Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page

Free Speech - June 1998 - Volume IV, Number 6

The Lesson of Africa

by Dr. William Pierce

Another White farmer in South Africa was murdered a few days ago. He was 65-year-old Daniel Marais. His wife Maria managed to escape from their farm near Bloemfontein and run three miles with their grandchild to a neighboring farm, after she had been assaulted by a Black. Mr. Marais however was too badly wounded by the Black attacker to escape, and he died on his farm.

Two weeks ago Blacks invaded the Van Niekerk farm near Witbank. They beat 71-year-old Gerhardus Van Niekerk on the face and head with a metal rod until they thought he was dead, then shot him in the face. Van Niekirk lost a lot of blood, but he survived the attack. He was one of a lucky few. Most don't survive.

A few days before the Van Niekerk attack, a gang of Blacks descended on the farm of 65-year-old Don Delafield and his 52-year-old wife Verina, 80 miles from Johannesburg. The White farmer and his wife were tied up, tortured savagely, and then butchered by the Blacks. A note left at the scene identified the murderers as members of the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army, the military wing of the Pan-Africanist Congress.

Twenty White farmers and members of their families have been murdered in South Africa in the past six weeks. That's about the same rate at which White farmers and their families were murdered by Blacks in South Africa during 1997. If that were happening to White farm families in the United States at a proportional rate, it would be 100 farm families a week being murdered -- a major problem indeed.

White farmers in South Africa are very alarmed about the murders, of course, so they've sent several delegations to Nelson Mandela and other government officials to demand that something be done. They're not getting much satisfaction from the government, however. The government says that its hands already are full trying to deal with the crime situation in South Africa, and that it can't spare any additional policemen to investigate the attacks on White farms. Robbery, rape, and murder have soared since the Whites of South Africa voted to turn their country over to Black rule four years ago.

White farmers are convinced that the attacks on them are more than a simple matter of crime. If the Blacks attacking their farms merely had robbery in mind, it would not be necessary to torture and kill their White victims. The Whites believe that the aim of the Black gangs is terrorism, and the note left at the scene of the Delafield murders supports their belief. The White farmers also note that the farmers who have been murdered were in many cases those who had been well known for their generosity to their Black workers. They suspect that the aim of the murderers is to drive the White farmers out of South Africa, and so the terrorists are striking preferentially at the Whites who have good relations with Blacks.

Mandela's government doesn't want the White farmers driven out, because it would be an economic catastrophe for South Africa. The White farmers produce nearly all of South Africa's food and much of its foreign exchange. But many Blacks are more concerned with grabbing White wealth now than they are with the prosperity of the country later. In addition, the idea of forcing the Whites out appeals to many Blacks at an emotional level. Being dependent on the productivity of White farmers is galling to Blacks, and they are more inclined to kill the goose now than to continue collecting the golden eggs.

If the murder of White farm families continues at the rate of the past 18 months, the terrorists undoubtedly will succeed. And there is little chance that the Mandela government or any Black successor government will be able to stop the killings; the government of South Africa becomes more chaotic, corrupt, and inefficient by the month. If it can do nothing to control the crime in Johannesburg, it is unlikely to have much influence on terrorism in the countryside.

The really disappointing aspect to all of this is that it should have been foreseen. The Whites of South Africa voted themselves into their present situation, when they agreed to let Blacks participate in their elections in 1994. They folded up under the pressure of being called bad names by the Jewish media and being told by their preachers that Jesus was angry at them because of apartheid. They were so eager to be in the good graces of Jesus, the Jews, and the "international community" that they took leave of their senses and handed their government over to Nelson Mandela and his fellow Black terrorists on a silver platter. They believed the assurances of the media and the bought politicians that everything would work out for the best if they let the Blacks run South Africa.

That's really incredible, considering what they knew about Black behavior in the rest of Africa. Consider Kolwezi, for example. Whites in America won't have heard of Kolwezi, of course, because the Jewish media kept pretty quiet about it over here. It's the sort of thing the Jews thought it better for us not to hear about, and so after a few sketchy news reports they blacked it out and never mentioned it again. But they couldn't keep it from the South Africans, who were much more attuned to what was happening in Africa than we were.

Kolwezi was a mining town in the Shaba province of what was known 20 years ago as Zaire. Before that it was known as the Belgian Congo, and today, under the rule of its latest African strongman it is known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Belgians had turned their colony over to Black rule in 1960, as part of the general decolonization process which accompanied the egalitarian craze following the Second World War. A deranged Black Marxist ideologue, Patrice Lumumba, presided over the transition to Black rule of the Congo, and the killing and rape of Whites began almost immediately.

Most of the Whites in the Congo weren't natives, as in South Africa. They were Belgian administrators and technicians and mining engineers, along with a few Christian missionaries, doctors, and nurses. Many of the longer-term White residents had their families with them. In 1964, when one of the Black factions struggling for control of the Congo captured Stanleyville, an administrative center with a population of about 25,000 where more than 2,000 Whites were living, the rapes and murders of Whites flared up again. Belgian paratroopers had to capture Stanleyville in order to rescue the terrified White survivors. Most Americans heard briefly about that at the time, but the news certainly wasn't emphasized, and so we quickly forgot about it. The South Africans didn't forget, though.

Then in May 1978, while the Congo was temporarily going by the name Zaire, a Black tribal faction that was at odds with the central government moved into Kolwezi. Kolwezi, a town of about 20,000 inhabitants at the time in the southeastern part of the country, was a local center for the copper and cobalt mining in the area, and a number of White engineers and technicians were there, some with their wives and children. The Blacks who were opposed to the central government saw the White minority in Kolwezi as supporters of the central government, because it was the Whites who were keeping the mines running. Actually, the Whites were on neither side of the conflict. They were there simply to do a job, and they didn't concern themselves much with Black politics, but the fact that their activity in operating the mines was keeping the central government afloat was all the excuse the Black rebels needed to kill them. And of course, the Blacks went about killing the Whites in a typically Black fashion, with lots of gang-raping and mutilation. White women had their breasts hacked off with machetes. Little White girls were literally raped to death by long lines of grinning Blacks, while their parents were forced at gunpoint to watch. Little White boys had their bellies slit open and their entrails pulled out. Altogether 160 Whites were butchered in Kolwezi. Even though that was in 1978, it made enough of an impression on White South Africans that they shouldn't have forgotten it by 1994.

And if Stanleyville and Kolwezi weren't enough, there were plenty of other instructive examples for the White South Africans. There was what happened in Angola in 1961, when Portuguese colonists were butchered in a terror campaign so terrible that I cannot discuss the details on this program. It is perhaps more difficult to sympathize with the Portuguese than with the Belgians, because many of the Portuguese had, as we say, "gone native." They didn't keep themselves separate enough from the Blacks around them. Some had even taken Black wives and had mulatto children. Race-mixing wasn't as abhorrent to the Portuguese as to other Europeans in Africa. Nevertheless, what the Blacks did to the Portuguese, even those with non-White family members, was as bloody and cruel as anything done to other Europeans in Africa.

The Whites of Rhodesia, South Africa's neighbor, certainly didn't mix with the Blacks in their country. The Whites of Rhodesia not only maintained their dignity and pride as Europeans, but they did a very creditable job of keeping their Blacks under control. Even the Rhodesian farmers, whose farms often were isolated and many miles from their nearest neighbors, were quite successful at dealing with Black terrorists. In Rhodesia the Blacks struck at the easiest White targets, and these were the Christian missionary stations. Various Christian churches had set up missionary stations throughout Rhodesia for the purpose of converting the Blacks to Christianity, and these stations usually had schools and clinics associated with them. They were unarmed. When Black terrorists would descend on one of these missionary stations they would rape and butcher all of the Whites they could get their hands on. This happened over and over again, and the South Africans heard all of the grisly details every time.

Nevertheless, the White South African government betrayed the White Rhodesians in 1976 by joining the United Nations embargo against Rhodesia and cutting off Rhodesia's supply of helicopters and other weapons. This move forced the Rhodesians to capitulate to the Blacks, and their country, now called Zimbabwe, is ruled by one of the former Black terrorist leaders, who is now a de facto "president for life" and has announced a plan to seize the land of the White farmers who remain in the country.

The South Africans betrayed the Rhodesians in 1976 in part because the Jews of South Africa always have had a strong influence on the South African government through their media control and their money. Harry Oppenheimer, with his vast holdings in diamonds, gold, and other minerals, had more money with which to corrupt politicians than anyone else in South Africa. And the Jews, of course, were as implacably hostile to the Whites of Rhodesia as they have been to other Whites everywhere and at all times.

And in part the White South Africans betrayed the Rhodesians because they thought that by throwing their White neighbors to the wolves they could buy time for themselves. As it turned out it wasn't much time: just 18 years. During those 18 years they really should have been paying more attention to what was happening in other parts of Africa. The fact that they learned nothing from the examples of Angola, Stanleyville, Kolwezi, and the Christian missions in Rhodesia should be instructive to us.

I talked with several South Africans before 1994. None were in favor of surrendering their country to the Blacks, but they had some very strange notions about what Black rule would mean. They thought that because the Blacks of South Africa had a standard of living so much higher than Blacks anywhere else in Africa they wouldn't do anything to jeopardize that. Blacks might engage in terrorism in Angola and Zaire -- those are very primitive countries, and the Blacks there are savages -- but the Blacks in South Africa are better educated and better treated than elsewhere. Blacks, these White South Africans told me, are like children. They can't run a modern country like South Africa by themselves. They need the Whites to keep things going for them, and the Whites will be able to control them, just as they have for the past 400 years.

These White South Africans that I spoke with were very civilized, very comfortable people. They all had Black servants back home. I think that they just couldn't deal with the idea of a South Africa without Blacks: a South Africa in which Whites would take care of their own children, clean their own toilets, cook their own meals, cut their own grass, take out their own garbage, and take in their belts enough to cope with any economic pressure applied to them by the rest of the world. It's too bad they weren't a little less civilized and a little less comfortable. Perhaps they'd still have their own country today. Perhaps they wouldn't be reading in their newspapers every week about three or four more White farm families butchered by Black terrorists. Perhaps they wouldn't have to be wondering if there is anywhere to immigrate to.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on them. Certainly, they did an enormously foolish and shameful thing in giving up their country without a fight -- but are we Americans any less foolish? Think how many White Americans there are who believe that we'll all continue to live together as happy consumers and television viewers, regardless of race, color, or creed, when America has a non-White majority around the middle of the next century. Our Blacks, they believe, are much more civilized than those Blacks who are butchering White farm families in South Africa.

Or rather, that's what they'd believe if the controlled news media told them about what's happening in South Africa. White Americans have never given any evidence of being more intelligent, more independent minded, more courageous, or more morally upright than South Africans, so why should we expect Americans to make better use than the South Africans did of the knowledge of what to expect under non-White rule, if the Jewish media let them have that knowledge?

But three White farmers a week -- or 100 a week -- being murdered by Black terrorists in South Africa isn't news that fits. Much better to restrict the news from Africa to scenes of Mr. Clinton hugging happy Blacks.

Perhaps we can learn from the example of the South Africans. Of course, when I say "we" I don't mean White Americans as a whole. Since White South Africans as a whole didn't learn a thing from the example of the Portuguese, the Belgians, and the Rhodesians, I don't expect Americans to do any better. But perhaps some of us can learn a few things.

One of those things is that we really need to find a better way than mass democracy for governing ourselves. We've been fed a lot of egalitarian baloney about people all being pretty much the same, and so we tend to assume that since we can look at facts and make rational decisions, everyone else can. But most people cannot. Most people are not rational and can be manipulated by playing on their fears and desires, the way the majority of South African Whites were manipulated by the media and the churches in their country in 1994. The South Africans didn't want the situation they have today, but they let themselves be bullied, lied, and tricked into it. If only hard-headed and rational South African Whites had been permitted to vote in 1994, South Africa still would be a White-ruled country today: perhaps even an all-White country.

The second thing we should learn from the South African experience is that we cannot permit our mass media to remain in the hands of the Jews or in the hands of those under the influence of Jews. The foolish South Africans were manipulated, and it was the mass media more than anything else which manipulated them.

The Jewish media in South Africa could not keep the news of Black behavior in other parts of Africa away from White South Africans, but they could and did play down that news. They could and did berate South Africans non-stop about the wickedness of apartheid and about how awful it was to be unpopular among liberals in other countries, and they could and did play on the feminine nature of the White masses by telling them over and over, as seductively as possible, how nice it would be to be loved by the international community instead of being hated.

And the third thing we must learn from the experience of Whites in Africa is that the only way for our people to survive and flourish is to live among our own kind. Multiracial societies do not work and cannot work. If we permit Whites to become a minority in America in the next century as the Clintonistas are planning, then we will suffer a fate similar to that of Whites everywhere else that they have let themselves become a minority. What we must do to avoid becoming a minority may be extraordinarily hard, but we must do it to survive. The extinction of our people is the alternative.

© 1998 National Vanguard Books · Box 330 · Hillsboro ·WV 24946 · USA

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page