Boers organised an All-White town called Orania. There is no crime - children are safe and educated.

oh ok thank you

Some more information on Hendrik Verwoerd and Apartheid. Posting in full again. Links included.

South Africa's Apartheid was nothing like that of Israel now or like the Native American reservations and treatment of those people. Never were there genocides and after the 19th century no wars (actually more like only battles) between black and whites but today there is an economic and political one the blacks are winning while in the process literally and figuratively burning down the country.


[link to www.politicsweb.co.za (secure)]

Why Hendrik Verwoerd was murdered and being vilified today. He was visionary and 100% right...and now this is Europe's future.

Ten quotes from Verwoerd


Hendrik Verwoerd: 10 quotes
Hendrik Verwoerd | 20
September 2016

How the Afrikaner nationalist ideologue and politician rationalised first 'demographic representivity', and then apartheid The 6th September 2016 was the 50 anniversary of the assassination of National Party Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd on the floor of the House of Assembly in Parliament, Cape Town.

In his biography of the man Verwoerd: Architect of Apartheid Henry Kenney noted that Verwoerd had a “dominating personality, and those who came under his influence found him irresistible. This seems to have been one of those cases where that much-abused word ‘charismatic’ is applicable. Verwoerd’s intellectual powers were clearly formidable. Supremely self-confident, he never doubted the correctness of his views. It was an outstanding characteristic of Verwoerd that, once having made up his mind, it was virtually impossible to make him change it.”

In order to give some indication of how Verwoerd sought to rationalise the imposition of ‘demographic representivity’ in 1930s white South Africa (something he was not able to put in practice) and then apartheid, post-1948 (which he was), below are ten extended quotes illustrating some of his reasoning.


As an early proponent of ‘Employment Equity’
1. A possible solution to J ewish ‘domination’ of the economy of South Africa

Below are the possible ways in which the state can help Afrikaners gain their necessary share of commerce and industry. The country's commerce and industry is still busy developing. In the first place this expansion must be placed at the disposal of the English- and Afrikaans-speaking parts of the population, presently being disadvantaged in these fields.

Legislation must gradually but purposefully ensure that each white section of the population should, as far as practicable, enjoy a share of each of the major occupations, according to its proportion of the white population.

This situation is called balanced distribution ( ewewigtige verspreiding), but it has also been called a ‘quota system.' As J ews presently enjoy a disproportionate share of the wholesale and retail trade, such a balanced distribution can be achieved only by refusing them further trading licences, until such a time as the other main population groups, such as English- and Afrikaans-speakers, have gained a proportion which (as far as practicable) corresponds to their percentage of the white population. When trading licences held by J ews lapse due to special circumstances, they may not be allocated to compatriots, until all other population groups have achieved the above-mentioned equal priviliges ( gelyke
bevoorregting) in this regard. However, this does not include the normal transfer of a business from father to son.
As editor of Die Transvaler 1 October 1937

2. ‘Demographic proportionality’ the goal

Another possible way of aiding this process could be proposed. The establishment of an industrial bank, similar to the institution's responsible for the German industrial flowering after 1870, and that of Japan from the beginning of this century, would promote the general development of industry in the Union.
Such a bank, which would have to enjoy government support, would be responsible for the establishment and financing of new industries.

Such an industrial bank could be used as an instrument to give Afrikaners-who lack capital but have the requisite expertise-the chance to achieve leadership in various industries. This could happen, as it did at Iscor, where young Afrikaners-without capital, but with the right skills and personality traits-became part of the management of an extensive industry.

In the allocation of capital and top management posts, the banking institution would discriminate against the J ew, until a stage is reached where the J ew, and the English- and Afrikaans- speakers enjoyed a share of industry, proportional to their percentage of the population. Of course, the discrimination must disappear as soon as the correct balance ( ewiwigtigetoestand) has been achieved.”
As editor of Die Transvaler 1 October 1937

As the architect of apartheid (WhiteFly: and he was 100% right)
3. Intermixture a recipe for conflict between 'Bantu' and 'European'

“As a premise, the question may be put:
Must Bantu and European in future develop as intermixed communities, or as communities separated from one another in so far as this is practically possible? If the reply is ‘intermingled communities’, then the following must be understood. There will be competition and conflict everywhere. So long as the points of contact are still comparatively few, as is the case now, friction and conflict will be few and less evident. The more this intermixing develops, however, the stronger the conflict will become. In such a conflict, the Europeans will, at least for a long time, hold the stronger position, and the Bantu be the defeated party in every phase of the struggle. This must cause to rise in him an increasing sense of resentment and revenge.”
Speech as Minister of Native Affairs, 5 December 1950

4. On the rationale for apartheid
“My point is this that, if mixed development is to be the policy of the future of South Africa, it will lead to the most terrific clash of interests imaginable. The endeavours and desires of the Bantu and the endeavours and objectives of all Europeans will be antagonistic. Such a clash can only bring unhappiness and misery to both.

Both Bantu and European must, therefore, consider in good time how this misery can be averted from themselves and from their descendants. They must find a plan to provide the two population groups with opportunities for the full development of their respective powers and ambitions without coming into conflict. The only possible way out is the second alternative, namely, that both adopt a development divorced from each other . That is all that the word apartheid means.”
Speech as Minister of Native Affairs, 5 December 1950

5. A policy of mutual 'baaskap'
“… the present Government adopts the attitude that it concedes and wishes to give to others precisely what it demands for itself. It believes in the supremacy (baaskap) of the European in his sphere, but, then, it also believes equally in the supremacy (baaskap) of the Bantu in his own sphere. For the European child it wishes to create all the possible opportunities for its own development, prosperity and national service in its own sphere; but for the Bantu it also wishes to create all the opportunities for the realisation of ambitions and the rendering of service to their own people.

There is thus no policy of oppression here, but one of creating a situation which has never existed for the Bantu; namely, that, taking into consideration their languages, traditions, history and different national communities, they may pass through a development of their own. That opportunity arises for them as soon as such a division is brought into being between them and the Europeans that they need not be the imitators and henchmen of the latter.”
Speech as Minister of Native Affairs, 5 December 1950

6. His vision for the 'Native reserves':

“According as a flourishing community arises in [the Native] territories… the need will develop for teachers, dealers, clerks, artisans, agricultural experts, leaders of local and general governing bodies of their own. In other words, the whole super-structure of administrative and professional people arising in every prosperous community will then become necessary…

The limited territories are, however, as little able to carry the whole of the Bantu population of the reserves of the presentand the future – if all were to be farmers – as the European area would be able to carry all the Europeans if they were all to be farmers, or as England would be able to carry its whole population if all of them had to be landowners, farmers and cattle breeders.

Consequently, the systematic building up of the Native territories aims at a development precisely as in all prosperous countries. Side by side with agricultural development must also come an urban development founded on industrial growth. The future Bantu towns and cities in the reserves may arise partly in conjunction with Bantu industries of their own in those reserves. In their establishment Europeans must be prepared to help with money and knowledge, in the consciousness that such industries must, as soon as possible, wholly pass over into the hands of the Bantu.”
Speech as Minister of Native Affairs, 5 December 1950

7. On Bantu Education

"It is the policy of my department that education should have its roots entirely in the Native areas and in the Native environment and Native community. There Bantu education must be able to give itself complete expression and there it will have to perform its real service. The Bantu must be guided to serve his own community in all respects. There is no place for him in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour. Within his own community, however, all doors are open. For that reason it is of no avail for him to receive a training which has as its aim absorption in the European community while he cannot and will not be absorbed there. Up till now he has been subjected to a school system which drew him away from his own community and partically (sic) misled him by showing him the green pastures of the European but still did not allow him to graze there. This attitude is not only uneconomic because money is spent on education which has no specific aim, but it is even dishonest to continue with it. The effect on the Bantu community we find in the much discussed frustration of educated Natives who can find no employment which is acceptable to them.

It is abundantly clear that unplanned education creates many problems, disrupts the communal life of the Bantu and endangers the communal life of the European.

For that reason it must be replaced by planned Bantu Education. In the Native territories where the services of educated Bantu are much needed, Bantu education can complete its full circle, by which the child is taken out of the community by the school, developed to his fullest extent in accordance with aptitude and ability and thereafter returned to the community to serve and to enrich it.”
Speech as Minister of Native Affairs, 7 June 1954

8. Response to Harold Macmillan’s ‘Winds of Change’ speech:

“The tendency in Africa for nations to become independent and, at the same time, the need to do justice to all, does not only mean being just to the black man of Africa but also being just to the white man of Africa. They are the people, not only in the Union but throughout major portions of Africa, who brought civilisation here, who made possible the present development of black nationalism by bringing the natives education, by showing them the Western way of life, by bringing to Africa industry and development, by inspiring them with the ideals which Western civilisation has developed for itself.

The white man who came to Africa, perhaps to trade, and in some cases, to bring the Gospel, has remained and we particularly, in this southernmost portion of Africa, have such a stake here that this has become our only motherland. We have nowhere else to go. We settled a country which was bare. The Bantu too came to this country and settled certain portions for themselves. It is in line with thinking on Africa to grant them there, those fullest rights which we with you, admit all people should have. We believe in providing those rights for those people in the fullest degree in that part of Southern Africa which their forefathers found for themselves and settled in.
But we also believe in balance. We believe in allowing exactly those same full opportunities to remain within the grasp of the white man in the areas he settled, the white man who has made all this possible.”
Speech as Prime Minister, 3 February 1960

WhiteFly: These last 2 are South Africa today
9. How a multi-racial democracy would lead to 'Bantu domination'…

Let us consider a little more closely the solution which a multi-racial state represents. For the purposes of my argument it does not really matter whether it is constituted on a federal basis or according to another system. If the one multi-racial state were to become a federally constituted state (in accordance with the United Party’s policy) or a unitary state (in accordance with the Progressive Party’s policy, with a civilisation test) or a unitary state (on the basis of the Liberal Party’s proposition of ‘one man, one vote’) and at the same time by truly democratic and in harmony with the spirit of the times, it would inexorably lead to Bantu domination. Because in the long run numbers must tell. That is what this age wants. That is what is said to be true democracy. That is not what the Communists practice.

It is not even what the African states practice. But that is the pressure being exerted when demands are made upon our country. In other words, the process towards integration may be delayed by some and accelerated by others if they were given the chance, but inexorably it would lead to Bantu domination, a situation from which there would be no escape.”
Speech as Prime Minister, 23 January 1962

10. … and be a recipe for race-suicide of all minority groups [Coloureds and Indians] must not think that the colour of their skins will protect them. The minority groups will all have to contend with an unrestricted domination by the Bantu if a multi-racial state comes into being. I say this explicitly because it is self-evident that if one could follow the course of retaining one state in which the White man continued to exercise his historic rule (even if its limits had to be restricted to some extent) that course would be preferred. As far as we are concerned that is the easiest road; it is the most convenient, regard being had to the past.

But when that cannot be done and continued, ever-increasing integration is insisted upon, then it must be put forward as the one alternative and the other alternative must also be put forward and weighed, with all its difficulties, of which there are many, and with all its dangers, of which there are many, as against the first method with all its dangers and difficulties.

That is a fact that I never hide. You must, when faced with a choice between the alternatives, test both, whether you wish to retain the present state of affairs or not. And I say it unequivocally that the people of South Africa cannot accept the consequence of a multi-racial state unless the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians are prepared to commit race suicide.”
Speech as Prime Minister, 23 January 1962
Sources: Die Transvaler 1 October 1937, Verwoerd Speaks Edited by A. N Pelzer, APB Publishers, Johannesburg, 1966

The truths he spoke are universal, whoever has the numbers will rule and this inevitably leads to conflict. Why not allow separate development? We are all happiest and most productive that way. It does not mean we cannot intermingle to whatever degree we want, simply that as groups various ethnicities need to have their own land to call home.

Everyone has (or should have) the right to free association choice. If you don't want to associate with someone then nobody can force you. It is said that "You can choose your friends but not your ......................" Then why is it racism and so-called discrimination to choose not to associate with certain other peoples and groups? Why must those that are not intellectually, racially, spiritually and culturally compatible be forced to associate or "integrate" (which is just a euphemism for forced cultural subversion and racial mixing) with each other. If they don't, leave them alone, it's their choice. That doesn't make them bad people. It just means discomfort and incompatibility with certain groups and individuals.

I don't want to associate with certain religious groups or gangsters and criminals but that doesn't mean I hate them. It doesn't mean I want to kill them, be a "Nazi", which is btw a perjorative term the J ews invented for National Socialist Germans that had no wish to exterminate J ews, and didn't, but just remove them from power in Germany, which is why WW2 was started against, note ,against, not by, Germany, by the J ews that ruled the West (like Churchill, which is practically single handedly responsible for creating WW2 and Roosevelt, who tricked the USA into WW2 after Pearl Harbor which they forced the Japanese into doing and knew weeks beforehand were coming because they broke the Japanese codes. It was no suprise. It was collusion between Churchill and Roosevelt). The J ews were (and are) the haters, not the Germans. They were, and are the real Nazis, the AshkeNazis.

But I digress. There's nothing wrong with seeking your own kind and being comfortable with the company you keep. This does not mean that peoples and groups should be kept forcibly segregated. That's wrong too and none should be punished for "crossing the line". One's right of free association should be another's right and if one even chooses to genetically mix with another race then that should be fine too. It's their free will, and they should not be judged for it. In that regard we have come some way at least but still, if black people want a space for themselves then give it to them, if whites or asian or anyone wants it, give it to them. Don't force intrusion and "integration" or just blindly accept it because of some misguided sense of righteousnous or guilt. Nor bow to emotional and mental manipulation by those who want you to extensively racially mix in order to eventually destroy your race, destroy every race, in favor of an identityless, rootless "grey" mass they can control easily. "Those" are also known as the Liberals or Neoliberals. Be very vigilant.

One can have friends and even partners from different groups. Nothing wrong there. It actually helps to bridge divides and bring people into better understanding of each other but never under force via rules, laws and regulations that prohibit reasonable, healthy and self-protective discrimination. Free will should always prevail in the choices.

If everyone were allowed to associate how they choose without risk of any kind of punishment for it then a natural balance would be created. There would be peace among peoples. That's not to say there won't be conflicts but there would be a general peace and acceptance of each. That is how it is in nature.

In nature all the creatures co-exist harmoniously. Under normal circumstances they don't impose on each other and don't go on deliberate extermination campaigns against each other (aside from some insect species). Why then does the supposed "highest" lifeforms on Earth do it? What is the threat of other ways and viewpoints that it has to be destroyed? Why the fear? As I said, if left in peace all will eventually find their own balance and own place because there is a place for everyone, just as long as it's not a forced place.

You can love your brother for who and what they are, even if you don't like them. That's the feat that a human must accomplish. That's the balancing act, if he wants to call himself "civilized", because until you can't let everyone freely choose their own place then you still lack the real civilized understanding of free will and co-existance. All in their chosen place and a chosen place for all is peace.

Last Edited by WhiteFly on 11/16/2019 09:09 AM

Do you mean the tribes the Bantu slaughtered on their way to the lightly populated south?

If the white South Africans stole their land then virtually every nation on the planet was founded on stolen land. The Semites, Asians, Turks, etc.

 

I've written some on the situation in South Africa. The below is some more history with my comments added. Scanned and OCR'd it from a e-mail printout I found. Couldn't find the specific link online.

HISTORY OF LAND IN SOUTH AFRICA (SOURCE: SOUTH AFRICA TODAY) (PG)
Knowing oneself and admitting to your own shortcomings is in all probability the most challenging aspect of being human. To those of us with the inherent incapability of doing so, it is so much easier to distance ourselves from our shortcomings and blame it upon something or someone which operates out of our own sphere of influence. In the most pathetic case of projection, we even take off the identity of the entity which we folame. It becomes a scenario of: "They" told me ... "People" says.. .and of course the very popular: "White people are..."

This is nothing new amongst nations. The absolutely dreadful situation of the German population after 1918 created a perfect environment for this. The nation lost it government, the promises of peace and prosperity at Versailles came to nothing, people lost their property, their jobs, their lives.. .They were unemployed, very, very poor and with no hope. And somebody was to blame. [ WhiteFly: Yes, somebody was. the J ews and all their shabbas goy tools, but of course the ‘holy’ J ew is untouchable and no mentions may officially be made of what they did to the Germans before and after WW1, followed by the highly unfair Versailles treaty and the following Weimar Republic time until Hitler gained power in 1932, because those are the very things that contributed to Hitler’s rise. The J ews were responsible for what Adolf Hitler did and became. It had to be done however. Not a mass murder. Just a removal from power for which the J ew destroyed, and is still destroying, the German nation to this day]

Now we should dispute the fact that the J ews of Europe had a thing or two to answer for, [WhiteFly: No, we shouldn`t. They did have a lot to answer for] but Adolf Hitler managed to identify a minority of people who refused, for generations, to conform to German society and demonise them as the scapegoat. He used his "Mein Kampf' and his Nuremberg Laws and he made the J ews of Europe into a monster and he convinced the German people, and many others, that this monster had to be destroyed. [ WhiteFly: Rightly so too but intention was never to destroy the J ewish people. Only their power ]

[Fomer President pre-Jacob Zuma] Thabo Mbeki did exactly the same by branding the white person in this country as "settler". This is no different from what Black South Africa is doing to white South Africa. Through the hate filled propaganda of: "You stole our land! You made us into slaves! You keep us poor!" they demonise the white South African into some sort of monster. [ WhiteFly: To be fair. Some of that demonisation is deserved but not to the extent the current government wants to make it ]. Through legislation such as Black Economic Empowerment and Affirmative Action they effectively create a barrier blocking the white minority from active participation in the economic and social development of a country which the white man have inhabited, cultivated, developed and defended for 526 years, ever since Bartolomeus Dias planted his first padrao on the coastline of the southern tip of this continent. Through portraying the white South African as a racist, inbred idiot walking around in khaki shorts and mistreating all and everybody around him, the white man in South Africa is made into a typical scapegoat for everything that is wrong.

The White South African, by developing and expanding his cultural heritage, his religious beliefs and his entire orientation did not conform to the standards of Africa. He refused to accept the absolutism of chieftainship as a form of government, he refused polygamy on basis of religion, he refused to pray to the ancestors because he was a Christian, he refused to leave his social orientation of the individual being a building block of society behind in favour of the African belief that society defines the individual [WhiteFly: Groupthink. Something still very prevalent today and a main reason why "democracy" and ideological manipulation is such a useful tool still] . In short, he refused to betray himself. And in being what he was, the White South African developed a country of industry and agriculture and infrastructure. He turned South Africa into a country where the first heart transplant could happen, where enough food was produced to export it to other countries, where gold and diamonds were mined and wealth created. And this all happened in less than 200 years (between 1780 and 1980). [WhiteFly: To be fair again- with black labor but not enslavement]

In the 3000 years since the end of the Stone Age, the indigenous people of Africa could not manage to create an infrastructure, could not mine or produce export, could, in fact not succeed in building anything higher than one storey and could not write down anything as reference for future generations, because they could not manage to master the art of writing. In fact, when the first Europeans arrived on 6 April 1652 it was 1974 years after Ptolemy I built the magnificent library of Alexandria - and in Southern Africa the indigenous people still could do no more than a few rock paintings and a clay pot with patterns on it.

Today, this development, this contribution of the descendants of Europe has become a threat to the Black South African. He cannot compare. He has no contribution that can remotely compare to what the white man created and therefore he has to fall back on what primal instinct tells him to do: Destroy that which is a threat to you! It is against this background that the white South African is demonised as a slaver and murderer who stole land. Let us put this in perspective:
In the first place: The Europeans who came with Van Riebeeck had no intention to stay at the Cape. We can clearly determine this from the repeated application for transfer to Batavia or Amsterdam made by almost every Company servant. The few men who decided to make this their homeland, did so because they came to love the land. They wanted to develop and grow here. And in the written evidence, left us by the men who did not intend to stay and therefore had no reason to lie. It is written down over and over again that the Europeans settled on uninhabited land. They exchanged land for cattle and money and traded with the nomadic indigenous people. The Company decided to import slaves. I emphasize import, because no indigenous person in this country was ever put into slavery! In actual fact, the slaves who were brought in from Madagascar and Batavia and Ceylon [Sri Lanka] and East Africa were the ancestors of an entirely new group of people: the Coloured nation of South Africa who adopted the customs and culture of the European. Ever wondered why they did not adopt the custom of Africa? Because they were not exposed to it, that is why! Nobody at the Cape ever set eyes on a black person for 130 years before the first Trekboere met the Xhosa in the Valleys of the Amatola around 1770! These slaves also added to the bloodline of the European settlers, as did the French Huguenots of 1688 and the British Settlers of 1820. The White South African was a new nation, born in Africa. This nation called its language, Afrikaans, after Africa. This nation called itself after Africa - Afrikaners.

On the first of December 1834 slavery was abolished in the Cape Colony. This is two years before the start of the Great Trek. The white man in South Africa knew nothing of the existence of the Zulu, the Tswana, the Sotho, the Venda.. .and he was at war with the Xhosa. It is chronologically impossible that indigenous people could be held in slavery, if the so-called slave masters did not even know of their existence before the abolition of slavery.

Let us look at the "great" Shaka Zulu and the Zulu nation. Remember that the Europeans landed in South Africa in 1652. Shaka kaSenzaghakohona was born around 1787. He managed to unite, through force and murder and rampage a number of small tribes into the Zulu nation around 1819. Before that year, there WAS no Zulu people. A question of mathematics: The Zulu nation came into existence only 167 years after the arrival of Van Riebeeck. What logic can possibly argue that the Europeans took anything away from the Zulu-people?

So when did the black man establish himself in South Africa and how? The answer lies in the Mfecane: Mfecane (Zulu: [mfe'kla:ne],[note 1] crushing), also known by the Sesotho name Difaqane (scattering, forced dispersal or forced migration[l]) or Lifaqane, was a period of widespread chaos and warfare among indigenous ethnic communities in southern Africa during the period between 1815 and about 1840. As King Shaka created the militaristic Zulu Kingdom in the territory between the Tugela River and Pongola River, his forces caused a wave of warfare and disruption to sweep to other peoples. This was the prelude of the Mfecane, which spread from there. The movement of peoples caused many tribes to try to dominate those in new territories, leading to widespread warfare; consolidation of other groups, such as the Matabele, the Mfengu and the Makololo; and the creation of states such as the modern Lesotho. Mfecane is used primarily to refer to the period when Mzilikazi, a king of the Matabele, dominated the Transvaal. During his reign, roughly from 1826 to 1836, he ordered widespread killings and devastation to remove all opposition. He reorganised the territory to establish the new Ndebele order. The death toll has never been satisfactorily determined, but the whole region became nearly depopulated. Normal estimates for the death toll range from 1 million to 2 million. The black man established himself in this barren land now known as South Africa a full 174 years AFTER the white man. How dare you then call me a settler when you are nothing more? If I don't belong here, certainly neither do you.

Land stolen from the black man? No. The land occupied by the Boer-people was land that nobody lived on, for the pure and simple reason that the original people of South Africa were massacred and wiped out in a racist genocide by the ancestors of the current black population of South Africa. The very same thing that is now repeated with the white man. The white man has a full and legal and historical claim to his part of this country, including land. And the black man who disputes that is welcome to bring evidence of the contrary. Remember, popular liberal myth, propagandistic expressions and loud shouting and burning and looting to hide your own incapability is not evidence. It is barbarism.

The popular myth of "the end of colonialism" is a lie also. Colonialism in South Africa ended on 31 May 1961 when the country became a Republic. White minority rule was not colonialism, because the white South African belongs here - you cannot colonise your own country. The entire uproar about white oppression and white guilt and white debt is based, exactly like the concept of the rainbow nation and its Africa-democracy, on one big lie. In Afrikaans, a language of Africa, we say: However swiftly the lie might travel, truth will catch up one day.

Black South Africa might as well realise that the time of the lie is running out. Your stereotyping of the white man and apartheid as the cause of everything, cannot hold much longer. You cannot hide rotting meat under gift wrap for eternity. Sometime in the very near future you will have to own up and explain how you could hold a small minority of oppressed people responsible for the disaster that you have made of a country which has the potential of being a place of safety, a welcome and hospitable home, to all its children whether they be black, white, coloured on Indian. The black man holds the key to the final destruction of what is left, or the final realisation that we have no other choice but to peacefully co-exist. The black South African can no longer avoid admitting that the destruction of the white South African necessarily means the destruction of everything and everyone left on the southern tip of Africa.

By Daniel Lotter
Source: South Africa Today - South Africa News

Last Edited by WhiteFly on 11/16/2019 11:45 AM

Considering the nature of the topic your comments are more than warranted. The period between 1950-today is all the same program, run by the same people for the same purposes. I would be happy to supply you with some dated material that I have written and sent to various 'Canadians' including a few Indian Chiefs and the PM (JT) as well. The replies are a deafening silence and a ton of bullshit.
The 'Residential Schools' is a term most should be aware of even if the magnitude of the operation is kept as hidden as possible.
JT did a speech in the far north about a year ago and the new term mentioned was 'Government Hospitals'. Canadians (and foreigners) have repeated that term 'zero' times since then so that is an even bigger cover-up and with damn good reason. Be more than happy to expand on that part as well.
Lastly is the Indian Villages around the shores of Hudson Bay as they are the most obvious locations that show the deadly abuse is still going on full swing and with the Government ascting as the authority when they are just obeying orders given to them by foreign entities such as the WHO and the people that run that shit show.


The list is a lot longer, the first few minutes deal with our chat so far. It would seem Australia and North America and South Africa were all settled by the same people using the same methods. Perhaps we can start there before I get into how I see the vid and what it promotes and what it doesn't. The Narrator is quite frank that the history id fact based rather than it is a ;'feel good' story.

Video Chapters:
1. Arrival of Jan van Riebeeck 00:00:00
2. 1820 British Settlers 00:02:03
3. Nguni People migrate south from central Africa 00:02:47
4. Khoi People 00:03:37
5.The Great Trek 00:06:15
6. King Dingane and Piet Retief 00:08:37
7. Battle of Blood River (Ncome River) 00:11:06
8. Discovery of Diamonds in Kimberley 00:13:21
9. Anglo Zulu War 00:14:10
10. Discovery of Gold in the Transvaal 00:15:02
11 Transvaal War of Independence 00:15:55
12. Battle of Majuba 00:16:03
13. Discovery of Gold on the Witwatersrand 00:17:28
14. Paul Kruger 00:18:09
15. Cecil John Rhodes 00:18:57
16. Jameson Raid 00:19:23
17. Lord Alfred Milner meets with Paul Kruger 00:22:01
18. Start of the Anglo Boer War 00:24:45
19. First of the Modern Wars 00:27:22
20. Talana – First Battle 00:29:21


IMO data can be presented where the ugly parts are left out. 1600-1960 are the ugly parts of South Africa's history.

The separation idea would have left the whites with all the good land and the Blacks with the 'scrub-brush'. The land appropriation idea made big waves when the Whites published it on a global scale. I'll bey you cannot find one article that says the farms targeted were the few that were more than 46 sq. mi. in size. Do you have any idea how much land that is.
In 1960 the Whites controlled everything, if it went to ship after that is because they trashed what they could no longer fully control and the fact there was not a smppth transition means in the 360 years before that date not one ounce of effort had been extended as a means of the Blacks taking over a Democracy because they were the bigger number. Suddenly the EU version of a 'few Royals' ruling many Peasants became the version that should be used. You cannot adopt t6he ways of crooks without becoming a crook yourself.

Last Edited by Wayfaring Stranger on 11/16/2019 12:37 PM

Why lie about the past if the whole globe was just as messed up. My point is more to getting a fact based look at the past, for South Africa that starts at 1600 and went on the same way until about 1960. (The sane year Residential Schools were closed, the schools in South Africa would have been the same. Experiments still go on the same in the darkest parts of Africa and Canada.

The vid in the post just above is what I would use as my history so pick out any topic. The ones I would cover are the battle for a hill where a record number died in a single night. The invasion of people after gold was found and last but not least is the 1815 incident when the Jewish Bankers took over the Bank of England and the English Stock Market in what would amount to 'a coup' that made them employees and the task they were given was to the the 'thugs' for the Bankers. That moved to the US over the course the 2 fake World Wars. (a different thread no doubt)

A way the 'real' past could be used in this day and age. 1600AD was the Dutch-East India company and from there the globe was settled. It was almost like the exodus wars of the OT. 430 years later another exodus looks possible only it will be a lot faster and a lot more through. Simply move the UN from NY to Jerusalem and staff it with the smartest jewish on the planet and have them repeat the process with one small change, nobody goes hungry or cold. The lives of Gentiles under the leadership of the 12 tribes in the OT saw both prosper rather than going extinct like the 6 fingered giants in the OT.
Throw a smart-phone at everyone and you at least have their attention. Bring out some quality mega programs for the hungry in the world and that is as close as you can get to playing God while not being immortal.
The documents are already published, the manpower is available, why do things have to wait for a
special day'?

Last Edited by Wayfaring Stranger on 11/16/2019 01:31 PM

Thank's WayfaringStranger for the video and your posts. It does help much to enlighten and fill out this thread and your expansion on the Canadian situation would be great too.

For me, this is some more of my perspectives on Apartheid in South Africa and its motivations and view this please as a reasoned conclusion and not a racist attack.

White only first encountered blacks when they started to migrate east and northeastwards towards the Eastern Cape/Kwazulu Natal region and the interior in the late 1700's through to the Great Trek in the mid 1800's. The first conflicts between black and white occurred in the 1800's in the Eastern Cape region with the Xhosas over stock thefts. This is still a problem today.

It was the whites that developed the country (with black labor, yes) and brought modern concepts of politics and economics to South Africa. If it weren't for white settlements the blacks would've still been living in their grass huts and running around in their animal skins today. The most anti-white rich black elites wouldn't be driving fancy German cars and wearing suits. They were very tribal, primitive and savage until the white man came. That savagery is still in them. It's going to take more than just a 100 years to tame it. Under certain circumstances it easily surfaces.

The idea of Apartheid was to protect the whites from black savagery as those early settlers came to know it firsthand. They saw how dangerous a primitive peoples could be for a more developed one. It is precisely this primitive strength and lack of development for which they were chosen to be slaves elsewhere in Africa. They were seen as animals and treated as such. The blacks only started to develop more after prolonged contact with the whites. Slavery wasn't good but it did serve to tame their wild nature and begin to uplift them through contact with more advanced peoples, which, you can't deny, the whites were. If not spiritually or morally then mentally, socially and technologically with concepts the blacks had never conceived of. Slave traders and many owners were heartless brutes but that distribution and contact did serve a development purpose for a race although that is something most would not care to want to admit.

This wild, animalistic nature of the black was also why it was deemed they had to be controlled. Apartheid was about control of the blacks for white protection, aside from Verwoerd's ideas of upliftment. It only later become subverted into the overly oppressive system it evolved into when the J ews took it over with John Vorster as PM after Verwoerd's assasination which they organised. This is the post-Verwoerd system we whites are now paying the price for 25 years later after its end as we watch the country crumble to the ground under black rule.

What is happening in South Africa today is precisely why it was deemed that blacks needed to be controlled because when unleashed they can become very dangerous to a civilization. For examples just look at what is happening in Europe right now with the influx of African "refugees" there. It's the Barbarians invading Rome all over again and bringing it to collapse. In fact just look at what Africa is as a whole. Large parts of it is a "shithole" and became so when the blacks gained their independence and were left to their own devices but still with the devices and systems their former colonial masters brought to them.

Blacks are not very good at governing themselves in the Western way, the white way, and success stories in Africa regarding this is rare. A couple of settled examples could be Namibia and Botswana but the further North you go the worse it gets.

Admittedly, foreign destabilising interference does play a fair role but it only works because it plays on the most primitive side. The side of greed, power and corruption and the lust to always want to be the Big Chief. Foreigners only exploit what is already there and unfortunately the blacks fall for it every time. They can be much better if properly guided but they are not. Just misled, exploited and overpopulated which is another of the big issues why they struggle to rise.

Africans have been fighting among each other for hundreds of years. One tribe completely eradicating another was a common occurrence in many parts of Africa. The power drive of one group to dominate, or if there is resistance, completely eliminate, is still quite alive and well as has been demonstrated in the 20th century. South Africa's early history (pre-1900) is replete with one tribe massacring another simply because they are a different tribe and in one way or another got in the way of the dominant tribe of the day. If it wasn't for territory then it could be for something like the daughter or son of another tribe accidentally slighting and offending the chief of a rival tribe or any of his family. Then it would be war which could end in the complete annihilation of one or the other tribe, depending on who was weaker. It was an animalistic game of power and dominance. Tribal genocides have been occurring long before any white man ever set foot near these areas and tribes.

Last Edited by WhiteFly on 11/17/2019 09:30 AM

Meanwhile, South Africa is plummeting into oblivion and violence.

A painful slow motion quarter century plummet. The country I grew up in has mostly dissolved before my eyes. Everyone with some sense predicted this from the start but Mandela euphoria was too blinding for the rest. Now we're paying the price of selling out to global and deep state J ews but, to be fair, it would've been a genocidal civil war if we hadn't so the lesser of 2 evils have become the larger of it. We had no choice. We would've become like a current Libya.

I optimistically give this country 10 more years. Hate to be so pessimistic and unpatriotic but can't ignore the truth before my eyes. A truth that's becoming irreversable.