25 January 2015

How to fight the Crime Insurgency in South Africa - Part Four – Fighting back






“Analogically, the guerrilla fights the war of the flea, and his military enemy suffers the dog's disadvantages. Too much to defend, too small, ubiquitous, and agile an enemy to come to grips with. If the war continues long enough--this is the theory--the dog succumbs to exhaustion and anemia without ever having found anything on which to close its jaws or to rake with its claws.”

Robert Taber, “War of the Flea; The classic study of guerrilla warfare” pg. 27

By Mike Smith

24rd of January 2015

In order to understand how to counter an insurgency, we need to first understand something about the principles of fighting.

Fight science - How to fight so you never have to fight again

Contrary to common belief there is not much difference between fighting the school bully, a gang in the street and fighting an insurgency in the bush or urban environment. The principles of fighting are universal and common in all types of conflict. Even in politics.

It is not just about who has the biggest and best weapon. Weapons are tools, levers, multipliers, but they are by far not the only factors in a fight. Weapons are mere extension of the body, a sword, a gun, even the button you press to launch the missile are mere extensions of what you decided in your brain. Therefore the best weapon in any fight is the brain. The body only does what the brain tells it to do.

Fighting is a science or rather a combination of multidisciplinary scientific principals with elements from Physics (leverage, friction), Biology (fitness, endurance), Psychology (conditioning, morale, killer instinct), to Geography (location, weather conditions, etc) and many more.

Fighting is NOT a sport; it is dirty. Fighting is about survival. Therefore there are NO rules. There are no tap outs. All is fair in love and war. We are not interested in a clean fight. In fact we fight extremely dirty or what others might perceive as such. We don’t wait until we get attacked, we take the initiative. The most skilled, most aggressive and most dirty fighter normally wins.

Initiative

Throwing the first punch is not necessarily the same as landing the first punch.

In fighting (conflict) the person who has the initiative usually wins. The one who lands the first punch has the advantage and as long as he can keep the initiative he will win. The principle of initiative is universal and can be seen from the animal world to two nuclear powers firing missiles at each other.

Defence is necessary and vital, but you do not win a fight with defence alone. It is only when you get the initiative and go on the offensive that you will win the fight.

Other Principles of fighting

One can write books to comprehensively go into the principles of fighting. I shall not cover them all in this article. A brief mention is enough to illustrate a point. Here are some in no particular order of importance...All are vital to success.

1. Deception. He cannot fight what isn’t there.

2. Surprise. It can nullify any size or type of weapon. Strike when and where he least expects it.

3. Speed. Remember the insurgent wants to prolong the fight.

4. Range. Proficiency in all ranges is desired. Free moving, clinch and ground fighting.

5. Terrain. Fight where you have the advantage. If he cannot swim, fight him in the water. If he is a good kicker, fight him in a telephone booth.

6. Intelligence. Know everything about your opponent. His strengths and weaknesses, his weapons and movements, his routines. Everything.

7. Effect. Always strive for maximum effect.

Maximum Effect

A fight should be ended as quickly, as efficiently and as BRUTALY as possible. It might sound sick and Machiavellian, but it will save your life. Allow me to explain:

The insurgent wants to prolong the fight. A long fight favours your opponent. He learns your skills and strengths and uses them against you. The longer he lasts, the more confident he becomes and the more demoralised you become in sustaining the fighting. The longer you beat up on the small guy the more criticism you are going to draw and the more support he is going to get. If he cannot beat you, he wants others to stop you from fighting him. Speed also ensures less injury over a certain period of time and less costs.

Sure there are “nice” ways to end a fight. A skilled Ju Jitsu fighter will put someone in a bloodless arm lock or choke and wait till the person taps out or passes out. A clean punch to the tip of the jaw will switch the lights off for the opponent. It might work in a sparring match or sporting competition where there is “fair play”. However, in a battle of survival against a gang of thugs, second place means death. Therefore we are not interested in “Fair Play”. There is no place for “nice”. So you look for maximum effect. “Ground and Pound” has a brilliantly shocking effect on others. It shocks them into passivity.

He must lose his will to fight...and so the others

For instance...You take a chair (superior leverage) and knock him to the ground. You kick all his teeth in...and then some. You play football with his head, you do not stop until you are sure he is not going to get up again.

Do not shy away from being brutal. It is not personal. It is survival. It is the shocking effect you are after so the others stand back and do not kill you. The more blood and effect you can draw the better. The others must know that if they ever dare touch you, they will meet the same fate. They must lose THEIR will to fight.

Do not mistake this with psychopathic behaviour. A psychopath is unable to switch his killer instinct off. All people have killer instinct. It just comes out at different levels. For one person it might be enough to trigger his killer instinct by cutting him off on the road. For a mother, her killer instinct will come out when you threaten her child. A good warrior can switch it on and off at will. To fight like this is not natural. You have to train and condition yourself in order to be able to fight like this.

The warrior is not a psychopath. He is a highly trained and confident individual with the gift of being able to stop a violent psychopath without fear. The warrior when faced with a violent situation, experiences no fear, just a mild sense of excitement (Known as Stage Yellow). When others run away from the fight he goes forward. He has the remarkable ability to switch on his killer instinct at will and switch it off when the job is done. Such a warrior is the Nemesis of the insurgent.

The principle of effect cannot be stretched enough.

I was once attacked by an entire coloured Rugby team in a disco. I survived due to the principle of effect. I made such an example of two of them that the others stood back in shock and awe. I applied the same principle a few months ago when I was attacked by two skinheads in a German pub. Five seconds was all it took. They were searching for their teeth on the floor; Both ended up in hospital. All the others stood back. It was just killer instinct switched on at will within a split second combined with 30 years of Martial Arts training coming out in five seconds. It was not nice, but I had no scratch on me. I did not start the fight, but I ended it.

The “Mini War”, the “Little War” and “The Big War”

To explain proper Counter Insurgency we can look at the three wars above, each as a microcosm of the next.

The “Mini War”

It is simple really. You just have to beat up and make an example of the schoolyard bully once, and you will probably never have to fight again. When attacked by a majority in the street, you have to quickly sum up the situation, pick out the biggest and loudest and make an example out of him. You have to be so brutal that the others will be in “Shock and Awe” and will stand back or run away. They will never bother you again. The “Mini war” is a microcosm of the “Little War”.

“The Little War” - The current situation in South Africa

The word “Guerrilla” is Spanish for “Little War”.

This is exactly what is happening with so-called “crime” in South Africa. Home invasions and farm attacks where people are brutally tortured, raped and killed are attacks by gangs or cells of insurgents carrying out “The War of the Flea”.

These whites feel powerless. There is no real “Big War”, no real enemy they can see or defend themselves against. They swallow the lies of the very insurgents masquerading as a legitimate government that it is just “ordinary crime”.

Unless they realize the type of war being waged against them and study the tactics of the insurgents, they will succumb and die just like the dog in Robert Taber’s theory.

How to counter the “Little War”

High walls, security gates, razor wire, electric fences, cameras, etc…these are all “Defensive measures”. Even armed response is reactionary and defensive. Defensive measures are limited, vulnerable and unreliable. When Eskom’s power is off, half of your defence measures do not work. Even just being armed and sitting, waiting is defensive. Neighbourhood watching is defensive.

None of these will stop the insurgency.

In order to stop the insurgency you have to take the initiative and you have to go on the offensive.

You have to set up neighbourhood patrols at night. Don’t worry about during the day for now. When you have made a few examples, the fleas will stay away.

Two guys together patrolling for two hours at a time, waking the next two up and so on. When you catch the bastards or anyone just walking there that does not belong there, you wake EVERYONE up and you make an example out of the bastards. Swiftly and brutally. Shock and awe. Maximum effect.

Trust me it works. In my previous neighbourhood, we did it after a spate of break-ins and one couple was brutally attacked in their home. We even invited the police to our meeting. They told us what was legal and what not. We were not interested in legal. We basically told them that we need to clean house and they better stay out of our way.

Two weeks and four brutal examples was all it took. After that crime became so nonexistent that we could stop the patrols. I stayed there for another ten years and we NEVER had any more break-ins ever again. I never had an alarm system, no wall even. My lawn was open to the curb. Once the word got out on the street, the insurgents stayed away from our area. Word on the street was, “Those Boere are crazy!”…Insurgents are scared of “Crazy”.

How did the word get out? The PB’s…the maids and gardeners told the others in the townships what was going on in our area. We had another meeting and got rid of the PB’s…then we had peace.

Forget about PB’s and WHAM

In the urban Guerrilla War that we are dealing with, the maids and gardeners are the equivalents of the PB’s we had on the Namibian border. (PB = Plaaslike Bevolking; Local Population).

You cannot trust them. They are the eyes and ears of the insurgents. Even when you think your maid will never betray you (which could be true) she might do it unwittingly. Maids and gardeners like to brag about their bosses. She might just innocently be in a shebeen and tell someone about what you have in your house and an insurgent will overhear it. They might later even threaten her and coerce her into giving them more information. The same with the gardener. Believe me, PB’s will cause your death, directly or indirectly. They are not your friends. Forget about being good to them. Forget about winning their hearts and minds. Have nothing to do with them. Get them out of your neighbourhood. You will notice that once you have cleansed your area, you will have peace.

The “Big War”

The “Little War” is a microcosm of the “Big War”.

What is your country other than an extension of your neighbourhood?

The “Big War” will either come suddenly or a gradual escalation of the “Little War” into a full blown "Big War". Currently we are seeing both.

Just remember that nobody declares war anymore. It is not a Rugby match. Nobody will blow the whistle for the game to start. We will find ourselves in the middle of a war without even knowing it is a war.

The first indication is that the ANC’s supporters are getting more and more frustrated. The ANC cannot deliver on all their false promises. They cannot give their supporters houses, jobs, wealth, a chicken in every pot, whatever…When the insurgents finally lose their patience, the ANC will do exactly what Robert Mugabe did and tell them, “Well, we gave you AK-47’s. You know where the houses and the wealth are. Those white bastards who oppressed you during Apartheid”...That will be the trigger.

The second indications are the sudden increase in anti-white hate-speech from the ANC and the sudden increase in farm murders. Farm Murders on the rise - Afriforum

Be that as it may, the “Big War” is coming. Of that I have no doubt. All the signs of an escalating conflict to a crescendo are there. It won’t be declared…wisdom will be to spot it when it is here. We MUST be prepared for it.

We must ensure that although we do not THROW the first punch, that we LAND the first punch. We need to have the initiative. After that, the principles of war will take over. Maximum speed. Maximum effect. It must be quick and utterly brutal. We must make such an example out of the insurgents that the rest of them will be running for our northern borders and the international community will be standing back in shock. Then they mustn’t ask “Why?”…

The Internationalists are the ones who caused it. When we asked them to take note and help us against farm murders etc. they turned a blind eye. For twenty years now they had the opportunity to stop farm murders and white genocide in South Africa, they sat back and did nothing. Do they want to sit back and watch us get slaughtered? It is not going to happen.

When we eventually take matters in our own hands, they must just stay out of our way. We don’t need the international police. We’ll be cleaning house and it is not going to be pretty. There will be no WHAM. There will be no Geneva Convention…Just streets lined with dead bodies of Marxist insurgents all the way to Beitbridge. They will be given the opportunity to leave on their own or be driven out.

Two Case Studies of successful Counter Insurgencies

Whenever you look at the history of Insurgencies and Counter Insurgencies you see that the Counter insurgencies that were successful were the ones where the Military went all out. 100%. No negotiations, no WHAM just initiative, speed and maximum brutal effect.

The Hama Massacre (1982)

In Syria in 1982, President Hafez al-Assad faced a murderous insurgency of the Muslim Brotherhood and almost had his country overrun by them. As far as they went, the insurgents were looting raping and pillaging. At 2 am on 3 February in the city of Hama, the insurgents started murdering Ba’ath party members and their families. They killed 70 party members their wives were raped and killed and the children stabbed or clubbed to death.

Hafez al-Assad sent his brother General Rifaat al-Assad in to stop the insurgency.

Rifaat laid siege to the city with 12,000 soldiers blocking off all roads in and out of town. He issued an amnesty to all who were willing to surrender and said that afterwards, ANYONE remaining in the city would be considered an insurgent and wiped out. He also issued rewards for the heads of the Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders. The fighting in Hama lasted for three weeks – the first week in regaining control of the town, and the last two in hunting down the insurgents and killing them on the spot. The entire old city centre was destroyed.

After the initial attacks, military and internal security personnel were dispatched to comb through the rubble for surviving members of the Muslim Brotherhood and their sympathizers. Torture and mass executions of suspected rebel sympathizers ensued, killing many thousands over several weeks. Rifaat, suspecting that rebels were still hiding in tunnels under the old city, had diesel fuel pumped into them and set ablaze and stationed T-72 tanks at the tunnel entrances to shell people trying to escape from the tunnels. About 40,000 were killed. The Syrian army lost 1,000 soldiers.

The insurgents were fleeing for their lives and turned on each other, split up, one side blaming the other for their defeat and fled the country for Iraq, Jordan, The USA or Europe. It would be more than 30 years before Syria had another insurgency.

The Herero uprising (1904)

Just after the Anglo Boer War during 1903, the German colony that later became Namibia, Deutsch Südwestafrika, experienced a severe drought. Water and grazing for the cattle became scarce. The Herero people who did not practice scientific farming, quickly ran out of grazing and let their cattle graze on the lands of the white farmers. The German farmers would then chase the cattle off their land.

In early 1904, the Herero started a brutal uprising and insurgency against the German farmers. The Herero fighters were very well armed. They had modern firearms that they received from a Swedish Adventurer Karl Johan Anderson and even had two field artillery pieces.

The Herero’s simultaneously attacked farms, trade depots and train stations. The farms were burned down and mostly the men brutally killed. Although the Herero insurgents had firearms, the preferred to club their victims to death with knobkerries, splattering their brains all over and then butchering their organs out and cutting off their sexual parts. Women and children were mostly allowed to flee, but in several cases women and children were also killed and babies nailed to kitchen tables. Even the Cape Times of the day, that was not sympathetic towards the Germans, reported on the horrific killings. By the 12th of January 1904 the Herero insurgents have killed 140 German and 7 Boer farmers.

The German garrisons under Lt.Gen.Lothar von Trotha went on the offensive and drove the Hereros back to the Waterberg region. He apparently issued a proclamation (no original exists only one copy) to the Herero:

“I, the great general of the German soldiers, send this letter to the Hereros. The Hereros are German subjects no longer. They have killed, stolen, cut off the ears and other parts of the body of wounded soldiers, and now are too cowardly to want to fight any longer. I announce to the people that whoever hands me one of the chiefs shall receive 1,000 marks, and 5,000 marks for Samuel Maherero. The Herero nation must now leave the country. If it refuses, I shall compel it to do so with the 'long tube' (cannon). Any Herero found inside the German frontier, with or without a gun or cattle, will be executed. I shall spare neither women nor children. I shall give the order to drive them away and fire on them. Such are my words to the Herero people."

He also wrote to Governor Theodor Leutwein:

"My intimate knowledge of many central African tribes (Bantu and others) has everywhere convinced me of the necessity that the Negro does not respect treaties but only brute force.”

On the 11th and 12th of August 1904 the Hereros were decisively defeated at the Battle of Waterberg. After the battle all men, women, and children who fell into German hands, wounded or otherwise, were mercilessly put to death. Then the Germans set off in pursuit of the rest, and all those found by the wayside and in the sandveld were shot down and bayoneted to death. The rest of the Hereros were chased off into the Omaheke desert. Von Trotha also sent troops ahead to man waterholes and whenever Hereros would arrive for water the soldiers would beat them away and drive them further into the desert. Other Hereros were rounded up and put in Concentration camps. According to the Whitaker Report, the population of 80,000 Herero was reduced to 15,000 "starving refugees" between 1904 and 1907.

The Herero NEVER started another insurgency against the Germans ever again.



24 January 2015

How to fight the Crime Insurgency in South Africa - Part Three - Adopt what is useful; Discard what does not work



By Mike Smith

23rd of January 2015

The futility of WHAM in COIN – Helping those who help your enemies

During the South African Border War (1966-1989) South Africa officially adopted a policy of WHAM (Winning Hearts And Minds). The South African military drew on the work of Lieutenant-General Charles Alan 'Pop' Fraser and US Colonel John McCuen

McCuen served in staff and command positions in the United States Army in Vietnam, Thailand, Germany and Indonesia. While serving on the US Army General Staff in 1966 his book, The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War – The Strategy of Counter-Insurgency, was published and it forms the basis of the US Army Field Manual FM 3-24.

Fraser, who died in 1994, had an impressive CV. He studied at the South African Military College, the Middle East Staff College in Haifa (Northern Israel) and the Joint Services Staff College in Latimer House, England. He was a WWII veteran and fought in Italy in 1943. After the war he fought in the Malaysian Emergency one of the few really successful Counter Insurgency wars against Communists in modern history.

During the Algerian War 1954-1962 he was military attaché in Paris and spent time in Algeria where he became an expert in Asymmetrical Warfare.

He became Chief of Joint Operations of the South African Defence Force in 1966. As “General Officer Commanding Joint Combat Forces (G.O.C.J.C.F.)” he had the third highest rank in the South African Defence Force. The rank later fell away.

In this position he befriended Swiss military officers such as General Paul Gygli and Colonel Helmut von Frisching who invited him and a military delegation to Switzerland to study the Swiss army’s recruitment and training system, elements of which he introduced to South Africa. South Africa’s Military Intelligence adopted many of the Swiss methods of “Psychological Warfare” and how to fight subversion.

In an unpublished study entitled “Lessons learnt from past revolutionary wars”, released in the early sixties, Fraser distilled the basic principles of counterinsurgency warfare from the work of French authors such as General Andre Beaufre, Lt. Col. David Galula and Col. Roger Trinquier.

This is important, because all these so-called French “experts” on Counter Insurgency LOST their wars!

It was their losing ideas on WHAM and COIN that influenced Fraser and McCuen and found its way into the SADF.

The idea is that when you are nice to the PB’s (Plaaslike Bevolking; Local Population) they will give you information about the enemy insurgents and stop housing, feeding and supporting them. By building schools and hospitals for them, giving them medical services and even curing their animals and livestock from diseases, you will somehow win them over. The idea is generally to convince the PB’s that the government’s cause is better or more righteous than that of the insurgents.

According to an SADF publication, in the Namibian operational area the number of schools increased from 212 in 1962 to 757 in 1982, while the number of pupils increased from 32 000 to 172 000. National servicemen were deployed in the education, health, agriculture, forestry and nature preservation fields. In addition to medical services, all dentists, veterinarians and psychologists in the operational area were linked to the SADF civic action. Source: Winning Hearts and Minds in the Namibian Border War

How successful was WHAM in Namibia?

It was a total failure. After the SADF withdrew from Namibia and the Namibians had their elections in November 1989, SWAPO won the election with 57% of the vote. In the province of Ovamboland, 92% of the people voted for SWAPO.

Out the porthole goes David Galula’s theory that “Most of the population will be neutral in the conflict...”

It’s utter rubbish.

What did all that WHAM help? Why did it not work in Vietnam with the French and Americans? Why did it not work for the Russians in Afghanistan and why is it not working today for the US and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Well what do you think would have happened if the Russians (or Americans) ever invaded South Africa…? Do you think they would have been able to win OUR hearts and minds? Definitely not mine. I would have seen them as intruders in my home and wanted them out as soon as possible.

The study above by Eloff de Visser blames a lack of unity between the SADF and the Police COIN unit, “Koevoet” for it. She says on the one side the SADF was practicing WHAM on the other hand Koevoet would wreck Kraals and strap killed insurgents to the bumpers of their Casspirs.

Instead of blaming the policy of WHAM, (because it was formulated from experts and therefore must be true) she blamed Koevoet.

General Geldenhuys also mentions in “At the Front” that the local population was largely illiterate (despite the schools the SADF ran) and therefore the propaganda pamphlets were useless.

One can today almost laugh at the amateurish nature of some of our SADF techniques.

Personal experience proved that the intelligence received from the PB’s were for the most part unreliable and useless anyway. They were a bunch of liars. They were not co-operating with the SADF and in fact feeding them false information for the most part. Some experts say that PLAN, SWAPO’s armed wing, coerced and intimidated the locals and that was the reason.

Well if it worked for them, then why didn’t WE do it?

Be it as it may, it is clear from the election results that the locals in Namibia simply did not want us there. They hated our guts and saw us as the intruders. WHAM failed dismally in Namibia just as it failed everywhere else in the world. It is a policy that doesn’t work and therefore should be abandoned not stubbornly reintroduced. All those efforts were futile. So why did we spend all that time and money trying to win their hearts and minds?

If only we concentrated those resources in actually destroying the insurgents, the outcome would have been a lot different.

23 January 2015

How to fight the Crime Insurgency in South Africa - Part Two – A closer look at an insurgency

By Mike Smith

23rd of January 2015

What is an insurgency?

To find a definition of what exactly an insurgency is, is difficult. Here we have the moral relativism problem of “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Basically “An insurgency is a rebellion against a recognized government by non-belligerents.”

The US Field Manual 3-24 on Counter Insurgency says: “An insurgency is the organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of a region.”

I have a problem with that definition. I do not believe that the insurgent is after political control at least not as we understand political control, but more on that later.

My definition…Simply put: “An insurgency is an illegitimate claim to power over a sovereign nation by a group of thugs”,

…but the thugs want you to believe that those in power are illegally there and that they (the insurgents) are the legitimate ones and the “good guys”.

Who and what is the Marxist Criminal and his goals?

The Marxist insurgent is a cowardly criminal and a psychopathic thug. He wants what is legally yours. He wants your house, your car, all your wealth, your wife and your country with all its wealth. He will use any and all means to get it. He likes to play the victim, the small guy, the innocent, the oppressed, the morally superior and the just.

Like a typical skilled manipulating psychopath he often succeeds in getting public sympathy.

His goals are selfish not political. He has no “Great Political Cause”. It is just a deception, a lie and a front. He wants power for self-enrichment. He does not want political power to exercise good governance. He is a murderer and a thief. There is nothing noble about that.

Playing the victim and obtaining public sympathy

Think about it like this: If you see a big strong guy beating up a child or a woman, you will immediately, without knowing the facts, think that the big guy is evil and the weak one is the victim.

In fact you will probably try to protect the perceived victim, stop the fight and show your solidarity with the weaker one. This trait is human. Psychopaths know this only too well and use it to get public sympathy and support. Truth is that the bigger person could be the victim of a cowardly attack by a psycho posing as the weak victim.

This brings us to the dilemma of the soldier fighting the Counter Insurgency. He wants to be brave and prove himself.

The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than you are. If you are strong and fighting the weak and you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot.

No matter how clean you try to fight and stick to all the rules. No matter how righteous you try to appear, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal. There is simply no escaping this dilemma.

We have learned this lesson in Namibia, the Israelis have learned it against the Palestinians and the Americans have learned it in Vietnam.

What is the strategy of an insurgent?

Ultimately the insurgent wants you to lose your will to fight so you give up what is yours.

The insurgent knows that most normal people hate conflict. People do not like violence and fighting and will try to avoid it as far as possible. Most people will only fight when absolutely no other choice exists. Therefore the insurgent uses violence to get what he wants. This is the basis of Mao’s 20/80 principle that an insurgency is 20% war and 80% politics. More on this later.

The insurgent wants to prolong the fight so he can wear you down. He wants others to see how aggressive you are, how you beat him up, so that they will question you and put pressure on you to stop fighting him, “the timid, smaller guy”.

The insurgent wants you to question your own morality in fighting him. When you become disgusted with your own actions, you will lose your will to fight and he will take what is yours, because you will give up what is not worth protecting anymore.

The insurgent can lose all the battles and still win the war, when you lose your will to fight.

That is how insurgents managed to defeat first France and then the USA in Vietnam. That is how they managed to take all the countries south of the Sahara including Rhodesia, Namibia and now South Africa.

The insurgent is not in a hurry. Trường Chinh, second in command to Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam, wrote in his “Primer for Revolt”:

“The guiding principle of the strategy for our whole resistance must be to prolong the war. To protract the war is the key to victory. Why must the war be protracted? ... If we throw the whole of our forces into a few battles to try to decide the outcome, we shall certainly be defeated and the enemy will win. On the other hand, if while fighting we maintain our forces, expand them, train our army and people, learn military tactics ... and at the same time wear down the enemy forces, we shall weary and discourage them in such a way that, strong as they are, they will become weak and will meet defeat instead of victory.”

What are the tactics used by the insurgents?

This article does not have enough space to put down the details of all the tactics of the insurgents, so I will only mention a few relative ones.

Appearing weak when you are strong is one of the tactics of Sun Tzu in “The Art of War” and at least 2500 years old.

For the insurgency to be successful the insurgent needs a safe border that he can withdraw behind. He will fight from a sympathetic neighbours turf.

Also essential to the success of the insurgency is the initiative.

When a woman walks down the street with her handbag, the thief has the initiative. He will pick the right moment and place to strike. He will strike when least expected and he will be successful. The terrorist who plants the bomb has the initiative of exactly where and when he wants to explode it. He wants to maintain this initiative.

Think about it like this: No matter how well you are armed, how well you are trained, how strong or how quick you think you are…you have weaknesses. You have to sleep. You have to go to the toilet. You do not have eyes in the back of your head. It is exactly at that point that the terrorist will stab you from behind.

The insurgent will form small groups or “cells” operating independently or together when needs be.

Through terror, the insurgent will coerce and intimidate the local population into supporting and protecting him. He hides amongst them. Ché Guevara would arrive at a village and try to recruit fighters. If they refused he would go away and return two days later with his soldiers dressed up in government forces uniforms. He would then rape, pillage and destroy and disappear again. The next day he would return again as the “Saviour Rebel Leader” and now would have hundreds willing to join his “cause” and feed his army.

The insurgent uses terror to attack the civilian population who expects the government security forces (army police, etc) to protect them. A government that cannot protect its citizens forfeits its right to rule. When they feel the government cannot protect them anymore, they become demoralized will put pressure on the government revolt or simply move away. All the easier for the insurgent to take the land and take over the government.

The ANC in the early 1990’s did all of this. They called it “People’s War”.

The insurgent is not interested in a fair fight under Queensbury rules. He will also use cowardly terror attacks on government forces to force them to withdraw.

If you think terrorist attacks in an insurgency are not successful, think again. The October 1983 suicide attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, for example, convinced the United States to withdraw its soldiers from Lebanon.

The United States pulled its soldiers out of Saudi Arabia two years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 after building their troops up there for over a decade.

The Philippines recalled its troops from Iraq nearly a month early after a Filipino truck driver was kidnapped by Iraqi extremists.

The myths of an insurgency

There are many myths and misconceptions about insurgencies. It starts in the definitions and ends in military generals holding on to beliefs even if they have failed over and over. They learn nothing from the past and keep repeating the same mistakes. They overestimate the opinions of so-called “experts” and underestimate the opinions of others.

I fully agree with Martin van Creveld that most literature on insurgencies can be ignored. The most useless manual on Counter Insurgency is probably this one:

US Army field manual on COIN FM3-24

It can basically be summed up as such: “Beat your opponent down to the ground, break down his house, help him to his feet, rebuild his house, tell him where he can sit and where he can stand…and expect him to see you as his best friend”. Voila!

Further…It makes bullshit statements like this one:

“In all cases, insurgents aim to force political change; any military action is secondary and subordinate, a means to an end.”

Political change? …Military action is secondary and subordinate?

Bollocks!

A corruption of the Pareto Principle - 20/80 in Counter Insurgency

General Jannie Geldenhuys repeated this Communist nonsense from above in his book “At the front” that an insurgency is 80% political and 20% war. He probably did not understand that you have to take it from whence it comes.

He got that from arch Communist Mao Tse Tung as cited in the book “Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice” by Lt. Col. David Galula (1964) a French Jew who fought in the WWII French resistance and later in Algeria.

But where do the Marxists originally get this rubbish from? It is a corruption of the The Pareto Principle named after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) who also coined the term “The Elite”. Pareto noticed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population “The Elite”.

People have applied the Pareto Principle to many other fields such as in business that 80% of your profit comes from 20% of your customers.

This 80% thing gets thrown around whenever people lack real statistical facts or evidence.

For instance, in South Africa, we often hear the lie from the Marxists ANC and EFF that 80% of the land is owned by 40,000 white South African families as the EFF’s Commissar for Land Revolution told Richard Branson in an open letter.

This of course utter rubbish. Do 40,000 whites own 80% of SA? The claim is incorrect

And so the Pareto Principle also found its way into asymmetrical warfare and was adopted by Mao Tse-tung.

You have to understand that the insurgents and the counter insurgents see this principle from completely different viewpoints.

For Mao, the “political” side was just a continuation of the war. He knew that people normally shy away from violence so he uses it to get them to negotiate. People will give away everything just to stop the violence. So for him indeed the violence was just a means to an end.

For Geldenhuys (and other western generals who misinterpreted the 20/80 principle) it meant the war was a half-hearted attempt and actually the job of the politicians. The politicians would have to do 80% of the work (that means talking) and the Generals only 20%. The politicians eventually would have to negotiate with the Communists and then the general can relax, because his job is done.

If a General really believes that his job is only 20% of the fight, then the nation is doomed and the insurgents will win. Rhodesia, Namibia and South Africa are testimonies to this.

I strongly disagree with this belief that the insurgency is 80% political (talking), because the assumption is made that you can actually reason with unreasonable psychopaths.

A so-called “Political solution” means sitting around a table and negotiating with Marxist terrorists (more talking). It is futile.

Marxist terrorists are psychopaths and do not understand diplomacy. To them a political cause is a front. What they want is absolute power so they can steal and rape to their hearts content. A Satanic, Communist heaven. When you show them that you are willing to engage in politics, negotiations and diplomacy, they smell weakness and go for the jugular.

To the Marxist psycho it is a binary decision. He wants what is yours or he carries on fighting. You don’t want to carry on fighting so you give him what is yours. Eventually you negotiate your entire country away. Simple as that. You think he is going to stop when he has what is yours? Think again…He won’t stop until you are dead.

Just beating him on the battle field does not help you have to completely DESTROY the insurgent

Even if you have beaten him on the battle field in every fight and think that you have proved to him that you are stronger and he should give up the fight, he will only pretend to. He will sign any and all peace treaties and later break them all again. Whatever it takes to get what he wants. He cannot share power. He must have it all. He will go for it only to get a foot in the door and then continue his “struggle” until you are gone and he plays Solo man.

Mugabe broke every single stipulation of the Lancaster House Agreement. He basically wiped his arse with it. In the time since independence, the Lancaster House Agreement was modified and changed more than 27 times. He refused power sharing with Ian Smith or Joshua Nkomo.

The same in South Africa. The ANC broke all the CODESA agreements. Where are the Afrikaner’s own schools and own universities? Where is the equal status of Afrikaans and all other languages? Where is the right to Afrikaner self determination?

Of all the “Checks and balances” F.W. de Klerk assured us of, nothing came. The ANC does what it wants. The Government of National Unity failed spectacularly and the whites of South Africa became political orphans dwelling in the wilderness of liberal ideology.

You are not dealing with normal people here. I cannot say it enough. Marxists terrorists are dishonest, unethical, and immoral, scum. Forget about a political solution with insurgents. The solution is 100% militarily. Politicians should get out of the way and let the military do its thing. The military should give 100%. The only way to have peace is to kill every last one of the insurgents. If you let even one cockroach live, he will lay his eggs and start a colony again.

22 January 2015

How to fight the Crime Insurgency in South Africa - Part One – A new look at crime



"The first, and absolutely indispensable, thing to do is throw overboard 99 percent of the literature on counterinsurgency, counterguerrilla, counterterrorism, and the like. Since most of it was written by the losing side, it is of little value."

Martin van Creveld, Israeli military historian in his book, “The Changing Face of War Lessons of Combat, From the Marne to Iraq”, pg 268 (2007)

By Mike Smith

23rd of January 2015

So I take it you are sick of crime in South Africa. You want to do something constructive and actually STOP crime instead of just raising awareness?

If you are willing to read this series I will show you how:

“Ordinary Crime”?: Correctly identifying the problem

Politicians, the liberal media and liberal academics are in consensus that crime in South Africa is colourless, raceless, political-less and well…just “ordinary crime”.

I disagree. To me, it is clear that we are dealing with a special kind of insurgency in South Africa. A crime insurgency. It is a war where the Government is the insurgent.

Crime is not the result of Colonialism, Apartheid or Socio-economic disparities as the learned want us to believe. Crime is a tactic used in the insurgency of which the goals are exactly the same as the insurgencies the Rhodesians and Portuguese dealt with in their former African colonies and the same as in the insurgency we dealt with in South West Africa (Namibia).

The people who do not recognize it as such probably never had to deal with an insurgency before and therefore do not see it for what it is. You cannot blame them. How should a blind person recognize from the taste of an apple that it is an apple if he has never tasted, smelled, felt or seen an apple before?

Either that or they know exactly what it is and are deliberately misleading the public.

The ANC and their “Struggle” that has never stopped

We often hear ANC cadres talking about their “Struggle” and how it is not over.

Even Mandela in 1991, after he was released and Apartheid abolished, declared that The “Struggle” was not over

ANC deputy President of SA, Kgalema Motlanthe, repeated this in 1998 four years after the ANC came to power when he said: The Struggle for Democracy is not over

Julias Malema of the EFF constantly talks about the Economic Freedom "struggle" and last year even threatened an armed struggle against the ANC.

Where do they get this word “Struggle” from?

It is a Vietnamese word “Dau Tranh” meaning “The Struggle” and it is the Vietnamese version of Moa Tse Tung’s Communist insurgency model. Dr. Anthea Jeffrey exposed this at length in her book “People’s War” where she shows how the ANC went to Vietnam in the 1970’s and adopted the insurgency techniques there from General Vo Nguyen Giap who defeated first the French and then the Americans.

The ANC’s cadres are telling us every day that they have never stopped their insurgency. All we have to do is listen.

Robert Pape in his book Dying to win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism explains that 95% of terrorist attacks are part of a coordinated campaign. Bear that in mind when we will look at the South African model shortly. But first a case study.

An insurgency of a special kind - Zimbabwe: A case study

No insurgency is exactly the same and this is what makes it so difficult to define, but there are similarities and parallels between what happened in Zimbabwe and what is happening in South Africa.

Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF insurgents came to power in 1980. For a while it went well. According to the Lancaster House Agreement, he could not touch land for ten years. People thought the insurgency was over. Mugabe had to keep up a front and appear to be a model for South Africa and Namibia who weren’t “liberated” yet.

Mugabe held back until the ANC was unbanned and in 1992 introduced the Land Acquisition Act. Eight years later, after the term of Mandela in February 2000, Mugabe started his insurgency again and stole the land from the White farmers. 4000 White farmers were virtually penniless overnight.

He did not use the regular army, because they can be held responsible under the Geneva Convention. Mugabe knows how to go around the Geneva Convention. His private army of “War veterans”, most of who were young and born after 1980, dressed in civilian clothes, attacked white owned farms and drove the farmers out.

Here we see a democratically elected government becoming the insurgents. Actually they have always been the insurgents and have never given up or stopped being insurgents. They were just dormant for a while as part of a larger strategy and campaign.

For the Marxist terrorist and paranoid psychopath, Mugabe, it was not enough to be in power. He still saw the white Zimbabweans as the ones REALLY in power and a possible enemy. They still had too much economical clout and could raise an army and revolt. They had to be completely broken and destroyed. His insurgency campaign would only be over once the last white person was driven out of Zimbabwe and all the stolen land belonged to him.

In Zimbabwe we saw that politics, negotiations and so-called “Democracy” never brought an end to the Marxist insurgency. It only succeeded in bringing the insurgents into the country. They now have their bases in the townships on the doorsteps of the whites. The townships are now their safe borders from where they operate.

South Africa’s crime insurgency

Likewise in South Africa. The ANC and PAC were former Marxist terrorists who fought an insurgency against the white South African government. They also had a bullshit “Political Cause” namely “Apartheid” just like Mugabe had “Colonialism”.

The ANC is now in power through a Troika with the SA Communist Party and the COSATU trade unions and as we can see, they are not much interested in good governance. They are just interested in self enrichment.

When F.W. de Klerk unbanned the ANC, SACP, PAC, etc. on the 2nd of February 1990 in his speech before parliament and released so-called “political prisoners” all he did was move the insurgent bases from Angola, Zambia, Mozambique and Tanzania into South Africa’s townships and onto our doorsteps.

Democracy did not magically dissolve the insurgents. The insurgents never went away. They are now called “MK Veterans” and they are in a township near to you. They are training up youth militias such as Narysec at this very moment.

I have exposed this in an article in 2011 already:

The shocking Parallels between Mugabe’s ”NYS Green Bombers” and Zuma’s NARYSEC youth brigade

When one looks at the way shopping mall robberies, cash in transit robberies, ATM bombings, etc. are carried out (with military precision), then one cannot help but notice that these “criminals” are military trained.

Crime and insurgency often goes together such as the FARC “Narcoterrorists” of Colombia who fund their insurgency from drugs, kidnappings, bank robberies, etc.

When one observes the terror of black “criminals” against white people in farm attacks or home invasions where vulnerable, elderly whites are horrifically and cowardly tortured for hours and often nothing stolen, then one cannot help but see the parallels with the Rhodesian insurgency prior to 1980 and the Zimbabwean insurgency after 2000. There is no difference between the brutal tactics used by Zanu-PF and that used by the ANC.

Combine this with the rhetoric of political leaders such as Julius Malema who says that black South Africans should learn from Zimbabwe’s land reform program and President Jacob Zuma who confirmed land expropriation for 2015 then one can only anticipate a land grab by Marxist insurgents in the same way as in Zimbabwe in 2000.

When one sees how President Jacob Zuma constantly sings “Kill the Boers; Kill the farmers” and “Bring me my machine gun”...How ANC members sing and chant “One settler; One bullet” and how the president says that "All South Africa’s problems started with the arrival of the white man, Jan van Riebeeck", then there is no doubt what their intentions are. Logically then, if you want to solve South Africa’s “problems”, you have to reverse the arrival of the whites in SA. You have to push them back into the sea.

From all this evidence and parallels the deduction is therefore that we are dealing here with a coordinated Marxist terrorist insurgency and therefore need to fight it as such.

New Miniseries by Mike Smith – How to counter the Crime Insurgency in South Africa


By Mike Smith

22nd of January 2015

About three years ago I was sitting at a restaurant with a friend of mine. He was an East German Naval Officer (Commander) and a former member of the Stasi, the East German secret service and also served in Angola as an adviser and trainer to FAPLA and PLAN the armies of Angola and SWAPO respectively. It was in Angola where he picked up his taste for Cuban cigars.

We were discussing military doctrine, training and strategy and I mentioned that we won just about every battle in Angola, how our training was superior, etc.

I told him why. I told him that we learned mostly from the French and their experiences in Vietnam and Algeria and adopted their Counter Insurgency strategies. I was quoting Andre Beaufre, David Galula, Trinquier, etc…I told him how we learned from the Swiss and the Israelis and incorporated their training methods into the SADF…I mentioned how I was convinced that we contributed to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the destruction of Communism…

He listened to me very carefully, sucking on his cigar with a slight glint in his eye and never interrupted me once.

When I was finished he leaned over to me and asked me a simple question: “So Mike…who is in charge of Namibia today?”

“Well…SWAPO”, I answered.

“And who is in charge of South Africa today?” he asked.

“The ANC” I answered.

He leaned back, and as he was taking a tuck from his cigar he asked me, “They are both Communists organizations…So you tell me Mike, whose strategy and training was superior?”

I couldn’t answer him. It is true. We won all the battles and lost the war. Not only that, we lost our country. So did the Rhodesians and the Namibians. We are all run by Communists today.

I tried to defend myself and said, “…but the GDR (East Germany) itself collapsed, the wall fell…”

He looked me in the eye and said, “Who is the Chancellor of Germany?”

“Merkel” I answered.

“And who is the President?” He asked.

“Joachim Gauck”, I said

“Well, Mike, they are both East Germans. So I ask you…who really won the Cold War?”

Good Question.

He really made me think. Where did we err in our War on Communism? Were we so naïve? Did we not have a proper holistic strategy? What should we have done differently? What if we ever have to fight an insurgency again? Are we blindly going to follow those old methods that did not work? Are we going to at least learn from our mistakes or are we going to keep on blaming the politicians?

With the rhetoric of President Zuma lately that whites are the problem in South Africa, that it started with Jan van Riebeeck, that he promised his supporters that 2015 will be the year of Land Expropriations, that the EFF started organizing land grabs already and with the sudden sharp increases in Farm murders, it became clear to me that we are sitting with an insurgency on our doorstep. It has never stopped. It has just escalated recently.

Therefore, the time has come to re-evaluate our past strategies, tactics, successes and failures so that we do not repeat them when the “Big War” comes and believe me it is a coming.

Therefore I wrote a four part series that I will release over the next few days, addressing some key issues. I hope you enjoy and take part in the discussion. I appreciate all inputs.

The cruel nature of the Noble Savage – Crowd hacks meat off live cattle


By Mike Smith

21st of January 2015

Frenzied crowd slaughters cattle after truck overturns

This behavior is not new. I learned about this kind of thing in history in school when I was about 10yo. The Voortrekkers (pioneers) documented this too in 1838 during the Great Trek. Whenever the Zulus would attack them and they were not fast enough to get the oxen, cattle and other animals (like horses) into the centre of the laager (ring of wagons) these barbaric savages would start hacking pieces of meat from live animals and eat it raw on the spot.

Dr Phillip du Toit also mentions this in his book, “The Great South African Land Scandal” where stock thieves in Natal would do this to cattle they stole. When farmers dug trenches around their cattle camps to prevent the stock thieves from chasing the cattle through there, they would chase the cattle up to the trench, hack pieces of meat out of the cattle and chuck it across the trench.

Blacks also use a concept called “Bush Refrigeration” where they would cut the tendons of the cow’s hind legs and then keep it alive so the meat does not rot whilst daily hacking pieces of meat off the animal.

How would the savage loving liberals explain this one? Oh, the poor bastards were hungry of course…

Frenzied crowd slaughters cattle after truck overturns

A crowd of people tried to hack meat off cattle after a trailer they were being transported in overturned on the N1 in Gauteng, the NSPCA said on Wednesday.

"With knives and buckets, the mob was chasing cattle that had managed to release themselves from the vehicle, some of which had injuries including broken legs. Their intention was to hack meat from the living animals," the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) said in a statement.

"Some animals were unable to escape and were stolen or slaughtered by the frenzied crowd."

The driver allegedly lost control of the truck near the Grasmere toll plaza around 17:00 on Tuesday after rocks were thrown at his vehicle from a bridge.

The NSPCA, police, fire and rescue units, and the traffic department worked to clear the road, control the crowd, and free trapped cattle using the Jaws of Life.

Some of the cattle who were "beyond salvation" were slaughtered on the scene.

18 January 2015

MK “Veterans” Chimpout on TransKaroo train

By Mike Smith

18th of January 2015

Typical bunch of barbaric hooligans. Running around with automatic rifles on a train, beating up and terrorizing their own party’s supporters.

MK veterans cause chaos on train after ANC party

In South Africa it is forbidden by law for anybody to have a private army, but the ANC gets around it by calling them “veterans”. MK is the military wing of the ANC. The ANC also have their own spies separate from National Intelligence.

Look how these thugs (in uniform) kicked, punched and tortured a pregnant woman for three hours.

The drama started when ANC Youth League members allegedly protested against the selling of what was supposed to have been free food parcels on board. These protests led to the veterans going on the attack screaming "we want your blood!"

So there you have the truth. The ANC lured 40,000 supporters to the Cape Town Stadium with free food parcels. The Corrupt MK thugs wanted to sell it to the supporters to make a quick buck.

Witnesses reported that veterans accused youth league members of being moles for the Economic Freedom Fighters and beat them up – with one veteran allegedly punching members with a fist wrapped in a chain.

And this is what Zelda la Grange called the “discipline” of Nelson Mandela?

Once terrorists always terrorists

Party supporters tortured on ANC terror train

Zuma lights the fuse on Zelda's tampon - Explosion on Twitter

By Mike Smith

18th of January 2015

LWB, Zelda La Grange, former nanny to terrorist scumbag Nelson Mandela, got her knickers in a knot over President Zuma’s rantings that South Africa’s troubles started when white man Jan van Riebeeck set foot at the Cape in 1652, obviously implying that when you want to solve the problem, you should push the whites back into the sea. Zuma also said that 2015 will be the year of land expropriations, when the blacks will steal white owned land.

La Grange apologizes for Zuma criticism

She also said that white taxpayer’s money was good enough to build Zuma’s Nkandla palace, but whites are constantly brutalized by the ANC. She also defended former President F.W. de Klerk after the ANC got upset over the DA who wanted to name a Cape Town road after him, saying that he chose peace instead of civil war. For that, she was branded a racist. I kid you not.

Tja, she will still come to realize why Lenin called Liberals “Useful Idiots”.

I don’t know what Zelda’s point is. Just the other day I exposed her lies and hypocrisy when I took her to task in an article after she glorified her corrupt terrorist boss Mandela as a man of integrity and honesty. You can read it here.

A year after Mandela's death and the lies of his sainthood haven't stopped

Zelda knows full well that Zuma has for a long time sung “Kill the Boer” and “Bring me my machine gun”. The videos are even on Youtube. I include them at the bottom of the article.

Her boss Mandela sang Kill the Boers whilst standing right next to Communist scumbag Ronnie Kasrils as exposed in the documentary “The songs they sing”.

Why didn’t Zelda get upset then? Why is she now not upset about the thousands of white farmers that have been killed by blacks in South Africa?

Now she wants to say that the ANC “lost their moral compass”. What moral compass? They never had one. I showed her how Mandela had a diabolical plan called “Operation Mayebuye” to kill thousands of whites in South Africa.

Nevertheless, shortly after her Twitter explosion, Zelda apologized. What for? For speaking the truth? Typical spineless liberal jellyfish worried about being branded a racist.

Zelda is too thick to realize that the only reason why she was appointed Mandela’s PA in the first place was because she was white and an Afrikaner. A few years ago an ANC minister, I think it was Mathews Phosa or Mosiuoa Lekota got into trouble for saying that if you want a job well done you should appoint an Afrikaner. Makes you wonder why they replaced all the white Afrikaners in the civil service with blacks then. Obviously to break it down and rebuild it in the Communist mould.

Now that Zelda’s Rainbow Mandelatopia turned out to be a crime invested, third world hell hole, she threatened to leave South Africa for France. They will take her. She has the money now and they love retarded liberals like her.

I doubt it if Zelda had a real Damascus moment. What is the bet she will carry on towing the liberal line, because her book depends on it? What some women won’t do for money when times are hard, hey?









15 January 2015

Max du Preez packs his handbag and quits IOL

By Mike Smith
15th of January 2015

This is what happens when a liberal dog stops licking his owner’s balls and decides to bite down. He gets kicked in the mouth and chased off.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Max du Preez quits as Independent columnist

14 January 2015

As the year 2015 kicks off, Zuma gives us a glimpse of what we can expect in South Africa

By Mike Smith

15th of January 2015

I see Msholozi Showerhead, your president (not mine), was in top form again last weekend.

After a lot of backward and forward, the ANC finaly held their 103rd birthday celebrations at the Cape Town Stadium along with 40,000 of their supporters (they had to bus in) who only pitched up for the free shit anyway.

Zuma and ANC deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa did a lap of the stadium and waved to supporters before the formal programme kicked off around noon with the national anthem and prayers.

A praise singer (witchdoctor) told the crowd he needed to exorcise the spirit of Dutch coloniser Jan van Riebeeck before the rally could get underway.

"I have to clear the spirit of Jan van Riebeeck from this place first" , the Noble Savage said.

'Let's exorcise spirit of Jan van Riebeeck first': praise singer tells crowd at ANC rally

On Friday night, at an ANC fundraiser, Zuma had revisited the country's colonial history, telling some of the country's wealthiest "all the trouble began" in 1652 when Van Riebeeck landed in the Cape.

It seems like Zuma indulged a little bit too much into the fine Cape wine, but I don’t mind, “In Vino Veritas”.

If wine helps him to speak the truth and say what is really on his mind, then please give the man more!

I am so glad that he also said at the same rally that 2015 will be the year that they will take all the white farmer’s land. Now we know and there is no doubt anymore.

Zuma confirms land expropriation for 2015

One can see how they are going to do it too. The same way they did it in Zimbabwe. Since the beginning of the year there has been a sharp increase in farm murders with a murder every two days and when it carries on at this rate it means that more than 200 white farmers will be killed this year.

Afriforum: 7 farm murders already in 2015

These farm murders have also been accompanied by the usual downplaying of it by the government denying that it is racially orientated and that it is just part of ordinary crime.

“Attacks on farms, which often result in the murder of farm owners, had nothing to do with the victims' race, Deputy Agriculture Minister Bheki Cele said on Tuesday.”

Farm murders not racial: Cele

It should be clear to anybody with half a brain able to connect a few dots that there is an orchestrated effort from the top of government to the murderers in the field of driving white farmers off their land through a terrorist campaign, yet according to the media some of these white farmers agree with Minister Bheki Cele (The former disgraced and corrupt Police Commissioner).

Many farmers agree: Farm murders not racially driven

I love the way the media can manipulate opinions. These “Many white farmers” turns out to be exactly TWO white people, who I am not sure of if they even own farms, namely: Johannes Möller, president of Agri SA and Dr. Frans Cronjé CEO of the Institute of Race Relations. Where are these “Many Farmers” Naspers is talking about? They are denying and downplaying the genocide of whites in South Africa as much as the ANC terrorist government.

The Freedom Front Minus now wants to run to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and charge Zuma with hate speech.

Zuma may face hate speech charge

I mean, why? First of all it will have no point. It is an exercise in futility. It is like a 6 year old child running to the teacher, “Miss, Miss, Johnny called me names!” , forgetting that the teacher and Johnny father have an affair and are in bed together.

Secondly, let the man speak. I much rather prefer him to say what is on his heart than to secretly hide it and covertly act it. Let him speak his anti-white, racist, pseudo history, bollocks and makes a fool of himself. Zuma is a corrupt criminal and a fool with no formal education. We know that he has no clue of history anyway. Allowing him to speak gives us an unique insight into the mind of the Noble Savage and what he REALLY feels about whites and want to do to whites.

It seems like the FF+ is trying to shut Zuma up to prevent the truth from coming out. Whose side are they on anyway?

In my opinion it is clear. The South African farmers (and whites in general) are here dealing with a Marxist terrorist insurgency. Unless they are willing to acknowledge it as such and at least try to fight it as such, they will get slaughtered.