects the guy, it should at the very least give pause to those who avail themselves of KM’s hospitality.

That’s all I have to say. I do not wish to be fruitlessly antagonistic.