Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
The slaughter continues. Since I spoke with you about this in June, another 67 White farmers or members of White farm families have been murdered in South Africa. Many of the murders have been accompanied by torture, rape, and mutilation. Altogether nearly six hundred White farmers have been murdered by Blacks in South Africa since the Whites agreed in 1993 to let the Blacks run the country. That's one per cent of South Africa's 58,000 White farmers. Imagine the uproar in America if one percent of any occupational group -- say, White school teachers or White policemen -- were brutally murdered, with racial motivations, by Blacks in a four-year period. Of course, South Africa's White farmers are in an uproar too, but they're receiving virtually no help from South Africa's Black government in dealing with the problem. The government says it has too many other problems to deal with.
And indeed it does. The per capita murder rate in South Africa is now more than ten times the rate in the United States. The HIV infection rate has continued to climb, and now one in every five Black women of child-bearing age in South Africa is infected with the AIDS-causing virus. Car-jackings are up sharply. Burglaries are up. Rapes have sky rocketed. It's a mess.
And of course, the controlled mass media in America, the mass media which were beating the drums for an end to apartheid a few years ago, the news and entertainment media here which were pushing so hard for Black rule in South Africa and telling everyone that we must bring the injustice of White rule in South Africa to an end -- these media which were telling us every day before 1993 how bad things in South Africa under White rule were -- these controlled mass media in America are now strangely silent about South Africa. Now they have other fish to fry.
Last week I spoke at an international conference of nationalists in Thessaloniki, Greece. One of the other speakers at the conference was the foreign secretary of the most important White nationalist group in South Africa, the Herstigte National Party. I spoke with this man, Leon Strydom, about the killing of South African farmers, and the soaring crime rate in South Africa's cities, and the many other problems which are overwhelming White South Africans. I asked him, "What do the White South Africans who voted in 1993 to turn their country over to Black rule think about their suicidal foolishness now?"
His reply was, "But we never voted for Black rule! We never even voted to permit the Blacks to participate in elections. We only voted to continue the process of reform in which the government of F W. DeKlerk already was engaged, the process of modernization and relaxation of some of the stricter apartheid practices. We believed that this would help our relations with the rest of the world and still allow us to remain masters in our own country."
I responded to this explanation by asking him, "But surely the voters must have understood that if they gave DeKlerk the OK to continue along his path of appeasement of the Blacks and the New World Order crowd, that would lead very soon to Black rule. They understood that, didn't they?" And he told me that most of the voters didn't understand that. They had believed their politicians' promise to maintain White rule. They had not expected DeKlerk and the others to betray them.
I was at first incredulous. How could White people be so foolish? But after I had thought about it for a few minutes, I realized that the average White person, whether in South Africa or the United States, is indeed that foolish. I believe that I tend to idealize White people in other countries, I tend to give them a little more credit for intelligence and moral rectitude than I give to Americans, and that's a mistake. The fact is that the majority of White Americans are quite capable of unwittingly voting for their own destruction, and so I should not be surprised that the Whites of South Africa did exactly that. The majority of White Americans believe the lies of their politicians and preachers, and so it shouldn't surprise us that the Whites of South Africa did the same thing.
In South Africa there were of course the nutcase liberals and the trendy airheads who were happy to see Black rule come and who now can't quite figure out what went wrong when the earthly paradise of equality and interracial brotherhood didn't arrive as promised. But we have exactly the same types in the United States. They're the ones who applaud Clinton when he gives his speech about how it will be a good thing when there is no longer a White majority in the United States in another 30 years or so, and then we can have real "diversity" and real "brotherhood." Our job, of course, is to do whatever it takes to ensure that our airheads never have to ask themselves what went wrong here. Our job is to disempower the trendies and the liberals before they have a chance to take us beyond the point of no return and say, "oops, we made a mistake."
As for the great mass of the people here who are unwittingly headed in the direction of White minority status, the great mass of Americans who don't really want America to become a non-White country but who trust their politicians and their preachers and therefore are headed toward extinction anyway -- as for the great mass of our people, education is the only course for us at this time. Our task is to give our people knowledge, to give them truth, and help at least some of them gather their wits and understand what is happening.
And you know, there is no more illuminating example, no better lesson for White Americans than what has happened and is happening in South Africa. That, of course, is exactly why the controlled mass media here remain silent when White South African farmers are slaughtered, when White South African women are gang-raped, and when many other very educational things happen in South Africa. So today let's briefly talk about some more of these South African things which it would be good for White Americans to know about, to think about, to ponder.
Perhaps the most instructive aspect of the South African tragedy is the betrayal of the people by those in whom they had placed their trust: principally their church leaders and their business/military/political establishment. Let's talk about the church first.
For the Anglo element in South Africa, the church -- that would be primarily the Episcopal Church -- wasn't of fundamental importance. Most of the English-speaking population didn't take their church very seriously, and everyone already understood that the Episcopal Church establishment was thoroughly rotten, was completely sold out. But for the Boer element, the Dutch-speaking element of the population, it was different. They really believed in their church: that's the Dutch Reformed Church. There was what might be called a compact, a covenant, between the Dutch Reformed Church and the Boer people, and the Boers took their religion very seriously. Like most other Protestant sects, it was based heavily on the Old Testament. The Boers saw many parallels between the Old Testament pseudo-history of the Jews and their own history. They saw themselves as a Chosen People in the Promised Land and the Dutch Reformed Church as their protector and guide. And the Church to a certain degree did fill that role. The Church gave the Boers a scriptural basis for their lives, for their institutions -- including the institution of apartheid -- at least, up until the early 1980s.
I, of course, always have been very leery of churches in general, and I could see, as an outsider, some things in the teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church in particular which worried me: their tendency to identify with the Jews, for example. But whenever I would try to talk about my worries with South African visitors, I would be told that their church was absolutely solid. They had complete faith in their church. And of course, I didn't want to attack their faith, so I would drop the subject.
Well of course, when the crucial time came the Dutch Reformed Church did betray the Boers. Their church sold them out. Their church held them back from putting up any real resistance to the theft of their country. Why was that?
I don't believe that the Dutch Reformed Church in its earlier days was anything but what it pretended to be, and that was a Boer institution. I don't believe there was any long-running conspiracy in the Church to betray the Boers. But as the Boers prospered, so did the Church. The Church's leaders became prominent men, wealthy men. Many of the Boers' political leaders were ordained ministers in the Dutch Reformed Church. They were comfortable men, soft around the waist. They ate well and dressed well and lived well. And when the time came to make a hard choice: a choice between their people or their own comfortable positions . . . well, they made the kind of choice that comfortable people tend to make.
The situation in South Africa at the beginning of this decade was one in which White South Africans were still quite well off, despite the efforts of the New World Order crowd everywhere else to starve them into submission with a trade embargo. The country was big enough and rich enough and with a strong enough farming and industrial base so that it was able to take care of its own needs fairly well. There was no danger at all of the African National Congress or any other Black terrorist group causing any really major problems. Dealing with Black terrorists was hardly more than an ongoing training exercise for the South African military and counter-terrorist forces. What the White South Africans should have done at that time was simply expel all Blacks, terrorists or not, from South Africa -- or otherwise get rid of them -- reorganize themselves as an all-White country, and tell the New World Order crowd in the United States to go to hell.
They didn't do that, for several reasons. One reason was that South Africans had let themselves become dependent on Black labor. Urban Whites couldn't imagine life without their Black gardeners and cooks and housemaids and their Black garbage collectors and so on. They weren't willing to do their own dirty work. On top of that, White businessmen weren't willing to give up their cheap Black laborers and pay White wages to White workers instead. In many cases it would have meant shutting down mines or factories, at least temporarily.
And the Dutch Reformed Church had sapped the moral strength of the Boers to the point that they just couldn't bring themselves to do what needed to be done. For at least 11 years before 1993 the Church had been back-pedaling on its racial doctrine. The Church would have made the Boers feel guilty if they had taken the hard measures against the Blacks that were called for to ensure the future of their own people. It was easy for the Blacks to contemplate massacring the Whites -- the African National Congress had the slogan "one settler, one bullet" -- but the Whites could no longer contemplate massacring the Blacks without feeling guilty.
The Jews, of course, were pumping their own spiritual poison into the White population through the mass media, urging them in a thousand subtle ways to surrender rather than fight. But it was betrayal by the Boer establishment -- the Boer politicians and Church leaders and big businessmen -- which sealed the fate of South Africa. The comfortable people wanted to stay comfortable. They didn't want to remain cut off from the rest of the world. They didn't want to have to tighten their belts and give up their profits and face a prolonged lean period as the New World Order tightened its sanctions on South Africa even more.
Many of them believed the lies of the Jews that things actually would get better in South Africa if the Blacks ruled and the sanctions were lifted. And so they lied to their own people and told them that if they would just go along with DeKlerk's plan of moderating apartheid, of reforming apartheid, then White rule would be maintained in South Africa. The Boer establishment -- including the Boers' church -- put its own short-term interests above the welfare, even the survival, of the Boer people. Greed prevailed over racial loyalty and racial responsibility.
In this regard it's interesting to note what the Dutch Reformed Church has been up to since 1993. If the Church's leaders expected South Africa's new Black rulers to be grateful to them for pushing their Boer constituents toward surrender, they badly miscalculated. So the Church has continued to try to accommodate itself to its new situation and somehow hold onto whatever it can. Actually, even before 1993 the Church had reversed its former doctrine and had told Boers that apartheid was a sin. The Boers at least had the gumption in 1994 to shoot the preacher, to shoot the former leader of their church, who was responsible for that change, but shooting just one traitor wasn't enough, and the Church kept back-pedaling anyway. Last month, the Dutch Reformed Church tried to merge with a Black and mixed-race church in South Africa and open its membership to all races. The opposition of one of its provincial branches stopped the merger temporarily, but next month, or next year it will happen. And then the Dutch Reformed Church will have Black deacons and Black elders, just the way the Episcopal Church has Black bishops today.
And what about the other traitors? Well, F.W. DeKlerk was rewarded with a Nobel Peace Prize and joined the illustrious ranks of such Peace Prize winners as Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, and Yitzhak Rabin. Other Boer politicians also received their 30 pieces of silver and are holding down sinecures in the new government.
For the big businessmen things haven't gone so well. The horrific crime rate, together with the government's increasingly obvious corruption and growing inefficiency, has taken a toll. White urban professionals, no longer confident that they can protect their families, have been leaving the country in droves. This brain drain has created a critical shortage of management and other key personnel in many businesses and persuaded business owners to look for opportunities elsewhere. South Africa's Jews, in particular, after playing a key role in scuttling the country, are clearing out. Not all of them, of course. There still are some business opportunities in South Africa. Jewish organized crime groups from the former Soviet Union have been moving part of their White slave trade to South Africa. They first bring their White slaves from eastern Europe to South Africa, and then ship them off to brothels in other countries. The new South African government looks the other way.
But in general, businessmen are leaving, and last month the largest business in South Africa, the Anglo American Corporation, announced its plans to move from Johannesburg to London early next year. The Anglo American Corporation, which used to be run by Harry Oppenheimer and is still very much under the influence of the Oppenheimer family and other wealthy Jews, was the company which more than any other pushed South Africa toward Black rule. Even the Boer businessmen in the Anglo American Corporation were in favor of Black rule. All they could think about was getting the trade sanctions against South Africa lifted so they could improve their profits. They pushed other businesses into working to dismantle apartheid also. The bosses of the Anglo American Corporation told the Boer people that apartheid was old-fashioned and unprofitable and that it had to go, that everything would be much better for the Boer people without apartheid.
And now that it hasn't worked out that way, the Anglo American Corporation is pulling out, moving to London, where the big businessmen can remain comfortable and safe, where there is no danger of their suffering the fate of the Boer farmers whom they betrayed.
So that's what has happened in South Africa. In America the rich and the comfortable, those who are part of the religious establishment or the business establishment or the political establishment, also have shown their false colors. The politicians in America, of course, always have been the rottenest of the rotten -- at least, they have been that way since the mass media fell into the hands of the Jews.
And the Christian churches here, which even 60 or 70 years ago were still bulwarks of White American society, have fallen over each other since the Second World War in their scramble to adapt their doctrines and their practices to the Jewish party line. In the 1970s and the 1980s the churches in America were at the forefront of the institutions here pushing for Black rule in South Africa.
And, although they were a little slower than the rest to come around, America's big businessmen -- and I'm talking about White businessmen, not Jews -- clearly have decided that it will be more profitable for them -- at least in the short run -- to join the Jews instead of fighting them. There is hardly a major corporation in America which has not decided to base its business plans on a future non-White majority in America and to adjust all of its policies accordingly. The corporate bosses may vote Republican, and they may not personally relish the idea of their grandchildren living in a non-White America -- but when it comes to choosing between profits now by going with the flow, or fighting for principles in the long run, the principles come second.
So what's the lesson for White Americans in all of this? Well, the lesson is that those who prosper from treason, or who believe that they will prosper from treason, will be traitors. There will be occasional exceptions to this rule, rare exceptions, but we'd better keep the rule itself in mind and not place our hope on the rare exceptions. If we want to survive as a people, as a race, then we must make treason unprofitable. We must make the preachers and the politicians and the corporate bosses believe that there will be no profit for them in treason. There is no other way.
Well, I'll not carry that thought any further at this time, but you think about it -- and thanks for being with me again today.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page