26 April 2010

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 3 – The violent nature of Blacks. First rationale for Apartheid.

By Mike Smith
26 April 2010

Many white South Africans feel guilty about Apartheid, they feel as if they actually did something evil or bad, but that is totally wrong.

Ex president De Klerk apologised for Apartheid and so did the Dutch Reform Church Dominee, Swanepoel who also started pulling out his intestines about Apartheid and apologised on behalf of the entire church without any mandate from anyone of the congregation. Ds Swanepoel se derm uitrygery oor Apartheid

So when such “leaders” tell us how wrong we were, then we tend to believe them. But let us look at the truth.

Anyone who knows the history of South Africa will know that nobody suffered more on the soil of South Africa, no one has bled as much as the Afrikaners and their descendants the Boers. The Whites of South Africa and specifically the Afrikaners have nothing to be sorry for. In fact the Blacks owe them a tremendous gratitude and a gigantic apology for the way they treated Whites in the last 350 years.

The Afrikaners have a song that is taught to all Afrikaans kids from the crib and that every Afrikaner today knows. The name of this song is called, “Siembamba”. The lyrics are so heavy that I almost do not want to repeat it here. But it goes like this,

“Siembamba, mama se kindjie,
Siembamba, mama se kindjie
--draai sy nek om, gooi hom in die sloot;
trap op sy kop dan is hy dood.”

For our international readers I will freely translate and then explain.

“Siembamba, mommies little child,
Siembamba, mommies little child,
--Wring his neck, throw him in the ditch,
Step on his head, then he is dead…”

Believe it or not…this is a song Afrikaans people sing to their children while rocking them to sleep!

It records the brutality of the Xhosas who would indiscriminately kill white women and white babies during the nine Kaffir wars. Black men are mostly cowards who are only brave when in packs. They actually seldom engage in head on confrontation with White men. When they attack it is always in groups, while people are asleep. Their preferred targets are the elderly, women and children.

A common myth amongst foreigners and South Africans alike is that they think that before the White man came to Africa, Blacks lived in peace and harmony with nature and with each other.

This harmony with nature is not entirely wrong. It is the perception of “In harmony with nature” that is misunderstood.

People want to believe that nature is pure and good and that the lion lies with the lamb, but reality is far removed from that. When one sees how hyenas tear a live animal apart, how a praying mantis bites the head off her mate after copulation how the Streptococcus bacteria can destroy human flesh, one is left with a feeling that nature can be very cruel.

Nature amongst African blacks have always been very cruel. Blacks who supposedly lived in tune with nature were regularly eaten by lions, crocodiles, bitten by snakes, stung by scorpions and their numbers controlled by insects like the mosquito (Malaria) or the Tsetse fly(sleeping sickness). Yellow fever and Cholera were other forms of nature to control the numbers of Blacks...

But it has to be said that before the white people came to Africa, the most effective way Blacks controlled their own populations were with genocidal tribal wars...and cannibalism.

Let me point out some of the psyche of the Blacks in order to try and understand his petty jealousy and envy.

Amongst the Black communities it is not allowed for individuals to show ingenuity or individualistic prosperity. The moment one Black person starts to rise a little above the others, he will be the first one to be hammered down by the community like a nail in a wooden floor. Those who do prosper are ostracised by their black tribes and it will be said of them that they are not real blacks that they are whites with a black skin...

That mentality still persists to this day, but this petty envy is accompanied with an inbred, inextinguishable, brutality that the whites of Africa came face to face with and learned about the hard way.

Ever since the white man set foot on South African soil, he has been shocked and horrified at the brutality of the blacks. No matter how much the whites wanted to believe in the “equality of man”, they were sadly confronted only with the brutality and reality of Stone Age savages.

Blacks of central Africa sold other blacks they have conquered into slavery to Arabs, other black tribes and also to whites. The moment one tribe had a bit more than the others, they would be prone to a nocturnal raid by neighbouring tribes who would kill all the men, rape the women and children, steal the cattle and incorporate the women and children into their own tribes.

Tribes who were not strong enough would flee the area. In sub Saharan Africa it meant that nobody wanted to flee north, because they knew it was a desert where they could not survive. So the only way was to flee south. The weakest of the weakest tribes were right in the front, followed by a slightly stronger tribe, followed by ever increasing stronger tribes further north, driving the weaker ones south.

Roundabout the same time that whites first settled in South Africa, black tribes first entered South Africa. They were contemporary settlers of the area now known as South Africa. In some areas whites were the first and in others, blacks were the first.

Blacks moving South and Whites moving north looking for better grazing for their cattle eventually met at the Fish and the Kei rivers around 1770...About 120 years after the Whites first (permanently) settled at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652 . To put it into perspective, it was about the same time as New York was founded in the USA.

Who were these Blacks they met at the Fish River? They were the Xhosa. The Xhosa were fleeing from the Zulus who murdered them en masse. Even until today the word or name “Xhosa” in Zulu is synonymous with the word “coward”.

The animosity between the Xhosas and the Zulus goes back hundreds of years. Mandela and Mbeki, the two previous presidents were both Xhosas, but the current president, Jacob Zuma is a Zulu. Zulus and Xhosas hate each other more than they hate whites and that says a lot.

But why do the other Blacks of South Africa hate the Zulus? It goes back to “King” Shaka. Note I put “King” in inverted commas. Blacks can never be kings of any kind...before one can be a King, one should first be a MAN.

Shaka was a sadistic psychopath who committed genocide on a larger scale than Rwanda has ever seen. The Zulus wiped out entire tribes, entire cultures in what is today known as the Mfecane or Dfecane (Annihilation). Shaka’s terror was so great that Mzilikazi, the chief of the Matabeles fled BACK NORTH...direction where Zimbabwe is today.

Amongst all this chaos arrived the White man in the region of the Xhosas. They fought nine “Wars” against the Xhosa between 1811 and 1879. The Frontier Wars, Kaffir wars or Xhosa wars

Everytime the wars were about Xhosas stealing cattle and other livestock, burning down homesteads, killing not only white farmer families in the most horrific torturing ways, but also the coloureds who worked for the whites.

It was at the time of the sixth Kaffir war that Piet Retief decided to trek with the other Voortrekkers.

Piet Retief and his party thought they could negotiate and buy land from the Zulus, but they were massacred on a hill at the kraal of the Zulu King, Dingaan when they respected the wishes of Dingaan to leave their weapons outside.

Every man and boy, around 100 in total, were clubbed to death. Retief was the last to be killed, so as to witness the death of his comrades.

Dingaan then ordered all Voortrekker laagers to be attacked along the Bushman’s River. An orgy of violence started. Families were camped at Bloukrans, Dorinkop, Moordspruit, etc. Cowardly blacks would attack them during the middle of the night, killing everyone in the most horrific ways. Women were brutally gang raped and pregnant women were cut open, their babies killed in front of them while they still lived. Small children and babies were picked up by their feet and their heads smashed against the sides of the wagons.

Among the Voortrekkers , 41 men, 56 women and 185 children were killed. In addition another 250 or 252 Khoikhoi and Basuto that accompanied the Voortrekkers were killed. A girl called Johanna van der Merwe (12 years old at the time) sustained 21 assegai wounds, but managed to survive.

The Voortrekkers built the town Weenen (meaning wailing) at the site.

The Bloukrans Massacre
Throughout the following decades up until the present day the whites of South have experienced this petty envy and brutality at the hands of blacks. Examples are legion. Boers retaliated at Makapansgat where blacks savagely murdered whites in the most horrific ways. Hermanus Potgeter was tied down to a rock bed and skinned alive like an animal while still conscious, he died while the blacks ripped his organs out.

More lately we saw the brutal black on black murders with the necklace method . We saw blacks storming into white churches with AK 47’s and hand grenades, opening fire on the unarmed congregation such as at the St James Church massacre. We have seen everything from brutal Muti murders to the evil torture preceding the brutal killings of White farmers and their family members in Rhodesia, Namibia and also in South Africa, most of the time nothing stolen. More than 3000 White farmers and family members murdered to date since the ANC took over in 1994.

It is necessary to reiterate that this violent nature of blacks are not directed at whites only, so the black behaviour apologetics who claim that this behaviour is retribution for wrongs committed by whites against blacks, have no leg to stand on, because most often than not this black violent nature is directed at their own kind as we have seen with Shaka’s defecane, Muti murders and necklacing.

No, this brutality, this murderous, stealing and other asocial behaviour of Blacks could never and can never be reconciled with the behaviour of the deeply religious and pious Boers of South Africa.

This violent behaviour of blacks was one of the rationales for Apartheid. The other was cultural differences. More on that in the next edition. For now it is important to realise that whites in South Africa never wanted to rule blacks. Whites wanted to separate from blacks and stay as far away from blacks as possible.

.../ to be continued

31 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:25 pm

    Really Like your stuff! Thank you very much for your effort you have put into writing this! Very Insightful, cant wait for the next part!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:22 pm

    PLEASE!!! When's the next deliverance? Can't wait, please hurry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous2:05 pm

    A lot of your historical fact is very selective. There is no doubt that blacks have been very brutal in Africa but please do not forget that the reasons most whites settled in the Cape in the first place was to escape the brutal persecution committed against them by among others the Roman Catholic Church during the numerous inquisitions. Every race on this planet has a history of brutality. For every Chaka there is a Hitler or a Mao.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2:45 am

      Go watch this ground breaking documentary on Hitler:

      http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/

      Delete
  4. Anonymous2:43 pm

    Thank you Mike, the history laid out here is 100% correct, I know because this was what we were teached at school in our history classes those years. If only Europe and the rest of the world out there acknowledged these facts then, I believe that Southern Africa would be a much better place today. But no, they felt sorry for the barbaric black people that was so rudely disgraced by apartheid that they implemented sanctions against South Africa, we were completely cut of from the rest of the world, blacks and whites, left on our own to struggle on, and we did and we survived with no problems. We have build a productive and beautiful country, and every human being on south african soil who was of age had work and lived a fair life. Every thing was well maintained, schools, police force, agriculture, water, hospitals, roads, Airforce, Army etc. u name it. And just 16 years later south africa has become one of the most dangerous countries in the world to live in. Everything that worked so well has gone down the drain. If we dont get urgent help the white minority, the south african "Boers" will become extinct in south africa. Is that what the world out there want...? Thys.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:30 pm

    @Anonymous (October 11, 2010 2:05 PM)

    Hi Anonymous, you're right about the fact that French Huguenots fled to SA in the first place because of the persecution by catholics such as the Cardinal de Richeleu whose name was Armand du Plessis (which in SA today would be considered an Afrikaans name).

    However, the Huguenots are not actually part of this topic. This article is about the brutality of blacks, not religious intolerance.

    But for interest sake, I'll post this bit of background info for you and those who don't know what you refer to:

    "Crises in France, including a rebellion of the Huguenots, rendered Richelieu a nearly indispensable advisor to the King.
    [...]
    Another obstacle to the centralization of power was religious division in France. The Huguenots, one of the largest political and religious factions in the country, controlled a significant military force, and were in rebellion.[34] Moreover, the King of England, Charles I, declared war on France in an attempt to aid the Huguenot faction. In 1627, Richelieu ordered the army to besiege the Huguenot stronghold of La Rochelle; the Cardinal personally commanded the besieging troops.[35] English troops under the Duke of Buckingham led an expedition to help the citizens of La Rochelle, but failed abysmally. The city, however, remained firm for over a year before capitulating in 1628.
    [...]
    On the "Day of the Dupes" in 1630, it appeared that Marie de Médicis had secured Richelieu's dismissal. Richelieu, however, survived the scheme, and Marie was exiled as a result.Habsburg Spain exploited the French conflict with the Huguenots to extend its influence in northern Italy. It funded the Huguenot rebels in order to keep the French army occupied, meanwhile expanding its Italian dominions. Richelieu, however, responded aggressively; after La Rochelle capitulated, he personally led the French army to northern Italy to restrain Spain.

    In the next year, Richelieu's position was seriously threatened by his former patron, Marie de Médicis. Marie believed that the Cardinal had robbed her of her political influence; thus, she demanded that her son dismiss the chief minister.[38] Louis XIII was not, at first, averse to such a course of action, as he personally disliked Richelieu.[39]"

    Read more about Richeleu at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu

    Thanks Mike. Excellent writing as usual. Learnt a few things I didn't know before...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:36 pm

    PS Mike, you don't have to post this comment, I just want to let you know about something:

    Perhaps you don't realise this, but your menu and links on the right hand side only displays below the last comment, and people may not see your other articles (which would be very sad).

    I think it's easy to fix where you set up your blog layout / template. Maybe it's my browser, but I doubt it.

    Just thought I'd give you a heads up because you write some really great articles.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:07 am

    I came across this blog after reading a Times Live article by Chris Kritzinger in response to Desmond Tutu's call for white South African's to pay a once off wealth tax due to the benefit we received from Apartheid.

    While I recall a great deal of what you write here from history lessons in primary school, it must be noted that what we were taught then was extremely biased by the views of the ruling minority of the time. As they say, history is the conquerors to write.

    I would suggest that anyone reading this blog does some additional reading elsewhere to form their own opinion. I can recommend A History Of South Africa by Frank Welsh as the most unbiased and insightful book I have read on the matter.

    In regards to one of the above posts, "the history here is 100% correct", I would have to argue that this is not the case and that the selective writing here is done through a haze of dislike for our countrymen. It would seem, from what I have read so far, white can do no wrong but everyone else can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:58 pm

      Thank You!

      Delete
  8. Thanks for starting to read Pandora. Read further and at the end form your own opinion. Good Luck with your awakening.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous9:44 pm

    Yea! ... Good luck to you anonymous! May your awakening be through the truth and reality of what is revealed to you in this ingenious article and not by the false propaganda that is bandied around by the present black government of the day. By what I see in your accusation you have already made your own biased judgment. Nevertheless it would do you good to keep in touch with what shenanigans that the present government is up to in S.Africa each and every day. You will also see that the blacks can do no wrong and the whites are to blame for all of their problems both in the past and in the present. In 1994 the blacks received a rich thriving self sufficient first world country and that was even after enduring several decades of world wide sanctions and ostracization. Since 1994 due to the fact that gross missmanagement and chaos occurs on a daily basis the country has become a third world country. Whites do make mistakes just like everybody else does but they try to rectify them and learn from them. The blacks however are inclined to firsly deny them and if that does not work they put the blame elsewhere and thereafter the mistake is forgotten. Problem solved! No my friend don't take the easy way out. When a government takes over the control of a country they are entirely responsible for their own mistakes. Like Mike said read the whole article first then make your OWN UNBIASED JUDGMENT.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous2:33 pm

    I immigrated with my wife and 3 children to Ireland from my home South africa in 2006.And that is what it took for me to realize through the Internet what shit South Africa is swimming in.

    I have heard and read all sides of the argumets.Many with my own mother who still thinks Mandela and FW are heros,thanks to main stream media.

    The schools here in Ireland as early as 5th class "11 year old kids",have more than one page in their history work book dedicated to this master of deceipt, Mandela.They are tought by teachers that South Africa thanks to Mandela is now a "free" and equal oppertunity outfit,idolizing the best lyers on this planet.I will spare you the rest.
    Thanks to corageous authors and activists of truth like Mike Smith,Dan Roodt just to name a few,I can pass this information on to the next generation regardless of where we live.

    And don't think that the truth about South Africa and blacks with their appitite for blood are explained by white authors only.

    Who better to explain this loser mentality of blacks than a black Phd. himself.Have a listen on Youtube to David Manning and start with his video clip called "Blacks are haters and losers" This is a MAN talking.I respect him for his honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Greetings, Mike and readers. I have started to read the series after a friend sent me the link. On the brutality and nature of the blacks I would like to make the following comment: Gcinikhaya Makoma, one of the attackers who were initially arested and sentenced was set free after a TRC hearing. He was later arested again for a cash in transit heist, but was let off the hook because of a poor case by the prosecution. He is currently again under arest as he is up for murder and another cash in transit heist. Even after the "reconciliation" and a get-out-of-jail-free card the leapord stays true to his spots...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous3:21 pm

    "Black men are mostly cowards who are only brave when in packs. They actually seldom engage in head on confrontation with White men. When they attack it is always in groups, while people are asleep."

    Not because they were cowards, but because the boers had guns and they had spears. They weren't retarded.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous5:09 am

    it is articles like these that confirm to me that this so-called democracy failed to return to the black man his dignity.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous5:14 am

    the beauty of south africa is that you are allowed to write such rubbish. not all black people are mandela who sold out. black people are yet to reclaim what is theirs and it shall return to them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous5:47 am

    "the beauty of south africa is that you are allowed to write such rubbish. not all black people are mandela who sold out. black people are yet to reclaim what is theirs and it shall return to them."

    And by what means do you measure what is "theirs"? As this article clearly outlines history so well, nothing was ever "theirs", as you so proudly proclaim. Anything that was not made out of wood, grass or clay got stolen by our black savages, as the periodic table failed to cross the natives minds for some strange reason...eish. 5L paint cans were still to be discovered. And that which they cannot take or carry, they'll either murder it if it's breathing or plunders that he cannot kill.

    Don't come with that Malema idiot mentality that preaches to his mentally incapable reasoning dooch bugs that they can walk right across the road into a white man's fridge and eat all the cheese they can find, never to give it ONE thought how that cheese came to be and how it got in the fridge in the first place.

    It's a fact as the sun will rise tomorrow; Black people don't think about the day of tomorrow. It's all about NOW. F#** tomorrow and next week. Take what you can and consume and use what you can NOW...and if there happens to be something left on the days that follow, you can dance around a fire a thank your ancestors for at least leaving you something behind...

    Post something sensable you fool...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous5:43 am

    Mike:

    Thought you might like to have this link, but didn't have your e-mail addy. (perhaps now that the funds have been stolen, they will go to something worthwhile)

    Regards, Besoeker

    http://www.arabnews.com/peacekeeper-funds-‘stolen-darfur-hold-up’

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous9:23 am

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous6:24 am

    Interesting, I know blacks would be angry about my comment. I'm a black woman raised by a nurse and a bank teller. I was previlaged to go to a private catholic school during apartheid. I was viewed as a traitor because a wore a blazer to school and carried a hockey stick. Believe me I'm black and I agree with this article.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mike - fantastic and truthful. I was a cop during "Apartheid" I can attest to the violence that black people are capable of. I saw a small black boy (aged about 9 or 10) at a necklace scene, cut out a piece of the corpse and eat it in front of the police camera. Now tell me - who is his right mind would do something like that? That shocked me to my roots.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous6:50 am

    You guys are mad

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous6:51 am

    Since comments are only visible approval, that means commets opposing this stereotypical mentality are deleted

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous8:37 am

    When will white people finally learn that Apartheid was a super stupid idea and that it's collapse was inevitable? Oh please join the 21st century, you know...the one we are currently in. Afrikaners are out of power, deal with it or get the fuck out of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Apartheid or Segregation was actually implemented by the British to stop the various tribes of Southern Africa from being in a constant state of conflict.with each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct, the English Governours after the second British occupation in 1806 initiated the pass laws and Rhodes and later Afrikaner liberals like Smuts carried out apartheid laws.

      Delete
  24. African tribes were mainly nomadic, Southern Africa was populated by the Koi, who are the only "true" Southern Africans. Europeans came to these shores to enlarge their colonies.

    ReplyDelete
  25. While the articles are "insightful" they serve no real purpose. Both sides have deep seated beliefs pasted down from generation to generation, be they right or wrong, and it will be difficult to change these beliefs. Unfortunately those that are in power write the history books, this is a fact. One mans liberation fighter is another mans terrorist.

    What is the answer?
    Who knows?

    One thing I do know is history is their to teach us lessons. We tend to hang on to history too long either to justify our re-occurring mistakes or to lament guilt in order to create submissiveness. We have to have a vision to create a future, a sense of nationalist. By saying "get the f..k out of the country" will solve little, as will justifying the past. By 2030, whites will constitute less than 2% of the South African population, so BEE etc. will not be necessary. By then it would have been over 50 years since the dismantling of apartheid. Who will then shoulder the blame for the continued downward spiral? Have we learnt nothing from the destruction of African counties north of our border? I believe a civil war in South Africa will be forth coming, not white on african, but african on african, as in all countries north of our borders. Most of these countries are now accepting that war and bad goverance serve no one. Their economies and social structures serve a common purpose, irrespective of colour, creed or nationality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Siener sees a Boer Republic from the Cape upto south of Sudan, East and West. Important for the victors to teach their children the real history. No one denies that blacks also suffered, but why did they suffer? At their own hands and then they want to blame the whites for that!

      Delete
    2. Siener sees a Boer Republic from the Cape upto south of Sudan, East and West. Important for the victors to teach their children the real history. No one denies that blacks also suffered, but why did they suffer? At their own hands and then they want to blame the whites for that!

      Delete
  26. 100 % correct Mike and thanks for the truth once again. The truth will always prevail. Just one correction. Retief's party, including his 12 year old son and his two friends were impaled with the sticks coming out their chests on which they were carried up the hill. He had to watch it all. White people were also skinned alive regularly. Let this protestors black and white cry against the truth as much as they want. The truth can never be negotiated!

    ReplyDelete