Apartheid as Seen by the Boers: The Population History of South Africa

Editorial note: This is Part 2 of an article that appeared in TOO in 2011 and, relevant to the current program of dispossessing White farmers, gives some of the background of the crisis faced by the Boers whose origins in South Africa date to 1652.

Part 1.

Apartheid: A Just War for Demographic Survival of Boer Afrikaners

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.

32 replies
  1. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:

    It is coming in all White countries now. And if you resist, you are a racist.

    On another note. Cyprus has done so much to save Jews. How did Jews pay back? Kissinger plotted to have Turkey occupy all of Cyprus and expel Greeks from there. That it only happened at the measure of 40%, it is due to the heroism of Greeks. Kissinger called this the biggest blunder of his life.

    Same with Madeleine Albright that was saved by a Serb. How did she pay back? carpet-bombing of Serbia for the benefits of people who wanted to exterminate her — Albanians. That Clinton and Albright failed to make Serbia disappear from the map, it is not for lack of trying.

    • Lucy
      Lucy says:

      @Ger Tzedek. (((They))) nowadays show this kind of gratitude by accusing Poland for complicity in Nazi crimes under WWII. Behind the recently intensified (((gratitude))) to Poland is propably the fact that Jewish organizations in USA “have lost their patience” when it comes to their demands on Poland for compensation for Jewish losses of real estates during WWII. The originally produced figure was 65 billion US dollars, but “thanks to” to the in Poland freshly revived anti-Semitism the “suffering people” hardly will be satisfied with 65 billion. That those claims are about hairless properties, is of no relevance to the Jewish organisations, as the compensation from the anti-Semite Poland is meant to be spent on preserving/remembrance of the Shoah. Not surprisingly – considering who is in charge – Poland’s government has played into the claimants’ hands. The new PM, Mateusz Morawiecki, who himself has Jewish roots (https://www.timesofisrael.com/poland-swears-in-new-prime-minister-with-jewish-roots/), who had the impertinence to state that even Jews were to be found among those individuals who had helped the German Nazis brought on himself a diversity of invectives from Jews and their servants . According to Israel’s PM, Mr Morawiecki’s statement is an old school experssion of anti-Semitism.

  2. Irene
    Irene says:

    The white boer elite wanted a docile and cheap pool of black workers, relatively educated, so they created Apartheid: Blacks were tought Afrikaker, given medical assistence, converted to Christianity etc..
    Whites in SA would rather starve than do their own beds.
    The Dutch Reformed Church, despite the ongoing boer genocide, continues to this day to proselytise not only to SA blacks; they even go to neighbouring countries like Mozambique, Angola to spread their Gospel.
    Now if you think paying a visit to that little white utopia in the desert, Orania, bear in mind that if you’re not of the right protestant sectarian persuassion they will kick you out asap.
    The blacks would wipe out Orania in ten minutes, any time they decide.
    Begging for help to your Jew-God is not gonna help you now, even if “white” South Africa was, by far, the strongest supporter of the land of the people of the Book, Israel.
    As far as I’m concerned white South Africans are not welcome here in Europe.

    • tadzio308
      tadzio308 says:

      Most of your complaints against Boers more properly should be directed towards the English and Jewish South Africans whose behaviors more closely resemble what you describe.

      • James
        James says:

        It was really England/British empire that fucked up the original ethnostate for Boers that boers had on uninhabited land that today would be easy to fence/wall off. The British waged various typrs of war on the Boers and then final war and then annexed there land and brought in blacks from the north. Those northern blacks north of south africa also persecuted and genocided the other native ligter skin blacks the khosians over many generations prior. It is not an accident that there are so few pure breed khosian people around today, was it genocide by evil whitey? Or maybe it was the fact that they had been owned and intermixed by the bantu blacks and there last areas of freedom from those other blacks was in Namibia and south africa.

        • JM
          JM says:

          The Boers are not that innocent. They betrayed Rhodesia for a few morsels from Henry Kissinger and Gerald Ford. Under Apartheid Israel was a staunch friend of Afrikaner political leaders.

          The Boers were also smitten with Jews like Sammy (Samuel) Marks who was a personal friend of President Paul Kruger. After diamonds and gold were found the Jews turned on Boers and incited Brits to start a war that resulted in concentration camps against which there was a massive uproar in Britain.

          .To this day Boers being Calvinists adore Jews much like Zionist Christians in the American South.


          Today De Beers that was once owned by the (((Oppenheimer))) family supplies most diamonds to Antwerp a Jewish trading center in Belgium. De Beers is now owned by Anglo America that was started by Ernest Oppenheimer.

          Even dismantling Apartheid was mostly by Jews like Joe Slovo, Harry Schwarz plus Nadine Goldimeer.

          Follow the Jewish trail. The rest is just details.

          • ex South African
            ex South African says:

            The Boers did not betray. John Vorster did, but under pressure. The Boers involved with Kissinger are dead by now, so you can not throw todays whites into the same basket. I was a child back then. There is a difference between the electorate and the leaders. Back then there also was a weak information flow. There was no internet. One went by the papers. The papers controlled the information flow to the population, for the enemy also read these papers. The normal voter did not even exactly know what was happening at the Nkomati accords (Kissinger-Vorster negotiations over support for Rhodesia or not). The government made a move, and that became an established fact. Electiosn are only every five years. Inbetween the government of the day has a blank cheque. The electorate trusted the National Party. This trust was eventually betrayed and the papers covered it up as long as they were able to do so. Smaller parties like the HNP of Jaap Marais (google it) had no chance against the huge National Party apparatus and their supporting press. The HNP saw right through the Nationa Party mismanagement, but had no voice.

            Sammy Marks helped the Boers after the Anglo-Boer war. He himself suffered damage. He was not on the side of the goldbugs. The relationshio between the Boer and Jews was always complicated. Not all were against the Boer. Some became good Boers (as some became good Germans in Nazi-Germany).

            They as Calvinists adore Jews only as long because no one tells them the truth. But the leaders knew (there was a newsletter by one S.E.D. Brown, The South African Observer. As far as I know most in parliament subscribed to it). The Boers went into an uncomfortable alliance with Israel during the sanction years for self-preservation reasons. If there were no sanctions, it would not have been necessary. How do you tell the people the truth if you are in an alliance with Israel. Besides that, how do you tell the people that they have no chance against the Oppenheimers, because they were part of the victors of the Anglo-Boer war. You raise the JQ, and the world comes down on you because then you are put in the same category as Nazi-Germany. South Africa was weak, it would not have been able to fight a war on the scale of Germany. It had a demolized British army after WWII. With the first incursion into Angola 1975 (Operation Savannah) they got hit hard by the Cubans. They had to go back to the drawing board and evise their tactics. Afterward the army became stonger.

            The Boers lost the Anglo-Boer war. The regained independence, but never solved the Money Power problem, represented by Anglo-American and the Oppenheimers. The problem of the National Party was that all prime ministers after Dr. Verwoerd calved in before these powers. The normal man in the street voter never knew what they represented. How should they have known? There was no internet back then. It was a very fragile situation. South Africa, as a political small country, could not go the Third Reich way. They had to find other ways.

            The using of black labour is also not that straightforward. It has a history, and this history will put this part into a different light than just saying it is the fault of the whites.

            And so I can go on and on, but then I will start writing a book.

    • ex South African
      ex South African says:

      It is not so straightforward. I have addressed some of these matters in the readers comments over here:



      It is also worthwhile to look at the comments of one “Laager” and “Bantu Education”. They are ex South Africans too.

      It may perhaps be a good thing for me to open a file where I must document the comments and misconceptions of non South Africans on South Africas history, so that I can summarize my views at once. It is not good to reply only in dribs and drabs.

      I have done such an exercise on another website once before. The website has since been closed down and the webmasters were thrown into prison. I hope this does not one day extend to the commenters too.

      • ex South African
        ex South African says:

        And please take note! We are here not only talking about the expropriation of farm lands. Most probably one only has the image of the old Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, in mind. For South Africa it is the expropriation of everything, including property and factories owned by foreign corporations.

        I have a newsletter in my possession that the German government handed over €314,25 million for the year 2016-2017 in the form of development aid to the corrupt government of Jacob Zuma.

        Perhaps it was paid over as a form of bribery money, in order to protect German interests inside that country. Germany has a huge amount of investments inside South Africa througout the old and new dispensation. Volkswagen, Mercedes and BMW comes to mind. Every seventh job in Germany is dependant on the motor industry and its ofshoots. This makes one think what the current diesel scandal is really about, but that is a topic for another time. Rudolf Diesel patented the diesel engine with which one had no problem before, and suddenly it has become a big problem, despite huge advances with diesel technology and its emissions.


        If this is just a short term populistic expropriation decision in order to draw black voters back to the ANC again, remains to be seen. The ANC may have overplayed its hands this time in the eyes of the international community. We will see if perhaps only a watered down expropriation without compensation version will in effect be proclaimed.

        • Kznkid
          Kznkid says:

          May I throw a rock in the pool here, by asking a few genuine questions– actually burning questions, which have puzzled me for the last 10 years or so– Let me explain first: The USSR assisted the black struggle and were relegated as ‘commies’ or the Rooi Gevaar– which indeed it was. Interrupting myself here, I am a South African by the way … My father always maintained that Russia, from 1917 and even during the time of the USSR– was under control of the bankster gangster Bolshevik Jews, who murdered millions of Russian small farmers– simple folk, and took all their crops, left them dying of famine, while the Bolsheviks mercilessly pillaged and plundered Russia’s mineral wealth, destroyed Christian churches and cathedrals, as well as mosques, while not touching synagogues– and to boot, during WWII– most of the Red Army kommissars were Jews and belonged to the dreaded NKVD, hence the reason, many White Russians deserted the Red Army, because they would not be party to the butchering perpetrated by order of the kommissars.

          When Russian Christian Orthodoxy again became strong under Putin, I started seeking the truth about Russian history– because at the time I was also trying to find the truth about WWI and WWII and it would seem that global history, written by the masters of the west, is very much built on lies and behind the scenes orchestrated by the international Jewish banker elite.

          My dad’s words began to fall into place and with Obama bent on destroying the USA etc (a story for another time) — it was when Obama followed Bush to surround Russia with ICBMS’s while Obama’s own communist links had already become known– I listened with interest to Putin’s 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference– that is when I finally realised that the NWO guys were real and without flinching, Putin had dared call them out. Of course then the fat was in the fire and Bush gifted Putin the false flag affair in Georgia. Then Obama came and with cookie sharing Nulandistan and McCain, gave Putin the Maidan in Kiev, while he was in the middle of the Winter Olympics at Sochi. Now right on Russia’s doorstep!– they were already preparing for war and have not let up since, despite Putin and Lavrov consistently calling for negotiations and peaceful solutions.

          When Obama subsequently wanted to take away Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms. When Putin wrote a letter (which if I recall correctly) appeared in the New York Times– inter-alia calling on Americans not to give up their arms– I then really got into World history and Russia’s role in it– and of course the role of the Jews in modern day history– A portion of Jewry– now no longer known as Bolsheviks, but the same ilk, now known as Zionist Jews. It was then I unearthed the role Jews played in SA, supporting the Apartheid regime one side, while via a Jewish run communist Russia, supporting the black struggle on the others side– two sides of one coin, as’t were.

          I then checked out what I could, to know everything about the 1917 Bolshevik “revolution” — in reality a coupd’etat in Russia. I stumbled on the writings of Juri Lina, whom, along with many other illustrious genuine global historians, bravely unraveling the truth of a history, written by the so-called victors.

          I believe Juri Lina to be a very sincere researcher and his book, “Under the Sign of the Scorpion” and also his documentary, “In the Shadow of Hermes” (running time: 1:59 minutes), provided me deep insight into Russian history.

          You may ask why I am on about Russia, when the subject matter here concerns SA history and that of the Boers. However, Russia under a tsarist monarchy– probably a socialist run country, my father was right– the Bolshevik Jews instituted communism in Russia, religious persecution the order of the day as churches, cathedrals, schools, cultural institutions, were burnt down and Russian intellectuals and intelligentsia had to flee for their lives– if life had been bad under what some Russians say, the autocratic tsars, as many Russians disagree that it was not– whatever, it seems it was a tea party compared to what the Bolsheviks and their NKVD and Cheka secret police, unleashed on Russia– ably supported by inside traitor Russians of Jewish descent– Russia’s government was overrun with Jews.

          This is but a brief summing up and a rather clumsy one, I’m sorry– but as a South African I ask– when its clear to me that the western powers that be (PTB)– those who own and control virtually all countries globally– their banking, finance, stock markets, big corps, pharmaceutical and agriculture industries– (Monsanto and GMO)– poisoning the very food we eat all over the world, (while Russia and a few other countries banned GMO) — then not to forget, their mega western media houses, owned by 5-6 western media moguls, control not only US and its vassals’ news, but much of SA’s own local media houses– where do we, the ordinary Joes and Janes stand, when we are virtual prisoners of those baying for our blood?

          What have these people not over the aeons perpetrated in our names– speaking across all borders here???

          It was not only the Boers, who were subjected to religious persecution in Europe, when they arrived in the Cape, but people all over the world faced fires on all sides– fire from the indigenous peoples of the lands they escaped to, but also fires from the murderous powers, who now claimed what they had fought to protect, in order to enjoy a simple and Godly life, working the land. Despite all the hype in SA about Putin and his supposed relationship with Zuma, I find most of it highly doubtful– as Putin kicked out many corrupt officials in Rosatom and other semi-state institutions and is well-known in Russia for his zero-tolerance of corruption– but his hands were not always free, hence he is running as an independent candidate now.

          Back to SA– what fills me with deep misgiving, is how divided white people remain in our land– they cling to the west as if the leaders of the west will save them– this is a mirage– these leaders all belong to the same club– the NWO full spectrum global dominance club– a club, which has no allegiance to any nation or loyalty to its peoples on earth– only to full bringing their unholy global agenda.

          They care zilch for ordinary Americans, for rural landowners or for any other peoples. They want to own and control the planet, not only that, but Space too. As Joe Biden said some time ago, you don’t have to Jewish to be a Zionist! Saudis and Israelis work together, so do the heads of many nation states all over the world– all covertly behind the scenes– but ever more brazenly in the open now. That is why its clear they are truly the Synagogue of Satan — as belief in the Supreme Being, is alien to this unspeakably arrogant cabal, determined to turn our world into a veritable prison planet.

          I know this comment is very long– beg yours and everyone’s forgiveness for it and but hope apart from you, a few others will take the time to read it, because it comes from my heart!– also to this site, please accept my grateful thanks! — I only found you guys today. But other questions and issues I wish to address, I have hardly touched on. Also forgive typos, long as it’s understandable, I hope …

          Still, I ask you as a fellow South African- if an ex-South African– clear your heart is in the right place … how can humanity hope to move forward, when we’ve been brainwashed out of our minds, to the point where few even have the courage to seek and find the truth in the web of lies we’ve been sold all our lives and our parents, all their lives too??– except if one had been blessed to avidly seek the truth– ugly as it may be and then be able to face it– by an extremely honest and open minded parent.

          • ex South African
            ex South African says:

            Hello Kznkid,

            welcome to TOO. You seem to have a wise father.

            How to move forward? That is a question everyone must make out for her-/himself. It is a binary decision: doing nothing will change nothing, doing something has a chance for intitiating change.

            And if you are still younger, do not neglect the other important things in life besides politics – having a job (the first obligation toward yourself and your family is not to build a career, but to see that there is bread and butter on the table) and finding a partner on you your side, and produce ofspring (the family chain must continue). And learn from your elders.

            If life has passed you a lemon – so what. Look at the big examples in history -not all of them had a smooth life. Many had to overcome huge obstacles in their personal life. Things go up and down in life, some have more luck, others have less, it is all part of the game of life.

            Then remember this: those that move things in the world are not the masses. Barely three percent of a nation have sufficient intelligence or personal charisma to be in a leadership position or other positions of influence in order to change events. That also counts for the enemy. They also have a soft underbelly, and they must never forget this. Those with the longest breath have the best chance of surviving all these calamities.

            That is all I can mention on this topic for the moment.


          • Kznkid
            Kznkid says:

            Thanks for your reply– thoughtful one too… I’ll continue my quest for the truth. The ‘kid’ in my handle is a bit of a misnomer, as I pushing 73– born in the earlier part of the last century. But I must say, I don’t live with worry or fear– everything is in His hands– We think we do– but ultimately, it is Him doing, Him getting us to do, whatever He wants us to do. Not a leaf falls, but that He wills it. As long as one tries to live a clean and honest life and try your best to help where you can– then let go and trust in Him. Always been my outlook since I can remember. Go well.

  3. Troy
    Troy says:

    For further detailed background on the disintegration of the former colonies in sub-Saharan Africa, I heartily recommend the book ‘White Man, Think Again!’ by Anthony Jacob. It admirably fills in many knowledge-gaps, and presents the entirety of the decline in it’s true significance.

    • Junghans
      Junghans says:

      Right you are Troy. Anthony Jacob’s book, White Man, Think Again! (which was written several decades ago), is by far one of the best books on racial realities in S. Africa ever written. It’s a shame that it has been ignored for so long in our circles.

  4. Nick Dean
    Nick Dean says:

    Really good post.

    I think it’s always worth pointing out a few other facts when South Africa is focused upon. So for example, during the apartheid era, White-run South Africa had an illegal immigration problem from neighbouring Black-run countries. Meaning Blacks local to apartheid era South Africa were so desperate to leave their Black-ruled states and live under South Africa’s White-ruled apartheid system that they would invade another, allegedly anti-Black country, and risk any resultant legal penalty.

    Additionally, apartheid South Africa had more Black university graduates and more Black millionaires than the rest of Africa combined.

    Wierd, huh?

    Moreover, apartheid means simply apartness. So, people wanting not to associate with certain other people being allowed not to do so. When you realise that slavery is the denial of exactly such free association, and not a matter of picking cotton while being Black, you will reconsider altogether any previous programmed associations you made between apartheid and slavery. Apartheid and slavery are opposites by definition.

  5. Bob
    Bob says:

    Given what we know now about how “rainbow rule” would work out in South Africa, one can only conclude that the ONLY strategy that would have saved the White South Africans would have been one of exclusion of black populations from within the borders of their ethno-state. Essentially this would have meant driving out the bulk of the Black populations while Whites still had the numbers to do so.

    It would seem to me that we here in the US (and much of Europe) face essentially the same demographic challenge today that confronted the Boers at the turn of the 20th century. Whatever solutions we might consider today, the bottom line is that any solution that does not dramatically reverse the present demographic trends is no solution at all.

  6. Erasmus
    Erasmus says:

    Population explosion is the only sort of explosion blacks are capable of. Their population explosion will likely collapse because of inability to feed itself. Once the liberals have destroyed the white populations elsewhere, there will be no help for the starving black masses.

    • James
      James says:

      Yes the asians and arab muslims will rule the world. Black negroid population was always low it was the white mans stupidity and liberalism and cucked Christianity which has taken subsaharan africa from 140 million blacks in 1950 to now 1 billion. And 4 to 6 billion (according to the UN) by 2100 assuming birth rates slightly fall. You see whiteys medicine and food aid and essentially welfare is allowing them to explode in population and since they are living on support and all there economic power is really reault of chinese or white/jewish investment and explotation the masses of blacks just contend with the poverty and reproduce like crazy. All great things in subsaharan africa today are built by non black investors and inventors.

      Anyhow we all know the game. Black people are God’s and must be pushed and worshiped in white society. You cannot do anything now without seeing black or mulato worship. Dont even bother looking at a liberal news section 9/10 stuff about blacks being superior or noble is on there. What i love most is hearing at University that blacks are physically superioe because evolution and black men are “bigger in the pants” but that evolution made them superior in these ways but it had ZERO effect on intelligence. Somehow we are all physically different but not intelectually which defies everything in existence. By the way not all africans are large east african blacks according to studies and southern rank low in those areas of physical prowess except on long distance running via kenyans and Ethiopians. Beliebe it or not there are significant differences among african blacks there most intelligent subrace is from the horn of africa.

      • James
        James says:

        It also only got to 140 million in 1950 because the white man was already in africa for a good 100 years taking cate of them and helping them reproduce….. if whites never went there it would be a little better off than Australia was when the whites encountered the essentially extinct race the Australoids (who today exist in pure nunbers of maybe only 1 million) too small to ever really be a race again unless whites make it there GOAL!!! To fill australia with more and more abos or maybr white liberals will later want to clone aboriginal australoids and create millions of them along with black africans!!! I mean the stuff i have seen and read makes me think that could become a reality.

  7. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    This is an honest and articulate writing about South Africa. Thank you, Lara Johnstone!

    It was well into the vilification of the apartheid regime (by the constant bad press, including novels like Cry the Beloved Country), in the late-80s, when a Dutch colleague returned from a visit to South African, apoplectic about the lies we had been fed about the Boers’ cruelty to enslaved Black farm workers. We listened, some in frank disbelief. We all ‘knew’ about the heavy leather whip, the sjambok, with which the Boer master punished the recalcitrant native African farm worker. And we all ‘knew’ about the crude, rude, uncivilised Boer who raped even his own daughters, etc. In whose interest was it to create this image?

    It does not do to leave out of any discussion of South Africa the rich elite, the Jews who owned the gold and diamond industry. They account for the pro-Israel policies. In what state are those industries now, and where are their beneficiaries? We hear exactly nothing about them now, and really, we never did hear much about them once Mandela was released from captivity.

    Despite the absence of proof, I attribute the wilful destruction of White South Africa to the diamond and gold mine owners: They simply did not want the Boers’ primary industry competing with them for Black labourers. Do those same people have extensive interests in the pharmaceutical industry? Well, that industry needs lots of human guinea pigs, does it not? Take out of the picture the White masters/minders of the Black population, and hey presto! you have your huge population of guinea pigs.

    After Winnie Mandela and her necklaces (of which she boasted!) came HIV/AIDS, and a vast number of other diseases. And so goodbye the dreamed-of Blacks-reclaimed South Africa, and hello sickly, starving, poverty-stricken land.

    Some people are responsible for the dastardly destruction of a once-affluent land. And it is not the Boers: their interests suffered, and were more often than not destroyed. Now, those who have stayed are about to be dispossessed. Then the unexpected horror: The Boers, still thinking of the European Dutch as their ethnic kin, found themselves unable to gain entry to Holland, for they were a guilty people. Hey ho. Who planted that one?

  8. Jerry
    Jerry says:

    South Africa voted last Tuesday to legally take the Boer’s farm land without compensation. These black beasts have all ready turned SA into the rape and crime capital of the world. The communist negro will completely destroy SA has they have done with every other country in Africa.

  9. Irish Savant
    Irish Savant says:

    I think that Whites made two strategic mistakes. First they came to rely on blacks for menial work that they could have done themselves. This directly lead to the second mistake which was to restrict natives to an unreasonably small proportion of the land, the 80/20 rule in reverse as it were. Having said that I’m sure the (((international community))) would have seen to it that Whites were eventually displaced.

    • James
      James says:

      From a purely strategic perspective it is odd that they did not starve off and genocide (which at the time) was a very small population in all of subsaharan africa. Blacks only exploded in population growth after whites stared to take care of them and help them reproduce and breed and give them life changig medical and other stuff to prolong there life. Consider that in the conquest of the Americas the idea was to eradicate, pushout, destroy, and in some cases genocide the natives. The Spanish did this the best by killing thr male lines and reproducing with the women to create mestizos which now populate all of central america, mexico and the vast majority of northern south america. The ameridians only exist really in small numbers in mexico and in peru and bolivia. Elsewhere they are like less than 1% and for whatever odd reason North american natives were 100x more susceptible to disease. One great odd thing in human history is how an entire major subrace basically went extinct from disease yet there not too distant cousins to the south did not. Anyhow today blacks are set to take over the world if whites allow it and continue with black worship ajd bringig them over and saying “what can we do to help!!!”

      • ex South African
        ex South African says:

        “From a purely strategic perspective it is odd that they did not starve off and genocide (which at the time) was a very small population in all of subsaharan africa.”

        You all need to read South African history first, then many arguments will be put into another perspective. Suggested reading:


        This is exactly the catch. By which date exactly should this “starvation” have happened?

        1836 The Boers left the Cape Colony bacause they where too few in numbers to resist the British colonial administration and the Xhosa wars. It could not have happened by this date.

        Afterwards they landed in the middle of many intertribal conflicts between many black tribes, for example Shaka Zulu. They helped some small tribes to escape Shaka. They then created small republics. These republics did not have the numbers nor finances to solve the black question. So it could not have happened during these times. There were masters degrees written which may be found in archives which described those times. These theses are written in Afrikaans and are too long to quickly reproduce it for a single article.

        The biggest adversary however was not the black man. It were the British. The first Boer War came along, and some years later the second Boer War (some callit the South African war). The second time around the British won. This meant that the Boer had no say over his own affairs anymore and this included solving the black question. This problem now was in the hands of the British administration and they passed a few laws in this respect, which was refined and extended upon when the Boer received control again over their own affairs, starting from 1948 when the National Party got elected into government. Before 1948, there were two wordl wars and the 1929 recession, which also hit South africa very hard. So in this period it was not possible to solve the black question.

        Then Dr. Verwoerd ascended to power and he seriously started addressing this issue. A lot of wrong moves had to be unravelled first. At this point of time it was a very sensitive time of politics, for one only recently got independence from British rule. One did not want to incite their wrath again, and immediatley when th eBoers ascended in 1948, the international attacks against South Africa started. 1948 South Africa was still a relative backward country (look at the age of Johannesburg, Pretoria and Cape Town, then you will see) -how can you start starving blacks when the whites themselves, escpecially the Boers, had to recover from British rule (they were dead poor). There hardly was an army after 1945 – it was a demobilized British army.

        Then there was another spectre arising across the globe -Communism!

        Angola and Rhodesia bought South Africa some time. 1966 was the start of the South Africa bush war. If white South Africa would have starved blacks in their millions at this stage, it would have had unpredictable ramifications for the country. You would have had the whole of Africa as a huge Soviet Army ready to kill all whites. They would have been very motivated to do so. What happened in fact was that white South Africa increased its influence in the African block, bought them as partners and they were thus neutralized as possible partners for the Soviet influence sphere.

        The Soviets were not the only adversaries. South Africa had the whole world against it. Germany had (I will have to google the exact numbers) roughly 60 millions Germans in order to tackle the whole world. South Africa had about six million inhabitants (I have the exact figures somewhere in my files, I once worked for the Department of Statistics in the 1980’s) to tackle the whole world. It was not a super power, but a country which in 1950 still was with one foot inside the ox-waggon and the other foot inside a Porsche (agricultural –> modern economy). It is like the pioneering days of America vs.the modern days (one of the cartoons in Tintin in America illustrates this very well – one day there were Indians roaming in the wild, and the next day there stood Chicago).

        The biggest increase in the black population happened from 1950 onward. This is when Apartheid should have been implemented in full. Unfortunately Dr. Verwoer was assassinated and his successors did not reach his shoulders, and that is why we have the mess we have today.

        While South Africa had to use its military machine on its borders, the blacks were incited into a People’s War inside its borders. That had the effect of a two front war. Ask Germany what a two front war means. But South Africa mastered both wars – the external war and the internal war. The victories were given away by the politicians, for example the war against SWAPO was won, but South West Africa was given away (South Africa bowed before the UNO Resolution 435, altenatively certain politicians sold us out – the name of the Foreign Minister Pik Botha appears time and time again, with his visits to the American Council of Foreign Relations – much is still not known what exactly was discussed with the CFR but the effects were visible).

  10. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    After the fall of Apartheid and the establishment of black rule in South Africa, the result was : rampant corruption, incompetence, poverty for all except a small criminal elite, murder, rape, dispossession of Whites and their slow genocide. Africans behaving as Africans. What a surprise !

    Actually the Boers are themselves to blame. There is no excuse for them of not knowing how Africans really are. What they should have done is to settle all Africans in an apart territory, sufficient in size and resources for a traditional African life style, and then reserving the rest of South Africa for themselves, taking care that their own territory would include the best fertile land and the region with the mineral wealth. The Africans should then be given independence and the Boers should then no more interfere with their fate. The white part of South Africa should then be open to immigration of Whites only. But that would require the Boers to do their own work, in their homes, on their farms and in their mines, and the refusal to do so was their major fault. Apartheid was never really “apartness”, because Blacks lived everywhere near the Whites to work as servants in their homes and as workers on their farms and in their mines.

    The refusal to do unpleasant work is a major (historical) cause of the racial problem of Whites. Whites imported non-Whites as slaves, coolies or “cheap workers”, and their descendants are saddled with the demographic consequences. In South Africa the problem was worsened by the phenomenal increase of the black population due to the benefits of white rule. When the Dutch settled in the Cape in the 17th century there were only 1 million Blacks in South Africa. There are now 40 million, all claiming South Africa and its resources as “their” land “stolen” by the Whites. Now the Whites of South Africa face genocide by the population they themselves have created. There is such a thing as “White stupidity”.

  11. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    We will see how the whites in other countries react to the civil war that is coming in S.Africa. Eg will they help the whites as much as they helped, say the Haiti people a few years ago after the earthquake (any thank you letters arrived yet for that help? one even?)

    It goes without saying that their 15% of enemy within left plus allies from other tribes who feel hostile to Westerners – it goes without saying that they will be cheering and saying ‘whites deserve what is coming to them’. And it goes without saying that such white-hating whites plus allies control the MSM and the narrative.

    But the question is, how will the silent majority react. Eg as their treacherous and enemy-within politicians continue to refuse to allow white refugees from S.Africa to flee to the West, how will the majority react?

    I am deeply ashamed of my own race to have to say that I think most will still continue vote for such anti-white traitors to be their leaders. And as for those who do so – they actually deserve what is coming to them next when it is their turn. Unfortunately they will take the rest of us down with them.

  12. Charles Martel
    Charles Martel says:

    The biggest problem with whites of South Africa is STUBBORNNESS. This situation is not sustainable. Blacks are multiplying very fast thanks to the very whites who grow food and provide medicines.

    It makes little sense to stay in Africa whose population is projected to double to 2 BILLION by 2050. A future in Africa will mean more conflicts and wars with negroes.


    I read some white farmers are even planning to go back to Zimbabwe. This kind of thinking is the problem.

  13. EoP MILED Clerk aka Andrea Muhrrteyn
    EoP MILED Clerk aka Andrea Muhrrteyn says:

    Some updates re: EoP Jus Sanguinis campaign. The funder of the Jus Sanguinis website shut it down; so all Jus Sanguinis documentation has been moved to js-ror.tygae.org.za. EoP MILED Clerk does not currently have any spare printed briefing papers available; but the original Jus Sanguinis briefing paper is available for PDF download at js-ror.tygae.org.za.

    The Ecology of Peace Truth and Reconciliation to end the Abel and Kane Cold War, via the implementation of EoP Scientific and Cultural law as international law; responsible freedom land reform recommendations – as submitted to Donald Trump Oligarchs: 21 Jul: DJT 2016 Oligarchs: EoP v WiP NWO Neg: EoP Cultural Law Self Rule, Farmers Crisis & Land Reform – in response to EFF: Malema’s land reform recommendations are contained in LJ v Robert McBride Referral to Mediation draft document [PDF]; a copy of which were mailed to among others General Constand Viljoen, today in fact, as noted at: 07 Mar: CRL Rights: Re: EoP TRC to End Abel & Kane Cold War ideas for regulating churches.

    A copy of this comment shall be posted at eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za.

Comments are closed.