Friday, May 24, 2013

Rebuttal to Mike Smith's Latest Distortion.

 A few weeks ago IslandShark informed me that Mike Smith was up to his usual anti-Boer antics & sent me a link to an article where Mike rehashed old & discredited anti-Boer canards within the comments section. Someone pointed out that Smuts was not a Boer [ as he was from the Cape Dutch population ] which prompted Smith's anti-Boer rant which was full of distortions which in fact had been earlier dealt with at length right here on this blog a few years ago. I might have let this latest rant go if it were not for the fact that Mike promoted the notion that it was none other than myself who made the initial point about Smuts on his blog. I can tell you that it was not me as I have refused to visit Mike's blog for quite some time now. The last thing I read in full was Part 34 of Opening Pandora's Apartheid Box. Which was actually quite a good installment as it was mainly a referral to the book Sell-Out by adv Piet Pretorius who exposed the just how controlled the controlled opposition was. I have only read several articles of that series & not the entirety & neither did I ever make a regular habit of reading that blog too often prior as Mike & I had a final falling out here [ when he was posting as Afrikaner ] as well as within Part 30 of the Opening of Pandora's Apartheid Box wherein he continued to promote straw man arguments & distortions against Boer identity & myself in particular.

Seeing as he is still promoting demonstrable falsehoods concerning Boer identity & Afrikaner identity as well & accusing me of saying things I never said & considering that a few of his followers seem to think that he is correct in his distortions: it is only fair to set the record straight once again.

The following is what Mike posted concerning this topic.

Ron is that you? We have been down this road before and I am not going down it again.

        I see you still peddle that bullshit that Afrikaners and Boers are different people.

        I see you are still on about Boers being of German decent and Afrikaners from French and Dutch decent.

        Listen pal, Jan Smuts comes from Malmesbury in the Cape, but he was a Boer General on the side of the ZAR.

        How about General De la Rey who had not a drop of German blood, rather Spanish, French and Dutch. Was he not a Boer?

        By your definition the other Boer hero General Louis Botha must be an Englishman seeing that he came from the Natal Colony. But his first and last names are French? Both Smuts and Botha sided with the British against the Germans. In your definition “traitors”, right?

        General Piet Cronje came from Colesberg in the Cape. So he was an Afrikaner and not a Boer?

        How about General Piet Joubert…more French than “Joubert” you do not get…he was from Prince Albert in the Cape Colony. In your narrow mind and by your thick skulled definition he was not a “Boer”.

        And what about General Hertzog? German surname, but born in Wellington in the Cape Colony. Afrikaner? …Or Boer?

        How about General Ben Viljoen who was also born in the Cape Colony…also not a Boer right? Seeing that he has a French surname and was born in the Cape, he was definitely and “Afrikaner”.

        How about General Piet Kritzinger, German surname but he was born in Port Elizabeth, Cape Colony. Was he an Afrikaner or a Boer?

        And then there is General Christiaan Beyers, Boer general and Bittereinder Rebel against the Botha government…born in Stellenbosch, Cape Colony.

        WOW!!! Is that not amazing? Just about ALL the Boer Generals and heroes were from the Cape Colony and therefore Afrikaners. Now who would have thought that?
No it was not I who posted on his blog.

But since I was implicated while he posted even more severe distortions - I will have to respond.  

The following is a rebuttal to his erroneous assertions & distortions once again. 

I never said that the Boers & Afrikaners were altogether different people. I in fact pointed out that the term Afrikaner was a political / generic & arbitrary term which marginalized the Boers as the Boers are rendered a minority under the Afrikaner designation. I have noted however that the Boers are a different people from the Cape Dutch of the Western Cape as Professor Wallace Mills [ 1 ] & Journalist Adriana Stuijt [ 2 ] & Professor Tobias Louw [ 3 ] & Professor Irving Hexham [ 4 ] among others have noted & as the history shows as well. [ 5 ] I never claimed that the Boers are only of German descent as the Boers are descended from other groups as well. Furthermore German roots are part of both the Cape Dutch & the Boer populations. Mike's lie is easily refuted as I have a long history of pointing out the French Huguenot [ & other ] origins of the Boer [ & Cape Dutch ] peoples. One again all he does is throw up discredited straw man arguments & distortions without addressing the fact that the Boers are from the second colony founded on the Cape frontier during the 17th cent. by the Trekboers while the Cape Dutch are from the first colony founded in & around Cape Town. 

1. Quote: [ Trekboers certainly recognized the differences in language, religion, etc. between themselves and the British. They had certainly developed a way-of-life and a set of values that were distinctive, but they were also significantly different from people of Dutch descent in the western province areas of the Cape. The latter regarded the Trekboers as rather wild, semi-barbarous frontiersmen and the sense of common identity was limited and incomplete. The westerners followed the Trek with interest and probably with a good deal of sympathy, but they certainly did not see the trekkers as the saviours of some mystical Afrikaner ‘nation’. ] From: Professor Wallace Mills. The Great Trek. [ ]

2. Quote: [ There has always been a vast difference between the "trek-Boers", "Voortrekkers", "grensboere" and the so called Afrikaners - who were the elitist collaborators with the British at the Cape, and who also collaborated on the British side to help defeat the independent Boer Republics. After the defeat of the Boer Republics, its voters - who had always been known as Boers everywhere in the world - suddenly lost their identity because the elitist Afrikaners who started running things on behalf of the British, insisted that everybody be called "Afrikaner" and that everybody should be "reconciled." ] From: Journalist Adriana Stuijt post at Stop Boer Genocide frm 2004. [ ]

3. Quote: [ Another point of grotesque confusion that we need to clear up, is that Boers are not "Afrikaners". None of your co-workers seem to have any understanding of this. All Boers are aware of the systematic subterfuge and distortion of "identity" that has been the result of the makings of the Broederbond and the National Party, based upon the then image of the British imperialist gentleman. This artificial identity was meant to wean away the Boers from their strong identify, from their history, from their nationalism, and thus weaken them. ] From: Professor Tobias Louw. From an open letter he wrote to the ISS dated September 2003. [ ]

4. Quote: [ The majority of the original white settlers, known as Cape Dutch, or in frontier regions Boers, maintained a nominal loyalty to the Dutch Reformed Church. ] From: Professor Irving Hexham. Christianty in Central Southern Africa Prior to 1910. [ ]

5. The Boers Documented as Distinct Nation.

Now it makes no difference whether Smuts was "on the side of" the ZAR Boers during the second Anglo-Boer War as he was not from the Boer ethnic group since he was from the Cape Dutch group. Mike's erroneous assertion that he was a Boer for simply fighting with the Boers is classic faulty logic as many different nationalities fought on the side of the Boers but that did not make them biological or ethnic Boers. One does not become a biological or ethnic Boer simply by joining their side of the war. Mike's assertion that De la Rey was not a Boer due to not having German roots is another total straw man argument & of course a total lie as he was born in Winburg Orange Free State. Furthermore just about all Boers have at least some German roots [ as well as French / Frisian / Dutch / Danish  roots ] so his assertion that De la Rey allegedly had none is nonsense & pure conjecture & no doubt a rhetorical device aimed at creating confusion. His assertion that Louis Botha must have been an Englishman because he was born in northern Natal is laughably absurd because a lot of Boers had settled in Natal ever since the Great Trek.
As a matter of fact Louis Botha was one of the founders of the Vryheid Republic - also known as the New Republic: a full fledged Boer Republic - which was established within northern Natal on land granted to the local & Transvaal Boers by Zulu King Dinuzulu in 1884. This Boer Republic even adopted a Vierkleur designed flag with the blue & green colours switched from the Transvaal Vierkleur layout. No. Louis Botha was descended from a German named Bode. Now I have never denied that there were Boer traitors but Mike likes to hide the fact that there were far more Cape Dutch on the side of the British then there were ever Boers who sided with them during the second Anglo-Boer War. I rarely ever go around calling anyone a traitor. The only person who EVER throws the word "traitor" around is Mike! All I ever see from him is how the Boers are "a nation of traitors" while rarely ever defining his use of the term traitor. The truth is that he defines traitor as anyone who would get in the way of imperial control of South Africa. No wonder he views the Boers as "traitors" because their historical attempts at restoring their conquered Boer Republics is viewed as treachery towards the British created macro State of South Africa. Further: one would think that authentic Boer traitors [ ie: traitors against the actual Boer people & or Boer independence ] would be a boon for Mike's pan Afrikaans Afrikaner ideology since in order for the political ideology of Afrikaner Collectivism to work: the Boers must surrender their political sovereignty & cede their power to Afrikaner domination. Though strictly speaking, the Cape Dutch cannot be "traitors" since they are not even from the Boers BUT due to the larger numbers of the Cape Dutch: they OUTVOTE the Boers thus their numbers work against Boer self determination. 

The town of Colesberg in the NORTHEASTERN Cape is part of the heartland of the Cape Boer people so Mike's ridiculous & erroneous assertion that this makes Piet Cronje "an Afrikaner & not a Boer" is a total joke! This is yet another example of his shameful straw man tactics of which I called him out on before, but to no avail as he stubbornly sticks to promoting straw man arguments & outright LIES & distortions about what I assert. But since he cannot debate according to the facts, he resorts to distortion & straw man tactics. One again his pathetic attempts fall apart because I never claimed that the Cape Boers were Afrikaners or were not Boers! General Piet Joubert was from the Cape frontier / the NORTHEASTERN Cape where ALL Boers were originally from! Mike is espousing a false dichotomy by claiming that all Caucasian Afrikaans speakers from the Cape are not Boers or are all part of the Cape Dutch Afrikaners. The Cape frontier was always home to the Boer people. Most of the Cape Rebels were from the Cape Boers of the frontier. I thought I settled this point years ago on this blog as well as within my information packed article of 2011:

The Cape Rebels Were Not Cape Dutch.

I pointed out long ago that JBM Hertzog was from the Cape Dutch population. [ I had to do this because Mike was asserting that "Boer Generals" ran South Africa until the 1940s to the point where it seemed as though he was cackling in his pathetic attempts at reversing the reality that the actual Boers were facing. ] His pathetic rhetorical device of asserting that Hertzog's German surname makes him a Boer is pure obfuscation because the Cape Dutch & Boer people are not determined by surnames but rather by line of descent & shared history. The Cape Dutch & Boers share very little history as they are from different colonies with the Trekboers putting even more space between the two then the later Voortrekkers putting even more space between the two. Just as the Quebecois & the Acadians share a lot of surnames but are two anthropologically different peoples with their own distinct identities. His snarky: "I ask you, who won the Anglo-Boer War?" [ which he used to exclaim in older posts & blogs ] was a transparent attempt at accusing the Boers for political  actions which were not enacted by the actual Boer population.

General Ben Viljoen was a Boer but he persists with his straw man argument that anyone born in the Cape [ even when they are born in the Boer populated region of the Cape ] or has a French surname [ despite the numerous Boers with French surnames! ] is somehow not a Boer. Folks with discernment & any knowledge of the history of the region can see through his pathetic attempts at confusing the issue as he is clearly implying that the Cape Boers were somehow not part of the Boers of the republics or were just part of the Cape Dutch.

Few are buying his ridiculous argument & slight of hand trick that all of the Cape Boers were / are part of the Cape Dutch Afrikaners. Anyone with discernment can see that Mike's agenda is to get the Boers to forget about their true identity in order to allow themselves to be usurped & derailed by the larger Cape Dutch descendents under the dispossessing Afrikaner designation. He does this in order to dilute the strength of the Boer people, because if every Boer were to stand for independence: he could still OVERRULE them & nullify their position no matter how unanimous their decisions are by claiming that they are all just part of the larger Cape Dutch population as Afrikaners. That is why the Afrikaner designation is so dangerous to the Boer people as it marginalizes their just aspirations by forcing them to accept decisions made by the Cape Dutch population.

The Boer people will never acquire self determination under the Afrikaner designation & HE KNOWS THIS FULL WELL because the Boers are a minority under this arbitrary & dispossessing designation. He wants to convince the Boers that they are all part of the Cape Dutch dominated Afrikaners whose leadership works against any form of authentic Boer self determination.

No one has to "adopt the Boer name"... [ as he asserted ] as  the Boers were simply submerged into the Afrikaner designation at a political level - while never at a cultural level - therefore the assertion of Boer identity does not "adopt" anything new but rather reasserts their authentic ethnic identity. He is well aware that his trick of asserting that the Boers are just part of the Afrikaners DILUTES the natural strength that the Boers would have if they were to disentangle themselves from Afrikaner suzerainty / decisions & political / financial domination. That has been his plan all along... coupled with tarring them & White people in general with the Apartheid stigma & defamation.

The assertion of Boer identity does not cause division in the least simply because all Boers can unite under their authentic ethnic identity but... it is in fact the assertion of the Afrikaner designation which causes division as it forces two different ethnic groups under the same umbrella leading to instant friction. The Cape Dutch will always outvote the Boers & he damn well knows this! That is why he propagates the lie that the Boers are part of the Afrikaners so he can STOP the Boers from acquiring any form of self determination.

One must remember that the folks who struggled for & obtained self determination during the 19th cent were Boers [ originally from the Cape frontier ] - not the Cape Dutch. The Great Trek was a movement of the Boer people of the Cape frontier. It was not something that interested the vast majority of the Cape Dutch who could not understand why anyone would want to separate themselves from the Colonial power. 

There is no difference between the Cape Boers & the Boers north of the Orange River but any historian will note that there are huge differences between the Boers & the Cape Dutch. Something that Mike tries to taper over as part of his anti-Boer self determination agenda. Although he himself has on occasion de facto admitted in some of his rants this distinction when he gets riled up over "liberals" whom he never refers to under their actual historic ethnic designation [ though he himself is a confessed "former liberal" & current  neo conservative ie: not a true conservative ] while then living in the heartland of the Cape Dutch in Cape Town.  He is well known for signing articles as coming from Cape Town.

Mike knows the truth & he also knows my TRUE position [ ie: that I know that the Cape Boers are part of the Republican Boers ] because I have posted it on my own blog numerous times & addressed him directly here & on his own blog as well. Therefore there is unfortunately only one logical conclusion to draw from this latest act of distortion & deception. During the debate on Part 30 of the Opening of Pandora's Apartheid Box he deliberately asserted the Trekboers of the 1600s & 1700s were really the Voortrekkers of the mid 19th century in a futile & very lame attempt at sidelining & obscuring the birth of the Boer people which occurred just a few decades after the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck & not during the Great Trek as Mike & some other Afrikaner Collectivist apologists like to claim. Read more at: The Purposeful Omission of a Distinct Nation. 

Mike ludicrously & demagogically accuses me [ behind my back as I was not the Anon poster who kicked off the debate of late ] of divide & conquer when the assertion of Boer identity divides no one because divide & conquer only works when two peoples are forced together. The use of the Afrikaner designation is divide & conquer as it forces two ethnic groups under the same umbrella leading to friction. That is why Lord Alfred Milner promoted the Afrikaner designation as he knew it would destroy Boer identity & divide & conquer the whole Afrikaans language group.

Quote: [ The prime representative of the British Empire in South Africa, Sir Alfred Milner, put it this way: "The new tactic (to subjugate the Boers) must be to consolidate the different areas of British South Africa into one nation. Although unification will initially put the Boers into political control of the entire South Africa, it will, ironically, eventually lead to their final downfall."

This was of course precisely what happened - but not until a new name had been developed for the new "nation" which Milner spoke about. They could not continue to call the new nation a "Boer" state, because the Boers had been subjugated. They could not call it a "Cape Dutch" state, as the Dutch colonialists were now British colonialists, and they could not call it a British state, for obvious reasons. The answer then was to give a general term to all White inhabitants of the new union - "Afrikaners".

Although the word originally meant "African" it was politicized by a group of Cape Dutch propagandists under one SJ du Toit in 1880 (the same year the Boers took up arms to fight the British colonialists) in literature of the time. It was then decided to try and blend the Boers into the Cape Dutch and English speaking White populations but calling them all Afrikaners instead of referring to their real ethnic bases. ] [ ] From: The Boers of Southern Africa. By Arthur Kemp.

I have never promoted the notion that one group of Boers are better than another group. We know that Mike's former bosses at the Broederbond [ he admitted on this blog to handing out books for them ] do divide & conquer the Boers along contrived political & even religious lines. I publicly disavow any attempt at dividing the Boer people. But one thing is clear: Calling the Boers Afrikaners dilutes the natural strength of the Boer Nation. 

I have never claimed that the Republican Boers were different from the Cape Boers as his recent hit-piece rant post openly asserted. I am well aware that many Boer Generals were born in the Cape. Note that they were born in the EASTERN Cape: the region where all the Boers are originally from & where many remained. As to those fewer Cape Dutch from the Western Cape who joined the Boers struggle for independence: I have absolutely no problem with that at all. If all of the Cape Dutch were like the Boers then this debate would barely even be necessary but his pointing out of the few examples of pro-Boer individuals from the Cape Dutch does not change or negate the fact that most of the Cape Dutch have no interest in Boer self determination & are often opposed to it outright. He conflates [ deftly ] the Cape Boers with the Cape Dutch in the vain hope that you will not notice his deception. 

This tactic of his is tantamount to pointing out the few Americans who supported the Boers struggle for independence as indicative of ALL Americans when that was clearly not the case. The problem with Smuts was not just that he was a Cape Dutch but that he was a British agent. There were two Colonies established at the Cape in the 17th cent. The colony in the west led to the eventual existence of the Cape Dutch while the colony established in the north & east led to the existence of the Boer population. All of the Boers are from the second colony while the Cape Dutch are from the first colony. The Cape Dutch were pro Colonial & pro British while the Boers were anti-Colonial & anti-British. The Cape Dutch had strong ties to Europe [ Cecil Rhodes and The Cape Afrikaners. Mordechai Tamarkin ] while the Boers had cut all ties to Europe. [ The Great Trek. Oliver Ransford. & The Devil's Annexe. Sidney Robbins page 59. ] This is not "division" [ try to have more than one thought in your head at the same time ] just a geo-political reality that must be taken into account & navigated around [ with no ill-intent towards the Cape Dutch & recognition & acceptance of those comparative few who do support the Boers ] if the Boers hope to reacquire self determination. 

I have pointed out that the Cape frontier consisted of everything from Swellandam right up to Colesberg. [ & even beyond ]  Read more at: The Cape Frontier: Birthplace of the Boer Nation. Hence my own words vindicate my points in this rebuttal & show Mike up for the liar that he is as I pointed out that the Boers are native to the northeastern Cape region. Thus his constant erroneous assertions that I ever said that the Cape Boers were not Boers is a provable lie. His incorrigible behaviour exposes himself as having an agenda. Mike is playing a mind game with his followers using the psy-op that the Cape Boers are somehow not part of the Republican Boers of the Boer Republics. I pointed out myself [ using Michael Barthorp as a source ] right here on this very blog years ago that there was a lot Cape Rebel activity at Colesberg.

Further irony is that Mike called White Nationalism White Communism when he himself promotes Afrikaner Communism / Collectivism with his forced political association of Cape Dutch & Boer under the Socialist based dispossessing Afrikaner rubric. The term Afrikaner refers to a specific REGIME that was built around a forced political coalition of Cape Dutch & Boer for the specific purpose of gaining control over the South African region. This idea was first pursued in the late 19th cent so there are a few notable Boers like F W Reitz who got on board this dispossessing Afrikaner agenda & called himself an Afrikaner in this pan political context. The Cape based Afrikaners of the 19th cent - mainly through the Afrikaner Bond - were floating the notion of creating a confederation for the specific purpose of controlling the South African region. This idea finally came about with the Afrikaner Broederbond of the 20th cent. 

The term Afrikaner does not refer to an enthnicity as there are at least two involved within the designation. Those who use the notion that some 19th cent Boers called themselves Afrikaners are totally missing some key points. The Boers called themselves such in the context that they saw themselves as Africans part of the African continent. They did not use the term to imply that that saw themselves as being part of the Cape Dutch who NEVER used the term Afrikaner to describe themselves until the LATE 19th cent & only did so in order to promote a dispossessing pan Afrikaans identity in the wake of the gold & diamonds that were discovered in the Boer Republics. People must get street smart about this. The Cape Dutch historically used to look down upon the Boers to the point of ridiculing them for going on the Great Trek but then suddenly & out nowhere just a few years after gold was discovered in the ZAR / Transvaal Republic they suddenly start calling themselves Afrikaners for the first time in their nebulous & obscure history & start referring to the Boers as their "brothers" when prior they wanted nothing to do with them. It is a plain as day that the term Afrikaner was being promoted to DISPOSSESS the Boers out of ownership of their own republics & especially out of the resources found therein. This was not even really a Cape Dutch program because author C H Thomas asserted that the Afrikaner Bond was being controlled from Holland. Remember also that two members of the Society of True Afrikaners [ which was founded in 1875 ] were from Holland. The main political reason why some Boers of the 19th cent were calling themselves Afrikaners was due to the successful but limited effect of the Afrikaner Bond of the Cape whose political ideology was starting to get spread into the Boer Republics. Furthermore remember that the Afrikaner Bond began to promote war against Britain at a time when notable Boers such as President Marthinus Steyn of the OVS / Orange Free State & General de la Rey were still strongly against war. 

The notion that Boer self determination "divides" Afrikaners is as absurd as suggesting that Dixie self determination "divides" Capitalists or that Estonian self determination "divides" Soviets or that Croatian or Serbian or Slovenian self determination "divides" Yugoslavians / Communists because the terms Afrikaner / Capitalist / Soviet / Communist & Yugoslavian are political concepts / constructs which were often used to divide & conquer the various peoples who were subjected & subjugated under the prospective terms. It is not possible to divide an amorphous political concept which is enforced in a top down manner. But these political concepts are used to create friction by lumping different people together.


The assertion of Boer identity aims to get out of this dialectical process of Afrikaner domination.   

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Blaming it on Apartheid

South Africa homelands HumanAction used to blog on economic freedom and state tyranny.  Sadly, they don’t blog anymore, but you can still find some gems over at their site.  I am reposting the following from their site, which will hopefully remain active for future reference.

In the first of their blog posts referenced here, they refer to News24 columnist Peet van Aardt and his article where he proclaims that all whites benefited from Apartheid.  He seems to be one of those arrogant twats who thinks he has been given some right to make statements on behalf of other people and that his views are the correct ones.  You know, the typical liberal leftist lackey mentality.

It is unfortunately for him and other socialist and Marxist-inspired revisionists of history not true that all whites benefited from the minority white government.  Not all whites supported the National Party and certainly not all whites agreed with the specific laws and application of Apartheid.  Some stood against what could possibly come into play when looking at the history of Africa.  I am not going to debate the merits of which tribe was entitled to which land in what is South Africa today.  There is enough information available for any person caring to look further than revisionist history and claims by groups of people who do little more than just claim entitlements in some form.  You will certainly not find an accurate version of events in MSM publications.

As a simple starting point of the history of South Africa from the conception of the union in 1910, you will find that many laws intended to protect the interests of elite powers abroad, for instance in the mining industry.  To this day, a significant part of the mining industry is controlled from outside the borders of South Africa.  You can choose to believe a muppet like George Galloway that the majority of mines are owned by “Boers”.  Or you can do some research and draw your own conclusions.


Blaming it on apartheid

By JGalt, on August 15th, 2011

The more the present regime blames absolutely everything on apartheid, the more people they are actually getting to believe them.

Peet van Aardt has written an article for news24 wherein he makes the case that because he benefitted from apartheid, that all white people should pay more taxes as per Desmond Tutu’s wish.

To argue on your superficial and topical level: How much did our sport stars, who weren’t able to get any exposure on an international level and hence not earn an internationally competitive salary, benefit?

In your proposed social engineering-restitution experiment should our past sport stars such as Danie Gerber not maybe also be compensated for this loss during apartheid?  Are they not also “previously disadvantaged?”

If you benefited, while a guy like Danie Gerber didn’t, why don’t you pay a portion of your salary over to him every month?  Why should all whites pay a redistributive flat-tax?

Also, why does no-one seem to ask the question of why the government should manage the great white-black redistribution? Why can’t the admitted guilty white apartheid benefactors such as Peet not manage the process.  Wouldn’t this at least be a little more efficient?

Once, again, people keep overlooking the fact that apartheid was not a white vs black issue, but rather that it was the government vs all. Nothing has changed.

Forcing whites to pay higher taxes and redistribute to “previously disadvantaged” will only make our problems worse.

Read our (recent) past articles on the issue here and here.


Apartheid didn't benefit whites

By freeman, on June 24th, 2011

It is a pervasive and entrenched narrative (accepted with the same confidence that we accept that summer follows spring and spring follows winter, and winter autumn) that white South Africans benefitted from Apartheid while black South Africans suffered under Apartheid.

This myth needs to be squashed and refuted for the nonsense that it is once and for all.  I doubt a little story on Human Action will change the collective belief in the lie (yet), but at least let’s get the conversation going.

Firstly, let’s get all the necessary caveats out the way and pay homage to the reality of Apartheid so that some reactionary readers don’t have a fit on the spot. Yes, blacks suffered painfully under Apartheid.  Yes, Apartheid was evil.  Yes, whites were inordinately privileged compared to blacks.  Yes, whites lived better lives than blacks.  Yes, whites had infinitely better economic opportunities available to them than blacks.  Yes, whites were 1st class citizens and blacks were 2nd class citizens.

We all get this and we don’t need to deny it or overemphasise it.  It happened. It sucked.  Period.

But the central question we are posing here is: did whites benefit under apartheid?  That is to ask in another way: were whites better off under Apartheid and the White Supremist Fascist Nationalist State than whites otherwise would have been under a (imperfect) constitutional democracy as has prevailed since 1994?

To this the answer is emphatically NO!

How on earth can we argue that whites benefitted from forced autarky, trade sanctions, industrial subsidies, central economic planning, capital controls, restricted association, lack of freedom of expression, monetary debasement, group areas act, forced ‘morality’, a police state, excessive military spending, international travel restrictions, and goods rationing?

The Apartheid state, to maintain the grossly unstable status quo of oppressing the vast majority of the population, had to destroy the basic freedoms of whites as well.

It is true that whites, as the owners of businesses, may have ‘benefitted’ from being able to hire black labour at below market prices, enabling more profitable businesses and cheaper production of goods for white consumption.  But even here the assumption we are making is that by coercing blacks into forced settlement in the homelands wastelands, whites destroyed black living standards and economic opportunities to such a degree that they were able to offer very poor marginal labour opportunities to blacks that were readily accepted.  But it could also be argued that by shunting blacks off to the wastelands, whites actually limited their available labour pool and therefore paid more not less for labour.

But even if the dubious proposition that labour was cheaper under Apartheid is indeed true, vastly countering this is the myriad of ways in which black subjugation created far more economic hardship than benefits for whites.  The list is almost endless, but would include the following few:

  • Disallowing blacks from gaining skills kept those skills more scarce than they would otherwise have been, making goods and services produced by those skills more expensive, thereby excluding more whites from consuming those goods and services and/or forcing more income to be diverted to those goods and services, thereby diverting income away from other goods and services, limiting those business opportunities.
  • No blacks producing goods and services and running their own business meant competition was weak, allowing oligopolies to easily form and high prices to become entrenched, reducing real wealth and spending power.
  • Forcing blacks to accept horrible economic opportunities and denying them education and the ability to up-skill, create value and earn good incomes, not only kept the pie from growing and all benefitting (after all blacks and whites would have freely traded), but kept the size of the consumer market small, meaning that white producers had limited selling opportunities compared to what they otherwise would have had.  That they were then subject to international sanctions meant that exports were limited in addition to a limited local market, a double blow for white entrepreneurs.
  • Whites could not legally take on black business partners and allow black ownership of their businesses, losing out on executive skills that blacks would have been able to offer.
  • White employers, due to the Group Areas Act, had to jump through numerous red tape hoops to legally allow a black person to live permanently on their property for the purpose of work.  In fact, the Apartheid state had to enact a pot of alphabet soup of regulations pertaining to interracial business and economic relationships that made life unambiguously harder for white business owners.
  • Whites who spoke out against the government were jailed or killed.
  • White anti-state associations were banned.
  • Whites did not have legal or easy access to certain overseas products, books, movies etc. Choice for whites was limited under Apartheid.
  • Commercial trade between black and white (barring the employment-labour trade) was usually banned or greatly curtailed by law and by spacial aspects of the Group Areas Act.  Few opportunities for trade definitely made whites worse off than they otherwise would have been, because, by definition, more free and mutually agreed trade is utility-enhancing for everyone, while less or restricted trade detracts from welfare and wealth.
  • Whites (especially Afrikaners) who were employed by the large Apartheid state, were generally employed in inefficient sectors, gained poor skills, and leached off the other white taxpayers.  These folk may have appeared to ‘benefit’ under Apartheid, but when equal opportunity arrived, or technologies made their jobs redundant, these formerly state-employed protected folk were left destitute with little capacity to function successfully in a modern economy.  Apartheid had benefitted them falsely.

There are certainly many other ways in which black racial subjugation by law, and the coercive statist rule that accompanied it, made whites’ lives worse than they otherwise would have been.  We must understand that whites adopted Apartheid out of fear for what they PERCEIVED incorrectly as a potentially worse situation, that of black majority rule.  But just because whites in South Africa were as economically illiterate as all other people anywhere in the world, and therefore derived a fallacial psychic benefit from black oppression, does not mean they ACTUALLY benefitted from it in an economic sense.

Blacks, or indeed anyone, who complain that whites are only in the prosperous economic standing they are because of Apartheid are completely wrong.  Whites are where they are DESPITE Apartheid.  Despite the bans and central planning.  Despite the debauched currency and limited trading opportunities with blacks.

Since 1994, whites have been incredibly prosperous and are immeasurably better off than they were before (as indeed are blacks!), able to find better access to offshore markets, able to trade freely with blacks, partner with blacks in business, marry blacks, work for blacks, sell products to blacks, build houses for blacks, get good ideas from blacks, and generally live freely with people of all races (albeit an imperfect freedom).

The reality is that white South Africans’ living standards had fallen embarrassingly behind those of Americans and Europeans by the end of the 1980’s.  White South Africans had become international country bumpkins, walking around offshore destinations wide-eyed as they gawked incredulously the living standards, choice, technologies, freedom, variety, colour and dynamism of overseas economies and societies.  In short, Apartheid saw white South Africa stagnate and even begin to regress.

No my friends, Apartheid did not benefit whites any more than one would ‘benefit’ from never driving a car for fear of dying in a car accident: never dying in a car accident, but never driving anywhere either.  In the same way, whites avoided black rule, but achieved nothing of true benefit.  Apartheid stifled whites, yes to a wholly different degree to blacks, but stifled them nonetheless, and therefore it nonetheless was an economically irrational policy for whites to follow and retarded white development.

So the next time you’re sitting around a braai and someone pipes up that whites benefitted from Apartheid while blacks suffered, ask them to explain how then whites have done so well in the post-Apartheid world, and show them how whites too were disadvantaged by Apartheid and the evil system it was.

Maybe with this understanding, we’ll be able to think more clearly about our present and our future as well.


An Inconvenient Apartheid Truth

By freeman, on July 6th, 2011

This is a short follow-up post to our June 24th post “Apartheid didn’t benefit whites“, which has got under the skin of a few people.

As readers will have noticed by the general lack of reader comments on this site, HA is not the most widely read blog on this planet, but our Apartheid post certainly seems to have generated a little ripple in the Twittersphere (definitely not a wave yet:)).

Now it appears that for some black South Africans in particular (and possibly some folk in Oranje) the truth that whites didn’t benefit from Apartheid is a rather uncomfortable one.  It seems to shatter their sense of injustice and sense of blame.  It needn’t do this.  White supremist nationalists perpetrated Apartheid and blacks got the raw deal of raw deals because of it. Period.

But it does remove from blacks their monopoly on Apartheid victimhood, which blacks have clung to rabidly for 17 years and more.  The brutal truth is that ALL South Africans were victims under Apartheid, and our post simply showed that whites, the most privileged of unfree classes by far, were also victims of the Fascist-Socialist state.  In fact, whites were peculiar victims, because they for the most part didn’t even know it at the time, such was their brainwashed, darkened stupor.

So we mustn’t conflate separate issues.  It is two completely different things to talk about who was worse off under Apartheid and who actually benefitted.  As far as I can tell, the genuine beneficiaries of Apartheid, as under any dictatorship, were a narrow state-centric elite, and even those of this clique who lived to see the democratic revolution in 1994 have had to live their days out in the greatest of shame, which must have rendered a fairly considerable psychic loss for all but the most callous bittereinders.

One Tweeter indignantly tried to argue…”it still doesn't mean that whites didn’t benefit in comparison to blacks.”  By this we take this Tweeter to be arguing that somehow being relatively better off than someone else confers an absolute benefit.  By that sloppy logic Indians and Coloureds also ‘benefitted’ from Apartheid right?

Our post was actually less about Apartheid and race, and more about economics, which is what this blog is about.  It was about showing people that if you apply sound economics to our history you can start to draw different and interesting conclusions that can change your perspective to a truer one.  Having a clearer and more accurate perspective of our history means we can live more constructively in the present and make better decisions about our future.

It’s high time we de-racialise and de-ethnicise economics and economic policy.  Racio-ethic groups are always blabbering on about how they don’t want x, y, or z culture’s economics foisted upon them but want to forge their ‘own’ economy.  So we hear about a uniquely ‘Latin economy’ suited to the ’specific culture’ of the Latinos, or we hear about a uniquely ‘African economy’ for African’s (which 9 times out of 10 you can take to mean “for blacks”), or about how unique and special ‘Chinese economics’ is.  Usually this is nothing but a cheap front for adopting get-rich-quick-rape-your-capital-base economic policy.

This is nothing short of nonsense, pure nationalistic and cultural pride and, quite frankly, arrogance. Good and bad economics transcends race, culture and nation. Doesn’t matter if you’re white, black, pink or purple, saving more than consuming is still a good idea, free trade is still a good idea, individual liberty is still a good idea, freedom from state oppression is still a good idea.

If you want to disagree with our Apartheid post, prove with good economic argument that whites benefitted from Apartheid.  We doubt you will be able to though with any credibility, because whites most certainly didn’t benefit.

In fact, in a great and tragic irony, many blacks, by arguing that whites benefitted from Apartheid, are actually doing the freedom they fought for such a great and debilitating disservice.  They are arguing that state subjugation of certain identity groups benefits to the broad identity group of the state perpetrating the subjugation.  It might not be a far step to use this logic to enact a ‘reverse Apartheid’ (some would say already well under way in a ‘lite’ form), in the hope of redressing the injustices of the prior Apartheid.  All this would do, and indeed is doing, is keep blacks mired in their own mud puddle of poverty.

To the dissenters among the Twitterati, please stop conflating your retro-anger over Apartheid, with blacks getting the worst deal by far, with relative suffering between races, with sound economic reason.  These are distinct issues and confusing them is getting in the way of your better judgement on these matters.

Cheers, and here’s to a better present and future where hopefully all race groups in SA can be allowed to steward their own property freely without interference, reap the full fruits of their own labour, take advantage of and create economic opportunities freely, live free of state oppression, trade feely, associate freely, and ALL BENEFIT from the fruits of genuine liberty.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Mandela & Church Street Bomb

Today marks exactly 30 years since the Church Street bomb in Pretoria, on 20th May 1983.


You can read more about the terrorist attack here:

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Europe Business Assembly awards to corrupt SA municipalities

The Europe Business Assembly seems to be another organisation which doesn’t have a clue what is going on in South Africa.  I suggest taxpayers from any country which sends municipal entries to it, should enquire with their local councils or municipalities on the validity of entrants and the value of spending their tax funds on rewarding corruption.

ineptocracy from Sunette Bridges:

South African Municipalities that are completely bankrupt and facing charges of fraud, maladministration and theft of municipal funds, are invited by this organisation to partake in Award Ceremonies at the expense of taxpayers.

Not only do taxpayers have to foot the bill for their entry fee, but end up paying for the travel, accommodation and meals of delegations that travel abroad to receive these nonsensical awards from people who have NO idea how badly these municipalities are actually governed!





There are numerous articles regarding the maladministration of the very municipalities being "rewarded". Some of the articles can be found at the following links:

This has been uncovered in an article in "Rapport" today.  It is unfortunately in Afrikaans, but notes that awards have gone to Madibeng and Ehlanzeni municipalities – the same municipalities involved in corruption mentioned above.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

‘White scum’ racist walks free


solomon from: The Scottish Sun

A RACIST churchman who told a shocked mother her kids “would be shot and hung” in his country walked free from court yesterday.

South African pastor Solomon Makhathoela branded neighbour Catherine Kerr “white scum” after learning the mum-of-two was unwed.

And the crazed bigot told her fiancĂ© Alan Brown it was a “f****** disgrace” they had kids.

But Makhathoela escaped with a telling off at Stirling Sheriff Court despite being found guilty of racially aggravated abuse.

Last night Alan, 28, fumed: “I’m sure the courts would have dealt with me more harshly if it had been the other way round.

“The guy is worse than the devil. It’s a living hell having him above us and he gets off with not even a slap on the wrist.”

Just a month before launching his hate rant in April 2012, jobless Makhatholela was fined for trying to hit Alan with a golf brolly.

But the dad said his family welcomed Makhathoela, 49, when he moved into the flat above theirs in Raploch, Stirling, with his wife and two kids in 2011. He said: “At the beginning he was fine. I even helped him move his stuff in.

“He kept calling Catherine ‘my wife’ until eventually I told him we weren’t married.

“Ever since then, he’s been a nightmare. He said it was a f****** disgrace we had kids outside of wedlock.”

The animosity escalated until his racist outburst. Alan said: “Catherine went outside and he shouted she was ‘white scum’.

“Then he said if our kids had been born in his country they would have been hung and shot.”

But Sheriff William Gilchrist simply admonished Makhathoela, telling him: “You have to ensure there are no further incidents.”

Last night Tory Chief Whip John Lamont said the ruling appeared “too lenient”.

He added: “Sending Makhathoela away without punishment sends a bad message.”

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Cops Supplied Boeremag Explosives: Proving False Flag.

This recent news report further demonstrates that the so called Boeremag [ a term coined by the State & the media ] was in fact a State sponsored operation & thus a false flag as it exposes how the bomb was supplied by police. The bomb was earlier noted as being a military grade bomb that was not likely obtainable on the open market. 

‘Cops supplied Boeremag explosives’.

February 25 2013 at 08:09pm


Pretoria - A former crime intelligence officer on Monday testified in the High Court in Pretoria that the police supplied explosives used to train rightwingers to plant bombs.

Retired Captain Deon Loots told the court he had kept on handling police spy JC Smit after deciding to leave the police in 2000, because Smit trusted him.

He gradually introduced Smit to a new handler, Col Louis Pretorius, who used to meet Smit at Loots' home.

Loots testified that during one meeting Pretorius suggested people had to be trained to manufacture explosives.

Loots was testifying in an application for a special entry on the court record, which could eventually be used on appeal in an application to set aside the treason convictions of the 20 Boeremag members.

Pretorius undertook to provide Smit with explosives “that would not be dangerous” so he could train people without causing damage.

Loots said Pretorius told them he had people in Bela-Bela who could be trained how to use explosives and sabotage power lines.

“I objected. I said it was unethical. You could not train people to commit crimes and then wash your hands of it... Col Pretorius said he could get explosives at a depot in the Potchefstroom area. Later he brought a person from the explosives factory with him to my house to train Smit how to work with explosives.

“I withdrew completely because I did not want to be associated with it,” Loots said.

“About two weeks later JC (Smit) phoned me one evening and said he had received explosives from Col Pretorius to train the people in Warmbaths (Bela-Bela) how to use explosives.

“I said he should not do it, but he said it was part of his instructions as an informer... I personally phoned Col Pretorius and confronted him for putting JC in a situation where he would make himself an accused by training people in handling explosives and making bombs.

“We had words to such an extent that JC feared Pretorius would have him arrested while he was on his way to Warmbaths with explosives in his car,” he said.

Loots helped Smit by taking the explosives in his own car to Bela-Bela, where Smit unloaded them, before going to where the training took place.

“Before we left I phoned Col Pretorius to express my discomfort. When we returned I told JC it was wrong. I said even if he had authorisation, how would he justify it if he trained people to plant bombs and someone died,” Loots said.

The trial continues. - Sapa.

Click for link to report.  

Monday, May 13, 2013

Banana Republic thugs

The following incident is described by the cyclist involved and posted here unedited.  The video was captured by a school pupil.


On Wednesday, the 8th of May, while out on a training ride (bicycle) I was nearly hit by a Black Mercedes Benz on the corner of Roper (road leading out of University of Pretoria) an brooks, the vehicle drove down Roper street and didn’t attempt to slow down or stop at the stop street, and preceded to cut in front of me, traveling North on Roper with me having right of way. In my attempt to get the drivers attention by cycling next to the driver sides door/window repeatedly shouting and in a final attempt to get his attention, hitting down twice on his side wing mirror (which was completely un damaged), the vehicle deliberately tried to run me over by swerving into me right outside Pretoria Boys High and the 3 way stop street on the c/o Roper and Anderson, in a manner that also nearly caused a traffic accident as the vehicle nearly collided with another vehicle travelling south on Roper. It then became evident by registration of the car that it is a DIPLOMATIC vehicle. [key to note here is that a short while later the Driver 1. Admitted that he saw me at the previous intersection and felt he didn’t have to stop and that I will have to take evasive action to counter act his driving decisions, 2. The driver also stated that the second incident of deliberately trying to run me down was by instruction of the Diplomat sitting in the car, he also told this to the police officer who was on scene, when the police officer asked him why he broke protocol by not driving to the embassy.]

After an exchange of words/ heated argument, where I told the driver after him asking me why I was throwing such a scene was that I wanted him to apologies as it is drivers like him that hit and seriously injure cyclists using our public roads (mostly captured on video) the driver of the car (who broke diplomatic protocol by instruction of the Diplomat in the car) threatened to brake my neck (this has been admitted by the driver to witness and there is a recording of him saying that he himself did say it) , along with this the driver tried to prove that he will act out his threat as in the process of stating it, he removed his jacket and tie in an attempt to intimidate me. He tried to tempt me to hit him by telling me t o, but I refused as I knew everything was being taped, and that I have not done anything wrong and wanted to keep my side of the story clean.

I repeatedly tried to obtain the nationality of the diplomat;

1stly tried to ask the driver, and the diplomats B1 body guard who had by know gotten out of the passage side of the vehicle, but they refused, and I then proceeded to take photos of the vehicle, license plate, car license, the body guard and the driver (during this process the driver/body guard told me take photos, it will get you nowhere).

2ndly I attempted to ask the diplomat directly through the drivers open window where the diplomat himself directly threatened me and told me I was going to go to jail and that he will see to it, the driver then pulled up the window.

The situation went calm as we where waiting for the police to arrive, the driver/diplomat had called them. Minutes before the police arrived the diplomat turned down the window opposite to him, I used this opportunity to take a photo of him as no one wanted to tell me the nationality of the diplomat. The body guard saw this, and the driver the preceded to hit my phone out of my hand cracking the glass of the phone, and took the phone after the body guard openly assaulted me while I was screaming for help (captured on tape by n school boy who's details I have and will receive the video).

After practically being rescued by passers by and parents of student, the police (Diplomatic police) arrived, I told them what happened, that I wanted to press charges, and required their assistance. They where rude (the police) and arrogant, took down only my info, address, cell etc. and got into their car and everybody drove off as of nothing happened.

I then went to the Brooklyn police station to press charges and open a docket where they told me "they cannot open a case and that I have to go to some headquarters in troy street. As it involves diplomatic police and foreign diplomats”

South African govt ignores Jihad camps

Let me see if I get this.  The SA government via Crime Intelligence could entrap a bunch of concerned citizens in the “Boeremag” saga, keep these guys locked up for more than 10 years while their farce of a trial is going on with SAPS intelligence officer testifying how the state manipulated and set up these guys, but they ignore known Al Qaeda terrorist camps?

Sounds like a typical anti-white, anti-Boer day in South Africa.

jihad from Eye Witness News:

JOHANNESBURG - It has emerged that the police's specialised unit, Crimes Against the State (CATS) and the State Security Agency (SSA) have uncovered Al Qaeda linked military training camps operating in South Africa, but are doing nothing about them.

The year-long investigation by the Daily Maverick revealed inaction by the police despite incriminating evidence about the training camps and those who set them up.

State intelligence agencies started monitoring the activities soon after the World Trade Centre attack on September 11, 2001 but ceased their surveillance in 2010.

After nearly a decade of top secret surveillance and intelligence gathering, it has emerged that state intelligence has even stopped spying on known military training camps.

The Daily Maverick investigation found camps setup near Erasmia, east of Pretoria, on a farm in the Klein Karoo and attempts to create one at a golf estate along the Garden Route in Tsitsikamma.

The camps are equipped with training facilities and barracks which are believed to sleep mostly Pakistani and Malawian immigrants.

The operations are said be led by Johannesburg dentist, Junaid Ismail Dockrat and his cousin, Muslim cleric Farhad Ahmed Dockrat who have been identified as Al Qaeda financiers, recruiters and facilitators.

The pair dismissed the Tsitsikamma claims saying it emanated from a disgruntled former employee.

The Hawks declined to explain why their operation was halted, saying they do not comment on ongoing investigations.

United States and British intelligence agencies regard South Africa as an international terrorist halfway house.

For nearly a decade South Africa's intelligence agencies had been spying on Islamic military training camps and those linked to them, but this was all stopped in 2010, without an explanation.

In addition to the camps, undercover intelligence operatives in conjunction with the South African Revenue Service (Sars) have established that more than R9 million has been smuggled to terrorist organisations in the last two years.

In October 2008, SARS traced an amount of more than R31 million which was smuggled overseas by a Pakistani group.

(Edited by Tamsin Wort)