Friday, March 05, 2010

The case for Apartheid: 1953

No, I'm not dwelling on the past, or longing for a time when I was a "favoured" white boy that got handed all the opportunities on a platter because of my white skin. I have moved on with my life and I can honestly say that every step, every increment and every improvement in my life has been about strife and hard graft.

I never benefitted from apartheid. I had to work harder during it, but also after it ended in 1994. In my adoptive country, the UK, I have continued those efforts and I have confirmed that skin colour is irrelevant; merit is all that counts. I got where I am through my spine, and boy, I count it the only thing worth a damn at all.

So I hope I have made that clear to any potential knee-jerk reactions about the following history lesson: You will note that not much has changed since 1953 and the words ring true nearly 60 years later.

This speech was given before the Rotary Club of London on August 19, 1953. A supporter of apartheid explains why it is the best policy for all races in South Africa.

As one of the aftermaths of the last war, many people seem to suffer from a neurotic guilt­-complex with regard to colonies. This has led to a strident denunciation of the Black African's wrongs, real or imaginary, under the white man's rule in Africa. It is a denunciation, so shrill and emotional, that the vast debt owed by Black Africa to those same white men, is lost sight of (and, incidentally, the Black African is encouraged to forget that debt)

Confining myself to that area of which I know at least a very little, Africa, south of the Equator, I shall say this without fear of reasonable contradiction: Every millimetre of progress in all that vast area is due entirely to the White Man.

You are familiar with the cry that came floating over the ocean from the West - a cry that "colonialism" is outmoded and pernicious, a cry that is being vociferously echoed by a certain gentleman in the East. (This refers to Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India.)

May I point out that African colonies are of comparatively recent date. Before that time Black Africa did have independence for a thousand years and more, and what did she make of it?

One problem, I admit, she did solve most effectively; There was no overpopulation. Interminable savage, inter-tribal wars, witchcraft, disease, famine, and even cannibalism, saw to that.

Let me turn to my subject, to that part of Africa south of the Sahara which, historically, is not part of Black Africa at all - my own country. Its position is unique in Africa as its racial problem is unique in the world.

South Africa is no more the original home of its black Africans, the Bantu, than it is of its white Africans. Both races went there as colonists and, what is more, as practically contemporary colonists. In some parts the Bantu arrived first, in other parts the Europeans were the first comers.

South Africa contains the only independent white nation in all Africa ~ The South African nation which has no other homeland to which it could retreat; a nation which has created a highly developed modern state, and which occupies a position of inestimable importance.

South Africa is the only independent country in the world in which white ­people are outnumbered by black people. Including all coloured races or peoples, the proportion in Brazil is 20 to 1. In South Africa it is 1 to 4.

This brings me to the question of the future. To me, there seems to be two possible lines of development: Apartheid or Partnership. Partnership means Cooperation of the individual citizens within a single community, irrespective of race.... (It) demands that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever in trade and industry, in the professions and the Public Service.

Therefore, whether a man is black or a white African, must, according to this policy be as irrelevant as whether in London a man is a Scotsman or an Englishman. I take it that Partnership must also aim at the eventual disappearance of all social segregation based on race. This policy of Partnership admittedly does not envisage immediate adult suffrage.

Obviously, however, the loading of the franchise in order to exclude the great majority of the Bantu could be no wore than a temporary expedient.... (In effect) "there must one day be black domination, in the sense that power must pass to the immense African majority.

Need I say more to show that this policy of Partnership could, in South Africa, only mean the eventual disappearance of the white South African nation? And will you be greatly surprised if I tell you that this white nation is not prepared to commit national suicide, not even by slow poisoning? The only alternative is a policy of apartheid, the policy of separate development. The germ of this policy is inherent in almost all of our history, implanted there by the force of circumstances....

Apartheid is a policy of self preservation. We make no apology for possessing that very natural urge. But it is more than that. It is an attempt at self ­preservation in a manner that will enable the Bantu to develop fully as a separate people.

We believe that, for a long time to come, political power will have to remain with the whites, also in the interest of our still very immature Bantu. But, we believe also, in the words of a statement by the Dutch Reformed Church in 1950, a Church that favours apartheid, that "no people in the world worth their salt, would be content indefinitely with no say or only indirect say in the affairs of the State or in the country's socio­economic organisation in which decisions are taken about their interests and their future."

The immediate aim is, therefore, to keep the races outside the Bantu areas apart as far as possible, to continue the process of improving the conditions and standards of living of the Bantu, and to give them greater responsibility for their own local affairs. At the same time the long­range aim is to develop the Bantu areas both agriculturally and industrially, with the object of making these areas in every sense the national home of the Bantu - areas in which their interests are paramount, in which to an ever greater degree all professional and other positions are to be occupied by them, and in which they are to receive progressively more and more autonomy.

From: Union of South Africa Government: Information Pamphlet (New York, 1953), reprinted in Ruth E. Gordon and Clive Talbot, eds., From Dias to Vorster: Source Material on South African History 1488­1975 (Goodwood, S.A.: Nasou, n.d.), pp. 409 410.

27 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Well maybe that was the original intention - maybe - but the practical outcome of apartheid led to many abuses. Fact is, when one group make all the rules and have all the power, human nature being what it is inevitably leads to ideals being rather trashed.

Rhodesia under white rule did not practice the kind of petty and moronic aspects of apartheid that took place in SA. In other words, the policy was hardly inevitable.

Jan Smuts, a truly great international statesman, knew it was not the way forward. There were many who at the time (1948) said that this apartheid policy would end in tears - and they were right.

Also, to have introduced this policy right after the 2nd world war was just plain stupid and arrogant, considering the new world order of the time. But then, of course, many Nationalists were sympathetic to Nazi Germany.

Apartheid was a backward step and did WHITE South African's no favours in the long run.

Lime Lite said...

People tend to forget why Apartheid was instigated. To understand,one needs to picture what SA was in 1948. The whites were very frustrated and scared of their future. The blacks were not-trustworthy and only understood violence. The whites did not want to live with them and GAVE them their own homelands to do with as they pleased.The blacks, instead of bucking down and making a success of their new homelands, kept looking with big eyes at how the whites were living. Still today they keep looking at the Jone's and wanting. This culture of entitlement will be with them forever. Hard work is unheard of. It's easier (and less brain taxing) to just take and kill - just like the past. History indeed keeps repeating itself until you learn.

Anonymous said...

I always love this line!

I never benefitted from apartheid.

There will never be peace in South Africa until people can face the past with a clean slate both black and white. Instant absolution after the fact is not a solution.

Anonymous said...

Jim Beam is both right and wrong, as is ExZ. Whites never benefited from Apartheid relative to any other Europeans or New World nations. But we definitely benefited relative to other races in South Africa, yet this is a retrospective view.

The country was established around European standards and norms, and therefore the whites were naturally going to "benefit". Duh. It serves no purpose to revise history, in order to seek some sort of absolution. This is just bullshit.

Jim, generally I like what you say, but sometimes the ever so slight chip on your shoulder is all too obvious.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 09:56 - so please let us know what white SA should have done in 1948. Everything they tried with the blacks ended in death and violence. It was a natural step for them to want to preserve what they had built and leave the blacks to their immaturity (as the orator states). It's very easy to ramantisise SA 60years later but to live at that time was another story. As for Rhodesia - they might not have had the "petty and moronic aspects of apartheid" but look how that country has ended up - a real success story under black rule. The two mistakes SA made was to give the policy a name - and to let the blacks live by giving them the nasty white man's medicine; food and policing. Apartheid wasn't evil, but was the best solution at the time for SA's mish-mash of tribes, who were hell-bent on wiping each other out. This will inevitably continue once the whites are either forced out of the country or killed off to become an insignificant number. What our forefathers tried to stop has now come true. The rest of the western world will slowly realise that what SA implemented will be necessary in their countries one day.

Anonymous said...

The article states the following:

"Apartheid is a policy of self preservation. We make no apology for possessing that very natural urge. But it is more than that. It is an attempt at self ­preservation in a manner that will enable the Bantu to develop fully as a separate people."

Above we have the crux of the problem, the reason why apartheid failed. It failed because the Bantu cannot develop on his own. He could not even develop with the massive funds directed towards his development by the apartheid government.

They remain a useless people. They remain a parasitic people, because in they have no adaptation to today's IQ driven world.


Anonymous said...

Most whites don't own land. (99.75%)
Most SA whites don't own mines. (99.99%)

So lets ask the question of how could the average white that did not own a farm or a mine have benefited from apartheid?

The only answer the blacks have, is that the whites had no competition from the blacks when it came to jobs, thus the whites benefited.

At this point you have to excuse me for a second.


hmmm, sorry,


I mean I'm sorry, but the average black today is as educated as a baboon and this is after 15 years of freedom. Back in 1948 only about 0.01% of the total black population had any sort of tertiary degree. Even then to think that this 0.01% would have been even be able to compete with a Western educated white is ludicrous. The whites grew up in a civilized society and the blacks did not.

Most whites never benefited from apartheid. They had to pay to go to school, they had to pay to study and a lot of whites missed this opportunity because their parents could not afford to send them to varsity.

Whites paid tax, blacks didn't.
Nothing in this life is for free, although most baboons seems to think that they have been oppressed since they don't get everything for free.

The reason why some parents could not afford to send their kids to university, is because they had lesser paying jobs than other whites, BECAUSE COMPETITION WAS FIERCE UNDER THE WHITES.

BUT let's be realistic even these lower paying white employees were better educated than the best of the black people back in 1948.

The whites did not come to SA and take anything from the blacks.

The blacks sat on mineral rich grounds, but never knew it, as they had not the knowledge to extract it.

The blacks sat on fertile land but did no commercial farming, because they did not have the knowledge to farm it.

Only when the white man came and showed them what could be done with what the blacks perceived to be useless things, did the accusations of oppression start.

The increase of the knowledge of a society is an indication of its progress along the path of social evolution and by this measure the blacks were only starting out.

IQ remains their obstacle and since it is 80% genetic they are going to have to be patient.

Alternatively they can continue to blame the whites for their own shortcomings. Incidentally they are blaming the group which has given them the most benefit.


Anonymous said...

If you live amongst wild animals you will build an encampment that keeps you separate from these animals.

It is an act of self preservation andto keep you safe from harm.

This is the true reason for apartheid. 20 Years ago the white world laughed at the South African politicians when they tried to explain this concept. Today a lot of Europeans finally are beginning to understand.


Anonymous said...


I am very resentful of people who are aparthied apologists or who today wish to justify aparthied as being some sort of solution to the past. They clearly have the inability with their 100+ IQ to connect the dots.

Let's go back to aparthied I say, no I mean it. There are clearly many who long for it as they 'worked hard under aparthied' of which I have no doubt. Nobody said you did not work hard. My question to you is - did you benefit from a skewed financial system and did you benefit by having your culture and history preserved. THAT is my question to you.

Now as I said lets go back to aparthied tomorrow and I really mean it - there is only ONE condition.

EVERYONE gives up their language, culture, traditions and any form of cultural identity. No, not just certain groups get to do it this time by force - EVERYONE!


If not I would be very interested to know why not.

Piet the Pirate said...

The whole idea that Apartheid was a separation of race based on skin colour, is a fallacy.
Read that again, and think about it.
It was this lie that sowed the seeds of moral indignation at what was the most just and progressive system of governance ever seen on the African continent.

In reality, Apartheid was a separation of cultures, the western European culture, and the African culture. That the people who practiced these different cultures belonged to different racial groups with different skin colour, was really unimportant in many respects.

If one understands that the country was in it´s infancy when Apartheid was first introduced, and was being powered and led by European, and not African, influences, then one understands that it was absolutely essential to maintain that influence in order to create a competitive (in global terms) economic environment, which in turn was the only way the entire population would benefit in the long run. The European Africans had the unenviable task of dragging a society, which greatly outnumbered them and that were still trapped in the stone age, into the modern world.

The fact that South Africa today, despite ANC misrule for the past 15 years, is light years ahead of the rest of Africa in every sense, is solely down to the policies of Apartheid.
I´m not suggesting Apartheid could have lasted indefinitely, but what replaced it was infinitely worse, for everyone, black and white.

Had it not been for a totally false sense of moral indignation, created by evil forces who´s agenda was to destroy any chance of an economic powerhouse in Africa, SA would be one of the greatest success stories ever.
Our friends deserted us and gave us up to be sacrificed by the enemy.
Fuck you very much.

Piet the Pirate said...

Jim Beam said...
"I am very resentful of people who are aparthied apologists.......Blah blah blah squeal whine winge...blah blah blah........EVERYONE gives up their language, culture, traditions and any form of cultural identity. No, not just certain groups get to do it this time by force - EVERYONE!"

WTF are you talking about? Who had to give up their cultural identity? Who had to give up their language? Who had to give up their traditions? Do you know anything about Apartheid? Do you live in South Africa, or more to the point, have you ever visited South Africa? Have you any idea who gave the black people in South Africa a written version of their own languages?
Please, next time, before you bore us with your drivel, do a little research on the subject.

FishEagle said...

@ Jim Beam, I think most whites are very resentful of the fact that nobody's given credit to any of the achievements of the apartheid government. I certainly wouldn't suggest that it's a solution for the future. I don't think many whites do.

FishEagle said...

White progressive thinkers are willing to sacrifice diversity for the sake of nationalism. Meaning whites (and maybe even coloureds) will sacrifice their culture and values as if it would make up for past mistakes under apartheid. We owe it to the white race to take a stand and point out the good in apartheid.

Exzanian said...

If I benefitted from apartheid, boy, it was a fricken raw deal! Maybe I'm revealing my raw middle class roots. As A4 rightly puts it "Most whites never benefited from apartheid. They had to pay to go to school, they had to pay to study and a lot of whites missed this opportunity because their parents could not afford to send them to varsity"

In any case, as VI points out, that culture that led to any benefit was 100% imported from Europe - It brought to Africa an elevation in standards unheard of in history and the blacks rejected it as foisting upon them a colonial culture they despised! They spent the next 60 years burning down schools, libraries, killing each other and generally destroying this European society and for what? To protest against apartheid? No, to rid themselves of a culture and standard they could never hope to assimilate, nor emulate!!!

FishEagle said...

The problem is that apartheid legally suppressed the development of other cultures, which otherwise may have developed naturally. I don't think it is right to assume that all the non-white races would have amounted to nothing regardless of apartheid. The Indians and coloureds had a shit load of potential to develop further than the apartheid system allowed them to develop. The natural resources that the country offered would have remained the same though. So there would have been more competition between whites and other races for the same resources. In that regard all whites benefited from apartheid. But since we don't really know how much developmental potential South African coloureds or Indians had we will never really know by how much they were disadvantaged by apartheid.

Piet the Pirate said...

Fish Eagle, if it wasn´t for the European Africans, there wouldn´t have been anything to be disadvantaged by.
Please stop playing the blame game and suggesting the white group were disadvantaging anyone. One has to look at the whole picture. Without white input, the blacks would still be running around in animal skins, so anything that has advanced them past that point benefitted them, including Apartheid. They owe the white man a shitload more than the other way around.

Exzanian said...

I think Bullard was correct when he did his post on the Chinese colonising South Africa. If whites had not done it, the blacks would not have known the difference and would have been easy pickings for the Chinese later in history. In any event, apartheid is alive and well in SA, albeit under another guise; Economic apartheid in parallel societies. You can't get away from it: blacks have never, can never and will never assimilate Western civilisation (except for the odd few who drive BMW's and slurp up cavier and Johnny walker)

Laager said...

@ Fish Eagle

From an Old North American Indian Legend

Change your icon and name to Walking Eagle
You are so full of shit it is impossible for you to fly.

Anonymous said...

Further to my first comment (at top), was apartheid a step forward or a step back?

You have to look at the whole political package of the time (1948 and beyond) to realize what a balls-up apartheid was. Apartheid was driven by afrikaner nationalism and narrow ideology - that was it's driving force, not "separate development".

Why did the Nationalist government put the brakes on European emigration to SA as soon as they came to power? Short-sighted and blinkered afrikaner nationalism, that's why (I'm half afrikaner BTW). Countries like SA, Aus, NZ etc. were soaking up immigrants like sponges post-WW2, but the thick Nationalists put a major stop to that in SA, resulting in a potential loss of several million white Saffers today.

Furthermore, in pursuit of their own myopic ideological ends, the Nats lumped the Coloureds and Indians together with the blacks in all forms of apartheid, when these two minority race-groups would have made more natural allies of the whites than the blacks. Stripping the Cape-Coloureds of the vote was both immoral and ideological - hardly vital to prevent attacks by the "black masses".

SA was turned into a one-party state by the Nats (like the ANC today), and this they did by fiddling the political landscape in order to stay in power (remember, they only narrowly won in 1948). They had to do this because they could not implement their social-engineering program in just one or two parliaments.

So as we know, the broadcast media became government mouthpieces and the written media increasingly restricted (the non pro-government publications).

The ideology created became a big stick to bash white SA abroad, in both past and present, and of course in SA today.

There would obviously have been political and race problems in SA's future because of demographics, regardless of apartheid, but this policy was a big lurch backwards. And why did non-verkrampte afrikaners, such as Jan Smuts, realize and predict back at it's inception that it would inevitably come to grief?

Apartheid was misguided afrikaner nationalism and has done NO favours for white SA in the long term.

FishEagle said...

@ Piet the Pirate. Maybe you could stop feeling guilty for one second to realize that there was no blame in my comment. Apartheid was a set of laws that were used to regulate the people in SA. We can forget about the purpose of that regulation for a second.

There was no natural, spontaneous development in the non-white communities. I don't think the blacks would have created anything and they would have been relying on subsistance farming today like they've been doing for the past few centuries. But what about the other, more intelligent races? And the offspring from white/black mixed relationships? They may have created more for themselves than apartheid allowed them to create. We'll never know but since IQ is correlated with the Human Development Index we should be able to compare their standard of living under apartheid with that of foreign races that have equal IQ scores. Maybe we could get some idea on what the coloureds and Indians missed out on, if anything, like that.

Anonymous said...

Piet said:
"Fish Eagle, if it wasn´t for the European Africans, there wouldn´t have been anything to be disadvantaged by."

For me the one sentence above sums it up nicely.

For blacks that were still living in the stone age before the Europeans came to Africa, the benefit of colonization far outweighed the disadvantage. The most obvious point being an huge increase in lifespan.


FishEagle said...

@ Anon 5.03. Very well said. I agree whole heartedly.

@ Laager. If you can't comment on the topic at hand don't bother posting. Mind you...just shut up anyway. I doubt we'll be missing much.

Anonymous said...

@Piet the Pirate

The European Africans had the unenviable task of dragging a society, ... still trapped in the stone age, into the modern world.

So let me understand this correctly then Piet. On another thread you accused Robert Mugabe of being a front man for the Europeans destroying his country. So how far are blacks going to be until the Europeans stop sticking their fingers into Africa and creating a mess? Who needs the Europeans to pull the Africans up? The stone age - who keeps everyone in the stone age?

Let me quote YOU:

"While Mugabe might, on the surface, appear to be at loggerheads with his colonial masters, that is a smoke screen for the masses. In truth, he is playing his part well and everyone in the deal is getting stinking rich."

So which is it Piet the Pirate, New World Order Propaganda or Aparthied Era Propaganda? You can't do both - they don't work together.

Please, next time, before you bore us with your drivel, do a little research on the subject.


Our friends deserted us and gave us up to be sacrificed by the enemy.

Research? You are to dumb to realise even today that you were sold out by your own.

Who stopped weapons sales to Rhodesia? Hmm...your lot.

Who sold out every minority grouping in South Africa with a "JA" stem....Hmm...your lot.

Who needs enemies when we have...your lot?

Anonymous said...

Apartheid was not the only choice for SA in 1948, but some form of segregation was inevitable, and if you look at the country today, or any vaguely similar country (even the USA) it still is.

The biggest mistakes under the Nat Govt were to unnecessarily limit the potential of Coloureds and Indians, and to halt white immigration after WWII. They also failed to provide family planning services to blacks, although it is questionable whether that would have made the difference.

However, the British are primarily responsible for antagonizing the Afrikaners because they (ie, we) instigated the Boer Wars; so it is not surprising the Nats made emotional decisions rather than mathematically realistic ones. In going for a very narrow type of nationalism, they succeeded in losing the whole thing.

It is however a matter of doubt whether there is any system under which non-Black people could have held on to power forever. The core problem is that provision of medical services, and law & order, would have ensured a black population explosion, and this would have been a problem under any sort of genuine democratic voting system. Forced contraception/abortion etc, as in China, would likely have been impossible to implement, and the education of black women would not, in my humble opinion, have avoided the demographic challenge.

But at least a population of 20 million nonblacks would have been a lot harder to kick around and would have stood a better chance under any sort of political system whatsoever, even the present one.


Piet the Pirate said...

@ Jim Beam.

"So which is it Piet the Pirate, New World Order Propaganda or Apartheid Era Propaganda? You can't do both - they don't work together."

Of course they work together Jim, hand in hand in fact.
It wasn´t the whites in South Arica who brought about the downfall of Apartheid. It was the new world order. It wasn´t the whites in South Africa who created the anti Apartheid propaganda. It was the new word order.
It was never in the whites interest to see majority rule in SA. Not so the new world order. Oh, I agree we were sold out by our leaders who, with the help of the mass media demanded we vote yes. I´ve said as much many times, but the question is, who paid them their thirty pieces of silver? I´ll give you a clue. It has three words and starts with New.

"So let me understand this correctly then Piet. On another thread you accused Robert Mugabe of being a front man for the Europeans destroying his country."

Wrong. I never accused white Europeans of destroying Zim. Mugabe has done that all by himself. The fact that he is a puppet of the forces who call the shots is purely co-incidental.
Rhodesia, like SA was a casualty of communism and the cold war. They were traded off, that´s all.

Ron. said...

While reading the book: The Rise Fall & Legacy of Apartheid by P Eric Louw I came across the following.

[ Further by the late 1960s the ANC feared two political challenges inside South Africa. First: Verwoerdian homelands were beginning to work - as both Mandela & Sisulu noted from their Robben Island prison - rural blacks began to regard the N P as benefactors and Bantustan leaders leaders as messiahs who've liberated them". Mandela recognized that the ANC's constituency was exclusively urban - having hardly any significant following in the countryside". The ANC now confronted the danger that separate development could gain middle class black support given the homelands needed "qualified men to fill new positions". ]

From page 123. The Rise Fall & Legacy of Apartheid.

[ First - separate development had become a real threat because it was starting to work - that is - an expanding constituency of rural blacks was beginning to support the homelands and a growing black homeland middle class was developing a vested interest in Verwoerdian Apartheid. Biko feared that if separate development persisted too long blacks would come to accept it. He correctly recognized that Apartheid could not function without millions of black people working for the system - and he was scathing of blacks who collaborated with Apartheid - homeland leaders homeland bureaucrats / policemen / informers and the like (interestingly Biko's own father had been a policeman). The basic B C strategy for overturning Apartheid was to get blacks to stop collaborating and for black liberation movements to make the lives of the black collaborators as unpleasant as possible. B C advocated the boycott of separate development structures precisely because they were beginning to work. Both the ANC and the United Democratic Front came to adopt Biko's position. ]

From page 126. The Rise Fall & Legacy of Apartheid.

Further evidence that Apartheid was not opposed from a moral standpoint but from a strategic one aimed getting a particular political movement to gain control of the state. Certain folks who were anti-apartheid campaigners were not acting out of altruism but rather only interested in gaining political power.

Anonymous said...

@Piet the Pirate

Let me then sum this up:

The British and the Germans use Southern Africa as a chess board moving their pieces for their respective empires. One being Namibia as German territory. Now South Africa was British and the Boers failed to get rid of them.

Up pops the Afrikander Bond formed in the late 1800's and they are handed control of South Africa as an extension of the British empire. They run it much the same way as the British ran it before. The Boers supported the Germans in World War I and they get kicked. So how to get rid of the Boer problem. Forced assimilation in school and mass media and the declaration of a Republic of South Africa eliminating any claims for a Boer Republic. Give everyone a tag called "Afrikaner" which is used by whites then use it to include coloureds and anyone else so it diminishes everyones identity maintaining control. Weak leaders - was every South African president a Broeder Bonder?

Britain gets what it wants, control of the resources and a strategic location. The British Empire cannot however expand into Africa with whites running the country as aparthied is not palatable to the rest of Southern Africa. Times do change. Time for a change in government. The Russian Empire is also expanding into the region wanting a slice. (Forget about the Americans, they are just a British colony even today)

Anti aparthied propaganda run overseas to ensure attention and then simply let the blacks take over where the whites left off allowing for expansion into Africa. Give some fake votes for a "JA" vote and rig the elections. Keep all ANC failures out of the international media.

But now there is a problem as the Bible (Daniel) only speaks of 3 empires. A Lion with wings, a Leopard with wings, a Bear and (Revelations) speaks of a Beast with 10 horns.

Now, is the Beast with 10 horns the United Nations as the UN divides the earth into 10 regions? Apparently he will not have much time - only an hour to rule.

Is the Lion with wings the British who have always used the Lion as their symbol? Are the wings the Americans? Apparently the wings get plucked the Lion gets a heart and walks on his hindlegs. Does the US wake up and change sides and the British fall?

Is the Bear the Russian empire and is the Leopard that of the Germans? If the Lion gets his ass kicked and the 10 headed beast dies, that leaves 2 Empires. Russia and Germany.

If that is so Piet, are the Germans coming back for thier land and if everything the Bible predicts is true - what is the purpose of life is it is all pre-planned?

--- OK writing this gave me a splitting headache. Conspiracy theories are not really my thing.