White Politics and Secession in South Africa

It seemed like an act of desperation. Twenty-five years after the fall of apartheid, South Africa’s Whites were counting on a Black man to save them from the corruption and malignancy of Black-majority rule. Its failure should have surprised no one.

By all appearances, Mmusi Maimane was a South African Barrack Obama. Smooth and polished, he seemed like the ideal candidate to win just enough Black votes from the tottering ANC to fulfill the promise of a multi-racial democracy.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) had long been viewed as the party of White people, but that was a handicap when Whites were just eight percent of the population. The party traced its roots back to the Progressive Party, the liberal opposition during the apartheid era, but few Black voters cared about that. Instead, the party drew most of its non-White support from the nation’s “coloured” population, a mixed-race group that shared just one thing in common with the nation’s Whites: a mutual fear of Black domination in the allegedly harmonious “Rainbow Nation.”

Maimane was supposed to be the DA’s ticket out of this electoral dead end.  The “Obama of Soweto” would lead them in the 2019 elections to a promised land where everyone would be treated equally and race no longer mattered.

It blew up in their faces.

The Afrikaners

It all could have worked out very differently. Nearly 30 years ago, in November 1993, President F.W. de Klerk convened his cabinet to inform them that he had accepted Nelson Mandela’s demands for majority rule in the new government.  Upon hearing the news, Tertius Delport, one of his negotiators, was stunned. They had given in on virtually everything. Resolved to resign, he walked down the hall to confront the president directly.

When de Klerk opened the door Delport grabbed him by his jacket lapels and cried out, “What have you done?  You have given the country away!  You allowed children to negotiate!”

“What are you going to do?” de Klerk asked coolly.

“I intend to rally enough colleagues,” Delport answered. “Together with the Conservative Party caucus, you will no longer have a majority.”

“Then there will be civil war,” de Klerk responded.

It was not out of the question. De Klerk had always viewed the military with a mixture of suspicion and disdain. Many of them viewed him as a traitor. He had already removed Magnus Malan, his widely respected defense minister. In late 1992, he resolved to clean out the rest of the dissidents in the military ranks.

“We are not playing with children,” one of his ministers warned him. “We are governing because the Defense Force allows us to do so. … The top command could decide to get rid of us and seize power. And where are we then?”

That did not dissuade de Klerk. The following day, he suspended or forcibly retired 23 senior army officers in what later came to be known as the “Night of the Generals.”

When retired General Constand Viljoen entered politics in 1994 to launch the Freedom Front, some viewed him as the country’s last chance. Many thought him capable of raising an army of up to 50,000 men from various defense forces and civilian paramilitary units that were loyal to him. Anticipating this, General Georg Meiring warned de Klerk and then met with Viljoen to sound him out.

“You and I and our men can take this country in an afternoon,” Viljoen reportedly told him. “Yes,” Meiring replied, “but what do we do in the morning after the coup? The internal resistance and foreign pressures and the stagnant economy will still be there.”

For Viljoen, the lack of support from the armed forces was decisive. “I could have stirred things up in 1994—but for what purpose?” he later said. “I don’t think any action from my side would have resulted in a major part of the Defense Force siding with me.”

Viljoen’s decision was controversial among some Afrikaners, many of whom were more than willing to fight and die to save their country. Instead, Viljoen decided to use the threat of war to win an Afrikaner homeland — a volkstaat — by peaceful means.  To placate him and his supporters, de Klerk and the ANC readily agreed to create a council to review the options. But it was just a ploy. Neither de Klerk nor the ANC ever took the idea seriously.

In the 1994 elections, the first held after the end of apartheid, Viljoen’s Freedom Front earned a little over two percent of the vote. The party was, and remains, an important voice for Afrikaners, as are advocacy organizations like AfriForum and Suidlanders, a civil defense group. But their power is limited by numbers. Whites are a small minority in South Africa. Conservative Afrikaners are just a minority within the minority.

Viljoen never had any illusions about this. His primary focus had always been the creation of an Afrikaner homeland. Consistent with the accord he signed with the ANC, a council was soon created to consider the creation of a such a volkstaat. But then, as now, the council soon faced a major obstacle: Afrikaners were spread too thinly across too many areas of the country for any single region to stand out as the obvious location.

The council considered several options, including one based primarily in the Northern Cape that eventually drew the endorsement of the Freedom Front (shown in the map below). Other proposals included carve-outs in and around Pretoria, where the largest numbers of Afrikaners live.

But each of these proposals would have required large numbers of Afrikaners to uproot and move to the new state for it to be viable. Instead, a 1993 poll indicated that just 29 percent of White South Africans backed the creation of such a homeland. Just 18 percent said they would consider moving there if one were created.

“Afrikaners do not want their own homeland,” Johann Wingard, chair of the council, eventually concluded. “They want to live anywhere in their beautiful country where they can make a decent living.” Interest in the idea soon dissipated and the council was dissolved. For many, the dream of a volkstaat seemed dead and buried.

Carel Boshoff, son-in-law of former South African Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd, had different ideas. In 1990 he bought a patch of land on the banks of the Orange River at the far eastern edge of the volkstaat proposed by the Freedom Front. The first few residents of the new Afrikaner town, called Orania, arrived the following year. The population has since grown to over 1,700, over a third of whom are children.

“They initially drew support from idealists,” said Dan Roodt, an Afrikaner activist. “They struggled financially in the beginning. In the early 2000s, you could buy a plot of land for a couple a hundred dollars. Now the price is 50 times that much.”

The town’s growth was powered by a strong desire for shared community and growing disenchantment with the rest of South Africa. It would have grown even faster if not for its commitment to using Afrikaner labor. “Orania does not use black labor,” Roodt said, “so it can’t build fast enough to build all the new housing they need.”

Orania had shown that the idea could work. And before long, public opinion would change.

Democratic Alliance

The Freedom Front — later renamed the Freedom Front Plus after it merged with the Conservative Party — was never the primary party of South Africa’s Whites. In the 1994 election, that distinction fell to the Nationalists under F.W. de Klerk. But there was also a third party contending for the White vote that year. The Democratic Party was barely a footnote, receiving fewer votes than the Freedom Front.  But in time — and with the backing of most of the White establishment, the media, and a healthy dose of luck — it soon propelled itself forward to become the nation’s primary party for Whites, second in size only to the ANC.

In 1994, however, it was caught in a bind. Its traditional base of support had always been urban, politically liberal Whites. That became a problem when de Klerk lifted the ban on the ANC. Suddenly the party found itself being squeezed on both sides — by the ANC on the left, which drew away some of its White liberal support, and by the Nationalists on the right, who were viewed by most Whites as the only viable check against the ANC’s growing power.

Instead of capitalizing on this advantage, however, de Klerk fumbled it away. Thinking he could retain power and influence by working with the ANC, he allied with them in a post-election “unity government.” But this only alienated the Nationalists from their base of White voters. Worse, they were blamed for failing to stop the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which persecuted numerous White officials and military officers for their role in apartheid.

The Democratic Party took full advantage of the situation, challenging the Nationalists from the right in the 1999 elections. With the rallying cry “Fight Back!,” the party gained ground among White voters. After the election, the Nationalists continued to hemorrhage White support until 2005, when the party finally disbanded.

With its principal competition for White voters now gone, the newly renamed Democratic Alliance was free to expand its outreach to other racial groups, first to the “coloured” vote and later to the Black middle class. Like White establishment parties just about everywhere, it downplayed race and emphasized colorblind individualism and classical liberalism to maximize its cross-racial appeal. Using this strategy, it gained support in every subsequent election until 2014, when it peaked at 22 percent of the overall vote.

After that election, Helen Zille, the party’s leader, began looking for a successor. Her ideal candidate would be someone like Barrack Obama, who was then closing out his second term. Mmusi Maimane seemed to fit the bill. With Zille’s backing, he drew overwhelming support from the party in 2015.  The party then marketed him in ways that amounted to virtual plagiarism — including blatantly copying Obama’s “Hope” poster and substituting Maimane’s image instead.

But Maimane did not play along. He was not interested in being the Black face of a White party. If the DA wanted his leadership to reach Black voters, then he would force it to swallow his message — and that message was one of Black nationalism.

In his acceptance speech, he warned the party that colorblindness was not enough. “These experiences shaped me, just like they shaped so many young Black people of my generation,” he said, echoing the criticisms of South Africa’s woke left. “I don’t agree with those who say they don’t see color. Because, if you don’t see that I’m Black, then you don’t see me.”

It was not long before Maimane was locked in a power struggle with senior members of his own party, advocating for affirmative action and straying from its emphasis on non-discrimination. Under his command, the party soon came to be seen as ‘ANC-lite,’ and the DA’s White leadership was not happy.

Neither were some of its other Black leaders, but for different reasons. ”I feel powerless when my activists come to me and say they are victims of racism from senior people in the party, who say they should be grateful that the DA keeps them busy because otherwise they would probably be out stealing and killing people somewhere,” one grumbled. “I mean, what is that?”

The DA paid the price for these divisions at the ballot box. In the 2019 elections, the party lost ground for first time since 1994, failing to gain any traction against the ANC and losing White voters on the right to the Freedom Front Plus. The ANC also lost ground, but not to the “colorblind” DA. Instead, it lost votes to the explicitly Black nationalist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) under Julius Malema, who had pledged to “cut the throat of Whiteness.”

The lesson from the election was clear. In an increasingly chaotic nation, Black nationalism was the future. White voters and their parties had gone as far as they were going to go.

After the election, the knives came out. Helen Zille, the DA’s previous leader, was elected to a powerful party position by the old guard and she quickly challenged Maimane from within. Her predecessor, Tony Leon, chaired an internal party review that laid the blame squarely at Maimane’s feet. The Institute for Race Relations, an establishment-backed think tank, said he had abandoned the party’s cherished principles.

Maimane saw the writing on the wall, but he did not go quietly. At his resignation speech he called out the DA’s White leadership in explicit terms. “Over the past few months it has become more and more clear to me that there exists those in the DA who do not see eye-to-eye with me, who do not share the vision for the party and the direction it was taking,” he said. “There have been several months of consistent and coordinated attacks on me and my leadership, to ensure that this project failed, or I failed.”

Other Black party leaders followed him out the door. “I cannot reconcile myself with a group of people who believe that race is irrelevant in the discussion of inequality and poverty in South Africa,” said Herman Mashaba as he resigned from the party and as mayor of Johannesburg, the nation’s largest city.

Malema’s EFF released a gloating statement calling the DA a “White political party in which Whites and their interests as Whites must always dominate and come first.” Maimane was later seen hobnobbing with Julius Malema in what some called an emerging ‘bromance.’

Last November, the party overwhelmingly elected a new White leader, John Steenhuisen. He trounced his primary Black challenger, Mbali Ntuli, with 80 percent of the vote. The party, it seemed, was no longer pretending. Some are now questioning how it could possibly avoid a backlash by non-White voters in the next election.


Two decades ago, the idea of a White homeland in South Africa seemed dead in the water. Any area reserved for Whites that was too far away from the cities or from employment opportunities seemed impractical. Many Whites at the time also believed, or at least hoped, that South Africa would soon become the harmonious and prosperous multiracial nation that had been promised.

That hope is now gone. A worsening economy, ever-present crime, and rising corruption have all left their mark (detailed in my previous article, South Africa’s Protection Racket). According to public opinion polls, South Africans have grown increasingly pessimistic. The situation briefly stabilized when Cyril Ramaphosa replaced Jacob Zuma as president in 2018, but his promised reforms never materialized. Now public sentiment seems to be worsening again. The DA’s failed “colorblind” political strategy has only further darkened the mood among those who had hoped for more.

These negative views are most prevalent among Whites in general and in the Western Cape in particular, one of the few regions in the nation where Blacks are not a majority. In 2009, Whites in the province allied with the local coloured population and ousted the ANC in local elections. It has been ruled by the DA since then.

“Ever since the DA came to power in Cape Town and in the Western Cape one has heard a growing chorus from visitors that ‘It feels like a different (and better) country down here!’” wrote one local observer. “The public hospitals and schools work far better here than anywhere else in South Africa, the traffic lights work better, the city center is safer, there is less litter and generally there is better governance.”

Local rule was a step in the right direction, but some activists wanted more. In 2007, they formed the Cape Party to fight for genuine independence. The party never gained traction in the few elections it contested — partly because the timing was wrong and partly because voters inclined to support separatism already had a political home in the Freedom Front Plus.

Nine years of Jacob Zuma’s presidency changed that, however, and several new organizations have emerged. Following the success of the Brexit vote in Britain, CapeXit was founded in 2018 to seek independence through international law. Another organization, the Cape Independence Advocacy Group (CIAG), was launched in 2020.

It seemed like public opinion had changed, but independence advocates decided to sponsor a poll to be sure. Unsurprisingly, the poll found overwhelming opposition among Black voters. But it also showed that Whites now strongly supported the idea, especially those who were supporters of the Freedom Front Plus.

Coloured voters — who constitute a majority of the Western Cape’s population — were more divided. While most were not yet ready to endorse full independence, the majority (68%) agreed that the Western Cape should be given more power to choose its own policies. Advocates now believe that this bloc of voters can be won over, particularly if the nation’s economy continues to deteriorate.

These poll results, which drew wide attention, have put the DA in a box. Much of its White leadership privately supports independence, but it has remained publicly silent to avoid alienating voters both inside and outside the province who do not support the effort. The Freedom Front Plus, which has endorsed independence, sees this as an opportunity. They plan to challenge the DA on this issue in the upcoming 2021 municipal elections.

Despite this growing support, however, some have condemned the independence movement as unrealistic. “Fringe groups have long advocated for the secession of the Western Cape from the rest of South Africa,” wrote Pierre De Vos, a constitutional law professor at the University of Cape Town. “Obviously, the Western Cape is not going to secede and there is no chance of the creation of an independent state.”

“Even if the Western Cape Premier calls a referendum (he won’t), and even if a majority of voters vote for secession (they won’t either), the referendum will have absolutely no impact as the president and his party will have no legal or ethical obligation to adhere to the results,” he wrote. Critics argued that the ruling ANC would inevitably reject Cape independence, not least because the Western Cape and Gauteng, the two provinces with the bulk of South Africa’s White population, provide most of the tax dollars that line the ANC’s pockets.

Supporters counter that international law, not the South African constitution, is the final word on the matter. “Countries secede on a regular basis, and the constitutional law of the parent state is almost never an insurmountable object if the other conditions required by international law are in place,” wrote Phil Craig, CIAG’s co-founder. Political will, not constitutional law, would decide this issue, as it has in nearly every other case of secession.

Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan despite the latter’s objections. Kosovo seceded from Serbia despite Serbia’s objections, and with the International Court of Justice advising that there is no prohibition of the (unilateral) declaration of independence under international law. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Slovenia, East Timor, South Sudan. The list goes on.
Closer to home, did the previous South African constitution prevent the end of apartheid, or Namibian independence? Countries secede on a regular basis, and the constitutional law of the parent state is almost never an insurmountable object if the other conditions required by international law are in place.

Whatever the objections, the politics of the issue are clearly trending in the supporters’ direction.  Numerous economic experts and political analysts now see South Africa entering a death spiral. Last year, the nation lost its last investment-grade credit rating when Moody’s downgraded it to “junk” status. Investors have been fleeing the country for years. According to IMF estimates, unemployment is fast approaching 40 percent. The Covid crisis has only made matters worse, contributing to widespread protests. At least one analyst estimates that if its existing economic policies are not reversed, the country faces economic and political collapse by 2030.

Despite such warnings, President Cyril Ramaphosa seems powerless to implement needed reforms. According to analysts at the establishment-backed Institute of Race Relations, power in the ANC has now shifted decisively to leftist Black nationalists. If Ramaphosa were to challenge the party’s top leadership in any meaningful way, they would remove him from office.

This worsening economic and political outlook will only heighten public support for secession over time. The final trigger could be an independence referendum in the Cape, an IMF bailout that imposes cuts on ANC-favored spending priorities, a forced removal of Ramaphosa by the ANC leadership, or a national election that forced the ANC into a governing coalition with the far-left EFF to maintain Black majority rule.

Regardless of the cause, if the Western Cape seceded, it would probably trigger similar efforts in other parts of the country. This might include some or all of the Northern Cape, which has similar demographics and is home to Orania. Another possibility is the Whiter regions in and around Pretoria and Johannesburg, which might also demand increased local autonomy. Absent that, many of these Whites might flee to a newly independent Western Cape, just as Whites fled Zimbabwe to South Africa during Robert Mugabe’s reign.

The Rainbow Nation’s days may be numbered, but now there is something new to hope for. An independent Western Cape would not be the volkstaat — nor indeed an ethnostate of any kind. But it would at least free the nation’s White population from the worst excesses of majority Black rule and reestablish the right of self-determination.

When reporters travel to Orania, they sometimes ask the residents why they chose to move there. “We want to build a better place for our children and ourselves,” one recently said.

It is a simple answer, one that anyone could have given, but now more people are beginning to realize that it is something that cannot be taken for granted. Self-rule has long been an aspiration for many White South Africans. Now, after all these years, it may finally be within reach.

Patrick McDermott is a political analyst in Washington, DC.

75 replies
  1. Some White Guy
    Some White Guy says:

    Missing throughout the article is a realistic assessment of majority/minority demographics. A minority is rarely going to achieve its goals of independence via the ballot, especially a White minority. The parasites know full well they need the capable host to feed on. We will soon experience the same dilemma in every White country hurtling towards White minority status. ‘Tis a quandary of epic proportions for our people.

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      They don’t entirely ‘need a capable host to feed on’. (((They))) are distributed among capital cities and some others in all developed areas. The 20th century had US financial and industrial supremacy, big enough to feed for example the entire enslavement of Russia as the Jewish-run USSR. But (((they))) seem to want to ruin it. They appear to be substituting China, after what I presume were huge wars there. There must be vast legal paper arrangements with China, I’d guess not known to many people. If whites can arrange some sort of agreement with China, and hostile to Jews, supported perhaps by information on Jews – such as opium wars and Jewish ‘communist’ atrocities and long-term lies about China and evidence on Korea and Vietnam and Japan – possibly some new world could be arranged on that basis. Maybe Chinese-speaking and -reading Americans might start a new world.

    FREESPIRIT says:

    This was all inevitable when WHITE SUPREMACIST Wealthy and POWERFUL decided they wanted Africa.

    The “Frontline” sacrificial “lambs” were the average Common European and English men and women looking for opportunity to better their lives from their European “open relatively over-crowded, Prison”, so-to-speak.
    The PROBLEM was that it was being done by INVASION/OCCUPATION of the African Black man’s Continent, using the WHITE RICH European MAN’S STATUTORY RULES, erroneously called Laws, which fact, neither the AVERAGE European, nor especially the African, knew little if anything about, and thus allowed it to happen,.

    Only the Black African had the RIGHT to be there,under NATURAL LAW.The WHITE man was there ONLY under the PRIVILEGE of European “law”


    Not-with-standing, nefarious motives of Zionists and Freemasons,what we are witnessing, LIKE it OR NOT, is the RETURN of LAND to the RIGHTFUL OWNERS -BLACK AFRICANS.

    I believe the same is about to happen in North,Central, South America and Australia

    The WHITE MAN’S days of Stealing LAND and RESOURCES for the last 500 years or so, and Murdering the Indigenous, OWNERS of the land, for RESISTING the THEFTS, is slowly but surely coming to an END.

    As an Indigenous IRISHMAN, whose family and ancestors fought the British for 600 years to gain back our land, I fully understand the Black Man’s quest.

    I wish it could be done without spilling blood, but White people do not like to let go of their PLUNDER. easily.

    I wish the Black African all the success.

    • Exposing AntiWhites
      Exposing AntiWhites says:

      “White people don’t like to let go of their plunder” Do you hear yourself and how anti-White you sound, nitwit? Get over your anti-White hatred.

    • Arch Stanton
      Arch Stanton says:

      I await your move to Zimbabwe, Soweto or J-burg to support your oppressed, Negro brethren. I trust your skin is not white in appearance. Then again, you might just might sit tight in Ireland and await the third world’s vibrant, multicultural diversity to come to you with open, loving arms – holding a machete.

      One other thing, those you think are “white men” stealing these countries and lands are, by their own admission, not white at all. While they have used their interbreeding, chameleon like abilities to appear white, they have nothing in common with the white race outside their skin color.

      These were the “white men” administrating the throne’s oppression of Ireland. These were the “white men” controlling the white men that gave South Africa to the Negro. These “white men” are the thieves and liars that have almost completed their destruction of western civilization.

      Your politics and historical claim (600 years?) sound much like those frequently bandied about by these lying, thieving “white men.” Might you be one of these “white men?” Your nom de plume certainly sounds like the type of pretty name these “white men” typically hide behind.

    • paranoid goy
      paranoid goy says:

      You, free person, I want you to go research the term “mfecane”. In South Africa, the only disposssed people are the San Bushmen, whom the English hunted for ten shillings a head. The Boer colonised land laid waste and almost empty by Shaka Zulu. Black and White shared the Veldt peacefully, until the English heard we discovered diamonds, and it turned into a racist hellhole when they heard about the gold.
      Like the author of the article, you should lgo visit a library, the world did not pop into existence in the year 2000.

    • Rudy Gestl
      Rudy Gestl says:

      The average black person is better off under white rule than under their own compatriots. It might be psychologically aggravating to them, but the government is usually more just and fair.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Rudi Gestl – correct, for example the blacks in N Rhodesia had abundant food (none starved) medicine, and jobs, and another improvement not often mentioned is that it enabled them to cease their endless tribal wars, a change which many saw as an improvement. This version of history will disappear in Africa as the current old generation dies out, as the verbal history will be gone.

        Rudi Gestl – “but the (white) government is usually more just and fair”

        This is also the reason that somewhere in the region of only 150,000 British in India were able to rule hundreds of millions of Indians – the Indians recognised that the British were fair and not corrupt. Incidentally, these civil servants were not selected by connections or political view, as happens today, rather they were chosen solely on the basis of a difficult exam, one that anyone could enter. They did not get rich from corruption, unlike today’s Western politicians do. (As expected, there are more Democrat millionaires than Republican ones as the Democrats are even more corrupt than the RINO party.)

    • Floda
      Floda says:

      I’d say what is the point of ‘returning’ land, if it can be said to have once been owned by blacks, if the Blacks are unable to DO ANYTHING with it it? The recent experience of Zimbabwe shows how in just ONE generation a once self sufficient, indeed food exporting land, worked by intelligent and industrious Whites goes to hell once land ownership is given to the Blacks who, it must be said, are not exactly suited to doing something productive with it, or anything else for that matter. If Whites (and Asians) were to abandon Africa and leave the darkies to their own devices their populations would eventually decline to where they were in 1652 when SA was almost unpopulated. They really are the White man’s burden, you see that every day as boatloads of them arrive in Europe to live off European welfare states. Unless this is stopped there will be no welfare for anyone, which seems to me to be the goal for the Globalists. Thankfully there appears to be something of an awakening to this in the US where there is talk of eventual separation and ethno-states. Once this takes hold in America it will spread to all White countries. Let’s hope it comes before its too late, as it seems to be in SA. Having said that, I believe if push comes to shove the ‘energetic minority’ of Whites in SA are ready and almost spoiling for a fight with their Blacks and would actually win, barring a foreign intervention.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Good point by Floda: “Once this takes hold in America it will spread to all White countries”

        Once an idea takes off in the right conditions, it can snowball rapidly, especially if everything is set up for ‘the perfect storm’. One component of this perfect storm is a collapsed economy, as losing their wealth will waken up a lot of the sleeping whites.

        We should never assume the left ((& allies)) use good tactics, as they do not, and are only winning at present as they have control of the MSM. It is quite an achievement for them to persuade white people to be against themselves, but it is like a twisted balloon – keeping the people in this state is like keeping a balloon twisted, as being against yourself might satisfy one need – the need to conform to the culture – but it clashes strongly with another need – self interest, and being twisted so they are anti-self is putting people in a state of stress and unease. All it takes for an idea to take hold and then later snowball, is for just a critical number of converts to be reached, and this critical number might actually be quite low, eg going from the current perhaps 10% of strongly pro-whites to 20% might be enough for the movement to take off.

        • ChilledBee
          ChilledBee says:

          “the need to conform to the culture – but it clashes strongly with another need – self-interest, and being twisted so they are anti-self
          “is putting people in a state of stress and unease”

          I am witnessing this stress and unease increasing on a daily basis. They are playing a very dangerous game as this is causing more “normal” White people to go a little deeper and research “who” is behind this. The other cheek is starting to turn rather quickly.

    • David
      David says:

      It might be “natural law” for black Africans to eventually take back the land of South Africa, but you forget that they are now accustomed to living in the type of modern nation that White people build, and because they cannot possibly maintain that themselves, they will find that they still want some Whites to live among them to maintain what they have.

      You mentioned Australia, as a nation going back to its original owners, you obviously have zero understanding of Australia, and the other Western nations you mentioned. If these nations cease to be White, it is not to the aborigines that their nations will go, but to a mix of imported peoples governed over by Jews.

        FREESPIRIT says:

        YOU, like the others have DELIBERATELY ( I suspect) missed the point but definitely showed your Supremacist BIAS, which I expected from others.

        As I implied the days of the White “man” stealing indigenous land and murdering the RESISTING OWNERS, is slowly but surely disappearing.

        YOUR, and the other bigoted commenters and their RATIONALIZATIONS are evidence of what I say.

        You all will not STOP the FUTURE

    • Jennie
      Jennie says:

      Tsk. You have a generalized view of whites’ presence and motives and actions in Africa. Afrikaners are not colonialists with a mother country to return to, neither did they steal land and kill black people. It is not your choice either, as you live in a land where your demographics are favouring your own.

    • Free The Cape
      Free The Cape says:

      What a steaming pile of far-leftist Afro-supremacist dog crap..!

      Its hard to believe any white man (even far-leftists like Comrade Corbyn) could be so self-hatingly moronic. Your “writing” style – peppered with hate-filled historical gibberish, grammatical errors and CAPS ON – strongly suggests you are a primitive Negro overflowing with hatred and envy for the brilliant white race..! The real Amazing Race..!

      If I am wrong and you really are white Irish (which I would bet 100-1 against) then you must be the sort who inspired all those Irish jokes..! (and, unlike you I am genuinely of Irish descent)

        FREESPIRIT says:

        Actually you are WRONG and in fact, My Grand was a leader of an IRA wing in Dublin

        Nice try though.

        • the_master
          the_master says:

          are you the degenerate no friend poster that harasses Irish nationalist content creators on youtube called “the end”. lol. get out of your basement and make some friends.

        • Richard B
          Richard B says:

          “Actually you are WRONG and in fact, My Grand was a leader of an IRA wing in Dublin”

          Yeah? And where are they now tough guy?

          You’re so stupid you don’t even know you’re stupid. Which explains why you think mentioning a totally discredited and disgraced outfit is going to impress anyone.

          The IRA “fought” the British, but won’t fight Jewish Supremacist Bankers when they import Africans who brag AFTER killing Irishmen that they’ll kill more while “f***ing” the Irish women.

          Everyone knows POCs are doing and will do more political, economic and social damage to Ireland in less time than the Brits ever did.

          And yet, where’s the IRA? They folded like a cheap circus tent faster than you could say Easter 1916 and can now be found hiding under the furniture like a bunch of poofs. That is, when they’re not contracting hits on, or dealing drugs to, their own people.

          Get out of here you clown. You’re about as Irish as a plate of shakshuka.

          • pterodactyl
            pterodactyl says:

            Richard B – correct about Ireland bringing in the Africans. The antennae of the Irish are, unfortunately, so fine tuned in antagonism to the English that they would soon notice if one single English man was given a job in Irish politics, or if English ppl started coming over to Ireland, but do not notice millions of Africans coming over. The voters would react to one Eng man but not to a million Africans. Their strange group behaviour that makes them hostile to the English is completely switched off when it comes to the Africans. This shows that humans are controlled and guided by basic primitive behaviour instincts and not by reasoning out where self-interest lies.
            So the Irish voted for a half Indian to be their PM, just as the similarly suicidal English vote for foreigners as Home Sec, Foreign Sec & PMinister himself is part Turkish.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          There were several good reasons why, for eighty years before the Second Vatican Council, the bishops of Ireland condemned the IRA and excommunicated every Catholic who had anything to do with it or its activities. The lust for kinsmen’s and foreigners’ blood and the self-inflicted addiction to falsehood that you evidently share with your forbears are two of the more obvious of those reasons.

          As cap-lock mode, like table pounding, is a long-standing resort of those who prefer lies to truth and scorn rationality, others here at TOO ought to join me in thanking you for hating us and hating the truth in a manner so open and free from deceit. Like Alan Shatter or Kamala Harris, you disdain to conceal your enmity—for Christians first and foremost but ultimately for all white people. If we must look upon Satan, it is well that we see him without an illuminating smile and a velvet glove on his mailed fist.

        • Leon Haller
          Leon Haller says:

          IRA were always race-treasonous Marxist filth. And Irish-“Americans” have been second only to Jews among white ethnics in promoting mass immigration. Note both groups were not original Americans, either. They were stupidly allowed in mainly after the Civil War. The very First Amendment should have read simply: “There Shall Be No Immigration.”

    • Jud Jackson
      Jud Jackson says:

      It was my understanding (maybe I am wrong) that when the Dutch and the English arrived in South Africa, it was only the Hottentots and the Bushmen, not your typical Negroes, who lived there. It was the Whites who created South Africa as a first world country and when it got to be prosperous the Bantus and other Black tribes moved down there to take advantage of what the white man created.

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        Yeeeeees. That is correct. I am still awaiting a moral analysis of the fall of South Africa from within a proper Christian perspective of originary land appropriation and ownership. It would have relevance to the US, Australia, too (probably New Zealand not sure). When whites came to SA, it was, like America, very sparsely inhabited. Who has original moral title to that land? That is a profound philosophical question (that only whites care about, of course – but then ethical, persuadable whites {and possibly the tiny number of genuinely ethical nonwhites} are white preservationists’ only target audience and set of possible allies). It is also one with obvious implications for current “let’s give it all back” weaponized [anti-]white guilt propaganda. IOWs, issues pertaining to how land comes justly to be owned are at much of the heart of modern racial conflict. Libertarians have many answers here, but not all. Beyond theories of individual ownership acquisition, we must develop collective theories, too, for peoples as opposed to single people.

      • Free The Cape
        Free The Cape says:

        Bushmen were hunter-gatherers who, at the time of white colonisation probably numbered in the low 10’s of thousands spread across a vast area. Hottentots were itinerant herders who probably numbered no more than 100-200,000 at the time. Neither group of “Khoi” settled anywhere or could be said to have “owned” any land. The Bantu, who had migrated south and east from central and west Africa exterminating Khoi tribes as they went, had “settled” in the area beyond the Fish River of the Eastern Cape where they practiced herding and primitive subsistence agriculture. This would not have been viable in the W.Cape due to its long dry summers with very little rainfall for 6 months of every year. None of these sub-humans were ever capable of “settling” in the W. Cape without being able to parasite off a superior race of men who made it habitable for all.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      And this cornball, psuedo-intellectual, mutilated marxist harangue comes from someone who actually calls himself “FREESPIRIT.”

      Given that your comment reeks of loxs and bagels JIDF Troll would be a better name for you.

      By the way, it’s Free Spirit. Nitwit.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” The WHITE MAN’S days of Stealing LAND and RESOURCES
      … is slowly but surely coming to an END.”

      That will only become true if Whites become extinct which is a possible eventuality .

      Unfortunately , you Irish are going to have figure out how to steal other peoples land or become extinct as Black Africans continue to push indigenous Irish off “their” island .

      Regardless , there is NO righteous or not property claim to land that is asserted and/or defended by ANYONE or GROUP of people ANYWHERE in the world that Will Not Become not only Moot , not just Null & Void , but ALL claims will actually become NON-EXISTENT no later than

      the one and only immediately next

      specified and guaranteed EXTINCTION EVENT

      which is currently now at this time

      {{ The Solar Extinction Event }}

      when Helios the Sun burns-out and can no longer support any life here on this planet earth


      MANKIND fails to voluntarily and sufficiently adhere to

      {{{ The PRIME DIRECTIVE }}}

      for HUMANITY to thrive-n-survive beyond any


      at any future time and anywhere in the UNIVERSE

      by creating and developing the sciences , technologies and ALL other relevant things/matters that will be needed to adequately and voluntarily satisfy {{{ The PRIME DIRECTIVE }}}

      or if it is not adequately satisfied , then HUMANITY


      The choice is yours to make .

      Happy New Years .

    • Zorro
      Zorro says:

      Blacks were NOT indigenous to South Africa. The San were. The blacks were genociding millions of their fellow blacks long before the whites arrived and were taking millions of their own as slaves.
      It’s not the whites who did that. And those blacks sold their fellow blacks not to whites, but to jews,
      Jews, who attempt to deceive people that the slave trade was white, when it was totally a jewish affair.

      • ChilledBee
        ChilledBee says:

        “Jews, who attempt to deceive people that the slave trade was white when it was totally a jewish affair”

        The proof is there for all to see. This is a link to a comprehensive database of British Caribbean slave-ownership during 1763-1833 The majority of slave-owners in the Caribbean were Jewish. 2 of the Rothschilds brothers are named, and details are given of the compensation they requested due to the emancipation of their slave stock. I am genuinely shocked that anyone is permitted to search this extensive database based on the religion of slave owners.


        Baron James de Rothschild’s data: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/person/view/2146631433

      FREESPIRIT says:

      (Mod. Note: “FREESPIRIT”, I’m going to approve this comment, but guarantee you it will the LAST one approved if you persist in using disgusting anti-White tropes and insist on hurling slander and slurs at Whites. Got it? TOO has a statement of purpose in its header, but what you post is totally contrary to that. Previous slurs &etc were only approved for the amusement of our decent White commentariat)


      How WHITE SUPREMACISTS treat the INDIGENOUS in North America : https://phibetaiota.net/2021/01/pedophilia-empire-chapter-43-canada-pedophilia-genocide-against-first-nations-women-and-girls-deconstructed/?utm_content=12134636&utm_medium=Email&utm_name=Id&utm_source=Actionetics&utm_term=Email

      Is it possible the Indigenous of South Africa are being treated similarly? Judging by the BIGOTED COMMENTS by most Whites, on any sites which exposes ATTITUDES and CRIMES against Black Africans, I believe it is quite probable, just NOT REPORTED by the WHITE Ashkenazi who CONTROL the MEDIA in South

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      “As an Indigenous IRISHMAN, whose family and ancestors fought the British for 600 years to gain back our land,”

      You do not help your fellow white Irishmen by keeping these pointless enmities with other whites going, in fact quite the opposite. The outcome of this way of thinking is no gain for Irish people at all, as, whilst you are meticulously keeping yourselves anti-English, this distracts you, and this distraction allows your treacherous anti-white government to import millions of Africans under your noses, as, with your way of thinking, your hatred of the English is stronger than your own need to survive as a race. So you can only see the white English as a problem and not the Africans, and the outcome of your way of thinking is that you will certainly keep the English out, but you will also be the first white nation to be majority black, even overtaking the US to win this prize. (Stefan Molyneaux is the expert on this.)

      You probably think the wars with England were all provoked by one side, with the ‘victim’ Irish never doing anything to provoke, when in fact they would often aid England’s enemies, and this is a provocation – I am not wishing to get bogged down in ‘you did this so we did that’, as this just increases antagonisms and is what you do. I merely wish to point out that history is not so simple as ‘one side good, the other side bad’.

      This simplification of history is precisely how the Jews think – nothing they have ever done is reprehensible, ever, and to suggest that it could be is ‘anti-semitic’. They are ‘completely blameless’ (just as the Irish are in your eyes) as any visit to Breitbart discussions (where they post) will confirm. Their sacking of Jericho, for example, is written up in the Old Testament without the need to even suggest any provocation, as, being perfect/chosen, this is all the reason they need, so none extra is given in the Bible. Similarly, today the Holocaust is the only justification that they ever need today for whatever they do now. Even the murder of the Egyptian first born under Moses in the Bible is totally justified in their eyes (what a strange choice for your greatest celebration of the year, quite the opposite in meaning to Christmas – wanting to celebrate bad will to fellow man, not good will), which happened before they were finally expelled from Egypt, although in their version they ‘escaped’ rather than being exiled.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Africa was never the “African black man’s continent.”

      Blacks only lived in central Africa.

      North Africa was White Pagan, then White Christian, then mostly-White Muslim.

      There were no blacks in South Africa when the Boers settled there 400 years ago.

      To extend your hatred for what the English did to the Irish to all White people (except yourself of course) is lazy thinking.

      But it’s quite common among the Irish, including here in the U.S.

      It has made them co-conspirators with the Jews against all White people in the United States. Pssst.

      Hey, Irish guy, we fought the English, too.

      Hey, Jewish guy, we fought Hitler — so stop hating on us.

      In the meantime, Ireland is beating the world speed record for destroying everything Irish and turning itself into a Third World Afro-Muslim hellhole.

      All because you hate the English.

      This is why Jesus said to forgive your enemies. If you don’t, they win in the end.

  3. Will W Williams
    Will W Williams says:

    This is an interesting update on the state of the race in southern Africa. It is hoped that White South Africans can successfully secede, establish their own homeland, free of non-Whites, and hold it. But these Whites, mostly Afrikaner, must first free themselves of the binds of the Dutch Reformed Church. I did not see mention of this aspect of the Boer secessionists here. A quick search of Oriana reveals that the people of this White stronghold still embrace the DRC and other, similar suicidal Protestant creeds. William Pierce addressed this vital issue 22 years ago:

    …[W]hen the crucial time came the Dutch Reformed Church did betray the Boers. Their church sold them out. Their church held them back from putting up any real resistance to the theft of their country. Why was that?

    I don’t believe that the Dutch Reformed Church in its earlier days was anything but what it pretended to be, and that was a Boer institution. I don’t believe there was any long-running conspiracy in the Church to betray the Boers. But as the Boers prospered, so did the Church. The Church’s leaders became prominent men, wealthy men. Many of the Boers’ political leaders were ordained ministers in the Dutch Reformed Church. They were comfortable men, soft around the waist. They ate well and dressed well and lived well. And when the time came to make a hard choice: a choice between their people or their own comfortable positions … well, they made the kind of choice that comfortable people tend to make… The Boer establishment — including the Boers’ church — put its own short-term interests above the welfare, even the survival, of the Boer people. Greed prevailed over racial loyalty and racial responsibility.

    In this regard it’s interesting to note what the Dutch Reformed Church has been up to since 1993. If the Church’s leaders expected South Africa’s new Black rulers to be grateful to them for pushing their Boer constituents toward surrender, they badly miscalculated. So the Church has continued to try to accommodate itself to its new situation and somehow hold onto whatever it can. Actually, even before 1993 the Church had reversed its former doctrine and had told Boers that apartheid was a sin. The Boers at least had the gumption in 1994 to shoot the preacher, to shoot the former leader of their church, who was responsible for that change, but shooting just one traitor wasn’t enough, and the Church kept back-pedaling anyway. Last month, the Dutch Reformed Church tried to merge with a Black and mixed-race church in South Africa and open its membership to all races…

    More, here: https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/04/the-lesson-of-south-africa-2/

    • Will W Williams
      Will W Williams says:

      Lots of interesting commentary, but I’m not seeing anything about how the Dutch Reformed Church betrayed the Afrikaners, much less how the Anglican Church of the British settlers, which had already named Nobel laureate Bishop Tutu (1984) as its highest profile leader in 1988, betrayed its White believers.

      “Be nice to whites, they need you to rediscover their humanity.” – Desmond Tutu

      How Christian of you, Desmond. How has this advice from the former Black leader of the Anglican Church to his kinsmen worked out for Whites?

      In hindsight, how much better for our race would things be today for the two branches of the Aryan race in southern Africa, each worshipping the same Jewish tribal god and having essentially the same Semitic belief system– 0ne DRF, the other Church of England — had they acted together on common blood rather than engage in the fratricidal Anglo-Boer wars?  Some history of that: https://www.thoughtco.com/the-boer-war-1779180

      After all, despite their differences, individuals from each faction could form unions with one another and produce White babies. That should be the bottom line consideration between members of our race going forward, not which denomination of which Abrahamic creed one “believes” in, nor even which language one speaks. Race preservation is biological! Whites need now a belief system that holds to the primacy of race, not the failed universalist creed with the stated goal to put the top rail on the bottom and the bottom rail on top (as has been accomplished in southern Africa). 

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” Race preservation is biological! ”

        True enough .

        However , the historical record shows that biological imperatives can be overruled by appropriate and/or adequate indoctrinations , psychological conditionings , and brainwashings .

        • Will W Williams
          Will W Williams says:

          Thank you, Moneytalks. Economics aside, Nature’s highest law is preservation of one’s species, or in the case of the White race, competition among other sub-species, or races, for living space and resources. The environmentalists call it habitat succession when one sub-species supplants another in its traditional habitat.

          It is anti-Nature for Whites to give up our habitat to non-Whites without a fight, but that is what has been happening, due primarily to Whites having a suicidal alien (Semitic) religion and having the same Tribe of parasitic Semites controlling the mass mind of Whites through its inappropriate — not appropriate — control of nearly every aspect of the news and entertainment industry.

          White were in control of South Africa as long as Whites controlled mass media. Here’s an interesting article about how and when the White government there began its descent toward Black rule when television (the electronic Jew) was finally allowed, only in 1976: https://face2faceafrica.com/article/why-tv-was-banned-in-south-africa-up-until-1976 That’s when the adverse psychological conditioning and brainwashing took hold.

          “The white minority regime saw television as a threat to its control of the broadcasting media, even though the state-controlled South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) had a virtual monopoly on radio broadcasting.

          “The regime believed that introducing television was a threat to Afrikaans, and the Afrikaner people, with the then Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd later comparing the medium with atomic bombs and poison gas.

          “[Television] are modern things, but that does not mean they are desirable. The government has to watch for any dangers to the people, both spiritual and physical,” he said.

          “For Dr. Albert Hertzog, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs at the time, TV for South Africa will be “over his dead body”. He described it as “a miniature bioscope (cinema) over which parents would have no control.”

          “’South Africa would have to import films showing race mixing, and advertising would make (non-white) Africans dissatisfied with their lot,’ he added…”

          Hertzog was right. Once South African Blacks were introduced to “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” and all sorts of other Judaized American racial diversity and “culture” it was all downhill. American Whites have been subject to the same brainwashing for much longer, but are at least still the majority race. It is not too late for a significant portion of White Americans to come to our senses and invoke Nature’s highest law. It won’t be easy, it might be messy, but it is necessary. We must have our own living space, free of the invasive, exotic competing sub-species whose aim is to replace us — not a return to segregation but to geographical separation.

  4. John
    John says:

    Blacks are ruining America too.

    US Senate candidate Ralph Warnock in Georgia is too close to winning. He is a Black Power Marxist who hates America and Whites. Blacks vote for him because he’s Black and a Democrat. Mindless.

    Blacks don’t think when they vote. They just pull the lever for any Democrat or Leftist.

    Georgia should be a very Red state, but Blacks along with liberal White are ruining it.

    The other Democrat US Senate candidate is Jon Ossoff, a Jew. Blacks will vote for him too.

    Blacks and Jews who hate Whites and America. God help us.

    • Sallie Ann
      Sallie Ann says:

      You forgot Kelly Loeffler who has more money than supposedly anyone else in the sitting Senate now. Why should an insanely rich woman be allowed to be a politician in Washington? She was NEVER elected but handed that job…. Don’t we have enough wannabe rich there now? I guess this is just a ‘hobby’ for her to keep her occupied between her numerous mansions…. She acts like a typical out of touch rich woman and could be Nasty’s long, lost cousin if you ask me with some of the out of touch drivel it spouts . I personally think it’s a wall eyed tranny myself….

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        That incompetent and treasonous RINO GA Governor Kemp should be recalled and spat upon in public by all patriotic Americans. Trump went to bat for him, and how did Kemp repay the President? He didn’t even secure the GA elections process. Even normiecons like Mark Levin and Hannity were screaming about this for months. Tens of thousands of mostly younger persons just signed up for GA residency since Nov 3 I wonder why … Now a black supremacist and a Jewish Marxist have just won both GA Senate races. Legit or another steal?

        Please tell me: HOW F—— INCOMPETENT ARE RIGHTWINGERS IN THIS COUNTRY ANYWAY?????!!!! We need an entirely new set of Republicans (barring a third party venture). But I guess the real question is, HOW F—— WEAK ARE WHITES, ANYWAY????!!! This is a race of worthless losers. All that we the last fo the breed can do is segregate, separate, secede, and rebreed up a new race. I mean this. This hundred year project is all that will save our race.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          The USA anti-White crusade , the mother of all crusades , may have been conceived in the womb of the anti-southern slavery abolitionists out of Boston ; and whom unwittingly instigated the Civil War which was the biggest four year slaughter in the history of humanity at the time it was fought .

          The LBJ Presidency may have put the final nail in the coffin for Whites with his “Great Society” propaganda programs for Black/White miscegenation , aka cross breeding , involving massive religious/MSM/( system-wide educational ) indoctrinations , psychological conditionings , and brainwashings ; and primarily financed via White tax payments .

  5. frozy
    frozy says:

    Ethno-states for whites (or republicans or whatever) is a shtick that regularly appears in columns of sites like OO. Even if achieved, to do what? Rapidly such a state’s richer people becomes less fertile, less willing to carry labor intensive tasks, and poor population from neighboring states come flocking in to fill in the gap. And in no time (say a century), the white people become a minority again. Boers and Anglo were first in Cape, Orange Free state and Transvaal. This is happening not only in South Africa, but ANYWHERE on the planet where majority white people exists. Put your brains to different schemes, like Brazil where white govern even though a minority. Ethno-states for white people (or republicans or whatever) are a Chimera!

    • Jason
      Jason says:

      Really? All European homelands have possessed a 100% European population from their inception and for thousands of years, all the way into the mid- to late-20th century, and several of them, including Iceland, Hungary, Poland, the Czechia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, and Romania remain 98% to 100% White today. Russia’s cultural and political centers, as well, are over 90% native White. During these thousands of years, native Europeans have rejected all non-White invaders, physically deporting and out-right banning all ethnic Jewish people several hundred times across the past 1,500 years (alas, Jews should have been deported into North Africa rather than tossed about within Europe like a hot potato). Today, there are several U.S. states and hundreds of U.S. towns in which the populations are 90% to 98% White, and these people, even the liberals dispossessed of their European identity, have no desire for non-Whites to move into their communities.
      In the mid-1950’s, the U.S. completed Operation Wetback, deporting 2.1 million Mestizo and tribal Mexicans back to their own homeland of Mexico. Why did the native White people of the USA do this? And how could we name the project, Operation Wetback, unless we were cohesively confident in the identity of our nation as a White people’s homeland? Why did the people rise up to demand an end to all immigration from Asia in the 19th-century, even though Chinese people were statistically 0% of our population? Why did the 1924 Immigration Act not only reaffirm our Founding Father’s statement that the USA was to be a White homeland but also tighten the restrictions regarding exactly which Europeans were allowed to enter while effectively banning any further Jewish immigration? Why did Americans from the working class to the President of the nation fervently desire to return all Black people to Sub-Saharan Africa in the middle of the 19th century? The answer is that we neither needed nor desired the mentality or the physical presence of non-Whites in a White people’s homeland. And because Europeans literally cannot benefit from either the mentality or physical presence of any people whose psyches are alien to our own, of people who have never created high-trust societies of their own, and who are devoid of the Promethean/Faustian drive that defines European Man.

    • Free The Cape
      Free The Cape says:

      I disagree. Ethno-states are the ONLY possible solution, but they must be fully self-sufficient and defensible entities with at least 10,000 inhabitants – all of which Orania (I have visited) is sadly not, and therefore vulnerable to being wiped-out in an afternoon. I know exactly how this can (and will one day) be achieved, but it will cost big money. I don’t know how Brazil could be a shining example of anything – its a mess basically..!

      Respond with your email contact if you would like more details.

  6. Rodger
    Rodger says:

    This would be a dangerous precedent for the race-mixing Kalergi Planners to permit. Expect them to fight it ruthlessly using their worldwide propaganda machine.

    • SallieAnn
      SallieAnn says:

      I thought they murdered all the white farmers in SA…or at least most of them. Who is going to farm the land now seeing as how the blacks have zero incentive to do anything but sit around and do nothing all day. I guess SA is going to starve now…..

  7. john lilburne
    john lilburne says:

    Amongst young white South Africans there is a schizophrenic attitude of not wanting to be seen as racist but at the same time despising the ruling black oligarchy. The answer to the cognitive dissonance is to try and emigrate. Amongst those who have the possibility to emigrate there is a fever pitch discussion going on on how to leave and where to go to. A white country is the favourite choice such as Australia. Emigration is the passion not secession.

    • Sallie Ann
      Sallie Ann says:

      Don’t you mean a continent for the blacks and Chinese? They are taking over more and more of Africa and buying up more and more ports all over the world. There are millions of Chinese in Africa….the Chinese buy up factories and then import their own Chinese workers to work the factory jobs and take over local housing.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Sallie Ann is correct about the Chinese. Two of the many traitors in the British government who outnumbered Mrs Thatcher were Lord Soames (grandson of Churchill) and Lord Carrington and these were the two given the job of overseeing the first one-man-one-vote-ONCE elections in which they fixed it for Mugabe to win, as they were clearly on the side of CHINA-backed Mugabe. Then China continued to take the minerals in exchange for bribing Mugabe, who was obviously a multi-millionaire from it all, unlike Ian Smith. So the Chinese pillage the minerals, a crime that the MSM considers only white people can be guilty of.

        The British government even knighted Robert Mugabe at one point and this shows whose side they were on (later withdrawn). It shows how the anti-white whites have been active for far longer than most people imagine.

        Another grandson of Churchill, this one of the same name as his grandfather, was patriotic and not a 5th columnist, so his career went nowhere in contrast to that of Lord Saomes.

        An interesting detail is that when Ian Smith boarded a British warship off the coast for talks with Harold Wilson for talks, the officers in the mess gave him a standing ovation. Ian Smith’s autobiography is called ‘The Great Betrayal’.

    • Free The Cape
      Free The Cape says:

      The vast majority of Africans don’t want to be in Africa either. They are the “unhappiest” people on the planet according to all international happiness surveys.(you can google it). They are also parasites who will always follow their favoured host – the white man – into his homelands, and then DESTROY IT with their baleful presence..!!!

  8. John
    John says:

    “Instead, a 1993 poll indicated that just 29 percent of White South Africans backed the creation of such a homeland.” Shocking to read 29% & brings better understanding y Afrikaners have a problem not the least getting tortured prior to being murdered. FIRST rule of nature is self-preservation, hence, an Afrikaans Homeland is the only option. Split the country in half (& I mean 50% not 49.99) & create/build the 14 words. That is, if u want a future for ur posterity. We here in USA & Canada chose to become a minority in the countries our forefathers created & built. Pathetic truly pathetic. Our ancestors would b ashamed.

  9. Richard Lemagne
    Richard Lemagne says:

    The west should change to pro white first probably.

    South African whites make money from farming, some inudustri and mining I suppose (wine, mines, and so on). I suppose the best spots for this kinda work is in different part of the countries and they need trade hence the PC development was probably a way of having a way of selling their goods and trade. Also probably an effect of more blacks getting their hands on guns and so on.

    So you expect whites to give up all their interests in the country, they own 80 % of the land to have a part of the country and move there, maybe it will work what do I know.

    The PC anti white “hate speech” laws seem terrible indeed. So is the number of rapes of white women.

    As for a white army taking power, they are like 8 % of the population where the blacks are now well armed and would probably get help from other black nations.

    Problem is with the better economy brought by imperialism and white invention and medical care reaching these parts, the others just have tons of kids. They should have stopped that somehow…

    The country education thing was partially based on kkk ideas of history during apartheid…

    • Sallie Ann
      Sallie Ann says:

      I thought they murdered all the white farmers in SA. Most blacks have no incentive to be farmers as it involves hard work. I guess this means SA will starve for lack of food.

      • Richard Lemagne
        Richard Lemagne says:

        I think there are plenty of white farmers left. Sure there are gruesome murders although I don’t follow this cause it’s kinda far away and all that, but the ownership of land is I heard approximately 80 % owned by whites.

        Yes the everege african has a very low IQ (70, lower in some countries) but the smartest africans can be pretty smart (the smartest africans have an IQ of 170, although this is very rare and they may be part white who knows).

        As for africans doing farming, actually they do I heard in many african countries, but not as successful as whites.

        I heard they spoke about land reform in SA, giving white owned land to subsaharian africans, due to whites owning so much of it.

        The history of SA is something I am not an expert of. How many blacks lived there when whites moved there, are there any trustful writings on this. How has the demographic change taken place…

        • Free The Cape
          Free The Cape says:

          If the average African has an IQ of 70 then it is statistically virtually impossible for any African to have an IQ anywhere near 170, as this would be 100 points above their mean (+7 SD). 70 points over the white mean of 100 is also exceptionally rare amongst whites unless one bases such claims on internet IQ tests which typically exaggerate IQ as that’s what our egos want to believe. (My own “internet IQ” is about 2SD above reality).

  10. Forever Guilty
    Forever Guilty says:

    “Nearly 30 years ago, in November 1993, President F.W. de Klerk convened his cabinet to inform them that he had accepted Nelson Mandela’s demands for majority rule in the new government. “

    Probably was compromised. Jew like presidents , kings, dictators. Reason is simple, surround presidents with 7 -8 of “your people” and you control him. Would be even better to fly him on “Lolita Express” couple of times. That is also why Trump election was very hard for them to accept

    Would be much harder if there is 500 members of working parliament for example. More difficult to corrupt and surround with “your people”

    That’s why Jew loving having economy consisting of small group of giant companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. You put your man in place ( eg Mark Zuckerberg , Sundar Pichai , Susan Wojcicki, Satya Nadella ) and you control national economy and national agenda with small resources.

    Same reason possibly behind creation of European Union

  11. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    The White South Africans are basically a very good people and a great asset to any nation, especially with their agricultural skills.

    I recall when reading a Russian news site several years ago that Russia had welcomed about 15,000 White South African/Boer farming families to their country. From what I hear it has worked out very well for both the immigrants and the Russians. I hope more White South Africans see fit to relocate their families to Russia before it is too late.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Well done to Russia, meanwhile England and Holland elites do not want Boers coming to their countries, even if they are of pure English or Dutch descent, and both countries prefer Nigerians, Somalians etc.

      Perhaps the Russians will lose some of their irrational hostility to other white nations. This is the biggest problem for whites – historical enmities that arise from the animal behaviour instincts and are nothing to do with self-interest or logic. The same behaviour instincts that make many Irish and Scots hate the English, makes some Americans feel hostile to the English, and vice versa. Strangely, there is less animosity between the English and the Germans even though they were the ‘enemy’ in the war and have a different language. These historical emnities are so pointless and destructive. These buttons are so easy to press and it is how the ((elites)) can persuade the whites to partake in ‘brother wars’.
      Having said that a lot of Russians are pretty low judging by the way they behaved after the war with all the raping of German women. They are allying with China but will one day find that China are not their friends.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” This is the biggest problem for whites – historical enmities that arise from the animal behaviour instincts and are nothing to do with self-interest or logic.”

        The “historical enmities that arise” between various peoples originate in the biological necessity to compete for more or less scarce/limited life-sustaining resources ; and then successfully take possession of the resource in dispute . The so-called “animal behaviour instincts” are expressed as “enmities” against a resource competitor and are a logical result of the self-interest expressed in depriving a competitor of a biological necessity such as a scarce food .

        A deity is presumed to inform any religious persons on how to behave during resource competitions .

        And in general , political power sooner or later becomes a life-sustaining resource of control over people .

        Does that make sense to you or is it too radically different from your normal way of thinking about these fundamental issues ?

        • Will W Williams
          Will W Williams says:

          moneytalks says: “A deity is presumed to inform any religious persons on how to behave during resource competitions.”

          I assumed that one who answers to “MoneyTalks” would be an economic man, but your spiritual man is showing here.

          A religious peoples’ deity doesn’t necessarily have to be a Jewish spook up in the sky as so many have become accustomed to “believe” in. It can be Mother Nature, whose laws of survival here on Earth — the only place our people have ever lived, so fa — tell us “how to behave.” She does not reward the foolish of Her creatures, say the unique White race for example, that will give up their habitat and resources to a competing race. It’s no matter that Her White race is the prettiest, the smartest, the most inventive, and the foremost builders of civilization — if Whites do not separate and fight for their survival as a distinct biological entity against competing races during the currently spiking human population expansion, and quick, they will become as extinct as the Dodo bird.

          One of my favorite talks by Dr. William Pierce:

          THE MEN WHO RULE over us today are the ‘economic men’ Brooks Adams spoke of in his book, The Law of Civilisation and Decay. Adams posited two types of man — ‘the spiritual man’ characterised by the farmer, the warrior, the poet and the priest, and the ‘economic man’ characterised by the merchant and the bureaucrat. Adams saw the spiritual men as the great builders of civilisation. Spiritual men possessed a close connection to their roots and were guided by strong philosophical and moral ideals. The economic men, on the other hand, were profiteering materialists who emerged in the later stages of a civilisation once it had transitioned into a state of decline. The economic men, being spiritually rootless and cosmopolitan by nature, were versatile middlemen capable of turning a profit even as civilisation slowly collapsed around them… More, here: https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/12/the-pyramid-part-one/

  12. William Gruff
    William Gruff says:

    The belief that Whites can accept the loss of territory to Blacks, cede that territory to them, relocate to a new territory or reserve some of their old territory to themselves and then live safety and security, free from the threats Blacks pose is an absurd delusion. Blacks are drawn to the comfort Whites create and always will be.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      The people always think it will stop at this stage, or the next, or the next, and so it will not affect them, just as the white S Africans even still believe that if they are even nicer to the blacks and give them even more that this will appease them. Most whites really think that if you reach out to hug the other races and love them that they will hug you back if you do it enough. The fact that no nation has ever written one thank you letter for the billions in foreign aid should make them think twice about this, but it does not.

  13. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    In the ten or so minutes it took me to read this article, I learned more about what happened in South Africa both thirty years ago and in 2019 than I have in the past fifteen years or more from all other sources combined. The exceptional hostility of some of the responses in this thread is a good indicator that I am not alone in being mightily impressed.

    Sincere thanks to Mr. McDermott for writing the article and to KM for publishing it.

  14. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “Instead, a 1993 poll indicated that just 29 percent of White South Africans backed the creation of such a homeland”

    This is the cause of the downfall of whites – they are not politically aware enough to realise that short term inconvenience is better than the alternative longer term scenario. This applies to all the West at present. The white people prefer to settle for the current situation in the futile hope that things will not get worse. Most have no idea of the scale of changes that are coming, which are speeding up now that the left have almost complete control of the MSM in most Western countries.

    Another factor is something that A Joyce once mentioned – that the rich and powerful in the past centuries were forced to have loyalty to their people in circumstances where they would go down if their people did. Although he added that many would still do deals with ((the money lenders)) for personal gain at the expense of their people.

    In S Africa today the rich and powerful can easily flee the place and go to other white nations and retain their wealth which can be sent abroad when the situation deteriorates in S Africa. These are the people who have most power and influence and are the ones who could do the most to lead and help their people.

    However, the scenario is getting closer where the number of places that the rich in deteriorating Western countries can flee to – ones where their wealth is safe – are diminishing. For some of them, the worst ones, they are also prepared to lose their own fortunes if this helps the demise of white people, who they hate. We see many examples of the rich left being prepared to damage their own businesses by going woke. For example Sports revenue in the US went down when they supported BLM and many lefty businesses support lockdown even though it is bad for their own business – newspapers for example. The left put their politics before their own wealth and self-interest. This is how committed they are.

  15. Anon
    Anon says:

    If they secede they have to be willing to do the menial labor like in Oriana. If they don’t, the ANC will use them as a cash cow and may even dump some refugees into the space that will vote to keep them in. I would get out ASAP.

Comments are closed.