Posted on July 22, 2011

South Africa Under Black Rule

Gedaliah Braun, American Renaissance, July 1998

Frederik de Klerk and Nelson Mandela

Frederik de Klerk and Nelson Mandela shake hands at the 1992 Davos meeting. (Photo Credit: Copyright World Economic Forum)

South Africa is now ruled by blacks; the only prosperous country on the continent has been handed to them on a platter. While the country has not sunk overnight into the morass of the rest of Africa, and while most of the dire predictions of the white right did not come to pass, a dispassionate view of the last four years gives one no confidence that South Africa’s future will be fundamentally different from that of other black-ruled nations. Virtually every trait that makes one skeptical of black rule — dishonesty, deviousness, incompetence, corruption, unreliability, and callous indifference to human suffering — manifests itself daily.

When I first visited South Africa in 1986, after a decade in black Africa, it was at the end of the apartheid era. The contrast with the rest of Africa was stunning: all of the amenities one associates with the modern world — from telephones to potable water to public toilets — were plentiful in South Africa.

Most of the apartheid legislation was still in place, though much of it was becoming a dead letter. Apartheid’s ostensible goal was an exclusively white South Africa, with most blacks living in nominally independent tribal “homelands.” Those living in South African townships near whites were “temporary sojourners” and thus were not, for example, allowed to own businesses, as this would give them a degree of permanence.

Influx Control, limiting the migration of blacks into urban areas — white or black — had already been scrapped. The pass laws, however, were still enforced. These laws, which were probably the most determined attempt at white control over blacks, required blacks to carry a kind of internal passport: any black male in a white area after dark without the proper endorsement in his book could be arrested and taken to special courts. It was the extension of pass laws to women that supposedly led to demonstrations and the “Sharpeville Massacre” of 1960.

Contrary to accepted wisdom, I believe that many blacks knew and understood the reasons for these laws. While many blacks no doubt saw the pass laws as onerous, it is not uncommon for someone to suffer on account of a law but still understand the reasons for it. If I am a heavy smoker, I will suffer on a long flight without a cigarette, but may nevertheless admit that there are good reasons for the prohibition.

Black men, as a group, are trouble — they are violent and prone to criminality — and the pass laws were designed to control their movements. (A phrase never far from white consciousness was swart gevaar  — “black danger.”)

If today there were a way to get young men off the streets of Soweto after dark, I am sure the vast majority of its peace-loving residents would approve enthusiastically. Indeed, the head of one of the most influential think-tanks in South Africa recently told me that a group of his black employees had said that the only way to deal with the problems of the “new South Africa” was to “bring back the pass laws!”

The major watershed event in recent South African history came in February 1990, when the last white president, F. W. de Klerk, announced that the black liberation organization, the African National Congress (ANC), was to be unbanned, Nelson Mandela released from prison, and all remaining apartheid legislation abolished. This led to four years of “negotiations” during which the whites could do little but give in to the demands of the ANC. The results were the one-man-one-vote elections of April 1994, in which the ANC won just under two thirds of the vote and a corresponding proportion of the members of Parliament (MPs).

White Neighborhoods

Probably the most significant direct effect of black rule has been the dramatic rise in crime, primarily black-on-white. With the abolition of the Group Areas Act, which had designated specific neighborhoods for specific racial groups, blacks began moving into white neighborhoods. This was slow at first because, I would guess, many blacks could not believe whites would allow it. My neighborhood near central Johannesburg, which was still substantially white as late as 1995, is now overwhelmingly black.

What are the consequences? A few years ago, it was difficult to find a parking space on the street at night. Now, theft and vandalism are so bad that you simply cannot leave a car out at night. Rubbish is everywhere. Few people — white or black — feel safe walking after dark. In short, we have what follows any transition from white to black.

Why haven’t I moved? For one thing, my income is limited and moving is expensive. Second, I’ve lived in close proximity to blacks in Africa for twelve years; as individuals, I do not dislike them. Third, I don’t have children.

Another change since black rule has been the growth of the black taxi industry. In 1986, public transport was still segregated; blacks had separate buses that ran between Johannesburg and the townships. Some time in the 1980s minivans began appearing, taking blacks anywhere they wanted to go. Originally hailed as precursors to the development of large-scale black businesses, the industry soon degenerated into competitive tribal cabals that dealt with rivals in the way they knew best: by killing them. One consequence, however, was that blacks had easy access to white areas hitherto out of bounds, which paved the way for the invasion that eventually occurred.

Psychological Impact

Even though the Western media grudgingly acknowledge that post-apartheid South Africa has seen an enormous eruption in crime, virtually no one attempts to explain it. I believe the reasons for it are psychological, and that probably the most important consequence of doing away with apartheid was its effect on black psychology.

To begin with, there is ample evidence that African blacks feel inferior to whites. The reasons for this are not hard to understand: In most of the ways that count in today’s world, blacks as a group are generally less able than whites and are not so foolish as to fail to recognize this. Most Africans are indifferent to the emotionally charged refusals by whites — typically those with the least contact with blacks — to recognize racial differences. My own basis for saying that blacks accept these differences is my experience of talking to hundreds of Africans. However, one fairly typical piece of “objective” evidence can be found in this statement by two militant black American psychiatrists, William H. Grier and Price M. Cobbs, in their book Black Rage:

The fact of the matter is that black people are inclined to regard the white man as superior. There are examples without number in the patois and the everyday behavior of millions of blacks which speak for the fact that they do indeed feel that the white man is intrinsically better. (p. 191.)

One discovery I made living in black Africa is that virtually all blacks unaffected by liberal egalitarian ideology not only recognize this inequality but are not in the least bothered by it! I say this after countless conversations with blacks all over the indigenous black world. Ask any African why blacks can’t, for example, make airplanes or computers and he’ll look at you as if you were foolish for asking, since the answer is obvious: “The white man has the brain for it and we don’t!”

Perhaps because of this, among themselves, blacks often seem consumed by a need to feel superior and to achieve ‘status’. From a black point of view, the best way to do this is to make someone else (feel) inferior to you, since if he is inferior you must be superior. This helps explain much of the callous and often brutal behavior of black nurses, policemen, school teachers and the like: When they find themselves in even the most petty positions of authority, many blacks lord it over their underlings in the most extravagant manner.

When blacks saw the white man dismantling the mechanisms of apartheid, and in general deferring to black wishes, they asked themselves: “Why is he doing this? It’s certainly not because we deserve it.” The obvious answer was that the white man was foolish, weak, and frightened, and this diminished the fear, respect, and even awe that facilitated white control.

Black criminal predators have a bully mentality, naturally preying on the weak. Fear in others incites them as blood to a shark. And fear is precisely what they detect in whites. The result is that potential black criminals, long kept at bay by their own fear, were let off the leash — with wholly predictable results.

Even aside from violent crime, one indication of the level of lawlessness here is that one will see more people flagrantly running red lights in one day than one is likely to see in a lifetime in America. Also, since the end of white rule, the likelihood of a black man being arrested for such ‘minor’ offenses as openly urinating in the street is zero.

In general, blacks tend either to follow rules slavishly, not grasping the possibility of exceptions under any circumstances, or to simply flout the law. One might regard this as a typical manifestation of the apparent lack among Africans of the concept of gradation: something is either on or off, all or nothing; therefore, once they start breaking laws they tend to break them all.

I believe a similar change in black psychology has occurred in the United States. From 1969 to 1973 I lived in New Orleans, in a white neighborhood, though half a block away it was black. I could walk anywhere, night or day. By the mid-1980s, however, things had changed dramatically: Everyone had stories about black-on-white crime, and areas that had for years been white were being abandoned. What caused this turnaround? In the early 1980s, New Orleans got its first black mayor. My conjecture is that the increase in crime was disproportionately black-on-white, and was associated with decreasing fear and respect for whites brought on by access to political power: “What do we have to fear? We’re as good as the white man! The mayor himself is black!”

Dinesh D’Souza makes a related point in his book, The End of Racism:

These pathologies have existed in the black community since slavery, but they have been restricted and contained both by white-imposed discipline and black-imposed norms enforced by churches and local community institutions. But those institutions have been greatly weakened since the 1960s, and in the new environment of social permissiveness and government subsidy, black pathologies have proliferated. (p. 37.)

Black criminal propensities were previously held in check by slavery, segregation, apartheid, and strict tribal custom. Remove these constraints and pathologies assert themselves.

Another factor contributing to the rise in crime is the extent to which the newly africanized South African Police Service itself engages in crime. The police will stop an innocent black driver and tell him his car is stolen and must be confiscated on the spot. When the hapless owner goes to the township police station he discovers that his car has vanished! Given the level of police incompetence and corruption, there is no practical recourse. To my knowledge, this sort of thing occurs almost exclusively in black areas, presumably because in white areas there are still white policemen whose presence is sufficient to deter it.

Not unlike black nurses and black school teachers, black policemen are on the whole pretty useless. Since 1990 or so, the previously white higher echelons, which kept the rank and file in at least a state of semi-discipline, have also become black. In general, Africans simply cannot manage. They are incapable of running any large establishment and lack the discipline, organization and cooperation necessary to control crime. Although this may sound harsh I believe they also lack the necessary morality. Police will obviously be more effective if they are morally outraged by crime and feel, viscerally, that it is bad. I would doubt there are many African police, at any level, who feel this way.

In passing, I would note that one of the more remarkable spectacles in the aftermath of the black crime epidemic is that “liberal” politicians are so vociferous in complaining about it! No one ever points out that these same people were themselves instrumental in bringing about the very conditions that gave rise to the entirely foreseeable results they now condemn. They are also the ones whose wealth protects them from the effects of black rule, and are the first to flee the country.

The New Constitution

To understand the recent changes in South Africa, one must realize how firmly Western liberal egalitarian ideology has taken root at the top levels of society. In many cases I do not think the leaders really believe in what they espouse, but are so in thrall to Western political correctness that they flout many of their most deeply held customs and traditions.

For example, one of the first things the newly created Constitutional Court did was unanimously to declare capital punishment unconstitutional. Nelson Mandela defended this by saying that the white government had unjustly executed many blacks, implying that if capital punishment were left on the books, the new black government would feel compelled to follow the white example! Persistent calls for a referendum on this question have been ignored.

The black elite is radically out of step with the man in the street. There is widespread approval of the township vigilantes who administer on-the-spot capital punishment to thieves caught in the markets — just as is done in Nigeria or Kenya. No one doubts what the results of a referendum would be.

Also, today’s South Africa is officially a haven for homosexuals, but one thing I learned from living in black Africa is that homosexuality is anathema there. Many Nigerians, for example, refuse to believe that it exists, and when it is explained to them, regard it with undisguised loathing and contempt. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is typical of Africans in his view that homosexuals are despicable. In spite of this, the South African Constitution goes beyond any other in ensuring the “rights” of homosexuals. There are gay parades, gay marriage will almost certainly be institutionalized, and in general it is politically unacceptable publicly to say anything bad about homosexuality.

Feminism is another alien Western import. Africa is a male-dominated continent. Women are there to serve men’s needs, to bear and raise children, and to take care of the home. This subservience is nicely illustrated by the fact that Daniel Arap Moi, the president of Kenya for the last 20 years, has never appeared in public with his wife and nothing whatever is known about her; it’s as if she didn’t exist. Nothing could better illustrate the place of women in Africa.

Yet in South Africa, the constant refrain is that the country is now a “nonracist, nonsexist democracy.” The ANC insists that a third of its MPs be women! An MP of my acquaintance tells me that many of these women are illiterate and hopelessly ignorant. Further idiocies are found in attempts to integrate the armed forces sexually, as in the U.S. In addition, South Africa now has probably the most liberal available-on-demand abortion laws in the world, even though this goes very much against the African grain.

Given that the black elite has ridden roughshod over ordinary blacks’ sensibilities, one might ask for evidence of black resistance to these moves. Such a query assumes that Africans are in the habit of protesting things they don’t like, and yet nothing could be further from the truth. Blacks have a sheep-like mentality, are overawed by authority, and are therefore easily cowed. Whatever they may think, they will keep their mouths shut. In any case, “protest” would have to be organized by black leaders. But no black leader is likely to object publicly to the officially sanctioned legitimization of homosexuality, for example.

Indeed, while blacks may find homosexuality revolting, it must be noted that their feelings tend to be both shallow and mercurial. However harsh it may sound to say so, blacks are, in many ways, child-like, and this is illustrated by the often superficial quality of their emotions. They are easily provoked into violence and mayhem but, like chameleons, they can turn completely docile the next moment.

A recent incident is perhaps revealing. I was driving in heavy traffic, and cut in front of a black taxi. As luck would have it, we met at the light and the driver shook his fist at me, cursing me in anger. I raised my hand, acknowledging fault. Instantly, the anger became a broad (and, I believe, genuine) smile of friendship. This kind of instant transformation is common.

Public Services

When I was in Johannesburg in January 1986, the mammoth Johannesburg General Hospital was for whites only. “Jo’burg Gen” was very impressive. The nursing staff was white, as were the medical and administrative staffs. It was clean and well-run. The previous white hospital, near the city center, served blacks.

What has happened under the “new dispensation?” Conditions have deteriorated dramatically. Patient infection rates have skyrocketed and theft of supplies is rampant. Discipline among the nearly all-black nursing and maintenance staff is virtually nonexistent — they simply will not work. Patients sometimes go without clean sheets. A rabbi friend, a chaplain at Jo’burg Gen, says it is not uncommon now for patients to die because of nurses’ incompetence and indifference. I have seen for myself that cockroaches have untrammeled right of access.

There was recently a call by the Minister of Health, a black woman, for entering classes of medical students to reflect demographics — for 76 percent to be black regardless of merit. From a black standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Western medicine is, to Africans, the white man’s witchcraft rather than a disciplined body of knowledge and practices. Blacks think of a medical “degree” as amagic talisman with which they can heal the sick and become wealthy and powerful. Since this piece of paper in and of itself has the power to heal, it doesn’t matter how you get it; it certainly doesn’t matter what abilities or aptitudes you may have or what, if anything, you have learned in order to get it.

Was the old system of segregated hospitals morally justified? Needless to say, the vast majority of Americans would find the idea morally indefensible, but after twelve years in black countries it struck me as the merest common sense. Considering the demographics of South Africa — five million whites and over 30 million blacks — was it possible for the minority to provide medical care for blacks equal in quality to what they provided for themselves? Given that all the resources, aside from manual labor, would have to come from this small white minority, it seems obvious that it was not.

Moreover, it is not clear that whites were under any obligation — even ideally — to do so. If they had somehow prevented blacks from developing their own health care systems, that would be a different matter. But it is obvious this was not the case, since where blacks have all the resources they need (as in Nigeria, for example), medical care is a nightmare, as it is wherever blacks are responsible for providing it.

It might be argued, however, that whites had an obligation to provide at least some care for blacks, perhaps the best whites could afford. But this is basically what they did, either in separate hospitals or in separate sections of white hospitals. I have seen some of these, prior to 1990, and they were vastly superior to anything you would find in black Africa.

The relevant analogy is of a wealthy man with a good-for-nothing brother with indigent children. Does he have an obligation to help them? Perhaps. Does he have an obligation to see that they are as well off as his own children? I don’t think so. The guiding principle here is beggars can’t be choosers. Given their useless father, his children simply have to accept whatever their uncle chooses to give them and be grateful for it.

Similarly, if blacks were capable of providing decent health care they would have long ago been doing so, as have the Indians in South Africa, despite being subject to levels of discrimination almost equal to those of blacks. But their utter failure to do so anywhere in the world suggests that blacks are incapable of it. Therefore, since whites are providing the health care, it is surely up to them if they wish to keep the facilities separate.

The same reasoning applies to Western donor and African beggar nations: The West may give out of self-interest or out of charity, but it is not obliged to give any more than it sees fit, and any attempt to browbeat it into doing more — or even, in some truly ludicrous situations, trying to dictate the conditions of aid — is only an attempt by African leaders to manipulate (unjustified) white guilt. This era, one hopes, is drawing to a close.

In an extraordinary example of a remnant of that mentality, Nelson Mandela recently told international investors that industrialized countries “owe us that support, not as a question of charity, but because we are entitled to it. Our region was subjected to the most brutal form of exploitation in the colonial era which robbed us of our resources.” Even a few blacks can see the breath-taking chutzpah of such a remark. One had this to say in a letter to the editor of the Johannesburg Star:

President Mandela’s statement that the southern African region has been subjected to ‘the most brutal form of exploitation’ by the industrialized nations must not go unchallenged. Every piece of technology that exists here was brought in by the developed nations . . .

Westerners established and developed infrastructure, industry and administrative controls, all of which are, ultimately, for the benefit of all Africa’s people . . .

The industrialized nations owe us nothing. To say that they are morally obliged to invest in our shaky region is preposterous. Without them the riches of Southern Africa would never have been discovered, and could never have been turned into wealth.

Separate schooling had the same rationale as separate hospitals. If blacks were capable of establishing an educational system they would have done so — as have the Indians. Most blacks are capable of some learning and some as much as any white, and the task of educating them was undertaken by the Afrikaner government and missionaries. Just how many blacks received such a basic education I do not know, but I do know that the black schools under apartheid were infinitely better than the general chaos and mayhem that passes for “black education” now.

Nevertheless, the official bogeyman has long been “segregation.” No one ever seems to point out that demographically “integration” is a nonstarter, since there are not enough whites to go around. The underlying assumption is that whites are so superior that a mere handful of them in each class will transform the travesty that is black education! (Americans thought something roughly similar back in the 1950s.) Many blacks think the reason whites are educated and they are not is that whites have a secret formula they use to educate themselves, which they selfishly refuse to divulge to blacks!

I recently asked a young white teenager in Cape Town how many blacks were in his school. About 40 percent. So how is it? Not so bad, he said. But it turned out that he was just being “polite.” His parents were looking for another school. Why, I asked, if his school was okay. “It’s not,” he said. “It’s chaos.” Theft and violence were the norm.

It is often asserted here that blacks do less well because less money is spent on them. Evidence from the United States has consistently shown that this is not the case. More money has had very little effect on the performance of black students in Washington, DC, Kansas City, and any number of other cities. The Afrikaners’ assumption (including that of the architect of apartheid, Hendrik Verwoerd) that money spent on education must match the ability of its recipients to absorb it may have been substantially correct.

Within a few years most government schools will be overwhelmingly black, replicating the conditions in the townships. As in the United States, affluent whites will go to private schools and only the poorest will attend government schools. South Africa is thus becoming an unattractive place for middle and lower class whites, who are the very people with virtually no chance of leaving.

Universities face similar problems. Witswatersrand University (“Wits”), in Johannesburg, has traditionally been the leading university in South Africa, and deservedly so. But the push, for at least the last ten years, has been to turn it into an African university, that is to say, one with no standards, very little teaching, no significant research, and that issues meaningless paper degrees. The paradox is striking. Blacks go to Wits because it is white. Yet these same students (or at least a very vocal minority among them) and the black government are doing their best to turn white universities black, which they cannot fail to know means their ruin. Indeed, one suspects that it is the very contrast between white success and black failure that they wish to eliminate.

It is apparent that the ANC is intent on acquiring power at every level and exercising it without restraint. One strategy is to create mega-municipalities incorporating all surrounding cities and towns. Greater Johannesburg, for example, has large areas that are still predominantly white. If they stayed independent they would retain power and influence. Therefore, the ANC has transformed the area into four huge municipalities, each having a large ANC majority.

One such prosperous white area is Randburg. Until recently it had excellent emergency services, but since amalgamation with the large black township of Alexandra, it has been unable to provide its usual level of ambulance service both to itself and to the much more populous township. Combined with the newly-introduced presence of black bureaucrats, the predictable result is that neither Alexandra nor Randburg now have proper emergency services.

One of the few relatively bright spots in South Africa is the white-run press. It has retained most of the independence and freedom it enjoyed under apartheid. When I first arrived here I was surprised to find the press full of indignation directed against the white government. “This is oppression?” I thought to myself.

The most prominent critic of the old regime was probably The Weekly Mail. Left wing and very ideological, it left no stone unturned in attacking apartheid and white rule. Now that it has achieved its aim, it doesn’t much like what it got but, to its credit, has been uncovering corruption on a stupendous scale. Such publications must be having some kind of restraining effect on the government, though only time will tell how long they will be tolerated. Interestingly — and as an indication of the status whites have retained — black journalists who report on corruption are severely rebuked by the authorities, who accuse them of being whites’ lackeys, etc.

A second bright spot, also a holdover from the previous regime, is the mostly still-white judiciary, which retains an independence that is virtually unheard of in black Africa. Gradual replacement by more compliant black judges — who won’t understand that a court can go against the government — will eventually end this check on government power.

Perhaps the single most important constraint on the ANC government so far has been the influence of international corporations. Nelson Mandela has been told, in no uncertain terms, that if he wants foreign investment he had better forget about nationalization, keep government spending down, control labor unions’ wage demands etc., all of which are contrary to the ANC’s natural tendencies, which are to see government as an infinite trough from which all can feed. The government is the natural ideological ally of the socialist- and communist-led Confederation of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu). Cosatu has already pressured it into accepting a labor bill highly favorable to workers and unfavorable to employers, as well as affirmative action laws that virtually force businesses to increase black employment at all levels.

In this ideological tug-of-war between labor interests and overseas investors, there seems little doubt that the wrong side will eventually win, though this probably spells doom for the South African economy. Should that not influence President Mandela and his chosen successor, Thabo Mbeki? Unfortunately, it will not. The country and its black majority may become dirt poor, but high-ranking government officials are unlikely to suffer. Africa is full of countries where the people starve and the leaders drive Mercedes.

White Attitudes

There is unquestionably great uneasiness among whites. Many are leaving and many more are thinking of leaving. Accurate figures are difficult to come by because many migrs simply go on a “visit” and never return, but the number who would leave if they could must be considerable, especially among those with school-age children. Black rule plus draconian affirmative action makes many whites feel there is no future for them.

At the same time, there is no doubt that whites will continue to dominate the economy for the foreseeable future. The case of Zimbabwe is instructive: In spite of a much smaller white population and a militant black government constantly threatening white interests, there is a never-ending chorus of complaints to do something about “white control” of the economy, 18 years after “independence”!

One also hears more and more about black disaffection. I know a young “street-wise” black woman who always seems to know the “township scuttlebutt.” Around the time of the 1994 elections, she was spouting the usual rhetoric: Whites had stolen their country and now they were going to get it back. Four short years later, with none of the grandiose promises fulfilled, her tune has changed: “Oh, it’s these foreigners who are causing all the problems!” Who are these foreigners? Black immigrants from neighboring countries. They are the cause of all the crime, are taking all the jobs away from South African blacks. And so on. The solution? “When the [white] National Party comes back into power they will throw all these foreigners out!”

My own view is that South Africa will gradually sink towards the level of the rest of the continent, though it is unlikely to reach the same depths, given a continuing white presence. Black disaffection with black rule is to be expected as is the case throughout black Africa.

But South Africa, due to liberal ideological influence, is a bit like America, where blacks systematically vote for blacks no matter what. South Africa stuck to this mold when it elected an ANC government in 1994 by a nearly two-thirds majority. I once thought that disappointment with black rule might lead to a black backlash by the 1999 national elections, but I have been largely disabused of that idea. If blacks had the sense to vote against the current government they would not have elected it in the first place.

Nevertheless, as I say, I hear repeated stories about blacks lamenting present conditions. A Romanian woman who supervises 60 black workers says that all she hears is how bad the government is, how much better the white government was, etc. So one cannot completely rule out increasing numbers of blacks voting for whites, in spite of the numerous factors militating against this. After all, the colored (mixed race) majority in Western Cape Province has twice elected a white provincial government, which is an example of nonwhites voting for whites.

One thing that counts against this exercise in common sense is black superstitiousness — they readily believe that others can “see” who they are voting for inside the booth — which makes them easy to intimidate. My “scuttlebutt” informant recently confirmed, unprompted and with eyewitness testimony, what I had heard during the 1994 elections: that blacks were constantly threatened that if they didn’t vote ANC their houses would be burned down, etc., implying that “someone” would know — by magic — how they voted. Add to this the typical black awe of authority and you get manipulability.

The almost limitless credulity of blacks means that many will be suckered into believing that a black government will make them rich — that they will own the houses, factories and farms of their employers. This is associated with the common black failure to understand the nature of wealth creation: To them it is just sitting there waiting to be taken, not something that requires sacrifice, hard work, discipline and foresight. All of this explains why blacks vote for blacks.

Yet in the past four years they have seen that dreams of sudden wealth were chimeras. More important, the vast majority don’t understand how an election works. It would therefore not be surprising if, with the awareness that miracles did not occur the last time, masses of blacks simply lose all interest in the electoral process and do not vote at all, thus proportionately increasing the power of the white electorate.

The 1994 election was widely hailed as a “miracle” simply because it took place, though views differed as to just what was miraculous about it. Outside the country, self-righteous commentators seemed to think natural laws must have been suspended in order for the wicked white regime to hand over power to blacks — but this process had been set in motion years before, and would have been nearly impossible to turn back. Within South Africa, the “miracle” was that there had not been riots or even full-scale civil war between Zulus and the largely-Xhosa ANC. But blacks had no reason to riot; they were getting everything they wanted. In any case, the election was covered by nearly every media organization in the world, and even unsophisticated blacks had some notion that something important was going on. For the 1999 elections, there will be nothing like the media hype there was for the last one, and this too should reduce the black turnout, giving whites more influence.

On the other hand, white political parties cannot campaign in the townships. All attempts so far to hold public rallies have been disrupted. I suspect the reason for this is that the ANC elite at some level shares my view that if ordinary South African blacks are left to their own devices — and to the extent that they are free from Western ideological influence (as I believe many are) — a large number would indeed vote for whites. One way to prevent this is not to let white politicians anywhere near them. A similar fear most likely explains why President Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya prevented the registration of the Sarafina party, headed by the formidable figure of Richard Leakey (of the famous family of anthropologists), who otherwise might have won an embarrassingly large number of votes.

South Africa has sophisticated opinion polling techniques. If the ANC were going to lose an election it would be known in advance. What would a black government do? Not a single person I’ve asked, black or white, has ever differed in his answer: The ANC would cancel the election and declare some kind of one-party/military government. In that case, South Africa’s decline could be sudden rather than gradual.

I have independent confirmation of my view that when blacks are not encumbered by Western liberal-egalitarian dogma they are happy to vote for whites. Blacks are a large majority of the Brazilian state of Bahia, but they consistently elect white governments. Therefore, I would not totally rule out blacks here doing the same if they had the chance. Whether the ideological brainwashing — which is by no means as widespread in South Africa as in the U.S. — can be overcome is an open question, but it seems to me that the “loyalty” on which ANC rule is based is a house of cards. Given the extremely volatile and unstable African temperament, the possible outcomes are not nearly as predictable as many are likely to assume.

South Africa should, of course, be a lesson for America. Both countries are making the same mistake, which is to assume that there is no such thing as racial differences. It is this mistaken assumption that prevents recognition of the fundamental paradox of black-white relations. Blacks want to live in white neighborhoods, go to white schools and hospitals because they are white. Yet these objects of their desire will remain desirable and superior only as long as they remain white. A few blacks can live in a white neighborhood or go to a black school without seriously affecting it, but as soon as their numbers approach predominance, the very things that made the blacks want to go there cease to exist and blacks find themselves in the very situation they sought to flee: black slums, broken-down black schools, hell-hole hospitals, etc.

Blacks can enter into these white structures only if their numbers are controlled; but that is impossible so long as everyone assumes that the very idea of fundamental racial differences is somehow shameful and morally abhorrent. To bring about any real racial progress this assumption must be irrefutably — and, most of all, publicly — shown to be the profound and pernicious fallacy that it is.

[Editor’s Note: This is just one of thirteen essays in our collection of first-hand reports about the reality of race, Face to Face with Race.]

27 responses to “South Africa Under Black Rule”

  1. Anonymous says:

    The author wrote about how White African elites were so in the thrall of Western Liberal ideas back when apartheid was being dismantled.

    I was in my teens and early twenties then, and I still remember how American entertainers just loved to jump on that cheap and easy bandwagon, exploiting the situation to poke fun at white Africans, to make fools of them from afar.

    I wish I could get the memory of that useless showboating hack, Robin Williams, making fun of White South Africans in his humorless, sophomoric schtick…

    And I bet he doesn’t want to hear a thing about the living hell his most worshipped blacks have made on this earth since people like HIM gave it all to them to ruin.

    Shame on him, and all like him. They are indirectly responsible for many horrors.

  2. John Engelman says:

    The official story in the United States is that the end of apartheid has been an unqualified success. Even prominent conservative commentators rarely challenge this.

    When this consensus is challenged, as it is by this essay, the challenges are usually undocumented and anecdotal.

    I have been trying to find how the end of apartheid has effected the per capita gross domestic product in terms of constant dollars, and the murder rate in South Africa. The murder rate is a good way of evaluating the over all crime rate, because murders are more likely to come to the attention of the police than other crimes.

    I would like for this information to be documented by an organization I would trust, such as one run by the United Nations.

    The CIA World Factbook is helpful, but it only posts current information.

    If anyone has the information I am looking for, please post it in this thread, or send me an e-mail letter.

  3. White Guy In Japan says:

    And rich folks like Robin Williams live nowhere near any black neighborhoods. In fact, I have seen his big beautiful house. It is in a neighborhood in San Francisco that is mostly Chinese and Russians.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Nelson Mandela states “because we are entitled to it”. That very nicely sums up black opinion on any subject no matter where the blacks live in the world.

  5. elitist says:

    Deep down, I think phony liberals like myself who protested apartheid knew that a black government South Africa would automatically sink to the level of the rest of black Africa, a miserable, chaotic, basket case.

    I believe that most blacks, probably the vast majority, realize they are better off being governed by whites, that black self rule can only be hideous nightmare of brutality and chaos.

  6. highduke says:

    AmRen has already posted articles about Blacks conceding that life was better under White rule. I’ve heard that same sentiment from 2 Zimbabwean Bantus back in ’08. Tea Party Blacks feel it too. This sentiment will only grow simultaneously with European nationalism, so if our brothers in W.Europe come to power even in a coalition government, they can slowly help restore White rule by appealing to the Blacks’ secret taboo wish as they grasp that White rule benefits both races. Think about it.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I have a friend who a few years ago welcomed 2 black girls from Africa into their home from an exchange student program.

    As bad as it is in Africa these 2 girls refused to associate with American blacks after several encounters with them citing that they were too frightening and violent even for them.

  8. Anonymous says:

    The alternative to ‘white supremacy’, which some seem to be suggesting is a more positive out come than ‘one man one vote’, is white separation. Why didn’t anyone think of that? White South Africans only have themselves to blame. As for blacks, with white separation, they would have no one else to blame.

  9. John Engelman says:

    7 — Anonymous wrote at 12:45 PM on July 23:

    I have a friend who a few years ago welcomed 2 black girls from Africa into their home from an exchange student program.

    As bad as it is in Africa these 2 girls refused to associate with American blacks after several encounters with them citing that they were too frightening and violent even for them.


    Once a black Ugandan taxi driver gave me a ride from Baltimore to a suburb in the Washington, DC area. With no prompting from me he told me which neighborhoods in the greater Washington area he felt safe working in, and which neighborhoods he felt unsafe in. Without exception the safe neighborhoods were white. The unsafe neighborhoods were black.

  10. Laager says:

    @ Anon 3:43

    I presume you are from the USA as your statement:

    “The alternative to ‘white supremacy’, is white separation.

    Why didn’t anyone think of that?

    White South Africans only have themselves to blame.”

    reveals your gross ignorance of South Africa.

    May I suggest you do some reading of SA history – starting with the Great Trek which is available on the www.

    Apartheid was exactly what you propose – white AND black separation

    The white settlers soon realised that they had nothing in common with the blacks, and so devised this system of co-existence.

    Meet in the work place (in jobs that whites had created for blacks) and then return to your own residential areas (which the whites had also built for the blacks).

    To each his own.

    In this way blacks retained their identity, languages and customs and gradually assimilated western ways at a pace they set for themselves.

    No coercion, forced integration, bussing etc.

    In South Africa blacks are not the peculiar cross-overs that you have in the USA where they are supposedly westernised, speak “English” and have lost all contact with their African roots. Indeed what Americans call black – e.g. Pres Obama – is not black at all. He is 50% white. In South Africa he would be known as Coloured (Mulatto)

    The reason South Africa is the mess that it is today is that the white population allowed themselves (myself included) to be influenced by western liberals who were constantly criticising the SA system as backward, inhuman and in the words of the UN – A Crime against Humanity. Take away these separist laws and integrate fully was their mantra and racial utopia would unfold

    The fact is this integration already existed but within an adaption of the British class system

    With the current unfolding chaos and violence I expect the next step to be secession where whites can create a territory and govern themselves.

    This process was actually underway with the homelands ( = US reservations) policy, where 56% of white generated taxes were being spent on black infrastructural development. The 9 black tribes would have had their own territories on a par with Swaziland and Lesotho which the West seemed quite content with and did not complain about

    For some peculiar reason the West insisted that SA remain the unitary state the British created in 1910. In effect an African Yugoslavia.

    I suspect that the real reason for this was that the international power/money brokers did not want to loose their labour source in South Africa’s mines that they controlled through their share holdings.

  11. on the lam from the Thought Police says:

    10 — Laager wrote at 8:29 PM on July 23:

    The reason South Africa is the mess that it is today is that the white population allowed themselves (myself included) to be influenced by western liberals who were constantly criticising the SA system as backward, inhuman and in the words of the UN – A Crime against Humanity. Take away these separist laws and integrate fully was their mantra and racial utopia would unfold.

  12. s says:

    I guess its still possible to defend apartheid, as the blacks can actually have a good time with it and also live in a functioning society. But the problem with apartheid is that it provides too good living conditions and helps them growing a population without backing in resources or own capabilities.

    It ends with them blaming others for their own shortcoming – and that maybe also in violent ways.

  13. S. Thompson says:


    I am not South African but I read about a project that was conceived in the 80’s called project ‘Oranje’ that involved some sort of an ethnic homeland for whites (presumably blacks wouldn’t even be allowed to work there) in the book ‘The Afrikaners’ by Hermann Giliomee. Some organization called the South African Bureau for Racial Affairs (SABRA) was responsible. Gilomee gave one the reasons for the project’s demise being that the whites were too accustommed to the cosy economic conditions brought about by cheap black labour. That’s all I know about this project and I would be ever so grateful if anyone here could provide me more information about this, even if it’s in Afrikaans.

  14. olewhitelady says:

    The author of this article also wrote the book advertised as “Amazing New Book About Africa” in the left-hand column of this site. It’s packed with anecdotes that flesh out the contentions made in the above article.

  15. SWART GEVAAR says:

    I lived in Suid Afrika for 2 years. Everything in this article is true.

    Coming to America, white man.

  16. Publius says:

    Speaking of which. Here is a clip of a “controversial” music video, by a popular SA musician Bok Van Blerk:

    I’m not sure the USA won’t look like this in a few years.

    BTW, “Tyd om te trek?” is Afrikaans for “Time to Go?”

  17. Martin says:

    South Africa is now ruled by blacks; the only prosperous country on the continent has been handed to them on a platter.

    You might want to rethink this statement above?

    Aren’t we pretty much doing this in America too?

    Not only with blacks but anyone else who enters our country and starts making demands. Ah the joys of Diversity !

  18. OBSERVER says:

    When I lived in South Africa during 1980-1983, I practiced in the black branch of the clinic I worked for/with. I actually ASKED to work in the black clinic since I was young, strong, curious and not afraid.

    One day while talking to my black assistant, who spoke 7 languages, I noticed he had a GUN in his desk. In the reception room was 3 friends of his (all black). He noticed that I noticed the gun and I smiled (I am PRO GUN) but had a look of shock on my face.

    How did a BLACK MAN in South African GET A GUN AHHHHHHH!!!! He said he bought it at a gun store like everybody else.

    Then I asked him why he and the rest of the blacks don’t shoot the whites since they WAY out-numbered them (us). He and his friends said they don’t want to. He explained there are 5 basic “tribes” (Xosha, Matabele, Zulu, etc if I have the spelling correct) and they all hate each other.

    He said to me: “You whites only want the gold and diamonds. The other tribes want to kill me since my grandfathers stole cattle from their grandfathers”

    I learned the truth then. The AVERAGE, everyday Black in South Africa wanted the white man to rule. Yes, Virginia, they did.

    One must not forget, Mandella was a communist killer and punk. He was trained by the Soviets, killed people like a coward and was/is a racists.

  19. Laager says:

    @ on the lam

    Quite right

    The real test is: where are they now?

    What has happened in Zimbabwe and SA is living proof that their liberal theories are totally flawed.

    Their theories were precisely that: fuzzy feel-good ideas floating around in their brains that they plucked out and verbalised at random and got other people to implement.

    Whites in SA were not totally stupid.

    That had monitored what was happening in west Africa and was systematically heading east and then south.

    States became independent and then collapsed in a pool of anarchy and gross financial mismanagement to end up being totally failed and now costing the west substantially more to maintain with aid than when the colonial powers administered them.

    The really stupid whites are the liberal idiots in the west

    I now live in the UK and just shake my head in amazement at this on-going lunacy.

    A young couple in my parish are accompanying a troop of 12 year old boy scouts to visit an African state to assist a group of boy scouts in this country to build a school classroom. I think the money for this project is coming from donors in the UK. These donors never miss an opportunity to let you know they are contributing to “my charity in Africa”

    I ask you?

    Where are the real men in this country who should be collecting and administering taxes wisely and then managing the procurement process locally to deliver this facility?

    A pathetic bunch of losers many of whom are taking the easy option and exporting themselves with their losers mentality to the west.

    If there are any liberals reading this please come up with some solutions on how Africa can take care of itself within Africa.

    If you can’t, start petitioning your politicians to pull up the drawbridge.


    @ S

    The real problem in (South) Africa is the irresponsible birth rate of black Africans

    In SA there were 3m blacks and 1m whites in 1900

    In 1990 the figure was 35m blacks and 5m whites

    In other words the white population grew at a rate similar to Scotland, Ireland and New Zealand. It was in balance with what their growing economies could sustain.

    The 5m whites in SA were carrying the tax load to develop the 35m blacks who cried “oppression” at every opportunity. The bulk of the black population growth took place during the “evil” apartheid years. (1948 – 1990) This was thanks to western medicine, a sustainable and nutritious food supply, and the jobs created by the white man which enabled blacks to access all the material benefits of an industrialised western civilisation.

    As recently as c1860 the first Bible was published in Xhosa thanks to the efforts of the white man who turned the 9 black languages into a written form and taught them how to read and write.

    So when you hear people like Mandela cry “oppression” just look behind the smoke screen. Absolutely everything he is today is thanks to the white man – his education and profession, the languages he speaks, the clothes he wears, the dwelling he lives in, the system of democracy that he as a communist (can’t figure that one out) espouses to support – etc, etc.

  20. Laager says:

    @ S Thompson

    The community you speak of is called Orania

    You can see and read all about it on

    Type in in Orania, South Africa on Google Earth and you will be taken directly to it.

    The community operates on a similar basis to an Amish community in Pennsylvania

    Their mission statement is to be totally self sufficient and not be reliant on black labour in any shape or form which has been the traditional South african way of life since the first white settlers arrived in 1652. You will only find white Afrikaans speaking South Africans living here.

    The community was established by buying the derelict housing from the Govt Dept of Water Affairs who had used it for staff accommodation when building a dam on the nearby Orange River.

    Orania/Oranje = Orange in Dutch/Flemish/Afrikaans, and takes its name from the biggest river flowing from East to West in South Africa. The river also took its name from the House of Orange in the Netherlands at the time when the Cape was still a Dutch possession (1652-1806) Coincidentally the river colour is also reddish/brown/orange depending on the season of the year when the rains fall and top soil is washed into it. In “The New South Africa” the river has been re-named Gariep by the ANC in their quest to rid themselves of all white history. Gariep was the name given to the river by the first nations in South Africa – the Khoi-Khoi (Hottentots) and San (Bushmen)

    The region where Orania is located is semi-desert like Nevada/Arizona and it’s survival is wholly dependent on the waters of the Orange River. It is also about 120 miles from the nearest urban centre – Bloemfontein. This isolation and the fact that it is fundamentally a community centre for farming probably accounts for its slow growth to date. Like many other farming communities in the country the inhabitants are quite content with their quiet rural lifestyle.

    From what I have read I would not consider the project to be in “demise”

    Through their website you can request being put on their newsletter mailing list

    I am not certain if they produce one in English as so far I have been receiving the Afrikaans issue

    I hope this helps.

  21. Anonymous says:

    White robber barons and land barons have been importing foreign labor for years to increase profits. The consequence is that we are now loosing our countries. I’m white, from New England. My grandparents were immigrants from Scandinavia. My grandfather had a high school education, but for his entire life, he chose to work on a loading dock. He was a janitor as well for some period. My grandmother was a housewife and they had four children together. With one working class salary, they owned a house, rental property, and bought a new car every few years. They bought their house and cars outright, as there was no financing for them at that time.

    Their car was a new chevrolet or similar. There was always food on the table and they went on family vacations every year. They were very religious and had a strong work ethic. Family life was important to them, as was morals and financial well-being. My grandfather’s boss was quite wealthy, and my grandfather lived a simple life on a small salary. For the robber barons, this wasn’t enough. They wanted more.

    Big business greatly increased their profits by importing third world labor, destroying the lives of people like my grandfather. They continue to exploit these new workers and pay them almost nothing. A janitor can no longer buy a house or a new car. Our new third world countrymen share one house with several families. They don’t have any insurance or any cash. They make babies, and pay rent. The middle class pays for their health care, which continues to deteriorate for all of us. NO ONE can afford a house in most metropolitan areas. Even doctors cannot afford to buy a car with cash.

    Greed destroyed the American dream. There are many decent people of color in the US. Their well-being has been destroyed as well. I went to a mall today in Massachusetts with my niece. They live in a mostly white, middle class area. Most of the white women I saw very overweight, had tatoos, and several were pushing mulatto babies. This is devestating, and a far cry from the world of my grandparents. Our currency is being devalued as we speak, and we just lost our space program. Our way of life is being rapidly dismantled. This is what has become of the American dream.

  22. S. Thompson says:

    @Laager 1:34

    Thanks Laager. I heard of Orania before, but I just never realized this was what Project Oranje later became. I think the Afrikaners should have carved out a Volkstaat where even whites would do the menial labour prior to the end of apartheid when they had a stronger bargaining position. I fails to see how the National Party ever thought Apartheid was viable given the differences between the races in relation to IQ and reproductive rates. As Europe and the USA go under, I hope such refuges will keep Western Civilization alive. Of course, there should never have been a need to establish them in the first place.

  23. Laager says:

    @ S Thompson 6:22

    “I think the Afrikaners should have carved out a Volkstaat”

    This what the homelands policy was trying to achieve. The National Party ran out of time as international pressure/condemnation/sanctions insisted the the nation remain the unitary state (an African Yugoslavia) created by the British in 1910

    Each of the 9 black tribes would have had their own independent countries on a par with Lesotho and Swaziland which the west has never criticised or condemned. Indeed these 2 states have always protected and supported by the west.

    It is interesting to note that the most peaceful African countries are those that are occupied by one tribe only. Wherever you have a country created by the boundaries imposed by the colonial powers you have conflict – e.g. Rwanda, Congo, Angola

    “where even whites would do the menial labour”

    After the end of the Anglo-Boer war in 1902 this was the case. The Afrikaners were traditionally farmers and as a result of Kitchener’s scorched policy during the war their farms and agricultural economy in the Boer Republics was decimated. Many migrated to the cities to work on the mines in order to survive. They became the nations blue collar workers. There was serious social upheaval with the miners strike in the 1920s when the British/SA English mine owners started employing black labour at about 1/3 of the rate whites were being paid.

    Between 1902 and the present the Afrikaners have focussed on uplifting themselves through education and hard work. No running to the UN with the begging bowl as black Africa has done.

    During this same period the SA economy has grown and developed thus creating better job opportunities for everyone. Afrikaners still love the land and farm but they have also developed a prosperous middle and professional class of merchants, manufacturers, traders, educationalists, doctors lawyers etc. Blacks have also progressed from being subsistence farmers and herdsmen to become technicians, blue collar workers and a small group of professionals – mainly doctors and lawyers.

    The bottom line is that there are simply not enough white people available to fill all the blue collar jobs. At the same time, due to irresponsible breeding there is a surplus of unskilled non-producing blacks who bludge off the economy – driven mainly by white taxes.

    Interestingly the integrated workforce in SA is exactly the ‘diverse-multi-culti” society that the liberals in the west bang on about. It exists in South Africa within the apartheid/separate development framework. This was an adaption of the British class system (remember the British controlled SA from 1806 until 1948/1961) which began when the first segregationist legislation was promulgated by the British in the Cape in 1806. The Afrikaners have been unjustly blamed for creating apartheid. What they did was give the existing status quo the name of apartheid and then followed through with Homelands policy. They had never desired to rule the black tribes but had inherited this situation when they came to power through the ballot box in 1948

    You can read the detail on these developments on the following blogs;

    Mike Smiths Political Commentary – see the Pandora’s Box series of articles


    where you can follow the trail of all the legislation passed by the 2 British Colonies of Cape and Natal and the two Boer Republics of Orange Free State and Transvaal

    “I fail to see how the National Party ever thought Apartheid was viable given the differences between the races in relation to IQ and reproductive rates.”

    I hope the above explanation assists in clarifying your point of view.

  24. S. Thompson says:

    @Laager 11:18

    Yes, it has improved my understanding. I read somewhere in a book by Martin Meredith (‘Diamonds, Gold and War’) that the British essentially introduced segregation that was later referred to apartheid. I read in the book Ian Smith’s autobiography ‘Bitter Harvest’ that the National Party, coming to power after World War II, restricted immigration into SA from Europe except from Germany and Holland (presumably to preserve the Afrikaner ethnic makeup). He claimed that the white population (in SA and probably Rhodesia also) could have risen to 20 million if the United Party under Smuts had come to power. I’m not sure how correct his speculation is, but I certainly think that a larger white population in SA might have led to a better outcome than the current situation and I think the NP was short-sighted in this regard. Of course, one must accept their viable distrust after the devastation inflicted upon them during the Boer War. Do you think things in SA would be better today if the white population in Africa had been increased, though at the expense of the Afrikaner demographic component?

  25. Laager says:

    @ S Thompson 5:58

    I need to answer your question in a number of parts based on historical events.

    If any ethnic group in South Africa can lay a just claim to being oppressed it is the Afrikaners.

    The Dutch in the Cape were minding their own business when they were attacked by the British in 1795 (Battle of Muizenberg) and again in 1806 (Battle of Blouwberg) which resulted in them losing control of the territory. The British then set about turning the Cape into an English colony. Town names were changed from Dutch to English; English became the official language – although they were in the minority – and Dutch children were ridiculed and punished at school if they spoke Dutch. With the abolition of slavery and later the emancipation of all slaves [see note at end] in the British Empire the Dutch felt they had to get away from the British in order to retain their way of life. Many of them lived a nomadic life as Trekboere (= travelling farmers). This term was latter abbreviated to Boere (boer = farmer – boere = plural) This lead to a migration north into the interior of Africa to seek land where they could fulfill their desire for self determination and took place between 1834 and 1845. Their migration is detailed in a number of publications on the www. The event is known as The Great Trek.

    At this stage in their history the (Trek) Boere now referred to themselves as Voortrekkers (=pioneers) The word came from the person who walked at the front and lead the span of oxen that pulled their wagons (Voor=front – trek=travel/pull) i.e. leading from the front.

    The Voortrekkers crossed the Drakensberg Mountains into Natal on the east coast (Durban) where they encountered the Zulu people. They negotiated with the Zulu King Dingane to acquire land to which he agreed. On the day the treaty was to be ratified the 100 strong male Boer/Voortrekker delegation lead by Piet Retief was massacred on the orders of Dingane. This was followed up by another massacre of the Voortrekker women and children in their wagon trains at Bloukrans/Weenen

    Before setting out on the trek the Boere had encountered the Xhosa on the eastern frontier of the Cape near present Port Elizabeth. Two battles took place known as the 1st and 2nd Kaffir Wars. This is now a non pc term and they are known as the Xhosa/Frontier Wars. The British later went to war a further seven times against the Xhosa. Before crossing into Natal the Voortrekkers successfully repulsed an attack by the Matabele at the battle of Vegkop (near Heilbron) in what is today the Orange Free State

    From these experiences race relations between the Boere and black races were set for evermore. In a reprisal battle later in the year 1838 the Boere/Voortrekkers defeated the Zulu at the Battle of Blood river. Unfortunately for the Boere at about the same time the British sailed into Durban harbour an annexed Natal as part of the British Empire. An uneasy truce existed between the Boere/Voortrekkers and the British. It culminated in the Battle of Congella (Durban) After about 3 years the Voortrekkers abandoned their Republic of Natalia (Pietermaritzburg) and trekked back across the mountains into the interior and settled on the highveld (prairies) to get away from the British. After a number of further stand offs and skirmishes with the British their Boer Republics of Orange Free State (1854) and ZAR (1856) [Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek – later renamed Transvaal] were recognised and peace came to the land.

    About this time the term Voortrekker no longer applied and they referred to themselves as “Die Boere Volk” (The Boer People/Nation) It should be noted at this point that they are an amalgam of Dutch, French Huguenot and German immigrants with a culture based on Calvanist Protestantism. Their language was a derivative of mainly Dutch.

    Unfortunately for those that settled in the Orange Free State they did so on the world’s largest deposit of gem diamonds (Kimberley) The envious British in the Cape succeeded through some political manouvering in annexing this territory to the Cape.(1880) The Boere had no desire to go to war over it.

    Some years later the Boere that had settled in the ZAR discovered that they had done so over the world’s largest deposit of gold (Johannesburg) The avaricious British wanted this wealth as well and this lead to the two Anglo-Boer Wars. The second (1899-1902) was a very bitter affair which lead to 3,000 Boer woman and 24,000 Boer children perishing in British concentration camps. For many those wounds still exist today.

    The Boere were now a broken and impoverished people. They had lost their two republics and were once again under the rule of the British. In 1910 the two colonies and the two republics were consolidated into a single unitary state – the Union of South Africa.

    The Boere resolved to re-gain their independence through democratic means and set about doing so through hard work, education and developing financial and commercial power. During this time their language became recognised as an independent language – Afrikaans (1923) and they now referred to themselves as Afrikaners (=African) Finally in 1948 the National Party won the (whites only) election. In 1961 after a whites only referendum they broke with the British empire and the Union of South Africa became the Republic of South Africa.

    The white population has always been about 60% Dutch/Boer/Afrikaner and 40% British/SA English. From this brief history you can see that they have been involved in a constant battle to maintain their identity and independence against the British and black tribes of Southern Africa.

    So to answer your original question:

    They had no desire to encourage more English (and Catholic) immigrants that could potentially outnumber, undermine and weaken their hard won freedom, independence and republic.

    Regarding their relationship with the 9 black tribes of South Africa.

    It had never been their intention to set out to conquer and rule anyone. They had always sought to find their own territory and live in peace alongside their neighbours – be they British or black.

    When they gained political power in 1948 they inherited the British construct of 1910 which included the 9 tribes of Africa. In effect an African Yugoslavia.

    My opinion on this is that the British wanted the 9 tribes within the Union to provide a labour force for the diamond and gold mines and other valuable minerals that had been discovered. If you trace the shareholdings of these assets you will see they are actually owned and controlled by off shore interests – mainly in the UK

    This is why the National Party Govt embarked on the homelands policy. Substantial investments were made in the black homelands (=US reservations) to train and lead them to independence and western style democracy. These states would have been on a par with Lesotho and Swaziland.

    As the Afrikaners did not own the mines they were not important to them. By contrast they were very valuable to the British who were able to successfully use the “human rights/black African independence” aspect of the apartheid policies as a subterfuge to oust the Afrikaners from political control and power.

    However, I think that this may ultimately backfire on the British. The black govt is not proving to be as docile as they had hoped. There are a lot of noises within the ANC camp to nationalise the mines. The ever growing presence of the Chinese in Africa is another development they had not bargained for.

    Today we once again see the Afrikaner as effectively dispossessed and being slaughtered at rate greater than ever before in their history. Despite extreme provocation they are using all peaceful diplomatic channels through local representation of their people, applications to the world court in the Hague and eventual petitions to the UN (however biased that organisation is against them) to be recognised as an independent people and be accorded full protection afforded by international laws, legislation and declarations of human rights within their own self governing territory.

    To answer your final point:

    What we are witnessing today in SA is the outcome of one of the slickest pieces of spin-doctoring the world has ever seen.

    The Afrikaners have been made out to be the villains.

    Read Pandora’s Box to get an idea of the investment the National Party made in black people to lead them to self-sufficient western democratic independence.

    Concurrent with the political moves the industrial economy (English/Jewish) and agricultural economy (Afrikaner) has delivered a level of prosperity the blacks have never before experienced.

    English South Africans made the most of the political status quo to get wealthy whilst the Afrikaners manned the security forces to make these conditions possible.

    Now the backlash is directed against the Afrikaners for being the “oppressors” Between 1910 and 1948 SA was ruled by English political parties. They are equally complicit in the segregationist state that SA was. The Afrikaners merely formalised the existing status quo by giving it the name Apartheid

    From 1910 to 1961 when SA became a republic Britain had a resident Governor General in SA who had the power to veto any piece of legislation passed by the SA Parliament. To the best of my knowledge they never once exercised this power. In other words, Britain fully endorsed the status quo as it ensured a healthy flow of dividends from the mines. After 1961 when the pesky Boere no longer jumped to Britain’s tune the gloves came off to get rid of them once again.

    Would SA be better today if the white population was bigger?

    I honestly don’t know

    Under white patronage the black population grew from 3m to 35m

    Materially they were the most well off black community on the continent

    Under their own administration they are heading for the same drop in standards as the rest of Africa

    If I could wave a magic wand I believe the best solution would have been for the Homelands policy to have run its course so that each group could have their own territory and live in peace as good neighbours. In some ways it already existed with the English grouped in Natal and the urban areas and the Afrikaners in the other provinces in the rural areas. If you look at Africa you will see the most peaceful countries are those populated by a single tribe. Wherever you have two or more tribes within boundaries prescribed by colonial powers you have conflict. In time a federal system could have evolved to everyone’s benefit.

    Right now we are where we are and just have to watch and work at making the current set of circumstances unfold peacefully and prosperously for all.

    A big ask.

    Note: Slavery

    Black South Africans were never enslaved by either the Afrikaners or the British despite what black leaders would have you believe. Black South Africans were never captured, bought and sold as private property.

    Indeed Boere and Brit only encountered blacks along the eastern frontier about the time that slavery/the slave trade was abolished in the British Empire. The slaves that did exist in the cape had been bought in from the Portuguese from West Africa and Angola. The Dutch also brought slaves into the Cape from their possessions in Indonesia and Malaysia

  26. Anonymous says:

    History of the theft of Boer land

  27. anon says:

    In South Africa the National Party came to power in 1948 not understanding the global game.

    At first the Fabian Socialists and the World powers let them be. They hoped that the Afrikaner Nationalists would become like the Nazis and decimate the blacks, obviously solving the population problem.

    Instead the Afrikaners built hospitals for the blacks, cured their diseases, raised their life expectancy by 30 years, the same as white’s. The Nationalists built schools for them, gave them their own countries and assisted them to run it…the result was that by 1980 the black population exploded and stood at 35 million. A disaster for the one worlders.

    When the white South Africans did not want to decimate the blacks the blacks were agitated and set loose on the whites, hoping it would trigger a civil war and that the whites would that way cull the blacks, but the whites easily put down these revolts and carried on building houses and hospitals for the blacks. By 1990 their numbers were 40 million and that of the whites 4 million.

    Not only that. The good, Christian white farmers of South Africa were feeding the entire population, black and white, and exporting their products not only to Europe but to the rest of Africa. An obvious disaster for the Platoists and one worlders.

    That is why the system of Apartheid simply had to go. Apartheid was too good to the blacks. Their numbers exploded, the blacks from the neighboring socialist states flocked to South Africa. State of the art electrified fences could not keep them out. On the Mozambique border with the Kruger National Park they were facing lions and hyenas to get INTO South Africa.

    That is why the Socialists had Apartheid in the UN declared as “A crime against humanity”…not because of how bad it was to blacks, but because of how good it was.

    Today we have the ANC black socialists in power. For their efforts they are richly rewarded, because they are playing the game. Under their policies, white farmers are disappearing. Food production is decreasing. The Malthusian catastrophe is being forcefully introduced in South Africa.

    Africa is once against starving as we see in the Horn of Africa. South Africa has for the first time in its history started to import food. Clean water is becoming scarce in South Africa. Food is more expensive than in Europe. Hospitals are run down. The education system is dumbed down. 500 thousand blacks die each year from AIDS. Black on white crime has increased exponentially. Whites are being impoverished. Black hate-speech against whites is increasing…

    It does not take much intellect to start realizing what the message is from the powers that be.

    “Stop feeding blacks. Stop employing them. Start hating them. Make war against them…”

    More at :https://mspoliticalcommentary.