The White Settler

Zuma wants 'African' justice

2012-11-02T09:14:00.000+02:00

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2012/11/02/zuma-wants-african-justice

President Jacob Zuma has tacitly endorsed the controversial Traditional Courts Bill, telling chiefs not to buy in to the legal practices of the white man.

Speaking at the opening of the National House of Traditional Leaders in parliament yesterday, Zuma said Africans had their own way of solving their problems through traditional institutions.

"Prisons are done by people who cannot resolve problems.

"Let us solve African problems the African way, not the white man's way," Zuma said, to cheers from traditional leaders.

"Let us not be influenced by other cultures and try to think the lawyers are going to help. We have never changed the facts. They tell you they are dealing with cold facts. They will never tell you that these cold facts have warm bodies," he said.

Zuma's view could be seen as an endorsement of the controversial Traditional Courts Bill, which has women's rights groups, the ANC Women's League and the Ministry for Women, Children and People with Disabilities up in arms.

Drafters of the bill have argued that it will offer the prospect of access to justice to 18million citizens who live in the rural areas.

But women's rights groups believe the bill will disempower millions of rural women by not allowing them access to the formal justice system when they have been wronged.

They believe this and other problematic provisions make the bill unconstitutional.

One of Zuma's ministers, Lulu Xingwana, who presides over the Ministry for Women, Children and People with Disabilities, has been a fierce critic of the bill, demanding it be redrafted altogether.

When the bill was discussed in parliament in September, she said: "Let me remind you the constitution has an equality clause that supersedes custom. I plead with the National Council of Provinces not to pass this bill [because it] is an apartheid-era piece of legislation.

"It's oppressive to women and discriminatory . We don't think traditional courts should be allowed to impose forced labour. Why are we taking our people [back] to the dark ages?"

There had been "no consultation" with rural women, Xingwana said.

The ANC Women's League - which has endorsed Zuma for a second term - has also called for the bill to be recalled.

Zuma was adamant yesterday that traditional authorities had sufficient capacity to deal with legal matters affecting people under their jurisdiction.

"Our view is that the nature and the value system of the traditional courts of promoting social cohesion and reconciliation must be recognised and strengthened in the bill," he said. But he realised there were genuine concerns that the courts fell outside of a proper legislative framework.

According to Zuma, there was no need to involve external law-enforcement agencies in issues that could be solved by a chief.

He slammed Africans who had become "most eloquent" in criticising their cultural background.

"We are Africans. We cannot change to be something else."

Zuma also lashed out at critics of the government who, he said, continued to mislead the poor into believing "poverty was worse" now than in the apartheid era.

He said there was no factual basis to claims that the gap between the rich and the poor was widening.

"It is an absolutely wrong statement and has been repeated and we have almost come to believe it is true. It is not scientifically correct. It is a spin to criticise the democratic government."

Before 1994 the population of black people had not been counted and therefore any gaps in wealth could not be measured, Zuma said.

"It's a manipulation of the words to make us who are in a democratic country responsible for the sins of apartheid.

"It [the gap between rich and poor] has not been growing since 1994, it has been narrowing.

"Poverty was worser [sic] than what it is now. Fifteen million poor people get the [social] grant, which they didn't get before. If that's not closing the gap, what is it?"

Zuma urged traditional chiefs to do their part to quell violent wildcat strikes over service delivery and working conditions.

He said another Marikana massacre could not be tolerated.

But, he said, international commentators who likened such events to the violent apartheid days were unjustified.

"No, we will never go back to apartheid. In apartheid times the Marikana situation was a daily occurrence. People were being killed left, right and centre, and there was no one to stop it. It was a culture, the nature of government was different," he said.

Malema willing to shed blood for land

2012-10-16T12:35:00.000+02:00

http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2012/10/16/malema-willing-to-shed-blood-for-land-report

Malema was in Harare on Saturday to attend a wedding ceremony and address Zanu-PF youth, the Zimbabwean Herald Online reported.

He said the youths in South Africa were calling for whites to surrender land and minerals resources they hold because "when they came from Europe they did not carry any land into South Africa.

"What we are asking is for them to surrender our minerals because they did not come with any mineral. We want that land and those minerals for free because they never paid for those minerals."

Malema said whites committed murder to get land.

"Actually they killed people to get that land and those minerals. We are not going to give them money when we take the land back because it will be like we are thanking them with money for killing our people.

"We will never do that, little did they know that we are not scared of blood. We are scared of defeat. We don't want to be defeated but seeing blood is not what we are scared of as long as that blood delivers what belongs to us we are prepared to go to that extent."

Malema told the youth he was in Zimbabwe to gain inspiration and wisdom, so that when he returned home he could "double the spirit of fighting against imperialist forces".

Malema faces a money-laundering charge relating to a R52 million tender awarded to On-Point engineers, which he allegedly benefited from.

Aanslag op die Woord van God

2012-10-10T09:30:00.002+02:00

http://www.suiwerleer.co.za/aanslag_op_die_woord_van_god.htm

Aanslag op die Woord van God

Daar word weer pogings aangewend om die Afrikaanse Bybel te vertaal. Die rede wat aangevoer word, is dat die 1983 vertaling, wat ook bekend staan as die Nuwe Vertaling, alreeds verouderd is en so vol vertalingsfoute is dat dit noodsaaklik is om dit weer te vertaal. Die 1983 Nuwe Vertaling van die Afrikaanse Bybel bevat doelbewuste veranderings en weglatings wat sowel uit die eksegetiese vertaalmetode as uit die onvolledige grondteks spruit. As gevolg van hierdie faktore kwalifiseer die Nuwe Vertaling (1983) nie om Die Bybel genoem te word nie, maar hoogstens 'n parafrase. Sekere van hierdie foute is egter in latere uitgawes van die Nuwe Vertaling reggestel. Intussen het populêre Bybelverklarings asook nog meer vrye vertalings/parafrases die lig gesien, waaronder: Die Bybel in Praktyk, die Bybellennium, Die Boodskap, Die Evangelie vir kinders, “Leefstyl-Bybel vir Vroue” e.s.m. waarin van ’n geheel ander benadering uitgegaan word. In al hierdie gevalle word daar van God se Woord afgewyk.
Verdraaiings in die Nuwe Vertaling

In die jare sedert die Nuwe Afrikaanse Bybel in 1983 deur die Bybelgenootskap vrygestel is, het 'n skokkende lang lys vertaalfoute, verdraaiings, afgewaterde stellings en weglatings aan die lig gekom. Hierdie foute kan gedeeltelik herlei word na die onvolledige grondteks wat gebruik is, en andersyds na die willekeurig eksegetiese vertalingsmetode, nl. die dinamies-ekwivalente metode, wat gevolg is. Slegs 'n paar van hierdie foute is reggestel in die 1996 uitgawe.

Die vertalers het hulleself die vryheid veroorloof om in terme van hul eie teologiese raamwerk verklarend te vertaal en in die proses die betekenisse van baie tekste te verander. 'n Doelbewuste poging is ook aangewend om Ou Testamentiese Messiaanse profesieë só te verdraai of te versluier dat die leser nie moet agterkom dat dit op die Here Jesus dui nie. Die mees skokkende feit is die groot aantal plekke in die Nuwe Vertaling waar die Naam van Jesus Christus weggelaat is.

God is onveranderlik. God se Woord is ook onveranderlik. Jesus sê in Mattheus 24:35, "Die hemel en die aarde sal verbygaan, maar my woorde sal nooit verbygaan nie." Waarom is sommige dan so gretig om wysigings van God se woord te aanvaar in die vorm van ander weergawes van die Bybel? Christene val die Ou Vertaling aan deur dinge te sê soos, "dit is te moeilik om te lees" of "dit is te moeilik om te verstaan". Ons moet onthou dat die Bybel 'n geestelike boek is en verstaanbaar vir diegene wat deur die Heilige Gees gelei word om dit te verstaan. Dit is nie moontlik vir die natuurlike mens om die Bybel te verstaan nie [1 Korinthiërs 2:14], daarom kan dit geen nut hê om die Bybel te herbewoord of te vereenvoudig nie (sien ook Matt.11:27; 1 Kor 1:21; Hand. 4:4; Ps 8:2). Dit wat God vir wyse en verstandige mense verberg het, openbaar Hy aan kindertjies (Matt. 11:25). Die Bybel is nie veronderstel om soos 'n feeverhaal te lees nie. Petrus sê: "Want ons het nie kunstig verdigte fabels nagevolg toe ons julle die krag en koms van onse Here Jesus Christus bekend gemaak het nie," (2 Petrus 1:16). Die ware Woord het krag (Heb 4:12-3; Ef 6:17; 1 Pet 1:23; Jes 49:2; Op 1:16). Sodra dit verander word, word dit kragteloos. Die onvervalste Woord van God is noodsaaklike geestelike voedsel vir God se kinders, daarom sê Jesus: " Die mens sal nie van brood alleen lewe nie, maar van elke woord wat deur die mond van God uitgaan" (Mat. 4:4).

Indien die Nuwe Vertaling egter as 'n parafrase bemark is, sou dit minder misleidend gewees het. Om dit egter ten spyte van die vrysinnige vertaling, byvoegings, weglatings en subjektiewe veranderings nog steeds DIE BYBEL te noem, is om die minste te sê aanmatigend.

God sê duidelik in sy Woord:

"Julle mag by die woord wat Ek julle beveel, niks byvoeg nie, en julle mag daar niks van weglaat nie; sodat julle die gebooie van die Here julle God mag onderhou, wat Ek julle beveel" (Deut. 4:2).

"Want ek betuig aan elkeen wat die woorde van die profesie van hierdie boek hoor: As iemand by hierdie dinge byvoeg, dan sal God oor hom die plae byvoeg waarvan in hierdie boek geskrywe is. En as iemand iets van die woorde van die boek van hierdie profesie wegneem, dan sal God sy deel wegneem uit die boek van die lewe en uit die heilige stad en uit die dinge waarvan in hierdie boek geskrywe is" (Openbaring 22:18,19).

Die Woord van God versus Die 1983 Vertaling

'n Aantal van die belangrikste verskille tussen die Ou Vertaling (1933 soos in 1953 hersien) en die Nuwe Vertaling (1983) word hieronder aangetoon. Slegs enkele tekste word uit die Ou Testament aangehaal, daar is nog baie meer:

Verwysing			Ou Vertaling (1953)	Nuwe Vertaling (1983)
Gen. 1:26			"En God het gesê: Laat Ons mense maak na ons beeld, na ons gelykenis, en laat hulleheers oor die visse van die see en die voëls van die hemel en die vee en oor die hele aarde en oor al die diere wat op die aarde kruip."	"Toe het God gesê: "Kom Ons maak die mens as onsverteenwoordiger, ons beeld, sodat hy kan heers oor die vis in die see, die voëls in die lug, die mak diere, die wilde diere en al die diere wat op die aarde kruip."
Kommentaar: Die woord "verteenwoordiger" is bygevoeg. Daar is geen sprake van 'n "verteenwoordiger" van God in die Ou Vertaling nie en ook nie in die King James Version (KJV) nie. [Vgl. King James Version (1611) "And God said, Let us makeman in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."]
Verwysing			Ou Vertaling (1953)	Nuwe Vertaling (1983)
Gen. 1:27			"En God het die mens geskape na sy beeld; na die beeld van God het Hy hom geskape; man en vrou het Hy hulle geskape."	"God het die mens geskep as sy verteenwoordiger, as beeld van God het Hy die mens geskep, man en vrou het Hy hulle geskep."
Kommentaar: Vanaf Genesis 1 tot Genesis 4 word daar na Adam verwys as "die mens" bv. "die mens en sy vrou". (Vgl. Gen 3:20,21) Waar daar in bg. teks na die mens verwys word, beteken dit die man, Adam. Die man is na die beeld van God geskape. Die vrou is uit die man geskep as hulp vir die man en om by hom te pas. (Vgl. KJV: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.") Vgl. ook Gen 5:1 in die Ou Vertaling. Vgl. ook 1 Kor 11:7 "Want 'n man moet die hoof nie bedek nie, omdat hy die beeld en heerlikheid van God is; maar die vrou is die heerlikheid van die man." (KJV: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.") In die Nuwe Vertaling is dit baie vaag gestel en word dit vertolk as of die mens God se verteenwoordiger is en as of alby na die beeld van God geskape is, wat ‘n leun is.
Gen. 2:1			"So is dan voltooi die hemel en die aarde met hulle ganse leërmag."	"Die hemel en alles daarin is voltooi en ook die aarde en alles daarop."
Kommentaar: Die Nuwe Vertaling is hier baie vaag. Wat is die "alles" waarna verwys word? Die Ou Vertaling is spesifiek. Hier word na God se leërmag verwys. Vgl. Ps 33:6. Dit verwys ook na die leër van die hemel nl. die sterre Vgl. Deut 4:19; Deut 17:3 en Dan 8:10. Vgl. ook Jes 31:35; Ps.84:9 en Amos 5:27 waar daar na "Here of God van die leërskare" verwys word wat die engele leërskare insluit vgl. Luk 2:13; Dan 7:10; Openb 5:11.
Gen. 2:17			"maar van die boom van die kennis van goed en kwaad, daarvan mag jy nie eet nie; want die dag as jy daarvan eet, sal jy sekerlik sterwe."	"maar van die boom van alle kennis mag jy nie eet nie. Die dag as jy daarvan eet, sterf jy."
Kommentaar: (Vgl. King James Version (KJV): "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.") Indien dit die boom van alle kennis was, sou die mens nou alwetend gewees het. Vgl. Gen 3:22
Gen. 2:18			"Ook het die HERE God gesê: " Dit is nie goed dat die mens alleen is nie. Ek sal vir hom 'n hulp maak wat by hom pas. "	"Verder het die Here God gesê: "Dit is nie goed dat die mens alleen is nie. Ek sal vir hom iemand maak wat hom kan help, sy gelyke."
Kommentaar: Die woorde "sy gelyke" is bygevoeg om by die gelykheidsbeginsel (equality) van die Nuwe Wêreldorde van Satan in te pas. Dit is 'n humanistiese benadering om by die mens en menseregte aan te pas. Gelykheid is een van Satan se groot leuns. Met die laaste oordeel sal daar laastes wees wat eerste sal wees, en eerstes wat laaste sal wees (Luk 13:30 en Mat 19:30). Volgens die skeppingsorde en die gesagsorde deur God ingestel, is die man die hoof van die vrou. Die man is eerste geskape. God het die man uit die stof van die aarde geformeer. Die vrou is egter daarna uit die man geskape. Die man is ook nie terwille van die vrou geskape nie, maar die vrou ter wille van die man. Daar kan dus geen sprake van gelykheid wees nie. (Vgl. Gen 3:16; Kol 3:18; 1 Kor 11:3,8,9; 1 Pet 3:1-7; 1 Tim 2:11-15; Titus 2:3-5; Efés 5:22-33 in die Ou Vertaling) (Vgl. KJV "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.")
Gen. 2:20			"So het die mens dan name gegee aan al die vee en aan die voëls van die hemel en aan al die wilde diere van die veld, maar vir die mens het hy geen hulp gevind wat by hom pas nie."	"Die mens gee toe name vir al die mak diere, die voëls en die wilde diere, maar vir homself het hy nie 'n helper, 'n gelyke, gekry nie."
Kommentaar: Die woorde " 'n gelyke " is weereens bygevoeg om by die gelykheidsbeginsel (equality) van die Nuwe Wêreldorde in te pas. Die vrou is as hulp vir die man geskape en om by hom te pas. (Vgl. King James Version "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for him.")
Gen. 2:23			"Toe sê die mens: Dit is nou eindelik been van my gebeente en vlees van my vlees. Sy salmannin genoem word, want sy is uit die man geneem."	"Toe sê die mens: "Hierdie keer is dit een uit myself,een soos ek. Daarom sal sy "vrou" genoem word; sy is uit die man geneem."
Kommentaar: Vers 23 is verdraai deur die woorde "een soos ek" te gebruik om aan te pas by "sy gelyke" om weereens by die gelykheidsbeginsel van die Nuwe Wêreldorde soos hierbo genoem, in te pas. (King James Version: "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.")
Gen. 2:24			"Daarom sal die man sy vader en moeder verlaat en sy vrou aankleef. En hulle sal een vlees wees."	"Daarom sal 'n man sy vader en moeder verlaat en saam met sy vrou lewe, en hulle sal een word."
Kommentaar: Die woorde "een vlees wees" is vervang met "een word" vgl. Efés 5:31,32 (King James Version: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.")
Gen. 3:22			"Toe sê die Here God: Nou het die mens geword soos een van Ons deur goed en kwaad te ken."	" Toe het die Here God gesê: Die mens het nou soos een van Ons geword deurdat hy alles kan ken."
Kommentaar: Die kind van God besit die vermoë om te onderskei tussen goed en kwaad. Die mens het dus nie alwetend geword soos God, deur alles te ken nie.
Verwysing			Ou Vertaling (1953)	Nuwe Vertaling (1983)
Gen. 5:1			"Dit is die stamboom van Adam. Die dag toe God Adam geskape het, het Hy hom gemaak na die gelykenis van God."	"Hier volg die geslagsregister van Adam. Toe God die mense geskep het, het Hy hulle gemaak as beeld van Homself."
Kommentaar: Hier word na die skepping van Adam verwys. Slegs Adam is na die beeld en gelykenis van God geskape en daarom verwys die Ou Vertaling in genoemde teksvers na die woord "hom". (King James Version: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;") Vgl. ook Gen 1:27 en 1 Kor 11:7 in die Ou Vertaling. Dit is dus 'n dwaling om die term "hulle" hier te gebruik.
Gen. 32:24-30	Maar Jakob het alleen agtergebly, en 'n Man het met hom geworstel tot dagbreek. En toe Hy sien dat Hyhom nie kon oorwin nie, slaan Hy hom op sy heupbeen, sodat die heupbeen van Jakob uit lit geraak het in die worsteling met Hom. Toe sê Hy: Laat Mygaan, want die dag het gebreek. Maar hy antwoord: Ek sal U nie laat gaan nie tensy dat U my seën. En Hy vra hom: Hoe is jou naam? En hy antwoord: Jakob. Toe sêHy: Jy sal nie meer Jakob genoem word nie, maar Israel; want jy het geworstel met God en met die mense en het oorwin. Daarop vra Jakob en sê: Maak tog u Naam bekend! En Hy antwoord: Waarom vra jy tog na my Naam? En Hy het hom daar geseën. Toe noem Jakob die plek Pniël; want, het hy gesê, ek hetGod gesien van aangesig tot aangesig, en tog is my lewe gered. En die son het vir hom opgegaan net toe hy Pnuel verby was; en hy was mank aan sy heup. Daarom eet die kinders van Israel die heupsening, wat aan die heupbeen is, tot vandag toe nie, omdat Hy Jakob op die heupbeen, aan die heupsening, geslaan het.			Jakob het alleen daar agtergebly, en 'n man het tot dagbreek met hom gestoei. Toe die man agterkom dathy nie vir Jakob kan wen nie, het die man, terwyl hy met hom stoei, vir Jakob teen die heup geslaan sodat dit uit die potjie gespring het. Die man het vir Jakob gesê: "Los my, want die dag breek." Jakob het geantwoord: "Ek sal jou net los as jy my seën." Toe vra die man: "Wat is jou naam?" en hy antwoord: "Jakob." Die man het gesê: "Jy sal nie meer Jakob genoem word nie, maar Israel, {Die naam Israel herinner aan die Hebreeuse woorde vir "stryd voer" en "God"} want jy het teen God en teen mense 'n stryd gevoer en jy het dit end-uit volgehou." Toe sê Jakob: "Sê my tog jou naam," en die man vra: "Waarom vra jy my naam?" Hy het vir Jakob net daar geseën, en Jakob het die plek Pniël {Die naam Pniël herinner aan die Hebreeuse woorde vir "aangesig" en "God"} genoem, "want", het hy gesê, "ek het God van aangesig tot aangesig gesien en tog het ek nie omgekom nie." (Laaste twee sinne is uitgelaat)
Kommentaar: Die "Man" waarna in die Ou Vertaling verwys word, is die "Engel van die HERE", deur wie Jesus in die Ou Testament verskyn het. (Vgl. Hos. 12:3-4). Dit is waarom dit in hoofletters is. Dit was nie ‘n gewone man nie, want in vers 30 word daar na God verwys. Die Nuwe Vertaling verwys sommer na ‘n gewone man, wat deur Jakob as "jy" en "jou" aangespreek word. Let op die klein letters. God word hierdeur geminag.
Gen. 43:34	"Hierop het hy aan hulle porsies uitgedeel van die ete wat voor hom staan... En hulle het gedrink en saam met hom vrolik geword."			"Elkeen se kos is van Josef se tafel af aangegee... Hulle het wyn gedrink en saam met Josef dronkgeword."
Lev. 18:7	"Jy mag die skaamte van jou vader en die skaamte van jou moeder nie ontbloot nie: sy is jou moeder jy mag haar skaamte nie ontbloot nie."			"Jy mag nie jou pa die skande aandoen dat jy met jou ma gemeenskap het nie. Sy is tog immers jou ma. Jy mag nie met haar gemeenskap hê nie."
Kommentaar: (KJV) "The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness." Vgl. Gen 9:22-25. Hier word die ontbloting van die naaktheid van jou pa en jou ma verbied. Die Nuwe Vertaling is hier verdraai.
Deut. 23:2			"Geen baster mag in die vergadering van die HERE kom nie; selfs sy tiende geslag mag in die vergadering van die HERE nie kom nie."	"Niemand wat gebore is uit ontoelaatbare geslags- gemeenskap mag lid van die gemeente word nie, selfs nie so 'n persoon se tiende nageslag nie."
Kommentaar: (KJV) "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD." Vgl. Sag 9:6. Die Nuwe Vertaling skram doelbewus weg van die term " baster". In die Nuwe Vertaling word daar t.o.v ontoelaatbare geslagsgemeen-skap verwys na Lev 18:6-20 wat ook alreeds verdraai is.
Rigt. 13:4			"Neem jou dan nou tog in ag en drink geen wyn of sterk drank nie en eet niks wat onrein is nie."	"Jy moet jouself goed oppas en nie wyn of bier drink nie en ook nie iets onreins eet nie."
Kommentaar: "Sterk drank" is verander na "bier". (KJV) "Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing."
Ps. 2:6			Ek tog het my Koning gesalf oor Sion, my heilige berg.	"Dit is Ek wat hom as my koning gesalf het op Sion, my heilige berg."
Kommentaar: Ps. 2 handel oor die stryd en oorwinning van Jesus Christus, maar "hom" en "koning" is met kleinletters.
Ps. 2:7			Die HERE het aan My gesê: U is my -Seun, vandag het Ek self U gegenereer.	Hy het vir my gesê: "Jy is -my seun, van vandag af is Ekjou Vader.
Kommentaar: "Seun" (Jesus) is ‘n keinletter en "U" is verander na "jy" en "jou".
Ps. 2:12			Kus die Seun, dat Hy nie toornig word en julle op die weg -vergaan nie; want gou kan sy toorn ontvlam.	en Hom onderdanig wees, sodat Hy nie toornig word en julle op die pad -omkom nie, want sy toorn ontvlam gou.
Kommentaar: "Kus die Seun", verdwyn hier in vers 12. In die Nuwe Vertaling is hier geen aanduiding dat dit Jesus is nie.
Verwysing			Ou Vertaling (1953)	Nuwe Vertaling (1983)
Ps. 22:17			"...'n bende kwaaddoeners het my omring; hulle het my hande en my voete deurgrawe."	"Die bende misdadigers sak op my toe, hulle bind my hande en voete vas."
Kommentaar: Hierdie Psalm is 'n Messiaanse profesie wat op die kruisiging dui. Jesus se hande en voete is nie vasgebind nie, maar deurgrawe (deurboor).
Ps. 22:19			Hulle verdeel my klere onder mekaar en werp die lot -oor my gewaad.	Hulle verdeel my klere onder mekaar en trek lootjies oor my -mantel.
Kommentaar: Gewaad is met mantel vervang. Die lot is nie oor Christus se mantel gewerp nie, maar oor sy onderkleed (gewaad) vgl. Joh. 19:23-24; Matt. 27:35.
Ps. 23:1			" 'n Psalm van Dawid. Die HERE is my herder; niks sal my ontbreek nie."	" 'n Psalm van Dawid. Die Here is my herder, ek kom niks kort nie."
Kommentaar: (KJV) "The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."
Ps. 23:2			"Hy laat my neerlê in groen weivelde; na waters waar rus is, lei Hy my heen."	"Hy laat my rus in groen weivelde. Hy bring my by waters waar daar vrede is."
Kommentaar: (KJV) "He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters."
Ps. 23:3			"Hy verkwik my siel; Hy lei my in die spore van geregtigheid, om sy Naam ontwil."	"Hy gee my nuwe krag. Hy lei my op die regte paaie tot die eer van sy Naam."
Kommentaar: Die Psalmdigter se siel word verkwik en nie sy liggaamskragte nie. (KJV) "He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake."
Ps. 23:4			"Al gaan ek ook in 'n dal van doodskaduwee, ek sal geen onheil vrees nie; want U is met my: u stok en u staf die vertroos my."	"Selfs al gaan ek deur donker dieptes, sal ek nie bang wees nie, want U is by my. In u hande is ek veilig."
Kommentaar: (KJV) "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."
Ps. 23:5			"U berei die tafel voor my aangesig teenoor my teëstanders; U maak my hoof vet met olie; mybeker loop oor."	"U laat my by 'n feesmaal aansit, terwyl my teëstanders moet toekyk. U ontvang my soos 'n eregas, ek word oorlaai met hartlikheid."
Kommentaar: (KJV) "Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over."
Ps. 23:6			"Net goedheid en guns sal my volg al die dae van my lewe; en ek sal in die huis van die HERE bly in lengte van dae."	"U goedheid en liefde sal my lewe lank by my bly en ek sal tuis wees in die huis van die Here tot in lengte van dae."
Kommentaar: (KJV) "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever." Psalm 23 is so afgewater in die Nuwe Vertaling dat dit sy waarde verloor het.
Ps. 31:6			In u hand gee ek my gees oor; U het my verlos, HERE, God -van trou.	In u hande gee ek my lewe oor, want, Here, troue God, U het my -vrygemaak.
Kommentaar: Dit is Christus se laaste kruiswoorde (Luk 23:46 OAV). Jesus het sy gees aan God oorgegee.
Ps. 69:22			"En hulle het aan my gal gegee as my spys, en vir my dors het hulle my asyn laat drink."	"Toe ek honger was, het hulle my gif aangebied, toe ek dors was, wou hulle my asyn laat drink."
Kommentaar: (KJV: "They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.") Hierdie is nog 'n Messiaanse profesie wat op die kruisiging dui, maar let op hoe is dit verander. Vgl Mat 27:34,48
Ps. 80:16			"en wees 'n beskerming vir wat u regterhand geplant het, en oor die seun wat U vir Uself grootgemaak het."	"Hou in stand wat U met u eie hand geplant het, diewingerdstok wat U vir Uself gekweek het!"
Ps. 80:18			"Laat u hand wees oor die man van u regterhand, oor die menseseun wat U vir Uself grootgemaak het."	"Hou u hand oor die mense wat deur U uitgekies is, oor die volk wat U vir U grootgemaak het."
Kommentaar: King James Version: "Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself."
Ps. 83:13			wat sê: "Laat ons die woninge van God vir ons in besit neem!"	wat gesê het: "Kom ons vat die weivelde van God vir ons."
Kommentaar: (KJV) "Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession."
Ps. 84:9			"HERE, God van die leërskare, hoor my gebed; luister tog, o God van Jakob! Sela."	"Here, almagtige God, hoor my gebed, luister tog, God van Jakob! Sela"
Kommentaar: (KJV) "O LORD God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah." Die benaming "HERE van die leërskare" kom nêrens in die Nuwe Vertaling voor nie. Sien ook Amos 5:27
Ps. 84:10			"o God, ons skild, kyk en aanskou die aangesig van u gesalfde."	"Sien tog om na die koning, ons beskermer, o God; hou u gesalfde onder u sorg."
Kommentaar: (KJV) "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed." In die Nuwe Vertaling lyk dit of die koning die beskermer is.
Verwysing			Ou Vertaling (1953)	Nuwe Vertaling (1983)
Ps. 110:1			Die HERE het tot my Here gespreek: Sit aan my regterhand, totdat Ek u vyande maak 'n voetbank vir u voete.	Die Here het vir my heer die koning gesê: "Kom sit aan my regterhand, en Ek sal jou vyande aan jou onderwerp."
Kommentaar: Dit dui op Jesus Christus, maar hier d.m.v. kleinletters versluier en verloën. ‘Die HERE (Jehovah) het tot my Here (Adonai) gespreek’. Vgl. Matt. 22:44; 26:64; Mark. 12:36; Luk. 20:42-43; Hand. 2:34-35; Heb. 1:13
Ps. 118:26		Geseënd is hy wat kom in die Naam van die HERE!		Prys hom wat in die Naam van die Here kom!
Jes. 7:14		"Daarom sal die Here self aan julle 'n teken gee: Kyk,die maagd sal swanger word en 'n seun baar en hom Immánuel noem."		"Die Here sal daarom self vir julle 'n teken gee: 'n Jong vrou sal swanger word en 'n seun in die wêreld bring en sy sal hom Immanuel noem."
Kommentaar: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Dit is 'n teken ('n wonderwerk) as 'n maagd swanger raak, maar nie as 'n jong vrou swanger raak nie. 'n Jong vrou is nie noodwendig 'n maagd nie. Die Nuwe Vert. skram doelbewustelik van die maagdelike geboorte van Jesus en 'n konnotasie met Matt. 1:23 weg. In Jesaja 7:14 staan daar letterlik dat: "...die maagd sal swanger word en 'n kind hê", m.a.w. die maagd sal 'n kind hê wat nie deur 'n man verwek is nie. Vgl ook Matt 1:18-25
Jes. 49:1			"Hoor na My, eilande, en luister, volke wat ver is! Die HERE het My geroep van die moederskoot af, van my geboorte af het Hy my naam genoem."	"Luister na My, eilande, gee aandag, nasies wat ver is! Die Here het my voor my geboorte al geroep; toe ek nog in my moeder se liggaam was, het Hy my op my naam genoem."
Kommentaar: Hier is 'n poging aangewend om een van die Messiaanse profesieë te versluier. Die woord "My" wat op die Here Jesus dui, is in die Nuwe Vertaling met 'n kleinletter geskryf. As gevolg van hierdie versluiering kan die leser van die Nuwe Vertaling nie vasstel dat hierdie teks na Jesus verwys nie.
Jes.49:2			"En Hy het my mond gemaak soos 'n skerp swaard, in die skaduwee van sy hand het HyMy verberg; en Hy het My 'n skerp pyl gemaak, in sy pylkoker My weggesteek;"	"Hy het my mond soos 'n skerp swaard gemaak, my in die skaduwee van sy hand verberg, Hy het my 'n skerp pyl gemaak en my in sy pylkoker weggesteek."
Kommentaar: Hier is nog 'n Messiaanse profesie versluier deur die woord "My" wat op die Here Jesus dui, in die Nuwe Vertaling met 'n kleinletter te skryf. In die Nuwe Vertaling, word Jesus in al hierdie Messiaanse profesieë verloën.
Jes. 49:3			"en Hy het vir My gesê: Jy is my kneg, Israel, in wie Ek My verheerlik."	"Hy het vir my gesê: Jy is my dienaar, jy is Israel, deur jou maak Ek my mag bekend."
Kommentaar: Weer eens is die Messiaanse profesie versluier deur die woord "My" wat op die Here Jesus dui, in die Nuwe Vertaling met 'n kleinletter te skryf.
Jes.49:5			"En nou sê die HERE wat My van die moeder-skoot af geformeer het om sy Kneg te wees, om Jakob na Hom terug te bring en dat Israel by Hom versamel mag word -- en Ek word geëer in die oë van die HERE, en my God is my sterkte --"	"En nou maak die Here 'n aankondiging, Hy wat my in die moederskoot al sy dienaar gemaak het om Jakob na Hom toe terug te bring sodat Israel nie meer verstrooi sal wees nie. Die Here het my 'n belangrike opdrag gegee en my God gee my die krag om dit te doen."
Kommentaar: Hier is nog 'n Messiaanse profesie versluier deur die woorde "my" en "dienaar" wat op die Here Jesus dui, in die Nuwe Vertaling met kleinletters te skryf.
Jes.52:13			"Kyk, my Kneg sal voorspoedig wees, Hy sal hoog en verhewe, ja, baie hoog word."	"My dienaar sal voorspoedig wees. Hy sal hoog in aansien wees, hy sal baie eer ontvang."
Kommentaar: Die woord "Kneg" wat op die Here Jesus dui, is in die Nuwe Vertaling met die woord "dienaar" vervang en ook met 'n kleinletter geskryf om die Messiaanse profesie te versluier.
Jes. 52:15			"so sal Hy baie nasies laat opspring, konings sal hulle mond oor Hom toehou; want wat aan hulle nie vertel is nie, sien hulle; en wat hulle nie gehoor het nie, word hulle gewaar."	"Maar hy gaan baie nasies laat opspring van verbasing. Konings sal sprakeloos wees oor hom, want hulle sal iets sien wat nie aan hulle vertel is nie, hulle sal iets te wete kom wat hulle nog nooit gehoor het nie."
Kommentaar: Hier is nog 'n Messiaanse profesie versluier deur die woorde "Hy" en "Hom" wat op die Here Jesus dui, in die Nuwe Vertaling met kleinletters te skryf. (Vgl. Rom. 15:21)
Jes. 53:2			"Hy tog het soos 'n loot voor sy aangesig opgespruit en soos 'n wortel uit droë grond. Hy het geen gestalte of heerlikheid gehad, dat onsHom sou aansien nie, en geen voorkoms, dat ons Hom sou begeer nie."	"Die dienaar was soos 'n loot wat voor die Here uitspruit, soos 'n plant wat wortel skiet in droë grond. Hy het nie skoonheid of prag gehad dat ons na hom sou kyk nie, nie die voorkoms dat ons van hom sou hou nie."
Kommentaar: Weer eens is die Messiaanse profesie versluier deur die woord "Hom" wat op die Here Jesus dui, in die Nuwe Vertaling met 'n kleinletter te skryf.
Jes. 53:3			"Hy was verag en deur die mense verlaat, 'n man van smarte en bekend met krankheid; ja, soos een vir wie 'n mens sy gelaat verberg; Hywas verag en ons het Hom nie geag nie."	"Hy was verag en deur die mense verstoot, 'n man van lyding wat pyn geken het, iemand vir wie die mense die gesig wegdraai. Hy was verag, ons het hom nie gereken nie."
Kommentaar: Hier is nog 'n Messiaanse profesieë versluier deur die woord "Hom" wat op die Here Jesus dui, in die Nuwe Vertaling met 'n kleinletter te skryf. (Vgl. Mark 9:12)
Verwysing			Ou Vertaling (1953)	Nuwe Vertaling (1983)
Jes. 53:4			"Nogtans het Hy ons krankhede op Homgeneem, en ons smarte -- die het Hy gedra; maar ons het Hom gehou vir een wat geplaag, deur God geslaan en verdruk was."	"Tog het hy ons lyding op hom geneem, ons siektes het hy gedra. Maar ons het hom beskou as een wat gestraf word, wat deur God geslaan en gepynig word."
Kommentaar: Hier is die woorde "Hy" en "Hom" wat op die Here Jesus dui, in die Nuwe Vertaling met kleinletters geskryf.Weer eens wil die vertalers nie hê dat Jesus hierin gesien moet word nie. Volgens Matt. 8:17 is dit egter onteenseglik 'n Messiaanse profesie.
Jes. 61:1			"Die Gees van die Here HERE is op My, omdat die HERE My gesalf het om 'n blye boodskap te bring aan die ootmoediges; Hy het Mygestuur om te verbind die gebrokenes van hart, om vir die gevangenes 'n vrylating uit te roep en vir die geboeides opening van die gevangenis;"	"Die Gees van die Here my God het oor my gekom; die Here het my gesalf om 'n blye boodskap te bring aan die mense in nood, Hy het my gestuur om die wat moedeloos is, op te beur, om vir die gevangenes vrylating aan te kondig, vryheid vir die wat opgesluit is,"
Kommentaar: Hier is nog 'n Messiaanse profesieë versluier deur die woord "My" wat op die Here Jesus dui, in die Nuwe Vertaling met 'n kleinletter te skryf.
Jes. 63:9			In al hulle benoudheid was Hy benoud, en die Engel van sy aangesig het hulle verlos; deur sy liefde en deur sy medelyde het Hy hulle verlos; en Hy het hulle opgehef en hulle gedra, al die dae van die ou tyd.	uit al hulle nood. Hy was vir hulle nie 'n vyand nie, Hy self was die engel wat hulle gered het. Hy het hulle verlos deur sy liefde en ontferming; Hy het hulle opgetel en hulle altyd gedra.
Jer. 23:5			"Kyk, daar kom dae, spreek die HERE, dat Ek vir Dawid 'n regverdige Spruit sal verwek, en asKoning sal Hy regeer en verstandig handel en reg en geregtigheid doen in die land."	"Daar kom 'n tyd, sê die Here, dat Ek vir Dawid 'n regverdige spruit sal laat opskiet, 'n koning wat verstandig sal regeer. Hy sal die reg eerbiedig en regverdig regeer in sy land."
Kommentaar: Hier is nog 'n Messiaanse profesieë versluier deur die woorde "Spruit" en "Koning" wat op die Here Jesus dui, in die Nuwe Vertaling met kleinletters te skryf.
Dan. 7:13			"Ek het gesien in die naggesigte, en kyk, met die wolke van die hemel het Een gekom soos die Seun van 'n mens" [die mens – "Son of man", soos in die King James Version].	"My nagtelike visioen het voortgeduur: daar het in die wolke iemand aangekom, iemand soos 'n menslike wese."
Kommentaar: Die titel die Seun van die mens kom hier die eerste keer in die Bybel voor, en dui onmiskenbaar op Jesus. Die Nuwe Vert. verdraai dié titel só dat niemand dit kan erken nie. (KJV: "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like theSon of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.")
Dan. 7:14			"En aan Hom is gegee heerskappy en eer en koningskap; en al die volke en nasies en tale het Hom vereer; sy heerskappy is 'n ewige heerskappy wat nie sal vergaan nie, en sy koninkryk een wat nie vernietig sal word nie."	"Aan die menslike wese is die heerskappy en eer en koningskap gegee sodat al die volke, nasies en taalgroepe hom sou dien. Sy heerskappy is 'n ewige heerskappy, dit sal nie tot niet gaan nie; sy koningskap sal nie ophou nie."
Kommentaar: Hier is nog 'n profesie wat op die Here Jesus dui. In die Nuwe Vertaling word daar verwys na " die menslike wese" met 'n kleinletter. Dit is nog 'n poging om die leser te mislei.
Dan. 9:25-26			Nou moet jy weet en verstaan: van die uitgang van die woord af om Jerusalem te herstel en op te bou tot op 'n Gesalfde, 'n Vors, is sewe sewetalle; en twee en sestig sewetalle lank sal dit herstel en opgebou word, met pleine en slote, maar in tye van benoudheid. En ná die twee en sestig sewetalle sal 'n Gesalfdeuitgeroei word, maar sonder iets vir Hom; en die volk van 'n vors wat sal kom, sal die stad en die heiligdom verwoes, maar sy einde sal met 'n oorstroming wees, en tot die einde toe sal dit oorlog wees, vasbeslote verwoestings.	Jy moet nou goed verstaan, vandat die opdrag gegee is dat Jerusalem herstel en herbou moet word, totdat 'nregeerder kom wat deur God uitverkies is, sal sewe tydperke wees. Twee en sestig tydperke lank sal Jerusalem opgebou bly, met strate en verdedigingslote, maar dit sal moeilike tye wees. Aan die einde van die twee en sestig tydperke sal 'n regeerder onskuldig doodgemaak word. Die stad en die heiligdom sal verwoes word deur die volk van 'n ander regeerder wat op die toneel sal verskyn. Die einde sal kom soos 'n oorstroming; daar sal oorlog wees tot die einde toe, rampe soos besluit is.
Kommentaar: Die “Gesalfde” en “Vors” in hierdie verse is Jesus Christus. In die Nuwe Vertaling word dit met“regeerder” vertaal, maar met kleinletters geskrywe soos op so baie ander plekke, om te voorkom dat die leser besef dat dit Jesus is. Dit is ‘n ontkenning van Jesus.
Amos 5:27			"Daarom sal Ek julle anderkant Damaskus in ballingskap wegvoer, sê die HERE wie se Naam God van die leërskare is."	"wanneer Ek julle in ballingskap laat wegvoer ver by Damaskus verby, sê die Here. Sy Naam is Almagtige God."
Kommentaar: "God van die leërskare" is verander na "Almagtige God". Die benaming "Here van die leërskare" kom nêrens in die Nuwe Vertaling voor nie. Hier word na die engele leërmag van God verwys. Vgl. Gen 2:1; 32:1,2; Luk 2:13: Ps 33:6; Jos 5:14,15; Mat 26:53 in die Ou Vertaling. Dit is dus foutief om hierdie besondere benaming elke keer te vervang met die term "Almagtige God".
Verwysing			Ou Vertaling (1953)	Nuwe Vertaling (1983)
Miga 5:1			"En jy, Betlehem Éfrata, klein om te wees onder die geslagte van Juda, uit jou sal daar vir My uitgaan een wat 'n Heerser in Israel sal wees; en sy uitgange is uit die voortyd, uit die dae van die ewigheid."	"Maar jy, Betlehem-Efrata, jy is klein onder die families in Juda, maar uit jou sal daar iemand kom wat aan My behoort en hy sal in Israel regeer. Sy begin lê ver terug, in die gryse verlede."
Kommentaar: Volgens die nuwe weergawe van die teks bestaan die Messias nie van alle ewigheid af nie, maar is sy begin iewers in die gryse verlede. Weer eens wil die vertalers nie hê dat Jesus hierin gesien moet word nie. Volgens Matt. 2:6 en Joh. 7:42 is Miga 5:1 egter onteenseglik 'n Messiaanse profesie.
Sag. 12:8			In die dag sal die HERE die inwoners van Jerusalem rondom beskut, en die struikelende onder hulle sal in die dag wees soos Dawid, en die huis van Dawid soos 'n hemelse wese, soos die Engel van die HERE voor hulle uit.	Daardie dag sal die Here die inwoners van Jerusalem beskerm. Selfs die swakste van hulle sal daardie dag soos Dawid word, en die koningshuis van Dawid sal soos 'n hemelwese word, soos die engel van die Here wat voor hulle uit gaan.
"Engel van die Here" in die Ou Vert. met hoofletters, wys duidelik op Jesus Christus of God self. (Ook "Engel van die Verbond" Mal. 3:1)
Sag. 12:10			"Maar oor die huis van Dawid en oor die inwoners van Jerusalem sal Ek uitgiet die Gees van genade en smekinge; en hulle sal opsienna My vir wie hulle deurboor het."	"Maar oor die koningshuis van Dawid en oor die inwoners van Jerusalem bring Ek 'n gees van welwillendheid en van berou: hulle sal na hom kyk vir wie hulle doodgesteek het."
Kommentaar: In Sagaria sê die Here dat Hy die Heilige Gees, die "Gees van genade en smekinge", net voor die eindtydse koms van die Messias oor Israel sal uitstort sodat hulle Hom aan sy deurboorde hande en voete sal kan uitken en na Hom kan opsien vir redding. Die Nuwe Vert. maak hiervan net 'n humanistiese "gees van welwillendheid" wat onder mense vaardig sal word. Weer eens skryf hulle die Messias uit die Ou Testament en verwys nie na "My vir wie hulle deurboor het" nie, maar na "hom vir wie hulle doodgesteek het." Jesus is nie doodgesteek aan die kruis nie, maar het self sy lewe afgelê (Joh. 10:17-18). Jesus se hande en voete is deurboor. In Joh. 19:33, 34 lees ons baie duidelik dat Hy reeds dood was toe die spies in sy sy gesteek is.
Sag. 13:6			"En as iemand vir hom sê: Watter wonde is daar tussen jou hande? Dan sal hy antwoord: So is ek geslaan in die huis van my vriende."	"En as iemand vir die profeet sê: ‘Wat se wonde het jy dan op jou bors?’ sal hy antwoord: ‘Iemand het my so geslaan in die huis van my vriende.’ "
Mal. 3:10			"Bring die hele tiende na die skathuis, sodat daar spys in my huis kan wees; en beproef My tog hierin, sê die HERE van die leërskare, of Ek vir julle nie die vensters van die hemel sal oopmaak en op julle 'n oorvloedige seën sal uitstort nie."	"Bring die volle tiende na die voorraadkamer toe sodat daar iets te ete in my huis kan wees, en toets My hierin, sê die Here die Almagtige. Toets My of Ek nie die vensters van die hemel vir julle sal oopmaak en vir julle reën sal uitgiet, meer as wat julle kan gebruik nie."
Kommentaar: Die woord "seën" wat allesomvattend is, is met die woord "reën" vervang. (KJV) "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

Verdere Ou Testamentiese veranderings

Bogenoemde is slegs enkele voorbeelde uit die Ou Testament. Oral is pogings aangewend om die Messiaanse profesieë te versluier. 'n Baie algemene metode is bv. om die persoonlike naamwoorde en voornaamwoorde wat op die Here Jesus dui, in die Nuwe Vertaling met 'n kleinletter te skryf. Vgl. bv. Jes. 49:1-7; Jes. 52:13,15; Jes. 53:1-12 en Jes. 61:1.

In Jes. 49:1-7; Jes. 53:1-12 en Jes. 61:1 lees ons talle profesieë oor Jesus se koms na die aarde. In die ou vertaling word woorde soos HERE, Hom, Hy, My, Kneg, U en Regverdige spesifiek met hoofletters vertaal om aan te toon dat dit oor die komende Christus gaan. In die Nuwe Vertaling is dit alles in kleinletters geskryf – geen verwysing na Christus wat sou kom nie of dat Hy God is nie. Wat wou hulle hierdeur bereik? Watter betekenis sou die woorde, “soos Hy gespreek het deur die mond van sy heilige profete van ouds af” (Luk. 1:70), dan nog enigsins hê as die Ou Testamentiese profesieë oor Christus so verduister is?

'n Paar ander ‘regstellings’ is ook gemaak, bv. in Prediker 10:2. Die Ou Vert. sê: "Die hart van die wyse is na regs, maar die hart van die dwaas is na links." Die Nuwe Vertaling sê: "Die verstand van een wat wysheid het, gee hom krag, maar dié van 'n dwaas maak hom swak." Dit is nóg 'n verdraaiing!

Die Nuwe Testament

Die aanslag van die vertalers het ernstige skade aan die Nuwe Testament berokken. Daar bestaan 'n lys van 256 veranderings, verdraaiings en weglatings. Dit is nie eers naastenby almal nie. Let veral daarna op hoe baie die Naam "Jesus" en "Christus" met opset weggelaat is. In Handelinge is die woord"dissipels" etlike kere met "gelowiges" vertaal. Vergelyk bv. Hand. 6:1 en 7. In Paulus se briewe is die woord "heiliges" met "gelowiges" of met "gemeente"vertaal. Telkens kom dit op 'n verlaging in standaarde neer, wat die gevolg is van die feit dat dit semanties foutiewe weergawes van die oorspronklike terme is.

In die Nuwe Testament is 16 volledige verse uitgelaat en nog 'n paar so te sê volledige verse. Let gerus daarna op dat die Nuwe Vertaling byvoorbeeld 'n Matt. 18:10 het en net daarna 'n Matt. 18:12. Matt. 18:11 is heeltemal uitgelaat. Hierdie vers bevat egter die sentrale tema van die hele Bybel, nl. “Want die Seun van die mens het gekom om te red wat verlore is.” Sou God hierdie vers as onbelangrik beskou?

Wat die weglatings van tekste betref, is dit opvallend dat die betrokke teksnommers in sommige eksemplare van die Nuwe Vertaling verskyn, maar niks daarna nie. Die nommering van die tekste in die Nuwe Vertaling verskyn nie aan die linkerkant soos by die Ou Vertaling nie, maar is rond en bont gedoen wat veroorsaak dat die weggelate tekste nie opgemerk word nie. Indien mens die weggelate tekste met 'n hoog aangeskrewe Engelse vertaling soos die King James Version van 1611 vergelyk, dan word die tekste as outentiek en deel van die Heilige Skrif beskou. In die Nuwe Vertaling is hulle egter uitgelaat. Die "Jehovah-getuies" is baie tevrede met die Nuwe Vertaling, omdat dit dieselfde gedeeltes van die Skrif verdraai en weglaat, wat hulle ook doen in hulle "New World Translation".

Die volgende is van die vernaamste veranderings en weglatings in die Nuwe Testament van die Nuwe Vertaling (1983):

MATTHEUS:

1:25 "Eersgeborene" is uitgelaat. Dit is in lyn met die moderne ontkenning van die maagdelike geboorte van Christus.
5:44 "seën die wat julle vervloek, doen goed aan die wat julle haat" is uitgelaat.
6:13 VERS UITGELAAT: "want aan U behoort die koninkryk en die krag en die heerlikheid tot in ewigheid, Amen."

(1 Kron. 29:11) Die lofprysing aan die Vader, wat Christus vir die slot van die gebed beveel, word weggelaat. Dit doen afbreuk aan die diep nederigheid voor die ALLERHOOGSTE God en Vader, asook die kinderlike vertroue, wat Christus met hierdie woorde in ons harte wil wek. Waarom? Die nuwe benadering is mos om God as "Pappa", en "jy" en "jou" aan te spreek. Mens vind dat die onbybelse benadering om God as ‘n "maatjie" te beskou, al meer gewild word.Godsdiens moet nou ‘n persoonlike “trip” word, vol vals ekstase en jolyt. Ek, word nou die sentrum van godsdiens, nie my Skepper en HERE nie.6:27 "een el by sy lengte voeg" is verander na "een enkele uur by sy lewe voeg".
8:29, 14:14, 14:25, 15:30, 17:11, 17:20, 18:2, en 24:2 "Jesus" is uit al dié tekste uitgelaat.
9:13 "tot bekering" is uitgelaat.
13:51 "Jesus - Here" is uitgelaat.
15:8 "nader My met hulle mond" is uitgelaat.
16:3 "geveinsdes" is uitgelaat.
17:21 VERS UITGELAAT: "Maar hierdie geslag gaan nie uit behalwe deur gebed en vas nie".
18:11 VERS UITGELAAT: "Want die Seun van die mens het gekom om te red wat verlore is".
19:9 "en die wat die geskeie vrou trou, pleeg egbreuk" is uitgelaat; en "hoerery" is verander na "owerspel".

20:16 "want baie is geroep maar min uitverkies" Hierdie dringende waarskuwing is doelbewus uitgelaat.

20:22 "en gedoop word met die doop waarmee Ek gedoop word" is uitgelaat. Die verwysings na die doop, soos Jesus gedoop is, (Jesus is deur Johannes die Doper gedoop "om alle geregtigheid te vervul - Matt 3:15) is weggelaat. In hierdie teks verwys Jesus na die Doop (soos hy gedoop is) en die nagmaal (soos Hy dit sou instel) as sakramente van geloof.

21:12 "van God" is uitgelaat.
23:8 "Christus" is uitgelaat.
23:14 VERS UITGELAAT: "Wee julle skrifgeleerdes en Fariseërs, geveinsdes, want julle eet die huise van die weduwees op, en doen vir die skyn lang gebede. Daarom sal julle 'n swaarder oordeel ontvang". Christus is hiermee besig om die liefdeloosheid en skyn van die Fariseërs te ontbloot.
25:13 "waarop die Seun van die mens kom nie" is uitgelaat.
27:35 "sodat vervul sou word wat deur die profeet gespreek is: Hulle het my klere onder mekaar verdeel en oor my gewaad die lot gewerp" is uitgelaat. In die Ou Vertaling is die kruisverwysing na Psalm 22:19, waarin dit baie duidelik is die lot oor Jesus se gewaad gewerp sou word.
28:6 "Hy het opgestaan" (Dit wil sê, Hy het die mag oor die dood gehad en die mag om self op te staan.) is verander na "Hy is uit die dood opgewek". Dit is nog 'n poging om Jesus se Godheid te ontken. "Here" is ook uitgelaat.
28:7 "Hy het opgestaan uit die dode" is verander na "Hy is uit die dood opgewek". Kyk Joh. 10:17-18 en Mark 9:31
28:9 "en terwyl hulle op weg was om dit aan sy dissipels te vertel" is uitgelaat.

28:20 "Amen" aan die einde van die hoofstuk is uitgelaat.

MARKUS

1:2 Hier vind ons 'n LEUEN in die Nuwe Vertaling. Daar lees ons: "In die boek van die profeet Jesaja staan daar geskrywe: ‘Kyk, Ek stuur my boodskapper voor jou uit. Hy sal die pad vir jou regmaak". Hierdie profesie oor Johannes die Doper staan nie in Jesaja nie, maar in Mal. 3:1. Die Nuwe Vertaling lieg dus hier vir ons. In Num. 23:19 en Titus 1:2 lees ons egter duidelik dat God nie kan lieg nie. Die woord “U” wat na Jesus verwys, word hier met die woord “jou’ vervang.

In Mark. 1:3 eers vind ons die profesie uit die boek Jesaja. Is die Nuwe Vertaling deur die Heilige Gees (die Gees van die waarheid) geïnspireer? Die ou vertaling is heeltemal korrek as dit sê: " Soos geskrywe is in die Profete: ..." – meervoud (Mark. 1:2 in die ou vertaling).

2:17 "tot bekering" is uitgelaat.
5:13 en 7:27 "Jesus" is uitgelaat.
6:11 "Voorwaar Ek sê vir julle, dit sal vir Sodom of Gomorra verdraagliker wees in die oordeelsdag as vir daardie stad" is uitgelaat. Die toorn van God oor die sonde word vermy.
6:33 "Hom" met 'n hoofletter, is verander na "hulle". "by Hom vergader" is uitgelaat. Die feit dat baie Jesus herken het, het as gevolg van hierdie verdraaiing verlore gegaan.
7:16 VERS UITGELAAT: "As iemand ore het om te hoor, laat hom hoor". Hierdie waarskuwing is doelbewus uitgelaat.
9:24 "Here" is uitgelaat.
9:44 en 9:46 VERS UITGELAAT: "waar hulle wurm nie sterf en die vuur nie uitgeblus word nie". Vgl met Jes 66:24 OAV
9:49 "en elke offerhande sal met sout gesout word" is uitgelaat.
10:21 "neem die kruis op" is uitgelaat. Hierdie opdrag is uitgelaat om mense te mislei. Volgens die soetsappige kultusse en voorspoedsgodsdienste moet dit altyd met jou goed gaan, anders is daar fout met jou geloof. Dawid, Paulus en baie ander kinders van God het nie altyd net voorspoed belewe nie. Was daar fout met hulle geloof?
10:24 "vir die wat op hulle goed vertrou" is uitgelaat. Hierdeur word die vertroue op Christus se verdienste op die agtergrond geskuif.
11:10 "in die Naam van die Here" is uitgelaat.
11:26 VERS UITGELAAT: "Maar as julle nie vergewe nie, sal julle Vader wat in die hemele is, ook julle oortredinge nie vergewe nie". Hierdie belangrike woorde van Jesus Christus is totaal uitgelaat.
13:14 "waarvan gespreek is deur die profeet Daniël" is uitgelaat.
13:33 "waak en bid" is verander na "wees waaksaam" dit is dus nie nodig om te bid nie.
15:28 VERS UITGELAAT: "en die Skrif is vervul wat sê: En Hy is by die misdadigers gereken". Vgl Luk 22:37; Jes 53:12

16:6 "Hy het opgestaan" is verander na "Hy is uit die dood opgewek." Hier word weer ontken dat Jesus die mag oor die dood gehad het en die mag om self uit die dood op te staan. Vgl. Joh 10:17-18 en Mark 9:31
16:9-20 In 'n voetnota word dié hele gedeelte as 'n latere byvoeging beskou. Die Nuwe Vertaling poog om Markus 16:9-20 af te maak as "bygevoeg" tot die grondteks. Markus 16:16 word verder gewysig vanaf "Hy wat glo en hom laat doop, sal gered word;..." na: "Wie tot geloof gekom het en gedoop is, sal gered word;..." ‘n Subtiele wysiging om mense wat "gedoop" is VOORDAT hulle tot geloof gekom het, gewoonlik deur besprinkeling as babatjies, onder die wanindruk te bring dat hul "doop" hier ingesluit is.

16:20 "Amen" aan die einde van die hoofstuk is uitgelaat.

LUKAS

1:15 "sterk drank" is verander na "bier".

1:28 "geseënd is jy onder die vroue" is uitgelaat.
2:33 "Josef" is verander na "Sy vader". Let op die implikasie van hierdie verandering. Josef was nie Jesus se biologiese vader nie. Die maagdelike geboorte word hier ontken asook die goddelike wonder dat Jesus sondeloos ontvang is. (Jes. 7:14)

2:40 "in die Gees" is uitgelaat.
2:43 "Josef en sy moeder" is verander na "sy ouers".
4:4 "maar van elke woord van God" is uitgelaat.
4:8 "gaan weg agter my Satan" is uitgelaat.
4:18 "om die wat verbryseld van hart is te genees" is uitgelaat.
4:41 "die Christus" is uitgelaat.
6:48 "sy fondament was op die rots" is verander na "die huis was goed gebou". Die rots, Jesus Christus (1 Kor. 3:11), word dus nie meer genoem nie.
7:22 "Jesus" is uitgelaat.
9:54 "Soos Elia ook gedoen het" is uitgelaat.
9:55 "en sê: Julle weet nie van hoedanige gees julle is nie" is uitgelaat.
9:56 "want die Seun van die mens het nie gekom om die mense se lewe te verderf nie, maar te red" is uitgelaat.
9:57 "Here" is uitgelaat.
11:2 "Onse... wat in die hemele is... laat u wil geskied, soos in die hemel net so ook op die aarde;" is uitgelaat.
11:4 "maar verlos ons van die Bose" is uitgelaat.
11:29 "die profeet" is uitgelaat.
12:31 "God" is uitgelaat.
13:25 "Here" is uitgelaat.
17:36 VERS UITGELAAT: "Twee sal op die land wees; die een sal aangeneem en die ander verlaat word".
21:36 "ontvlug" is verander na "behoue deurkom".

22:64 "en Hom in die aangesig geslaan en Hom gevra" is uitgelaat.
23:17 VERS UITGELAAT: "En hy was verplig om vir hulle op die fees een los te laat".
24:6 "Hy het opgestaan" is verander na "Hy is uit die dood opgewek". Dit is nog 'n poging om Jesus se Godheid te ontken. Hier word ontken dat Hy die mag oor die dood gehad het en die mag om self uit die dood op te staan. Vgl. Joh 10:17-18 "Daarom het die Vader My lief, omdat Ek my lewe aflê om dit weer te neem. Niemand neem dit van My af nie, maar Ek lê dit uit Myself af. Ek het mag om dit af te lê en Ek het mag om dit weer te neem. Hierdie gebod het Ek van my Vader ontvang. "

24:49 "Jerusalem" is uigelaat.

24:53 "Amen" aan die einde van die hoofstuk is uitgelaat.

JOHANNES

1:14 en 18 "eniggeborene" is verander na "enigste", wat 'n ander betekenis aan hierdie begrip verleen.
1:27 "wat voor my geword het" is uitgelaat. Christus se ewigheid (as ware God) word ontken.

2:22 "toe Hy opgestaan het uit die dode" is verander na "nadat Hy uit die dood opgewek is" Dit is nog 'n poging om Jesus se Godheid te ontken. Hier word ontken dat Hy die mag oor die dood gehad het en die mag om self uit die dood op te staan.

3:13 "wat in die hemel is" is uitgelaat. Weereens word Christus se Godheid aangetas.
3:15 "nie verlore mag gaan nie" is uitgelaat.
4:42 "die Christus" is uitgelaat.
5:3 "wat op die roering van die water gewag het" is uitgelaat.
5:4 VERS UITGELAAT: "want 'n engel het op bepaalde tye in die bad neergedaal en die water geroer. Die een wat dan die eerste ingaan ná die roering van die water, het gesond geword, aan watter siekte hy ook al gely het". Die antwoord van die sieke in vers 7 is 'n duidelike bewys daarvan dat die weglatings van verse 3 en 4 foutief is.
16:16 "omdat Ek na die Vader gaan" is uitgelaat. Kon die vertalers nie hier sien dat hulle met 'n valse en onvolledige manuskrip te doen het nie? Die dissipels doen dan aan die einde van vers 17 navraag oor Jesus se woorde: "Ek gaan na die Vader."

21:14 "nadat Hy opgestaan het uit die dode" is verander na "nadat Hy uit die dood opgewek is"

21:25 "Amen" aan die einde van die hoofstuk is uitgelaat.

HANDELINGE

3:26 "Sy Kind Jesus" is verander na "sy Dienaar".
4:24 "Here, U is die God" is verander na "Here dit is U".
7:30 "Engel" is met 'n kleinletter geskryf, "van die Here" is uitgelaat. "Engel van die Here" in die Ou Vert. met hoofletters, wys duidelik op Jesus Christus of God self. (Ook "Engel van die Verbond" Mal. 3:1)
7:37 "na Hom moet julle luister" is uitgelaat. (Vgl. Deut 18:15)

7:38 "die Engel" is met 'n kleinletter geskryf. (Sien 7:30)
8:37 VERS UITGELAAT: "Toe sê Fillipus: As u glo met u hele hart, is dit geoorloof. En hy antwoord en sê: Ek glo dat Jesus Christus die Seun van God is". Die kern van die doopopdrag - jy mag gedoop word indien jy in Christus glo.
9:5 "dit is hard vir jou om teen die prikkels te skop" is uitgelaat. Kyk Hand. 26:14.
9:6 "en terwyl hy bewe en verbaas was, sê hy: Here wat wil U hê moet ek doen? En die Here antwoord hom:" is uitgelaat. Die vervalsing hier is ook baie duidelik in die lig van Hand. 22:10.
10:6 "Hy sal jou sê wat jy moet doen" is uitgelaat.
15:11, 16:31 en 19:4 "Christus" is uitgelaat.
15:18 "Aan God is al sy werke van ewigheid af bekend" is verander na "Dit is van ouds af bekend".

15:34 VERS UITGELAAT: "Maar Silas het besluit om daar te bly."

19:10 "Jesus" is uitgelaat.
20:28 "Wat Hy deur sy eie bloed verkry het" is verander na "wat Hy vir Hom verkry het deur die bloed van sy eie Seun". Let weer op die implikasie.
22:16 "Here" is uitgelaat.
23:9 "Laat ons nie teen God stry nie" is uitgelaat.
24:7 VERS UITGELAAT: "maar Lisias die owerste oor duisend het gekom en hom met groot geweld uit ons hande geneem".
24:8 "en bevel gegee dat sy beskuldigers voor u moet kom" is uitgelaat.
28:29 VERS UITGELAAT: "En toe hy dit gesê het, het die Jode onder groot woordestryd met mekaar weggegaan"

ROMEINE

1:16 "van Christus" is uitgelaat.
1:19-31 "hoerery" is uitgelaat. Daar word duidelik gepoog om die uitspraak vir die leser te versag.
6:11 "onse Here" is uitgelaat.
8:1 "vir die wat nie na die vlees wandel nie, maar na die Gees" is uitgelaat. Hierdeur word die eis tot 'n lewe van heiligmaking verswyg.
9:28 "in geregtigheid" is uitgelaat.
10:15 "van die wat die evangelie van vrede verkondig" is uitgelaat.
11:6 "en as dit uit die werke is, dan is dit nie meer genade nie; anders is die werk geen werk meer nie" is uitgelaat.
13:9 "jy mag geen valse getuienis gee nie" is uitgelaat.
14:6 "en hy wat die dag nie waarneem nie, neem dit nie waar nie tot eer van die Here" is uitgelaat.
14:21 "waardeur jou broer aanstoot neem – of waarin hy swak is nie" is uitgelaat.

14:22 "geloof" is met "oortuiging" vervang.
15:8 "Jesus" is uitgelaat.
15:29 "van die evangelie" is uitgelaat.

16:1 "ons suster Fébé, wat 'n dienares is" is verdraai na "Febe, wat 'n diaken is" (Daar was geen vroue diakens in daardie tyd nie, aangesien dit teenstrydig met God se voorskrifte is. Vgl Hand 6:3; Hand 6:1-7; 1 Tim 3:8-10,12 (Hulle vroue moet ook waardig wees. vgl. King James Version) (Die diakens moet manne van een vrou wees…) Ef 5:22-24; 1 Kor 11:3,8,9; 1 Pet 3:1-7; 1 Tim 2:11-15; Filip 1:1,12
16:24 VERS UITGELAAT: "Die genade van die Here Jesus Christus sy met julle almal! Amen".

1 KORINTHIËRS

5:4, 9:1, 9:18 en 16:23 "Christus" is uitgelaat.

6:20 "duur... en in julle gees wat aan God behoort" is uitgelaat.

10:28 "want die aarde behoort aan die Here en die volheid daarvan" is uitgelaat.

14:1 Die woord "profeteer" in die Ou vertaling word bv in die nuwe vertaling meestal aangedui as "woord verkondig" Indie Ou Vertaling: ...beywer julle op die geestelike gawes, maar veral om te profeteer" Nuwe Vertaling: "... maar veral om God se boodskap te verkondig." Die Griekse woord wat hier gebruik word, is "profeteer" - dieselfde stam as vir die woord "profeet." Die bedoeling is om openbaring van God oor 'n spesifieke saak oor te dra - die werk van 'n profeet - en nie net om die Woord te verkondig nie. Die Nuwe Vertaling het hier dus 'n eie (sinnige) interpretasie.

15:8 "en laaste van almal het Hy verskyn ook aan my as die ontydig geborene" is verander na "Heel laaste het Hy ook aan my, die misgeboorte, verskyn". Paulus se verwysing na homself as die ontydig geborene kan geensins as 'n misgeboorte vertaal word nie. Hy verwys hier na die tyd van sy geboorte (as Christen, m.a.w. sy wedergeboorte) en nie na die aard daarvan nie. 'n Misgeboorte is 'n miskraam, en dit doen geweld aan die betekenis van hierdie teks. Hierdie vers is in die 1996 uitgawe reggestel.

15:47 "die Here" is uitgelaat. Hier verklaar die Nuwe Vertaling dat “die eerste mens” uit die aarde is en “die tweede mens is uit die hemel.” Verwysende na Adam en Christus. Jesus Christus was egter nie 'n mens uit die hemel nie, maar God self wat mens geword het op aarde. Die ou vertaling is korrek as dit sê: “die tweede mens is die Here uit die hemel.”

Die deur word wawyd oopgemaak vir die Antichris om te verklaar dat hy ‘n mens uit die hemel is.

16:22 "Jesus Christus" is uitgelaat.

2 KORINTHIËRS

4:10 "Here" is uitgelaat.
5:18 "Jesus" is uitgelaat.
10:7 en 11:31 "Christus" is uitgelaat.
11:31 "onse" is uitgelaat.

GALÁSIËRS

3:1 "om die waarheid nie gehoorsaam te wees nie" is uitgelaat. Dit verander die betekenis van die teks.
3:17 "in Christus" is uitgelaat. Die teks is nou heeltemal verdraaid.
4:7 "deur Christus" is uitgelaat.
6:15 "in Christus Jesus" is uitgelaat.
6:17 "die Here" is uitgelaat. "in my liggaam" is verander na "aan my liggaam".

EFÉSIËRS

3:9 "deur Jesus Christus" is uitgelaat.
3:14 "van onse Here Jesus Christus" is uitgelaat.
5:30 "van sy vlees en van sy bene" is uitgelaat.
6:1 "in die Here" is uitgelaat.
6:10 "my broeders" is uitgelaat.

FILIPPENSE

2:16 "deurdat julle die woord van die lewe vashou" is verander na "deur die woord van die lewe uit te dra". Lees vers 14 tot 16 om die verband van die verandering in betekenis te kan sien.
3:16 "laat ons eensgesind wees" is uitgelaat.
4:13 "Christus" is uitgelaat. Dit is ‘n miskenning van Jesus Christus.

KOLOSSENSE

1:2 "en die Here Jesus Christus" is uitgelaat.
1:14 "deur sy bloed" is uitgelaat. Hier word die bloed van Jesus uit die verlossingsplan weggelaat. Dit is een van verskeie kernstellings oor verlossing wat in die Nuwe Vertaling in die slag bly.
1:28 "Jesus" is uitgelaat.
3:6 "kinders van die ongehoorsaamheid" is verander na "mense wat aan Hom ongehoorsaam is".

THESSALONICENSE

1:1 "van God onse Vader en die Here Jesus Christus" is uitgelaat.
2:19, 3:11, 3:13 en 2 Thess. 1:12 "Christus" is uitgelaat.

1 TIMÓTHEÜS

1:1 en 5:21 "Here" is uitgelaat.
1:17 "alleenwyse God" is verander na "enigste God".
2:7 "in Christus" is uitgelaat.
3:16 "God is geopenbaar in die vlees" is verander na "As mens het Jesus in die wêreld gekom". Hierdie teks oor die Here Jesus se Godheid is só verander dat dit sy uiters belangrike grondbetekenis verloor het.
4:12 "in gees" is uitgelaat.
5:21 "Here" is uitgelaat.
6:5 "onttrek jou aan sulke mense" is uitgelaat. Was hierdie opdrag vir die vertalers onaanvaarbaar?

2 TIMÓTHEÜS

1:11 "van die heidene" is uitgelaat.
4:1 "die Here" is uitgelaat.
4:22 "Jesus Christus" is uitgelaat.

TITUS EN FILÉMON

Titus 1:4 "die Here" is uitgelaat.
Filémon v. 6 "Jesus" is uitgelaat.
Filémon v. 12 "maar neem jy hom" is uitgelaat.

HEBREËRS

1:3 "deur Homself" is uitgelaat.
2:7 "en hom oor die werke van u hande aangestel" is uitgelaat. "U het hom 'n weinig minder as die engele gemaak" is verander na "U het hom 'n kort tydjie minder as die engele gemaak".
3:1 "Christus" is uitgelaat.
7:21 "volgens die orde van Melgisedek" is uitgelaat. "U is" wat na Jesus verwys, is verander na "Jy is" wat die hele betekenis wysig.

10:9 "o God" is uitgelaat.
10:29 "Onrein geag" is verander na "geminag". Dit verander die betekenis.
10:30 "spreek die Here" is uitgelaat.
10:34 "in die hemele" is uitgelaat.

PETRUS

1:22 "siele deur die Gees" is uitgelaat.
4:1 "vir ons" is uitgelaat. Die vers is nou vir 'n verkeerde vertolking oop.
4:14 "wat hulle betref, word Hy wel gelaster; maar wat julle betref word Hy verheerlik" is uitgelaat.
5:11 "die heerlikheid... alle" is uitgelaat. Dit verander die teks en water die trefkrag daarvan af.
5:14 "Jesus" is uitgelaat.
2 Pet. 2:17 "vir ewig" is uitgelaat.

1 JOHANNES

1:7 "Christus" is uitgelaat.
2:7 "van die begin af" is uitgelaat.
4:3 "Christus in die vlees" is uitgelaat.
4:9 "eniggeborene" is verander na "enigste".
4:19 "Hom" is uitgelaat. Dit verander die betekenis.
5:7 "Want daar is drie wat getuig in die hemel: die Vader, die Woord en die Heilige Gees, en hierdie drie is een." Dié kernteks oor die Godheid van Jesus as die vleesgeworde Woord, asook oor die Drie-eenheidsleer, is drasties verander en kortgeknip na: "Daar is dus drie wat getuig". Daar het feitlik niks van die teks se oorspronklike betekenis oorgebly nie, en in die Nuwe Vertaling is 1 Joh. 5:7 presies net soos wat dit in die verdraaide "bybel" van die Jehovah-getuies voorkom. Uit die aard van die saak is hulle baie bly hieroor omdat hulle die Godheid van Jesus loën.
5:8 "en daar is drie wat getuig op die aarde" is uitgelaat om die huidige én die voorafgaande teks nog meer kragteloos en betekenisloos te maak.
5:13 "die Naam van" is twee maal uitgelaat. Hierdie teks oor geloofsekerheid is ook kortgeknip en van baie van sy betekenis beroof.

OPENBARING

1:8 "die begin en die einde" is uitgelaat.
1:9 "Christus" is twee maal uitgelaat.
1:11 "Ek is die Alfa en die Omega, die eerste en die laaste" is uitgelaat.
2:13 "Ek ken jou werke" is uitgelaat.
5:14 "vier en twintig" is uitgelaat. "wat lewe tot in alle ewigheid" is in die laaste gedeelte van die vers uitgelaat.
8:13 "engel" is verander na "arend".
11:17 "en wat kom" is uitgelaat, waarskynlik omdat dit na die wederkoms van Jesus Christus verwys.
12:17 "Christus" is uitgelaat.

12:18 "En ek (Johannes) het op die sand van die see gaan staan." is verander na "Die draak het toe op die seestrand gaan staan."

14:5 "voor die troon van God" is uitgelaat.
16:5 "Here" is uitgelaat.
16:17 "van die hemel" is uitgelaat.
20:9 en 12 "God" is uitgelaat.
21:24 "van die wat gered word" is uitgelaat.
22:21 "Christus" is uitgelaat.

Waar daar teksverse in die Nuwe Vertaling uitgelaat is, verskyn daar onderaan hierdie bladsye egter 'n nota dat hierdie verse nie in die gebruikte grondteks voorkom nie. Die gedeelte in Mark. 16:9-20 word ook aangedui dat dit nie in die gebruikte grondteks voorkom nie, maar tog is hierdie 12 verse ingesluit. Hoekom dan so inkonsekwent? Sou dit darem net te veel wees om so 'n groot gedeelte ook weg te laat? Wys dit hoe korrup die grondteks, wat vir die Nuwe Vertaling gebruik is, werklik is? Dieselfde het gebeur met nog 12 verse vanaf Joh. 7:53 tot Joh. 8:11. Hulle is daar, maar skep verwarring by die Christen as daar in die voetnota gelees word dat hulle eers later bygevoeg is.

Houding ten opsigte van die Nuwe Vertaling

Dit is baie duidelik dat fundamentele Christene nie die Nuwe Vertaling ongekwalifiseerd as die Woord van God kan aanvaar nie. Daar is heeltemal té veel onverskoonbare foute, menslike vertolkings en weglatings in wat met voorbedagte rade deel van die vertalingstrategie gevorm het. Ons glo aan die Goddelike inspirasie, onfeilbaarheid en onveranderlikheid van die Bybel as die Woord van God. Dit moet in sy letterlike, grammaties-historiese grondbetekenis eerbiedig word.

Die Bybel is nie 'n speelbal vir teoloë wat allerlei nuwe idees het nie. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let hoe die Bybel homself definieer

Dit is nie menslik in oorsprong nie, maar die Woord van God: "En ons het die profetiese woord wat baie vas is, waarop julle tog moet ag gee soos op 'n lamp wat in 'n donker plek skyn, totdat die dag aanbreek en die môrester opgaan in julle harte; terwyl julle veral dit moet weet, dat geen profesie van die Skrif 'n saak van eie uitlegging is nie; want geen profesie is ooit deur die wil van 'n mens voortgebring nie, maar, deur die Heilige Gees gedrywe, het die heilige mense van God gespreek" (2 Pet. 1:19-21).
Jesus is die vleesgeworde Woord deur wie God aan ons geopenbaar is (Joh. 1:1-14). Sy woorde, wat in die Bybel opgeteken is, is gees en lewe (Joh. 6:63).
God is die outeur van die Bybel: "Die hele Skrif is deur God ingegee en is nuttig tot lering, tot weerlegging, tot teregwysing, tot onderwysing in die geregtigheid, sodat die mens van God volkome kan wees, vir elke goeie werk volkome toegerus" (2 Tim. 3:16).

Die Here sal diegene straf wat sy Woord minag deur moedswillig daaraan te verander:

"Julle mag by die woord wat ek julle beveel, niks byvoeg nie, en julle mag daar niks van weglaat nie; sodat julle die gebooie van die HERE julle God mag onderhou, wat ek julle beveel" (Deut. 4:2).
"Elke woord van God is gelouter; Hy is 'n skild vir die wat by Hom skuil. Voeg by sy woorde niks by nie, sodat Hy van jou nie rekenskap vorder en jy as 'n leuenaar openbaar word nie" (Spr. 30:5-6).
"As iemand by hierdie dinge byvoeg, dan sal God oor hom die plae byvoeg waarvan in hierdie boek geskrywe is. En as iemand iets van die woorde van die boek van hierdie profesie wegneem, dan sal God sy deel wegneem uit die boek van die lewe en uit die heilige stad en uit die dinge waarvan in hierdie boek geskrywe is" (Op. 22:18-19).

Die Bybel word nie meer as God se geïnspireerde Woord aanvaar nie

Die sterk humanistiese inslag in die meeste moderne Bybelvertalings kan toegeskryf word aan die feit dat 'n groot aantal teoloë nie meer die Bybel as die geïnspireerde Woord van God aanvaar nie. Dit is waarom hulle dit nou vertaal en vertolk net soos wat hulle wil. Die nuwe Afrikaanse vertaling is 'n produk van hierdie benadering.

In sy bekende boek, The Battle for the Bible, sê dr. Lindsell (1976:17-19) dat die Bybel die enigste betroubare bron van die Christelike geloof is. Daar is volgens hom drie moontlike benaderings tot die Bybel:

1. Die Bybel is tot in sy kleinste besonderheid volkome betroubaar en foutloos. Slegs godsdienstige waarhede word daardeur aan ons geopenbaar.

2. Die Bybel is nie betroubaar nie. Indien hierdie stelling korrek is, dan berus die Christendom op 'n valse fondament. Slegs 'n dwaas en 'n misleide persoon sal 'n geloof aanhang waarvan die openbaringsbron onbetroubaar en vals is.

3. Die Bybel bevat waarheid én foute. 'n Gedeelte daarvan is dus betroubaar, en die res is vals en teenstrydig.

Dr. Lindsell (1976:19-20) bevestig die feit dat die oorheersende skrifbeskouing deur die eeue heen op die absolute foutloosheid, goddelike oorsprong en gesag van die Bybel gebaseer was. Enige foute wat daarin mag wees, was nie doelbewus nie on kon bv. by transkribering ingesluip het. Die kerkhervormers het ook die standpunt gehuldig dat mense net die instrumente was waardeur God sy woord aan ons geopenbaar het (Packer, 1979:7).

Die Bybel bevestig self sy outentieke karakter:

"Die hele Skrif is deur God ingegee" (2 Tim. 3:16).
"...geen profesie is ooit deur die wil van 'n mens voortgebring nie, maar, deur die Heilige Gees gedrywe, het die heilige mense van God gespreek" (2 Pet. 1:21).
"Die hemel en die aarde sal verbygaan, maar my woorde sal nooit verbygaan nie" (Luk. 21:33).
"Want die woord van God is lewend en kragtig en skerper as enige tweesnydende swaard" (Heb. 4:12).
"Die hele Skrif is deur God ingegee en is nuttig tot lering, tot weerlegging, tot teregwysing, tot onderwysing in die geregtigheid, sodat die mens van God volkome kan wees, vir elke goeie werk volkome toegerus" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

How to Brainwash a Nation

2012-09-16T21:34:00.000+02:00

How to Brainwash a Nation

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth” – Vladimir Stalin

The effect of Communism (Stalinism / Marxism / Leninism) and how SA was won

Yuri Bezmenov

(Aka Thomas Schuman)

Soviet Defector / Journalist and KGB Propaganda Expert.

Original interviews were held in 1983

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fQoGMtE0EY

According to Mr Bezmenov, there are 4 stages of Communist / Leninist / Marxist takeover of a country / nation or effectively “brainwashing a nation into Communism”. These 4 stages are as follows:

1) Demoralisation

2) Destabilisation

3) Crises

4) Normalisation

From this whole process of “brainwashing” a nation, only about 15% is concentrated on Money, Time and Manpower, the other 85% is focused on Subversion which leads to Destructive Aggressive behaviour.

“Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Or more specifically, subversion can be described as an attack on the public morale and, “the will to resist intervention are the products of combined political and social or class loyalties which are usually attached to national symbols” (Sounds like the ANC and their Struggle doesn’t it?)

Subversion which makes up 85% of this brainwashing process can only be done when a “nation” is willing. It’s like a two-way street. In order to successfully practice Subversion, the target country / enemy’s borders needs to be opened from the inside as well as from International pressure. In South Africa the following statement applies:

“Whoever controls the tip of Africa controls the world. We want it for world communism.” – Vladimir Lenin.

You see, South Africa was the last stand between the World and total Communist takeover and it had to be destroyed at all costs. As South Africa was cut-off from the World with International sanctions during apartheid, it became clear to them that if the most important Country was literally cut-off at the Borders. We even had a Border War to confirm this where the German, Cuban, African and Soviet Communists saw first-hand the power of the South African people’s resistance and thus Subversion could not be successful until the Borders were opened. Subversion cannot be practiced with blunt force (Military Force) as you need your enemy morally vulnerable from within. Once your enemy is “morally weakened” into thinking his policies are “morally wrong”, you have already won the most important part of the war itself. Guns do not win wars, soldiers do and if your soldiers are morally attacked, they become defeated.

“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas” - Joseph Stalin

Some signs of Subversion:

Subversion cannot work unless the population is willing (think about the 1992 apartheid referendum).

The “Subvertor” is not someone killing, blowing up bridges or waging a full out war. He is the Journalist, the Professor, the Student, and the Diplomat etc. Usually the Liberals, referred to by Communists as “Useful Idiots”. Once the plan is complete, these useful idiots are no longer needed and then eliminated (Think about all the White Liberal Anti-Apartheid activists that have been murdered in the last 18 years or so)

Subversion is a two-way street, borders need to be open for Subversion to be successful and to control the population through International trade (Imports and Exports) as to oversupply them with things that they do not need, but want to have because it gives social status. (Think about all the things imported into South Africa since 94 and it is not limited to physical things)

Subversion dates back to 2500BC from a Chines Philosopher named Sun Tzu said that:

“To implement state policy in a war like manner is the most counterproductive, barbaric and inefficient manner to fight on the battlefield”- Sun Tzu

War is essentially just a continuing of State Policy. To implement State Policy by fighting is the most ineffective way of doing it. The highest art of warfare is not to fight at all, but to Subvert.

“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas” - Joseph Stalin

So, for Subversion to take effect, you need the 4 fundamental phases, Demoralisation, Destabilisation, Crises and Normalisation.

“Democracy is the road to socialism” – Karl Marx

Demoralisation (Phase 1)

This process takes between 15 to 20 years and takes its aim is to sufficiently educate and entire generation of students / children in order to manipulate their ideology, perception and personality. Effectively brainwashing from the day they are born. It usually consists of Influencing, Propaganda or Direct Contact in various areas. What happens is that a country is targeted by means of finding something that the targeted country is doing Morally Wrong (like Apartheid). You will find small groups (ANC, PAC, SACP etc.) against that society and they soon get aid from small groups of agents (Local and International Media, Intellectuals, Students etc.) and foreign companies etc. So the Subversion starts from the inside as well as from the outside. In their view of Subversion and for it to be successful, you do not face your enemy head-on, but influence them in a manner where they are helping you to self-destruct and collapse by means of International Sanctions and also by playing with your Moral values by making people feel guilty for their Wrong doing.

These areas of Influencing, Propaganda and Direct contact happens in the following structures:

Religion – Is eroded by Cults, Sects, and / or completely taken away. Religious institutions are replaced with false institution to change religious views. (Materialism, Sex, Sport, Alcohol, Social Status etc.)

How many people still attend Church these days and how often do we read about Christianity being under threat in schools, universities and everywhere we as Christians were thought true Christian values. These days you are not allowed to have a “Christian Based Education” where different races / cultures integrate as it is offensive to Atheists, Muslim or other parts of society, so it is completely taken away.

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people” – Karl Marx
“Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand” – Karl Marx
“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion” – Karl Marx

Education System - Is taken away from learning constructive subjects like Maths and Science and replaced with inferior non-important and social subjects like Life Orientation, Consumer Studies and Civil Technology.

If not replaced completely, the Standard is simply lowered to the level of a 5 year old. In SA you have about 33 subjects to choose from which about half is totally useless. It is also known that the Old Higher, Standard and Lower grade system has been replaced by a single grade across the board as well as Pass Marks being as low as 30%. This is not even the tertiary education like Universities and Collages who have double standards applied to different race groups with different pass rates / marks. Ever wonder why so many White Matric Students get so many Distinctions, some between 7 and 8 to 12 pending on the amount of subjects they have? They are not smarter by any means, but the low standards of pass marks enable them to look super intelligent when in fact they are taught nothing.

“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted” – Vladimir Stalin

Social Life – Replace traditional established Institutions or organisations with fake institutions or organisations.

These institutions then only emphasise on the social scene where the main focus is turned away from all the ills in the society and replaced by thoughts of good paycheques, what brand names you use and wear, what car you drive and how much alcohol you can consume in one hour. This stage focuses solely on breaking down any Moral Standards that one previously had and resulting in teen pregnancies, teen alcoholism, having sex as early as 10 years old or sleeping with as many people before you get married. This breaks down the entire Moral Fibre of society and replaces it with materialised and immoral values though mass media, advertising, corporations, individuals and non-elected members such as civil rights groups.

“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included” – Karl Marx

Administration (Power Structures) – Governments as substituted by non-elected members of society such as Media, Newspapers, TV Shows, Sport etc.

All demand and encourage a specific form of personal change and sacrifice or risk being an outsider in your own society. Media and Liberals saying it is bad to “discriminate” and you should embrace mutliculturism, same sex marriages, gay rights etc., all of which are against our RELIGIOUS VIEWS. These non-elected members of society have the power to change your personal, political and religious views, as well as selectively hide you from the truth and replaces it with more “Politically Correct” ideas, values and views.

If you do not want to integrate with different culture, race or religious groups you are deemed a RACIST and BIGOT or some “Far-right” separatist, hell bent on committing mass murders of anyone who is not from the same culture, race or belief. You see, they seek that “Morally Wrong” practice (apartheid) and then they make you constantly feel guilty about it in order for your own moral boundaries to be broken down and to become subjected to their more open, liberal and morally sound “views and practices”.

“While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State” - Vladimir Stalin

Law Enforcement System – Police are made out to look like criminals, people who do not respect civil rights etc. They are accused of torture and abuse and the criminals always made to look like innocent victims of police brutality and their rights abused.

Some examples of this can be seen with the recent Marikana incident as well as the MSN from America always portraying their police force, especially the White officers, as racists when they confront murderers, drug dealers and gang members. It is never seen, shown or mentioned that these criminals (aka innocent victims) are armed, dangerous and intend to cause more violence or that the police acted in self-defence. You will also notice that murderers are mentioned as robbers and housebreakers that did not intend to kill, but to steal. They are also referred to in the MEDIA as “BOTCHED ROBBERIES”, “BOTCHED HIJACKINGS” etc. They simply add the word “BOTCHED” to the incident and automatically the criminal did not intend on killing, and it is played out as he eventually had no other option but to kill as if it was self-defence.

No, murderers and rapists are not murderers and rapists, but they were forced into committing the crime because of social pressure and the Media portrays just that. An unequal society (whether social, financial or race) is always the cause of the problem. In the case of the 3000+ White farmers killed in SA, the “innocent victim” who murdered his employer was forced to do so because his employer treated him unfairly, did not pay him enough money or used derogatory names.

The next time my employer calls me stupid or incompetent for making mistakes that cost the company valuable money, I am going to go to his house, break in and tie him and his wife up first, then poor some boiling water on them to extract info of where the safe is. Next I am going to beat him unconscious and if he is not, rape his wife in front of him. If his children happens to be home I am also going to torture then in a separate room and also rape his 16 year old daughter while her little brother is forced to watch. If I eventually get what I want, I am going to shoot him and his wife execution style, then take the children to the bathroom, run a bath full of hot water and them drown them in it. All because my Boss called me an idiot for making mistakes that cost him money! When I get caught by the police, I am going to claim police brutality and them tell the media my sad story about how disadvantaged I was and also the victim of an unequal society that forced me to do what I did. They (Media) will then call for the investigation into the elledged police brutality, gain some public support and then call the murder a “Botched Robbery”.

Labour and Employer Relations - Destroys the traditional concept / practice between Employee and Employer on the “bargaining between two parties” and replaces it with unions, monopoly companies etc.

Here you can clearly see how Communism has broken down this system and replaced it with huge national unions / federations such as Cosatu, Fedusa, Nactu and more recently in the news lately, NUM.

“The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness” – Vladimir Stalin

You see, they had to start with the millions of workers that SA’s economy depended on and turn them against the state, pre 94 (NP) as well as post 94 (Revolutionary ANC). Pre 94 you saw the millions of workers striking for equal treatment and an end to apartheid, after 94 they kept on striking but this time is was for wage increases and added benefits. Strikes places huge pressure on the Economy and thus stimulates Inflation. The more strikes, the more the damage to the Economy and ultimately a higher Inflation rate. Workers are then ensured increased wages, but inflation eats up everything extra and workers are often left earning less money that what they earned before the strike. These strikes are then promoted and done on a regular basis, and all who benefits from it, are the Union leaders, so they encourage it. The unions don’t mind when their members strike as they will surely benefit from it while the true implications of the strike is never explained to the workers. They are only told the company they work for, are controlled by Whites and they earn millions per month while the workers are starving. This constant “playing with the workers feelings” together with a broken down Education system, ensures that the masses are kept uneducated and thus more controllable and easily brainwashed.

“Politics begin where the masses are, not where there are thousands, but where there are millions, that is where serious politics begin” – Vladimir Stalin

Then, you also see an increase of “protesters” from various communities around the country protesting for service delivery, free basic services etc. These protests often turn violent and when the masses (ANC supporters) start turning on their elected leaders (ANC), their elected leaders redirects the issues to past instances where the cause of “unjust policies” (Apartheid) of the past, has deeper consequences than anybody could have expected. You see, they keep hammering on that “Morally Wrong” practice they used start the subversion process on the public. Same principle applies, using hate towards the White oppressor together with providing inferior education, leads to more controllable masses.

“Every cook has to learn how to govern the state” – Vladimir Stalin

“No amount of political freedom will satisfy the hungry masses” – Vladimir Stalin

In the end, strikes and protests are only a motivational tool used by Communists to change the ideology of the workers. If the workers do not get what they want, violence usually follows. When workers strike, there is usually also in increase in propaganda. Media jumps on the bandwagon and soon sympathises with the worker’s conditions and then spread this propaganda worldwide in order to gain more international sympathy. All the while the worker’s current situation was created by their elected leaders (ANC) and unions (Cosatu, NUM etc.). Then, these workers are further brainwashed by the Media, Corporations and Union bosses into thinking they need more and more and more. (Advertising, Marketing and material belongings). These workers then also claim that they and their families are starving and they cannot send their kids to school. The Marikana worker’s wives were quoted saying “we are tired of sitting at home while our husbands bring home peanuts (less money)”. Apparently their wives are sitting at home, starving to death and their children uneducated while pictures of the wives show them very healthy (overfed) and education free for many black children in public schools. So, they obviously do not need extra food or money for education as it is simply not needed. They are brainwashed into thinking that they do. You will also notice that there is a total and utter collapse of social structures by the means the justify violence.

“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed” – Vladimir Stalin

“Equality is the biggest propaganda tool. No religion has ever mentioned equality, just the opposite. Equality is like building a house on sand, destined to collapse” – Yuri Bezmenov (KGB Propaganda expert)

Destabilisation (Phase 2)

During this phase, the communists have planted their demoralisation tactics by means of subversion and they now let the nation destroy itself. By this time, they have divided an entire nation and you soon see internal fighting between people, unable to compromise and they become Antagonistic. There are 4 fundamental targets within Destabilisation and they are:

Economy (ANCYL)

Law and Order (Unions)

Military (Unions)

Media (Liberals)

At this stage, they make use of “sleepers”. Sleepers have been subconsciously “brainwashed” within the Demoralisation process and now become active in above mentioned targets. They now become community leaders, party leaders, union leaders, youth leaders and are very public. Other examples of these “sleepers” would be gay / woman rights activists etc., suddenly demanding political justice / recognition.

In developing nations (SA), this process starts when Legitimate, Elected Structures do not function anymore (ANC) and “artificial bodies” are injected into society. These artificial bodies are made up of Non-Elected “Committees” such as Media, Social Workers or groups that claim to know what society needs. These groups are often of the views of mixed Religions and Ideology, and often make demands. If they do not get what they want, they will take it by force (Revolutionary Committees claiming power).

This ultimately leads to phase 3 (Crises).

Crises (Phase 3)

At this stage, society cannot function productively anymore and everything collapses. The population at large is now looking for some sort of saviour. Religious people looking for God, workers demand a socialist government, people in general looking for a strong leader. Soon Marxists/communists stand up and claim they have the answer or power to bring change (Unions, Non-Elected Leaders, Individuals etc.). Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Julius Malema in South Africa are good examples.

In the Crises phase, one of two outcomes will happen, either a Civil War breaks out (Lebanon) or International Intervention (Invasion) much like Iraq and Afghanistan invaded by the US. This then leads to the final Phase, Normalisation.

Normalisation (Phase 4)

At this phase, self-appointed leaders try and normalise a country by military force. Soon revolutionary leaders, agents, Liberals Intellectuals etc. are eliminated / excecuted to ensure no opposition and/or competition. This is when the official liberation (oppression) starts.

In Afghanistan this has happened numerous times, see table below:

Presidents of the Republic/Chairmen of the Revolutionary Council

Nur Mohammad Taraki 30 Apr 1978 - 16 Sep 1979
Hafizullah Amin 16 Sep 1979 - 27 Dec 1979
Babrak Karmal 27 Dec 1979 - 20 Nov 1986
Mohammad Chamkani 20 Nov 1986 - 30 Sep 1987
Mohammad Najibullah 30 Sep 1987 - 30 Nov 1987

This is the final phase of complete and total Communist takeover of a country.

To counter these phases can be done, but it has to be stopped before any of them are already in motion.

Normalisation – Can only be reversed by Military force.

Crises – Can only be stopped by covert operations, sanctions etc. before Civil war / invasion takes place. Firstly eliminate the possibility of invading forces and then to prevent Civil war. This is usually where liberals deny that this sort of intervention is needed and will do anything in their power to stop it.

Destabilisation – This can only be achieved by restricting certain liberties / freedoms of certain groups who are self-declared enemies of a society. This is usually where Liberal Media will make the most fuss as civil rights are now trampled and against the constitution. It’s like denying certain civil rights to criminals and then have the media portray is as being morally wrong. Also, do not allow these “groups” to take political power and do not elect them to power. Deny them the right to capitalise on their own ideology / ideas and motives. You also need to curb monopoly powers of Unions and businesses to save the Economy from collapsing. You need to stop Private companies from effectively “raping” the public from their hard earned money to buy things that they do not need (constant advertising). Private companies can also be prohibited by from “forcing” you to buy more products (why do most products only last a year?).

When we were still being rules by our Religion, it instilled a certain moral awareness and restriction upon us in order for us not to buy or use what we do not need. Since Religion was abandoned by the Communists, these moral values have disappeared completely. This is how Communism “hijacked” Capitalism, their enemy. In the end, Destabilisation can ONLY BE STOPPED by SELF-RESTRAIN from the public.

There is a joke that communists tell, and that is:

“If the Sahara were to turn into a communist state, it will have a shortage of sand”

Demoralisation - Can be reversed by restricting the import of Propaganda. A nation’s people need to be morally and religiously strong enough to stop “imported” ideas, methods and views from entering their country (music, movies, political views, sexual orientation, drugs, alcohol, different religions etc.) that are foreign. Only then can the process be stopped.

To stop Subversion completely, the nation has to be brought back to their Religion because it is not material.

“As long as something Material is allowed to become a guiding principle in our lives, we die” – Unknown Soviet Computer Scientist

Not just physically, but mentally and morally as well. Throughout history there are countless examples of these Socialist / Communist societies. Look at Egypt, Maya, Mohan Jacaro and Babylonia, where entire societies disappeared because they gave up their Religion. More recently, African / Communist countries are following in the same footsteps and on the brink of disappearing through Genocide, Famine, Crime, Hunger and much more, simply because they are focused on Material values rather than Religion.

Do not strike with Force; strike with Moral (Mental) Ability and values. If you do not have that ability, it is time to DEVELOP IT!!!!

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR - PART 1

2012-05-08T10:36:00.000+02:00

This has got to be the most eyeopening reading material that you will most probably not find anymore for it's "Political Incorrectness". As we know, especially in SA and other democratic liberal countries race discussions are considered taboo and we are said to "BE THE SAME". Nothing can be further from the truth as Race is more than Skin Deep. All credit to Prof J Phillippe Rushton for this exceptional masterpiece! Original can be viewed and saved from below link.

F.V de Wet

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

A Life History Perspective
2nd Special Abridged Edition
Professor J. Philippe Rushton
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C22
Acclaim for J. Philippe Rushton’s

Author
J. Philippe Rushton is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario, Canada. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D.
and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological
Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior
and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and
nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most
published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in
Science and Technology, Who’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.

Part 1

Race Is More Than Skin Deep

Is race real? Do the races differ in
behavior as well as in body? Are such views
just the result of white racism? Modern
science shows a three-way pattern of race
differences in both physical traits and
behavior. On average, Orientals are slower
to mature, less fertile, less sexually active,
less aggressive, and have larger brains
and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the
other pole. Whites fall in the middle,
but closer to Orientals than to Blacks.

White men can't jump. Asian men can’t either. But according to Jon Entine’s new book, Taboo:

Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, Black men — and women

— sure can. The usual reason given for Black athletic success is that Blacks have little chance to get

ahead elsewhere. But Entine’s new book shows that in sports, Blacks have a genetic edge.

The physical facts Entine reviews are quite well known. Compared to Whites, Blacks have

narrower hips which gives them a more efficient stride. They have a shorter sitting height which provides

a higher center of gravity and a better balance. They have wider shoulders, less body fat, and more

muscle. Their muscles include more fast twitch muscles which produce power. Blacks have from 3 to

19% more of the sex hormone testosterone than Whites or East Asians. The testosterone translates

into more explosive energy.

Entine points out that these physical advantages give Blacks the edge in sports like boxing,

basketball, football, and sprinting. However, some of these race differences pose a problem for Black

swimmers. Heavier skeletons and smaller chest cavities limit their performance.

Race differences show up early in life. Black babies are born a week earlier than White babies,

yet they are more mature as measured by bone development. By age five or six, Black children excel in

the dash, the long jump, and the high jump, all of which require a short burst of power. By the teenage

years, Blacks have faster reflexes, as in the famous knee-jerk response.

East Asians run even less well than Whites. The same narrow hips, longer legs, more muscle, and

more testosterone that give Blacks an advantage over Whites, give Whites an advantage over East Asians.

But admitting these genetic race differences in sports leads to the greater taboo area — race differences in

brain size and crime. That is why it is taboo to even say that Blacks are better at many sports.

The reason why Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks, and so make poorer runners

is because they give birth to larger brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women

had to have a wider pelvis. Further, the hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless

in school and prone to crime.

Race in History

Even before there were any intelligence tests, philosophers, statesmen, merchants, and others
thought there was a link between race, intelligence, and cultural achievement. Aristotle, Plato, Voltaire,
and David Hume all believed this. So did Broca, Darwin, Galton, and all the founders of evolution and
anthropology. Even Freud believed in some race differences. But this began to change in the 1920s with
Franz Boas and James B. Watson, who believed that culture could change just about anything. Today,
writers like Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel (1997) and S. J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man
(1996) tell us there is no link between race, intelligence, and culture. The differences we see are all just
because of bad luck or White racism.

The first explorers in East Africa wrote that they were shocked by the nudity, paganism,
cannibalism, and poverty of the natives. Some claimed Blacks had the nature "of wild animals... most of
them go naked... the child does not know his father, and they eat people." Another claimed they had a
natural sense of rhythm so that if a Black "were to fall from heaven to earth he would beat time as he goes
down." A few even wrote books and made paintings of Africans with over-sized sex organs.
Sound familiar? All just a reflection of racism? Maybe so, but these examples are not from 19th
Century European colonialists or KKK hate literature. They come from the Muslim Arabs who first
entered Black Africa over 1,200 years ago (in the 700s), as detailed in Bernard Lewis’s 1990 book, Race
and Slavery in the Middle East.

Several hundred years later, European explorers had the same impressions. They wrote that
Africans seemed to have a very low intelligence and few words to express complex thoughts. They
praised some tribes for making fine pottery, forging iron, carving wooden art, and making musical
instruments. But more often, they were shocked by the near nakedness of the people, their poor sanitary
habits, simple houses, and small villages. They found no wheels for making pots, grinding corn, or for
transport, no farm animals, no writing, no money, and no numbering systems.
The Whites who explored China were just as racist as those who explored Africa, but their
descriptions were different from what they and the Arabs had written about Africans. In 1275 Marco Polo
arrived in China from his native Italy to open trade with the Mongol Empire. He found that the Chinese
had well built roads, bridges, cities connected by canals, census takers, markets, standardized weights and
measures, and not only coins, but paper money as well. Even a postal system was in existence. All of
these made him marvel when he compared the Chinese to what he saw in Europe and the Middle East.
Even though he was an Italian, proud of his people and well aware of the greatness of Ancient Rome,
Marco Polo wrote: "Surely there is no more intelligent race on earth than the Chinese."

Historical research bears out Marco Polo’s impressions. As early as 360 B.C., the Chinese used
the cross bow and changed the face of warfare. Around 200-100 B.C., the Chinese used written exams to
choose people for the civil service, two thousand years before Britain. The Chinese used printing about
800 A.D., some 600 years before Europe saw Gutenberg’s first Bible. Paper money was used in China in
1300, but not in Europe until the 19th and 20th centuries. By 1050 Chinese chemists had made
gunpowder, hand grenades, fire arrows, and rockets of oil and poison gas. By 1100, factories in China
with 40,000 workers were making rockets. Flame throwers, guns, and cannons were used in China by the
13th century, about 100 years before Europe.

The Chinese used the magnetic compass as early as the 1st century. It is not found in European
records until 1190. In 1422, seventy years before Columbus’s three small ships crossed the Atlantic, the
Chinese reached the east coast of Africa. They came in a great fleet of 65 ocean going ships filled with
27,000 soldiers and their horses, and a year’s supply of grain, meat, and wine. With their gunpowder
weapons, navigation, accurate maps and magnetic compasses, the Chinese could easily have gone around
the tip of Africa and “discovered” Europe!

In the last five centuries, the European nations leapfrogged over the Chinese in science and
technology. Since 1950, however, Japan has beaten the West in the production of many high-tech
products. Other Pacific Rim countries (China, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea) now follow Japan’s
path. Africa, on the other hand, has fallen further behind. The poor conditions of African countries and
Black America have become a concern to many. Much of the optimism of the U.S. Civil Rights
movement of the 1960s is gone, along with the high hopes for independent African nations. Trillions of
dollars of foreign aid have poured into Africa. Yet African economies have declined since the Europeans
left.
Neglect and decay are seen everywhere in Africa and much of the West Indies. International
corporations often have to provide their own power, their own water, and their own phones. In the age of
computers, fax machines, and the world wide web, getting a dial tone in many African cities is difficult.

Race in Today’s World

For the past twenty years I have studied race differences in brain size, intelligence, sexuality,
personality, growth rate, life span, crime, and family stability. On all of these traits, Orientals fall at one
end of the spectrum, Blacks fall at the other end, and Whites fall in between.
Chart 1 lists the differences between the three major races: Orientals (East Asians, Mongoloids),
Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids), and Blacks (Africans, Negroids). To keep things simple, I will use these
common names instead of scientific ones and will not discuss subgroups within the races.
On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, and less sexually active, have larger
brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the opposite end in each of these areas. Whites fall in the
middle, often close to Orientals. The evidence shows that this is due to both genes and environment. I
have suggested an evolutionary theory to explain this three-way pattern.
Of course, these differences are averages. The full range of behaviors, good and bad, is found in
every race. No group has a monopoly on virtue or vice, wisdom or folly. However, this pattern is true
over time and across nations and this means that we cannot ignore it.

Plan of the Book

This chapter briefly describes the 3-way pattern of race differences. The following chapters
provide more detail. Many statistics in Chart 1 come from the United States, where Orientals are a “model minority.” They have fewer divorces, fewer out-of-wedlock births, and fewer reports of child abuse than Whites. More Orientals graduate from college and fewer go to prison.

On the other hand Blacks are 12% of the American population and make up 50% of the prison
population. In the U.S., one out of every three Black men is either in jail, on probation, or awaiting trial.
That is much more than the number who graduate from college.

Chapter 2 shows how this racial pattern in crime is found worldwide. INTERPOL Yearbooks
show the rate of violent crime (murder, rape, and serious assault) is four times lower in Asian and Pacific
Rim countries than in African and Caribbean countries. Whites in the United States and in European
countries are intermediate. The 1996 INTERPOL violent crime rates clearly show this pattern: Asian
countries, 35 violent crimes per 100,000 people; European countries, 42; and African countries, 149.

Chapter 2 also finds that Oriental children are slower to mature than White children while Black
children are faster to mature. This is true for the rate of bone and tooth development and the age at which
a child first sits, crawls, walks, and puts on clothing. Oriental children do not begin to walk until about 13
months, White children at 12 months, and Black children at 11 months.

Chapter 3 looks at racial differences in sexual activity. Orientals are the least sexually active,
whether measured by age of first intercourse, intercourse frequency, or number of sexual partners. Blacks
are the most active on all of these. Once again Whites are in between. These contrasts in sexual activity
lead to differences in the rate of diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and chlamydia. There are high
levels of AIDS in Africa, Black America, and the Caribbean and low levels in China and Japan. European
countries again fall in between.

The races differ in rate of ovulation (Chapter 3). Not all women produce one egg during the
menstrual cycle. When two or more eggs are produced at the same time, a pregnancy is more likely. So is
the likelihood of producing fraternal twins (i.e., two-egg twins). The number of twins born is 16 out of
every 1,000 births for Blacks, 8 out of every 1,000 births for Whites, and 4 or less for Orientals. Triplets
and other multiple births are rarest in Orientals and highest in Blacks, with Whites in between.
Chapter 4 is about race and intelligence. Hundreds of studies on millions of people show a threeway
pattern. IQ tests are often made to have an average score of 100, with a “normal” range from 85 to
115. Whites average from 100 to 103. Orientals in Asia and the U.S. tend to have higher scores, about
106, even though IQ tests were made for use in the Euro-American culture. Blacks in the U.S., the
Caribbean, Britain, Canada, and in Africa average lower IQs -- about 85. The lowest average IQs are
found for sub-Saharan Africans -- from 70 to 75.

Chapter 4 also looks at brain size. Bigger brains have more brain cells and this leads to higher
IQs. The races vary in brain size. The Collaborative Perinatal Project followed more than 35,000 children
from birth to seven years. Orientals had larger brains than Whites at birth, four months, one year, and
seven years. Whites had larger brains than Blacks at all ages (see Chart 2). The data on adults in Chart 2
come from a sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel.
Chapter 5 asks whether differences in our brain size, our bodies and our behavior are because of
genes, environment, or both. It also asks whether individual differences can tell us anything about race
differences.

Why Are There Race Differences?

Why does history show Africa trailing behind Asia and Europe? Why do Whites average between
Orientals and Blacks in so many areas? Why do the groups with larger brains have lower rates of two-egg
twinning? To know the answer you must look at all of the traits taken together (see Chart 1).
The traits in Chart 1 form a pattern. No known environmental factor can explain all of them taken
together. There is, however, a gene based explanation. The patterns make up what is called a “lifehistory.”
They evolved together to meet the trials of life -- survival, growth, and reproduction.

Chapter 6 discusses the gene based “life-history theory” I have proposed to explain the racial
pattern in brain size, intelligence, and other traits. Evolutionary biologists call it the r-K scale of
reproductive strategies. At one end of this scale are r-strategies that rely on high reproductive rates. At
the other end are K-strategies that rely on high levels of parental care. This scale is generally used to
compare the life histories of different species of animals. I have used it to explain the smaller but real
differences between the human races.
On this scale, Orientals are more K-selected than Whites, while Whites are more K-selected than
Blacks. Highly K-selected women produce fewer eggs (and have bigger brains) than r-selected women.
Highly K-selected men invest time and energy in their children rather than the pursuit of sexual thrills.
They are “dads” rather than “cads.”

Chapter 7 shows that the race differences in reproductive strategies make sense in terms of human
evolution. Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and non-Africans then
split about 100,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites split about 40,000 years ago.
The more north the people went “Out of Africa,” the harder it was to get food, gain shelter, make
clothes, and raise children. So the groups that evolved into today’s Whites and Orientals needed larger
brains, more family stability, and a longer life. But building a bigger brain takes time and energy during a
person’s development. So, these changes were balanced by slower rates of growth, lower levels of sex
hormones, less aggression, and less sexual activity.

Why? Because Africa, Europe, and Asia had very different climates and geographies that called
for different skills, resource usage, and lifestyles. Blacks evolved in a tropical climate which contrasted
with the cooler one of Europe in which Whites evolved and even more so with the cold Arctic lands
where Orientals evolved.

Because intelligence increased the chances of survival in harsh winter environments, the groups
that left Africa had to evolve greater intelligence and family stability. This called for larger brains, slower
growth rates, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression, and less impulsivity. Advanced
planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity all increased in the non-Africans.
I realize that these topics are controversial and that readers will have many questions.

Chapter 8 lists the questions I am most asked about Race, Evolution, and Behavior, and my answers to them.

Conclusion

Race is more than “just skin deep.” The pattern of Oriental-White-Black differences is found
across history, geographic boundaries, and political-economic systems. It proves the biological reality of
race. Theories based only on culture cannot explain all the data shown in Chart 1. The next three chapters
describe the scientific findings on race differences (summarized in Chart 1) in greater detail. Later
chapters explain why these differences follow such a pattern.
Additional Readings
Entine, J. (2000). Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It.
New York: Public Affairs Press.
Lewis, B. (1990). Race and Slavery in the Middle East. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rushton, J. P. (1997). Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence, 25, 7-
20.

Apartheid - Part 12

2012-04-15T19:52:00.000+02:00

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 12– The Architects of Apartheid

By Mike Smith
11th of May 2010

Today when one asks, “Who was the Architect of Apartheid” one would almost unanimously get the answer of “Dr. H.F. Verwoerd”. It is today taught in schools and all over the internet as “fact”...

The saying goes that when you want to beat a dog, it is easy to find a stick. Today the Afrikaners, the decedents of the Boers, are bearing the brunt of this accusation as “”The Creators, and or the Monsters of Apartheid”.

Now some Afrikaners would proudly accept that title as the inventors of a system of segregation called Apartheid and as I have said, they might even try to patent this model, but do they actually have a claim to it?

When one does the proper research one will find that the segregation policies that eventually became known as “Apartheid” was actually not started by the Boers/Afrikaners but by the British High Commissioner Lord Alfred Milner between the end of the Second Anglo Boer War and unification of South Africa in 1910.
Milner started a group called his “Kindergarten” made up of civil servants close to him. Why, you ask?

In those days and especially in 1905 the subject of “The Native” question and the “Asian menace” first came up when the Cambridge Anthropologist, Alfred Haddon, addressed a meeting between the “British Association for the Advancement of Science” and The South African Associations. (Source, A Commonwealth of Knowledge, Science, Sensibility, and White South Africa 1820-2000, Saul Dubow)

Sir Godfrey Langdon, author of “The South African Native Affairs Commission report”, urged Howard Pim to outline an overall scheme of racial segregation.

The official report from those days is called, “Report of the 75th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 1905 (London, 1906”).

Lord Milner was an arch racist who had some serious dualistic problems. He described himself as a “Race Patriot” in a letter to Haldane, 21Jan. 1901, “Very Confidential”, in Headlam(ed.), Milner Papers, ii.206.

Milner had no time for the Boers and many times tried to slight them on their characteristics – for example he said that the Boers can continue to fight a guerrilla war for a while, “just as low types of animal organisms will long survive injuries which would kill organisms of a higher type outright...” (M van Wyk Smit, Telling the Boer War”)

Milner could not synchronise his hatred for the Boers, their “Backwardness” as he described it, with the countless defeats of the British and the superiority of the Boers on the battlefield.

In those days the post Anglo Boer war British Government of South Africa were hoping to erase differences between Boers/Afrikaners and the English speaking South Africans. They thought it would be only a matter of time before these two groups would fully merge.

The “Selbourne Memorandum” of 1907 opens and speaks of these two principal races of South Africa - British and Dutch – to overcome their historical differences. The memorandum declared that both groups were “Teutonic in origin” and that the fusion between them would only be a matter of time as it was with the Saxons and the Normans who were distantly related.

The Selbourne memorandum said that there were more differences between the people of Ireland or Canada than there were between the Boers and the British of South Africa.
Basically, the idea before the Unification of South Africa in 1910 was to unite the two white tribes and separate them from the blacks.

Two of Milner’s “Kindergarten” group, Lionel Curtis and Patrick Duncan confided in each other,

“The fact is that we have all been moving steadily from the Cape idea of mixing up white, brown and black and developing the different grades of colour strictly on the lines of European civilisation, to the very opposite conception of encouraging as far as possible the black man to separate from the white and to develop a civilisation, as he is beginning to do in Basutoland, on his own lines.” (Patrick Duncan Papers BC294C23.3.8, University of Cape Town, Manuscripts and Archives, Curtis to Duncan, 26 Nov 1907).

The term applied to this British strategy was called “Segregation”. The Afrikaans word for it would be “Apartheid”

As can be seen so far, the idea of Apartheid came from various sources. The Whites of South Africa, whether it be Boer or Brit had an intimate knowledge of the Blacks of South Africa. It was basically a common consensus that Whites and Blacks have to be separated.

We ALL ...black and white...wanted Apartheid. This can be seen from the aspirations of the Sothos and the Swazis who wanted their own kingdoms where they could preserve their own culture, language, religion and where they could rule themselves. The Tswanas who got Botswana is another example. Therefore we are all guilty of the so called “Crime of Apartheid”.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with any nation who wishes to secure and preserve their way of life. There is nothing wrong with any nation wishing to live in peaceful harmony with their neighbours.

Segregation, Apartheid or Separate and Equal Development was a unique concept, wished by all South Africans, both Black and White. Nobody has to feel guilty about it today. It was OUR country and we had to find a solution where we could all be happy with and live with each other.

Today the critics of Apartheid are numerous, yet nobody have produced a better model for the unique South African situation. The current “Rainbow Nation” model has proved to be an abject failure.

The need for people to rule themselves and have a national identity is the most natural system on earth. It is called Nationalism. We have seen this need amongst the Basks and the Catalonians of Spain, the Croatians, Serbs, Montenegros, etc of Yugoslavia, The Irish and the Scots of the UK, The Kurds of Syria and Turkey, The Ibos of Nigeria, The Hutus and Tsutsis of Rwanda, the Muslims in Chad, The Tamils in Sri Lanka, The Greeks and Turks in Cyprus, The Walonians and the Flemish in Belgium....

This need to be separate is a worldwide phenomenon. Maybe Apartheid was not perfect, but show me a political system that is.

In South Africa we came upon a system that kept the peace and where we lived happily alongside with each other until the Communist agitators entered and disturbed our peace, where they played us off against each other after we have already fought all our battles and made peace with each other. We found our own solution. We found our own peace that was called “Apartheid”, but the communist wanted the riches of our country and made us enemies again.

South Africa will forever be a unique situation and only us...The Blacks and Whites of South Africa will be able to find a solution we can all live with in the end.
The solution for our problems will come from us who have shared this beautiful country for hundreds of years, not from outsiders who just want our gold and minerals.

Let me finish with a quote....

“You do not want any reforms; You want my country”
(President Paul Kruger to Lord Alfred Milner - 31st May1899, shortly before the outbreak of the second Anglo Boer war)

Apartheid - Part 11

2012-03-29T10:22:00.000+02:00

This part is about the education, education levels and education standards that black people were subject to during Apartheid.

We all know it as "Bantu Education" and the reason for the "Soweto Uprising" where an estimated 20 000 black students protested against Afrikaans being a medium of instruction. The split was to be 50-50 (Afrikaans & English) and the rest of the subjects in the students native language. The subjects that were chosen for Afrikaans from Standard five (grade 7) were, mathematics, arithmetic and social studies. The Subjects chosen for English were, general science and practical subjects (homecraft, needlework, woodwork, metalwork, art, agricultural science) and their Native languages would be used for religion instruction, music, and physical culture.

So, Afrikaans had 3 Subjects, English about 7 Subjects and Native also 3 Subjects. Let me just add that the black students held banners with the slogan "DOWN WITH BAAS EDUCATION", baas meaning Boss in Afrikaans. So it is very clear that they had no problem with English being used, but had a problem with the Afrikaner / Boer language being used. In other words, they had no problem picking an Oppressive Language (The English being to most oppressive Empire in recent history) above an African Language (Afrikaans being "born" in Africa from German, French and Dutch languages). African = Afrika.

Then you also have to understand that Black African languages are very limited in terms of terminology. They had no formal written down language and it was simply transferred verbally, from generation to generation, thus they did not develop more words as time went on. This ensured a huge obstacle of the Apartheid Gov as they could not educate black students in Maths, Science, Woodwork, Social Studies, agricultural sciences etc if the black languages did not have the terminology to be used. How on earth will you educate someone in Maths, if that person's culture did not even invent such forms of education and his / her language does not have any Mathematical terminology?? So, the language issue was actually caused by their own Culture / Language's Limitations

That was one reason for the protest, another being that they were supposedly taught in "second and third rate" education levels meaning that according to them, they were taught according to a less important standard. Now bare in mind, these were people who had no formal education institutions and / or systems in place, ever. So, the previous Gov were left with two obstacles thus far, one being language and the other being the "history of their education standards". So yes, the previous Gov introduced a standard of education that was not the same as that of White Schools, and the main reason for that was, that even thought they were getting an education that was "sub / below standard", that they still struggled to move from one standard to another, often being 18 years old while being in standard 6 (grade 8). This again is due to their lack of development of both culture and language being limited. You cannot expect for a culture, that has never had any form of formal education system, to suddenly be on par with that of a culture that invented this education system. Again, it was their own limitation that caused this gap. Also, ever since 94, education standards had to be lowered to accommodate the black pupils as they were suddenly on the receiving end of the same standard that Whites were subject to, and failing. Some schools have even reported a zero pass rate for matriculants in past years. So, what did they fight for as it is clear that they could not cope with the high standards of White Education after 94 and didn't want the "sub" standard Bantu Education? Either way, the Standards were dropped so low after 94, I would imagine them to be either the same or lower than that of the Bantu Education System. Again, THEIR OWN DOING.

Look at the table above of 1983. Look at the number of Black students that enrolled in grade 1 (Sub A). There were more than 1 million students. Now look at how their numbers drop the further they went "up" in the education system. It can be clearly seen that they wanted education with the 1 million in grade 1, but that their limitation caused their numbers to drop to 72 000 in Standard 10. This again, not due to Apartheid, but due to "limitation" within their cultures, their languages, their development, their ability and their willingness to learn. The older they got, the less interested they were in educating themselves and the more they became interested in violence, crime, murder, theft and rape.

This is the "mentality" that we have to live and work with every day!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_Education_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soweto_uprising

http://africanhistory.about.com/od/apartheid/ss/ApartheidSkool1.htm

F V de Wet

_____________________________________________________

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 11– Bantu Education under Apartheid

By Mike Smith
11th of May 2010

If Communists value and care so much about education, why do they kill off the educated elite as the first thing they do in taking over a country?

From Stalin’s purges to Mao’s “Great leap forward”, From Cuba to Cambodia...the first thing the Communists do when they take over is to kill the academics and educated elite...IN THEIR MILLIONS. In Cambodia they killed about 2 million alone. People were killed for simply wearing glasses, because if you could read, you were already too clever.

That alone should convince anyone that communists have never and will never give a toss about education. In fact the worst enemy of the communist is the educated person. The entire system of communism is depended on a dumbed down, uneducated and unemployed proletariat (the sheep).

Today the Bantu-Education Act of 1953 is highly criticized, called “racist” and “discriminatory”.

I wonder how many of those critics have ever read it through, because I have and I still challenge anyone to point me to the discriminatory part.

Yet it is today held up as one of the main reasons for the resistance against Apartheid as well as the violence of the student’s uprisings of 1976.

Its critics are the usual gang of liberals, culture relativists, humanists and racial egalitarians, but their criticism holds no water.

If one scrutinises the Act as posted above, one will see that the act established a black education department, basically gives the minister of education along with the minister of finance the right to fund the black government schools in a way they deem appropriate, that the government holds the right to determine the medium of instruction and that the minister of education can consult and establish black school councils on how to run the schools and what to teach.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. As I said in part Seven of this series, the duty of the government was not and is not and will never be to provide schools (or any other infrastructure) to anybody. The role of the government is to protect the citizens against the initiation of force. That is it! For the rest of the part, they should keep their nose out of the business of the people.

Government schools are actually a form of initiating force. It steals our money, it locks our children up with criminals, gangsters and drug dealers every day, it teaches them socialist doctrines, dumb them down incapable of rational or logical thought, and it falsifies our history. ..But people like schools, because they think schools do good. Nevertheless the NP government taxed whites almost to death to provide schools for blacks. During Apartheid schooling was made compulsory for all children up to 16 years of age...

But apart from the actual Bantu Education Act of 1953, that nobody ever reads, and just believe what they find in Wikipedia about Apartheid Education...How did it actually work?

As I have pointed out during this series, whites and blacks have huge cultural differences between them. Whites and blacks have huge religious and language differences between them.

Would it not be fair that blacks be instructed in a way that is more suited towards their cultural and religious needs? If one takes the road of the racial egalitarian and culture relativist, one would destroy the culture of the blacks, destroy their language and religion.

Cultural Relativism destroys all cultures. Racial egalitarianism destroys all races, humanism destroys all religions.

Remember that the previous government was called the “National Party” not, “The National Socialist Party”. It did not believe in the destruction of other cultures and people, it believed in the peaceful co-existence between diverse groups, their preservation and separate, but equal development.

And that is all Bantu Education was. It acknowledged the cultural and religious differences of whites and blacks and seeked to educate both groups along those cultural lines.

Surely it would be wrong to force the stories of Snow White and Goldilocks down the throats of black children. How do they relate to Repunsel with here long hair when blacks have peppercorns or afros?

It would be far better if they learned their own songs, their own culture and their own stories of how the zebra got its stripes when God did not intend for black and white to even exist.

The same with white children. It would be far better to teach them about their own poems, songs and books. Blacks and whites have different heroes, different values, different everything.

Blacks needs to be educated in a different way than whites. Blacks have a natural, affinity to music, dance and colourful art. Should one have destroyed that and forced them subjects that they do not like, do not understand or should one have taken their natural talents and improve on it?

When someone says that the Bantu Education system was inferior to that of the whites, then that person either admits that black culture is inferior or that whites are superior. They will then have to explain what they mean by inferior. Inferior to what? Relative to what?...Maybe High Western civilised education? If they say that educating blacks along black cultural lines is inferior to educating whites along white cultural lines then I have to ask you...Who are the real racists here...liberals or Nationalists?

There were thousands of blacks during the time of the National Party who made it to university and for those provisions of tertiary education of world standard was provided. Ten black universities in SA and the homelands in total.

Today one just has to look around to see how many medical doctors, nurses, lawyers and judges there are in South Africa who got their education under this exact “Bantu Education” system of the National Party. It was not inferior at all. If one accuses any of these graduates of having a substandard degree or education, one would be insulting such a person.

One has to remember that blacks In South Africa had no schools, no written language no basic arithmetic, nothing... prior to the white man came to Africa and through their missionaries started educating blacks.

African societies placed strong emphasis on traditional forms of education well before the arrival of Europeans. Education involved oral histories of the group, tales of heroism and treachery, and practice in the skills necessary for survival in a changing bush environment.

The European styled English and Afrikaans/Dutch curriculum placed no value on such skills. It would have been morally wrong to force such a European system on the blacks of South Africa.

Today there are many who wants to quote and say that the NP wanted to purposefully keep blacks stupidand who selectively quotes what suits them , but when one look deeper and see the truth behind the bullshit and the proof of the pudding then the picture is rather different.

In an article called “Die Afrikaner” 11 Feb 1987, the quarterly magazine called “Vox Africana Nr 29 4/87 stated that,

South Africa had 4,8 million whites and 18,2 million blacks in 1987. The whites paid 77% of the taxes and the blacks only 15%...despite this...56% of the government budget was spent on blacks.

Today it is often quoted that, “Per-capita government spending on black education slipped to one-tenth of spending on whites in the 1970s”. Source

What everyone fails to say is that...

Since 1970 the budget for black education was raised by about 30% per year every year. More than any other government department.

In the period 1955 -1984 the amount of black school students increased 31 times from 35,000 to 1,096 000.

65% of black South African children were at school compared to Egypt 64%, Nigeria 57%, Ghana52%, Tanzania50% and Ethiopia 29%.

Amongst the adults of South Africa, 71% could read and write (80% between the ages 12 and 22). Compare this to Kenya 47%, Egypt 38%, Nigeria 34% and Mozambique at 26%.

In South Africa, the whites built 15 new classrooms for blacks every working day, every year. At 40 children per class it meant space for an additional 600 black students every day!!!

In 1985 there were 42,000 Blacks at 5 universities in South Africa, about the same amount at the universities of the homelands.

Another example of “Bantu Education is the unique medical university of MEDUNSA that I mentioned in Part 5 of this series. Here the whites trained black medical doctors, dentists, veterinary surgeons and paramedical personnel to world class standards...at full state costs. About 200 black medical doctors were
qualified here every year...thanks to the “oppressive” Bantu Education system.
Source: (Verrat an Südafrika, 1987, Klaus Vaque).

In my search to find the true reasons for the 1976 Soweto School riots, I found that most sources say that the riots was because of AFRIKAANS being forced to be taken as the medium of instruction. Why this vilification of Afrikaans?

The truth is that if one looks at the original decree one will see that both English and Afrikaans would be used on a 50-50 basis. Once again we see how Afrikaans has been vilified over the years. I can still understand to a degree why the blacks would object to Afrikaans or English, but what I cannot understand is why the coloureds of Cape Town, who only spoke Afrikaans or English, would also boycott and riot.

Here is the original decree...
Northern Transvaal Region
"Regional Circular Bantu Education"
Northern Transvaal (No. 4)
File 6.8.3. of 17.10.1974

To: Circuit Inspectors
Principals of Schools: With Std V classes and Secondary Schools
Medium of Instruction Std V - Form V

1. It has been decided that for the sake of uniformity English and Afrikaans will be used as media of instruction in our schools on a 50-50 basis as follows:

2. Std V, Form I and II
2.1. English medium: General Science, Practical Subjects (Homecraft-Needlework-Wood- and Metalwork-Art-Agricultural Science)
2.2 Afrikaans medium: Mathematics, Arithmatic, Social Studies
2.3 Mother Tongue: Religion Instruction, Music, Physical Culture
The prescribed medium for these subject must be used as from January 1975.
In 1976 the secondary schools will continue using the same medium for these subjects.

3. Forms III, IV and V
All schools which have not as yet done so should introduce the 50-50 basis as from the beginning of 1975. The same medium must be used for the subjects related to those mentioned in paragraph 2 and for their alternatives. ...

Your co-operation in this matter will be appreciated.
(Sgd.) J.G. Erasmus
Regional Director of Bantu Education
N. Transvaal Region ...

Further. One has to remember that the National Party government always insisted on “Mother Tongue Education” for ALL races during the primary school period. It was official government policy.

Further note how Afrikaans and English would only be used for Mathematics, Science and technically skilled subjects. The rest would still be mother tongue.

But why would they want to introduce Afrikaans and English in these black schools to instruct subjects like mathematics, science and metalwork?

Well, the problem is that blacks simply never had any words for objects they never knew; they borrowed Afrikaans and English words to describe technical things. The word for Scissors is “Iskêra” from Afrikaans (skêr). The word for knife is “Imêsi” from the Afrikaans word (mes), etc.

Can you imagine trying to explain the replication of a DNA molecule to a black student in Xhoza? Can you imagine explaining the parts of a lathe to black students studying metalwork or woodwork? If you are going to use 90% English words, you might just as well do the entire thing in English...or Afrikaans for that matter. A lathe is a dangerous piece of equipment...people can kill themselves.

The other reason I found that blacks objected to was the maximum age of school attendance. Whites would finish school at 18 or 19.

Blacks on the other hand would be 18 years old in grade 7 or 25 years old in matric (Grd 12). They also started later at the age of 8 or 10. Then they expected the whites to just keep on paying for this. Then they cannot understand why less money was spent on them than on whites every year. Not only were they 5 times more than whites, they flunked so much that they spent an average of an extra five years at school.

The irony of it all is that the Indian journalist Prega Govender wrote an article in the Sunday Times of 22 October 2006, telling how black students at school were taking English as their first language at school, dropping their own mother tongue as second language and replacing it with Afrikaans, which they found easier. These students either dropped their own mother tongue completely or relegated it to “Third Language status”
Prega Govender, Easy-Afrikaans-chosen-over-African-languages

Now I ask you, “What were all those riots in 1976 for?”

The whites of South Africa made a big mistake. They should never have introduced “Bantu Education” to the blacks. They should never have taught the blacks anything. It was not their responsibility to educate blacks. If blacks are so good, then they should educate their own people. They should build their own schools, universities, and colleges with their own money, their own initiatives and their own know-how. They should go for it...I wish them nothing, but luck.

For our efforts to educate the blacks out of stone age and into the modern era, we were vilified and stoned, even killed by. We were cursed at, spat at and blamed for everything else.

The alternative we see today is the socialist “Outcomes Based Education and Traning” system, where “nobody fails”, “Everyone passes”...”Pass one;Pass all” is the ridiculous slogans and demands nowadays. Little black boy in a group with whites and coloureds dragging their marks down and raising his own merely through his presence...but hey... they all pass, right? What is the problem?

The school system is a timebomb...Four Natal schools with 0% matric pass rate

“Liberation before education” was the slogan during the Eighties. Have the communists succeeded in their goal? Have they dumbed down the blacks and most whites? A few pockets of free thinkers remained who are today blowing the horns.
People are waking up from their liberal and socialist sleep. The ANC keeps singing their lullaby, but everywhere the horns are blowing and more and more people are waking up...The ANC knows their days are numbered. Bantu Education made them clever enough to realise that...

.../to be continued

The "White Guilt" Complex - Part 1

2012-03-22T21:37:00.000+02:00

Ever since I can remember, or more specifically ever since 1994, there has been this "little voice" telling me that being White is a curse, that being White meant that you were evil and you have no respect for other races, being White meant that only your race can be racist and in being White meant that you are guilty for all the atrocities in History. Since 94, I have been taught to feel bad about Apartheid, even though I was only a child then. I was taught to feel bad for Slavery, even though I wasn't there. I was being taught to feel bad for the millions of blacks that suffered at the hands of whites, even though I myself and millions of others did nothing to cause them pain, fear or resentment.

It was purely the association with the White skin and evil acts that caused this "brainwashing" to continue through the one-sided history being taught by Schools, Universities and Ruling Parties. You see, if you can manipulate History facts, you can control the people who wrote it, and with that, you control their lives. You tell them their history is racist, that it is false and that it was written by racists to continue the oppression and exploitation of Black people. You do this for 18 years and you will find that most people will agree with you. Remember one thing though "if you tell a lie over and over, it eventually becomes the truth", that is of course, until history repeats itself and the same people who committed atrocities in the past, also commit atrocities in the present. Somehow, the truth will always find a way to the surface from beneath the millions of lies.

We are constantly reminded of our (White) discrimination against Non-Whites, especially Africans (Black Natives), and we are constantly reminded that ALL their ill fortune and lack of development is due to White Oppression and/or White Supremacy. These reminders coming from the Leftist Main Stream Media as well as all the Liberal and Black movements. More recently, or about 18 years ago (not so recent as I though), the ANC Government has made it clear that the ALL the ill fortunes Black people face every day, is the caused by White people. Every single instance where the Government fails, the finger is pointed at the Whites and Apartheid. Every single failure was directly caused by something in the Apartheid era.

Thus, in having nothing to do with the past, nor anything with previous laws made, I was getting fed-up with all the negative "publicity" we whites were getting. I then decided to do some research and started reading a lot of history orientated material as well as past and present SA laws. What I found was astonishing and sometimes "unreal" due to the lack of truth being told about the past and the complete and utter denial of Historical facts.

I will also discuss the failure of the vast majority of people in the world to accept even scientific and Biological evidence provided in certain aspects of history. Again, to my surprise, I found that we have done very little to affect Blacks so badly that we needed to feel guilty, or forced to feel guilty. (it's about this time, all the Liberal Whiteys are now awake and are looking at me with red blood thirty eyes, thinking, "How can this little Whitey rewrite history?"

Fact is, I am not rewriting history, I am just telling it as it was originally written, and this time, science and biology come to the party.

First things first. lets start with Slavery.

Slavery has been with us for centuries, and history has shown that all men (black, white, yellow, purple and pink) have been slaves at one stage or another in History. Europeans had European slaves, Africans had African slaves, Asians had Asian slaves and so on. You can literally go on for hours discussing the different races that have been enslaved and why, but you will find that all races have been subject to slavery for a number of reasons. Some being to provide labour, some to provide sexual tasks, others to provide anything their masters demanded. So why does Black slavery still get so much attention these days and why are the Evil Whites blamed for it?? Well, for one,whites did have their share in slave trading as well as the ill treatment of these slaves, granted but we were not the first to enslave Africans and we were probably not the last race to have slaves. Slavery is still a profitable business today, from the Asians and their child labour force to the African continent and their child soldiers. but more on that another time. You will find that it was not the whites that were the original slave masters / traders of black people and that we whites are in fact the ones that put a stop to slavery in general. (now the Liberal Whiteys are going bonkers)

You see, the Arab Muslims were probably the first non-white race to enslave black people, and before that, it was the black leaders and kings who conquered smaller tribes and enslaved the blacks that were left after these tribal conflicts. We call this tribal warfare and this is/was a norm in Africa just as it was normal across the world. Black tribes would fight other black tribes over land, cattle, power etc and the smaller of the two would then be eliminated thus leaving the "leftovers" to either be executed or enslaved. Most men would be executed if they survive as they pose the greatest threat while the woman and children would be the slaves of their new black masters. Now, to get back to the Arabs. They were probably the first non-white race to enter Africa from the North (North Africa) from 650 to about the 1900, while Europeans only started their African conquest around the 15th century. This is why most of North Africa's native populations are Muslim and not Christian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

Well, these two races (Arabs and Blacks) soon saw the potential of slavery and that is how the whole African Slave trade started. Let me be clear, the AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE was started and not slavery itself as Slavery is knows as a universal institution. These fact about history and slavery are all over the internet but mostly excluded from the the media as Liberals hate the internet as they can hide nothing where are the media can be influenced to emphasize on certain aspects of society, like White Guilt, White Racism, White Supremacy and White atrocities in History! So, if Whites did not start Black slavery, why are we being made to feel guilty for it? Why not the Arabs and the black ancestors who started it?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/slav_fact.cfm
http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slavery/articles/sherwood.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

As stated on wikipedia and other internet sources, it is estimated that around 10 to18 and as many as 25 Million Africans were enslaved by the Arabs, and only about 12 million by Europeans. Further more, the most notorious people that blame Whites for Slavery (African Americans), never mention that only 11 million of their ancestors were taken to the Americas, but that 32 million of their ancestors were taken to the Arab World, where they were often used as SEX SLAVES, PROSTITUTES etc. So, the Arabs and Africans that stated African Slavery about 650, enslaved 32 million Africans while their White counterparts only enslaved 23 million Africans. That is 9 million African Slaves more than Whites while only Whites are "named and shamed" and singled out in the History of Slavery, especially by the MSM and Liberals. I agree that 23 million people are a lot, but does the other 32 million not count anymore? I quote below,

"Additionally, approximately 11 million African slaves were taken to the Americas however approximately 28 million African slaves were taken during the Arab slave trade. Likewise, more than 2 million Africans died on the ship before reaching the destinations in the Arab world, therefore the slave traders would obtain the same amount of Africans in order to make up for the loss"

(Note, the 32 million African Slaves that I mentioned come from the, 28 million slaves taken, the 2 million that died and the additional 2 million to replace that needed to replace the dead)

Let me get to the point by asking. How many African countries receive aid in the form of food, education, welfare, development etc from Arab / Muslim Countries? (Look it up). I can't find any sort of donation or reparation cost from one single Arab / Muslim County (well non that I could find on the internet) yet billions are sent to Africa from "White" Countries like the USA, UK, AUS etc every year. Not a single donation or reparation demand (or none that I can find on the internet or that regularly appears in the MSM), from any African person or African country, nor any Arab person or Arab country, nor any Muslim or any Muslim country. And we know how much money there is in oil, gold, diamonds and other natural resources which are found where, Arab and African countries!. So, why not demand reparations / compensation from the ones who started it and caused the supposed downward spiral of the African People? My opinion is that it's easier to get money from people who think and are made to think they are guilty than receive money from people who do not think they did anything wrong. It's like the Jews receiving Billions each year for the Holocaust but not one sent is paid by Jews towards Africa for their part in Slavery, not one sent paid to the Germans for the supposed 1.7 million POW's that were killed in concentration camps after WWII caused by the America General, Eisenhower, and not one cent being paid by Africans or Arabs for their involvement in Slavery.

Let me add that, according to Prof Kwesi Kwaa Prah, Director of the Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society (CASAS) in Cape Town, South Africa, the Arabs still practice slavery of African people. In a letter dated 2002 (http://home.btclick.com/jabu/mazuri.pdf) he states the following and then repeats it again:

"Should Africans in perpetuity be silent about Arab slavery in the past and present, (I repeat, "and present"), for fear that raising the issue would be treated as anti-Arab?"

You see, this is the level of racism and guilt that Whites have to deal with on a daily basis and for every "injustice" ever endured by Blacks, whites are always pointed out as the only perpetrator! As you can see from above, it is clearly recorded that not only whites had a hand in Slavery but that most slaves were sold by Arabs and fellow Black countrymen.

So why are Whites being made to feel guilty for something they did not start? It is also recorded somewhere (don't ask me for a link as their are thousands of these articles on the web) that all the money made through slavery by Whites were eventually spent to put an end to it!! Again, go look it up, information is power and the internet has got it all!

to continue................

Apartheid - Part 9

2012-03-22T13:44:00.000+02:00

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 9 – The lies about the Townships

By Mike Smith
7th of May 2010

It is today not un-common to find White people who lived through Apartheid in South Africa who have never set foot in a black or coloured township. Most whites never lost anything in a township and never saw the need to go to there. Besides it was dangerous, and the further they could stay away from blacks the better.

People commute from Somerset-West, Strand or Gordon’s Bay along the N2 highway to Cape Town for years every day, but they never ever turns off into the townships south of Cape Town International Airport (D.F. Malan Airport) to have a look. All they see are the slums of Cross-Roads, Langa and Nyanga and it scares them away...

Most whites do not even know the coloured township of Mitchel’s Plain. They do not know the bad areas such as Tafelsig, Lentegeur or the posh areas such as Woodlands or Strandfontein.

If they could see the millionaires houses of Athlone, they would fall on their backs.

The image that most whites of South Africa have about a township is what they have seen on television, in papers or magazines.

I myself was about 19 years old and a conscript when I first set foot in Gugulethu, Cape Town. I can remember how surprised I was at how good the houses looked in certain parts...all the sports facilities and other amenities were not what I have seen on TV. We were only shown the worst parts...the Squatter Camps.

Actually the word “Township” is today confused with the word “Squatter Camp”, but we are not allowed to use the un-PC term of “Squatter Camp” anymore, it is now called, “Informal Settlements”...

Nevertheless, a black township in South Africa has different sections just like any other town around the world. It has rich areas where educated blacks and black businessmen live in millionaires villas, it has the middle class areas and it has...well the squatter camps.

The problem is that the media always only show us the poor, squatter camp areas. Whites of South Africa and the world are kept ignorant by the media. We are not allowed to see that there are literally millions of extremely well-off blacks in South Africa who live in fairly good areas, on par with whites or well-off coloureds.

The lies about the townships are numerous, but the most common one is that blacks were forced to live there under extreme poverty conditions and were denied the same amenities as whites had.

Well, in the previous section of this series I pointed out that all the black tribes were given their own countries to live in where they traditionally settled. Nobody forced them to come to white cities. But blacks streamed in their thousand towards the white cities and set up squatter camps around the outskirts of these white areas, because they knew that whites were giving them work, but also, because they knew whites were very charitable and always gave them free clothes, food, etc.

This is quite ironic, because on the one hand the whites are painted as evil racists and blacks selectively believe this when they want to, but when blacks are truly honest with themselves, they will realise that whites always gave them lots of stuff...for free. It has always been like that in South Africa and will probably be like that for a long time to come, because South African whites are compassionate, charitable and good people.

Nevertheless when these squatter camps became too large and/or a health risk due to the unhygienic practices of blacks, whites would build them proper houses with proper sewage systems, health clinics, schools, churches, roads with electric illumination, sports facilities and many more. This is how the townships came about. Basically built by white taxpayer money...

Now I know there will be some people not convinced that these townships were actually quite well kitted out. So let us take an example...let us take the most well known township of South Africa, called Soweto, but the same can be said of just about any black township in South Africa.

At the hight of Apartheid in 1978 Soweto had 115 Football fields, 3 Rugby fields, 4 athletic tracks, 11 Cricket fields, 2 Golf courses, 47 Tennis courts, 7 swimming pools built to Olympic standards, 5 Bowling alleys, 81 Netball fields, 39 children play parks, and countless civic halls, movie houses and clubhouses.

In addition to this, Soweto had 300 churches, 365 schools, 2 Technical Colleges, 8 clinics, 63 child day care centres, 11 Post Offices, and its own fruit and vegetable market.

There were 2300 registered companies that belonged to black businessmen, about 1000 private taxi companies. 3% of the 50,000 vehicle owners in 1978 were Mercedes Benz owners. Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time.

Today Soweto has modern shopping malls like, Dobsonville Shopping Centre. In 2005 the Protea Gardens Mall opened. This was followed by the Baramall Shopping Centre and the Jabulani Shopping complex and the Maponya Mall. Experts say that Soweto has as much as 25% oversupply of retail space.

The Canadian Medical Doctor, Dr Kenneth Walker wrote about Soweto, (I freely translate from “Verrat an Südafrika”, Klaus Vaque, 1987,pg 41)

“In Soweto I saw many homes that costs about $100,000 (1978) and that had a BMW in the driveway. All houses are single storey. Many are recently painted. Many had flowerpots in the windows and lawn in the front. Only 2% were shacks. If I had the choice to live in Soweto or in the apartment dwellings or “Projects” of New York, Chicago, or Detroit where there is so much crime, then I would not hesitate for one moment and choose Soweto.”

The biggest hospital in the world, Baragwanath with 3200 beds and at its peak almost 8000 staff had 23 operation theatres fitted out with the most modern medical equipment that existed in the world. Blacks were treated here, operated on...at full state costs to the white-taxpayers for unlimited periods. The budget of this hospital was and is higher than the yearly budget of most small member states of the United Nations.

Next door to Baragwanath is the St. John’s Eye Clinic. The clinic is world famous for the treatment of Glaucoma, Cataracts, traumatic eye injuries and rare tropical diseases. All built and maintained by white taxpayer’s money.

Baragwanath in 1978 employed 450 medical doctors in full-time service. It treated 112 000 in-patients and 1.62 million out-patients per year. The children and infant death rate with 34.8 per 1000 was lower than Harlem in New York.

In 1982 alone, this hospital performed 898 heart operations of world quality.
Ironically...90% of the blood donors for this hospital were whites, who donated blood free of charge, totally voluntarily...to save black lives. (Quoted from The Citizen, 2 April 1987).

In my time at school and as a student, the Red Cross or St Johns Ambulance would come to our white schools, universities, colleges and even our workplaces to solicit for blood donations. All we got was a cup of tea and some biscuits. Regular blood donors would get a lapel pin and would wear it proudly at work or university.

Today the blacks want the whites to apologise for “the evils” of Apartheid. They want compensation. They have been compensated R30,000 each after the TRC , but it is not enough... they want more, they want blood...but we have already given them our blood. We already saved millions of black lives with our blood donations during Apartheid. How do you put a price on our blood that we donated? How do you put a price on black lives saved by white blood?

As you can see dear reader, the blacks of South Africa are eternally indebted to us whites...not the other way around. We owe them nothing, they owe us... big time.

Apartheid - Part 10

2012-03-22T13:40:00.000+02:00

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 10 – District Six, A case study in forced removals.

By Mike Smith
8th of May 2010

When one today thinks about Apartheid forced removals, immediately Sophia Town in Johannesburg (blacks) and District Six in Cape Town (coloureds) springs to mind. We will take District Six as a case study.

Today one is up against a mind set of people who wants to believe that District Six was a Multicultural paradise where, mostly coloureds, some Indians, some whites and also a few blacks all lived in harmony and perpetual bliss.

They believe that the evil white government destroyed a happy go lucky community and forced them onto the Cape Flats, mainly where Mitchels Plain is today.

To tell the truth about District Six today will be a revolutionary act.

Firstly a bit of history...

Where is or was District Six?...Well if you stand with your two legs in the water of Table Bay and you look towards Table Mountain, District Six would be on your left side at the slope of Table Mountain, just above “The Castle”. Today the Cape University of Technology (Zonnebloem campus) stands on part of the area.

The origins of District Six is like this.

Many moons ago during the Dutch and later British rule, it uses to be a farm called Zonnebloem. After the abolishment of slavery throughout the British Empire (1833) coloured people started squatting on the outskirts of Cape Town against the foot of Table Mountain, because they still wanted to work for the whites, but when they were slaves they were housed by whites, but as free people they now had to find their own houses.

Two areas of freed slaves developed in Cape Town in what is called, “The Bo-Kaap” and “District Six”.

The Bo-Kaap was mainly a higher classed Muslim area and District Six, although also having a lot of Muslims, was made up from other coloureds of lower social standing.
Now it has to be remembered that the Cape Colony only introduced official building regulations in 1861. By that time, 28 years of indiscriminate building by coloureds, resulted in a slum area developing in Cape Town’s District Six that was getting worse with every day passing. There was no proper sewage or running water infrastructure in those days. In no time, District Six became an overcrowded slum, with narrow alleyways between jumbled together structures.

Here one has to consider that building rules are largely there for safety and health reasons. Windows need to be of a certain size to allow fresh air and natural light in. Rooms need to be a certain height...Every human being needs a certain amount of breathing space to prevent diseases such as Typhoid, Tuberculosis, etc from breaking out (as is the case in overcrowded concentration camps). Streets need to be a certain width so that ambulances and fire trucks can reach emergency situations.

The coloured people from District Six knew nothing of such “trivialities”. They just kept on adding more structures made from wood and corrugated iron sheets.

This phenomenon can still be observed when one visit coloured areas today. No sooner have they received a house from the government for free, or they start building a “hok” (shack) in the backyard. Some have even multiple shacks or what is called “Wendy Houses”, low quality wooden dwellings. These shacks and Wendy Houses are rented out and provide the owner with an income. Some even set up shebeens (illegal, informal drinking bars) in their backyard.

In the case of District Six it was exactly like that. Some of these people had several such shack dwellings that they would rent out and became what is referred to as the “Slumlords” of District Six. Most houses were small, some consisting of only one room housing as many as 20 people. The toilet was in the back yard and washing comprised turns in the bath tub in the kitchen or washing oneself in a “kom”, a plastic bowl filled with some hot water. Once a week was enough.

Further, In District Six started what is today referred to as the “Skolly gangs”...coloured hooligans, who preferred a life of crime, drinking and drugs over honest hard work.

By the 1930’s District Six was a rat infested hellhole full of shebeens, “smokkelhuise” (smuggling houses) and brothels, where, alcohol and drugs flowed freely and sparked more and more social ills.

The government realised that something had to be done about District Six before an epidemic of bubonic plague or cholera could break out that would have killed thousands.

The government knew the history of the three smallpox epidemics of 1713, 1755 and 1767. The smallpox epidemic of 1713 killed about 90% of the KhoiKhoi (Hottentots) and about 25% of the whites of Cape Town.

The University of Cape Town has all the archives in their library. It is called THE DENIS VERSCHOYLE PAPERS

Denis Verschoyle, an Irish immigrant, was a City Engineer and Town Planner in Cape Town. From 1961 to 1972, he lectured on the history of town planning in the School of Architecture and Planning at the University of Cape Town. He died in 1997.

The information is today freely available to anyone who wants to know the truth about Cape Town planning and in particular, District Six.

Basically Mr. W.S.Lunn who was city engineer in the 1930’s had a plan. He wanted to transform District Six. He wanted to build proper houses with proper infrastructure and so, started building houses... by the beginning of the Second World War, a total of 1127 homes had been built. But the coloureds did not want to move into the new houses. They claimed the rent was too high, but the rent was actually subsidised by the government (i.e.) White taxpayer money and very affordable.

This a coloured culture for you. They always seem to have money for drugs and alcohol, but never for rent or utilities. Why pay rent and electricity when you can live for free in a shack and burn candles and have more money for alcohol?

Eventually some did move into these houses, but as usual the backyards started being filled with illegally erected structures.

Today the coloureds that lived in District Six have very fond memories of a period when alcohol flowed freely, Dagga was smoked and every second person could play a musical instrument. Their memories of District Six are basically...party every night...I do not dispute that they were very happy there.

Like I said, in reality the place was a nest of social ills, it was dirty and it was a health risk...a ticking time bomb in actual fact.

But how does one convince a pig that wallowing around in shit all day is bad for him, when he is so happy at doing it? When one takes the pig away from his shit puddle, washes him off and let him live in a clean orderly place, he will be most distraught and upset with you. He will forever have fond memories of his shit puddle, where he was happy. No amount of explaining will ever convince him of anything else.

So how did these memories of such a harmless and convivial District Six take root in the minds of coloureds over the years?

Basically the newspaper called “The Cape Times”, in an attempt to save District Six, ran some articles in the 1950’s focussing on the music and culture of the people, painting everything rosy and saying nothing about the social ills, the gangs, the brothels, the alcohol and drug abuse...or the rats.

In 1966 the National Party declared District Six to be a 'White Group Area' so enabling them to destroy all buildings, except religious ones, on the grounds of 'slum clearance'.

The government moved about 60,000 people from District Six to the Cape Flats at a cost of 30 million Rand including compensation. In 1970, the government renamed the area Zonnebloem after the original Dutch farm.

They offered the land to investors to rebuild it, but no investors showed interest to rebuild the area, so the Government built the Cape Technikon Zonnebloem campus there.

In District Six, there is a museum today that documents this period in an extremely biased and subjective way.

It says that about 60,000 coloureds were forcibly removed from District Six to the Cape Flats because of the colour of their skin.

It fails to mention that the coloureds of the Bo-Kaap are still living there and so are the ones from Observatory. If the government wanted to remove the coloureds from District Six, because of the colour of their skin or to take their “prime” land, why did they not also move the Bo-Kaap coloureds? The Bo-Kaap is situated in the centre of Cape Town on prime property and worth billions. Why did the government not build millionaires villas in District Six, but instead chose to build a learning institution?

The simple truth is that District Six was everything from an eyesore, to a filthy slum, to a gang and rat infested hellhole.

The government in those days employed highly qualified health inspectors. One of them who were involved with the destruction of District Six told me how they went in there, saw rats the size of cats and millions of cockroaches half a foot long...how they had to board up these building structures first, fumigate them before they could destroy them, because they feared the plague would spread to the rest of Cape Town.

Today the ex residents of “District Six” are a dime a dozen. Although only 60,000 were moved today the “survivors” are probably double that if not more.

The “victim mentality” has fully taken hold of these “ex residents of District Six”, but what they forget is about 40,000 whites were also forcibly removed from their land to make place for the Black Homelands.

These whites have never been properly compensated for losing their farms that they had to sell way below market value to the government at the time, but they simply got on with life and made a living somewhere else.

District Six was a case study in this issue, but the same can be said for places like Sophia Town where Blacks were also removed. Large concentrations of people from whatever race, who overcrowd and indiscriminately build with no planning, will always, pose a health risk not only to themselves, but also to their neighbouring communities.

Today they complain about forcibly being removed, but what was the alternative... Death by epidemic proportions? They should be thankful that they are still alive today to yarn swap about their times in District Six, because if they carried on the way they did, disease would have wiped them out for sure.

The irony is that they cannot see the truth. They see the NP government as a bunch of racists who wanted to exterminate them, but if that was the goal of the NP, they could simply have done nothing and waited for the bomb of disease to explode.

No, the NP did everything in their power to avoid it. They actually saved thousands of coloured lives and entire future generations, along with their music and culture in District Six with their removal to the Cape Flats.

Today it is easy to reminisce about the banjo playing, alcohol and dagga clouded times of District Six, but when you are a professional government with a job to do...to protect all your citizens...the picture is rather different.

.../ to be continued

In Defense of Mulder's Statement about Land Reform.

2012-02-28T11:40:00.001+02:00

This is a follow up on what Mulder said, this time the view of a Professor that is part of the Institution for Race Relations, Prof. Hermann Giliomee

http://www.beeld.com/In-Diepte/Nuus/Wat-Mulder-eintlik-se-20120223
http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

F.V de Wet

_________________________________________________________________________________

Wat Mulder eintlik sê

2012-02-23 22:27

Hermann Giliomee

Daar is kere dat ’n mens wanhoop dat die politieke debat in die “nuwe” Suid-Afrika ooit volwassenheid sal bereik. Dit is klaarblyklik ’n skrale moontlikheid as dit oor ’n kwessie soos grond gaan, skryf Hermann Giliomee.

Oor die laaste paar dae het ’n storm om die kop van dr. Pieter Mulder, leier van die VF+, uitgebreek omdat hy dit durf waag om die ANC se grondhervormingsbeleid te
kritiseer.

Hoofartikels en rubrieke het Mulder gestriem oor sy onsensitiwiteit, sy onkunde oor die geskiedenis en selfs oor die sogenaamde leuens wat hy vertel het. Business Day het verklaar: “Dr. Mulder het sy party en sy land in die steek gelaat.” (22 Maart.)

Wat is die onvergeeflike, onsensitiewe flater wat Mulder begaan het? Hy het gereageer op die stelling van die departement van landelike ontwikkeling en grondsake en pres. Jacob Zuma dat nog net 8% van die grond sedert 1994 aan swart mense oorgedra is.

Dit beteken dat die regering se teiken van 30% grond in swart hande in die gedrang is.

Sedert 1994 is demografie en die eise wat daarmee saamhang ’n sentrale deel van die politieke spel. Veral in aanstellings in die staatsdiens en sport is dit ’n gevoelige saak.

Maar al kan minderhede nie die regering se speletjies boikot nie, kan hulle vra: Die nasionale demografie of streeksdemografie?

In die Wes-Kaap is mense woedend oor die regering wat die nasionale demografie wil afdwing op die gevangeniswese in die provinsie waar die demografiese proporsies heeltemal anders is.

Die mees gewraakte sin in Mulder se toespraak het gelui: “Die ANC praat graag van ‘Black people in general and Africans in particular ’... (maar) ‘Africans in particular’ het nooit in die verlede in die hele Suid-Afrika gewoon nie.

“... Daar is genoeg bewyse dat geen Bantoesprekendes in die Wes-Kaap en die Noord-Kaap gewoon het nie. Hierdie dele beslaan 40% van Suid-Afrika se oppervlakte.”

Business Day se kommentaar daarop is dat historici baie van Mulder se feite betwis. Ek weet egter nie van ’n enkele historikus wat Mulder se stelling betwis dat “Black people in general and Africans in particular” teen die 1770’s nie in genoemde twee provinsies gewoon het nie.

Die verhaal van die besetting van grond in die 18de eeu word uitvoerig beskryf aan die hand van argivale bronne in The Shaping of South African Society, 1652-1840.

Ek het daarin aan die hand van argiefdokumente oor die eerste kontakte en konflikte tussen wit en swart tussen 1770 en 1812 geskryf, terwyl Martin Legassick die noordgrens (die huidige Noord-Kaap) behandel het.

Soos Jeffrey Peires in sy standaardwerk oor die Xhosa se geskiedenis aandui, het Xhosas nooit op grond anderkant Sondagsrivier aanspraak gemaak nie.

Business Day verklaar ook dat Mulder se stelling aanstoot gegee het teenoor Suid-Afrikaners van alle rasse wat die onreg van die verlede probeer herstel. Dis nie presies duidelik wat daarmee bedoel word nie.

Mulder het beslis nie die ou mite verkondig dat die land leeg was toe die wit mense hier aangekom het nie.

Wat wel waar is, is dat die sogenaamde tuislandbeleid, soos dit deur dr. H.F. Verwoerd in 1959 aangekondig is, gegrond was op die foutiewe historiese aanname dat ’n groot deel van Suid-Afrika nie bewoon is nie.

Dié opvatting was algemeen onder wit historici.

In 1957 het Eric Walker se History of Southern Africa verskyn, wat ’n tyd lank as die standaard algemene geskiedenis beskou is.

Oor die vestigingspatrone van “Africans in particular” (Mulder se woorde) het Walker geskryf: “In some parts of the present-day Union and Southern Rhodesia their occupation is not much older than that of the Europeans, and in the western half of the Cape Colony it is more recent than theirs.”

Die eerste deel van die stelling is nie korrek nie.

Gedurende die 1960’s het argeoloë ná nuwe opgrawings aangetoon dat die eerste deel van die stelling foutief is: Swart mense het inderdaad verspreid oor die land in die hele oostelike en noordelike deel gewoon.

Die belangrike punt van Mulder was egter nie om sekere groepe se reg op die grond te verdedig nie.

Vir hom het dit in die eerste plek daaroor gegaan dat mense nie die geskiedenis moet misbruik om swak beleid en die ewe swak toepassing daarvan te probeer regverdig nie.

Die regering wil nou die vrywillige koper/verkoper-beginsel laat vaar omdat die boere glo nie wil saamspeel nie.

Mulder voer aan dat die kernoorsaak nie die boere se onwilligheid is nie, maar die onbevoegdheid van die betrokke departement.

Dit antwoord nie op boere wat grond aanbied nie en in baie gevalle sloer die departement lank om vir grond te betaal wat oorgedra is.

Die departement stel dit ook nie duidelik wat hy bedoel met die doelwit van 30% besit in swart hande nie. Wat is swart? “Africans in particular” of swart, bruin en Indiërs saam?

Die inheemse mense wat in die westelike helfte van die land gewoon het voor wit vestiging was die Khoikhoi en San en die regering se grondhervormingsbeleid is beslis nie op hul nasate toegespits nie.

Die vraag is verder of die syfer slaan op alle besit, staatsgrond ingesluit, of grond in private besit.

As dit gaan oor laasgenoemde, is die regering se doelwit reeds bereik, want hy kan by die 13%, wat in 1994 in swart hande was, die 8% toevoeg wat hy aangekoop het en die 25% van die totale landsoppervlakte wat volgens Mulder in die staat se besit is.

Maar die regering stel waarskynlik nie in hierdie syfers belang nie. Die departement erken hy weet nie hoeveel grond die staat besit nie.

In ’n Beeld-rubriek gister kryt Henry Jeffreys Mulder uit vir sy “desperate vorm van politiek”.

Hy verdraai Mulder se woorde heeltemal wanneer hy verklaar dat Mulder gesê het swart mense “kan nie aanspraak maak op 40% van die grond nie”.

Wat Mulder wel gesê het, is: “In die Karoo en Kalahari is groot plase beskikbaar. Waarom koop die departement nie van daardie grond om vinniger die 30% te bereik nie? Hierdie semi-woestyngronde word egter by die 87% propaganda-persentasie as wit grond getel.”

Jeffreys behoort homself af te vra of dit nie hy is wat die gevaarlike speletjie speel waarvan hy Mulder beskuldig nie.

Mulder is veral daaroor begaan dat die hoeveelheid vrugbare grond wat onder landbouproduksie is van 1994 tot 2009 met 30% afgeneem het.

Hy verklaar verder: “Mislukte hervorming, waar 9 uit 10 plase nie suksesvol is nie, het ’n belangrike rol. Landbouers moet nou op minder grond meer kos produseer vir Suid-Afrika se bevolking van 50 miljoen.”

Zuma het op Mulder se toespraak gereageer deur te impliseer hy het op ’n onverskillige wyse ’n emosionele saak aangeraak. Vir sommige mense is dit “’n saak van lewe en dood”.

Die vraag is vir hoeveel mense is dit so ’n lewensbelangrike saak?

In die meningspeilings van die laaste 20 jaar het die behoefte aan grond nooit gefigureer as ’n belangrike kwessie vir swart mense nie. Werkgeleenthede, onderwys en bekostigbare kos, huise, dienste en misdaad is veel belangriker.

As ’n mens die hele teks van Mulder se toespraak lees, is dit duidelik dat hy nie met goedkoop politiek besig is nie, maar op verantwoordelike wyse ’n belangrike saak aanroer.

Waaraan die histerie in sekere van die media toegeskryf word, is moeilik om te bepaal.

Miskien is dit heimwee na die stryd teen apartheid toe alles, moreel gesproke, gerieflik wit en swart was.

Hermann Giliomee is mede-redakteur, saam met Bernard Mbenga, van Nuwe Geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika (Tafelberg 2007).

Apartheid - Part 8

2012-02-26T18:10:00.000+02:00

Still think we forced 80% of the population into 13% of the land??

F .V de Wet

http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/05/opening-pandoras-apartheid-box-part-8.html

_________________________________________________________________________________

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 8 – The lies about the Homelands

By Mike Smith
5th of May 2010

A common myth or lie about Apartheid is that the whites stole the land from the blacks and shoved them on 13% of the land of South Africa in what was called Homelands. It is further believed that blacks barely scratched out a living in these homelands due to it being on barren soil or arid regions. It is further claimed that whites made sure there were no minerals on these lands before giving to the blacks.

It is time to address these lies.

Traditionally South Africa belongs to the whites who first permanently settled South Africa since 1652. Blacks entered South Africa at about the same time, but never permanently settled any area, because they were nomadic cattle and goat herders. Blacks only started settling areas permanently after about 1770.

Wherever the Boers or Voortrekkers went they bargained for land with local Blacks who settled certain areas before them. In fact there is hardly any part of South Africa that was conquered by whites from blacks. Piet Retief’s treaty with the Zulu King, Dingaan still exist to this day.

Blacks settled other areas than the whites and in those areas blacks have the right or claim on those areas. It is however difficult to determine their claims, because blacks had no written language, no maps and no legislation such as land title deeds.

Despite this, whites researched the areas that Blacks traditionally settled and gave them full autonomy to rule themselves, with their own police forces and armies trained in South Africa with white taxpayer money.

To create work, white business people were encouraged to open factories in these countries with huge tax concessions.

The ten homelands were as follows:

Transkei –Xhosa
Ciskei – Xhosa
Venda – Venda
Bophuthatswana – Tswana
Gazankulu – Tsonga/Shangaan
KaNgwane – Swazi
KwaNdebele – Ndebele
KwaZulu – Zulu
Lebowa – Pedi (Northern Sotho)
QwaQwa – Sotho

Note how some blacks got TWO or even THREE countries of their own.

The Xhosas got both Ciskei and Transkei.

The Tswanas who have their own country called Botswana, also got Bophuthatswana.

The Sothos who already had Lesotho as their own country also got Lebowa and QwaQwa.

The Swazis who already had their own country Swaziland got KaNgwane.

After South Africa became a union in 1910, the territories (British protectorates) of Bechuanaland (Botswana), Basutuland (Lesotho) and Swaziland was excluded from the union, but the plan was to incorporate them later. The successive South African governments always tried to enclude them, but the British played delay tactics and after South Africa withdrew from the commonwealth in 1961 it ended any prospect of incorporation of these territories into South Africa. Botswana got its independence from Britain in 1966, Lesotho in 1966 and Swaziland in 1968.

If one considers that these countries are actually part of the original South Africa, then the territories under Black rule and autonomy including the other homelands makes up 50% of the total land and not 13%.

One further has to remember that about 70% of the current South Africa is uninhabitable simply because it is too mountainous or it is half desert in the Western part. Only about 10% is under normal climate conditions economically viable farmland.

When one considers the rainfall map of South Africa and the areas settled by Blacks, then one sees that Blacks settled in above average rainfall areas. The soil of these homelands was some of the most fertile soil of South Africa.

Today the black ANC government is taking white owned farms away and handing them over to blacks to be totally ruined in a few months.

Something else a lot of people do not know is that the White NP government ALSO forced whites off their land by paying them out undervalued sums for their farms so that they could hand it over to blacks in the establishment of the homelands.

I personally know people who lost their successful dairy farm in those days to make way for the Ciskei.

About 48% of all the viable agricultural land was in these Black homelands.
Today the Blacks want to say that these lands are barren. As I have mentioned it is totally false, but on the other hand, these were the areas the blacks chose out for themselves to settle on about 200 years ago. The cannot blame the whites for it today.

It is often said that whites first made sure that there were no minerals in these homelands before they gave it to the Blacks.

This is also false. In the homeland of Bophuhatswana, the Tswana homeland in addition to having their own country Botswana, we can find the largest Platinum deposits in the entire subcontinent. Gold are also mined as a byproduct in these platinum mines.

In the “Book Verrat an Südafrika” Klaus Vaque mentions an article in the German Magazine “Deutschland-Magazin” Nr. 3/83 where a Lebowa chief was asked if it was true that blacks have been pushed onto worthless desolate areas...

I freely translate, the chief answered:

“No, it is not true. We have here all the raw materials except diamonds and crude oil. We have all other minerals. As far as agriculture is concerned, we have some of the richest parts of South Africa. We have good rainfall and good soil. I think our livestock are some of the best and our wheat and maize potential is fairly high. The people who say that we have been pushed onto dry and desolate areas do not know what they are talking about. I think they are talking about others.”

The question has to be asked...what is so bad about giving all the major Black tribes of South Africa their own country where they could rule themselves on territory they historically settled and where they could be ethnically homogenous, where they could speak their own language, practice their own culture and religion and where they could be totally free?

What is the crime in that?

POSTED BY MIKE SMITH AT 12:51 PM

White Man in Land Claim Bid

2012-02-24T14:25:00.001+02:00

This just in from IOL. Obviously land was taken from Whites and reserved for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians and here is some evidence. The ANC has opened a hole new can of worms with their land redistribution and WHITES all over SA should stand up for their rights and claim their land back that was "stolen" from the Apartheid Gov and given to Blacks, Indians and Coloureds.

Sadly, the Gov will find a way to bypass the system and will state that this man's claim is not valid because the land belonged to Blacks before his family bought it in 1968. Sadly, they will state that any land owned by Whites after 1913, was stolen from Blacks. The ANC just loves rewritting history and nothing is said about the fact that they (Blacks) themselves stole the land from the Khoi people and nearly caused a genocide against them.

The only true claimants of land in SA are the Khoi people as they were the "natives", while the Darker Skinned Africans moved down from East, West and North Africa around the same time that Europeans started coming to Africa.

But seeing as Science found that HUMAN LIFE started in Africa, African then belongs to ALL the people in the world, doesn't it?? But, we all know Blacks and they only claim reparations / compensation when History suites them. So yes, Life started in Africa (ALL LIFE OF ALL RACES), but only Black Africans can claim the land!! WTF!!

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/white-man-in-land-claim-bid-1.1242063

F. V de Wet

_________________________________________________________________________________

White man in land claim bid

It was designed to discourage people of colour from living in certain affluent areas earmarked for white people, but now the Group Areas Act has been turned on its head with a white man claiming compensation for land he says his family was “forced” to sell under the act at the time.

Abraham Wollach, 72, from Green Point has taken his case to the Land Claims Court, with the national government, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, the Commission on Land Rights and the regional land claims commissioner listed as defendants. He is claiming more than R28 million in compensation, saying the value of the land was not taken into account when it was sold.

The 1 500-hectare property – which was once a dairy farm – now comprises large parts of Atlantis, which was established in 1977. The area includes residential housing.

According to court papers, Wollach’s case is that the property had been owned by Hartebeeskraal Farms at the time.

Wollach’s father, Lazarus Wollach, was the majority shareholder.

His father bought the property in October 1968 before it was bought by the apartheid government’s Community Development Board for R475 627 five years later because the area had been declared for “coloureds”.

“It therefore became unlawful for the plaintiff’s father to own property there, as a person who had been classified as white,” the court papers said.

On Wednesday, Wollach, along with his advocate Joel Krige, took Acting Judge Steve Kahanovitz on an inspection in loco at the farm.

During the inspection, Wollach vividly recalled the layout of the farm, in which he mentioned dams, milking sheds and barns. Judge Kahanovitz was shown what was left of a now dried-out dam which had since made way for housing. About a quarter of the dam remains today.

The property was converted into the Hartebeeskraal Community Centre.

The border of the property ran along the Old Darling Road, with trees lining either side, and stretched towards Dassenberg Drive.

Krige submits that a number of factors needed to be taken into account, such as inflation, and the present day value of the land was R28 470 775. Court papers included historical valuation reports in which the value of the property at the time of the act was at least R848 100.

Wollach also wants the government to pay his legal costs.

The case has since been postponed to allow for experts to evaluate the property.

Krige said the experts would determine whether just and equitable compensation was given for the property. - Cape Times

Apartheid - Part 7

2012-02-24T13:29:00.000+02:00

http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 7 – The role of a government

By Mike Smith
4th of May 2010

When one asks most people, white or black, what the role of government is one will get various opinions depending on who one pose the question to, but in general most people believe that the role of government is to develop and maintain infrastructure, in other words build dams, roads, schools, etc. Their means of doing this (it is believed) is to tax the citizens.

Most people also believe that the government (politicians and civil servants) steal some of this money out of the state coffers...and that is what we call corruption.
They further believe that some governments steal more than others. Some build more schools and roads than others and a good government is the one who does not steal and who builds lots of “things” such as sport stadiums.

But in reality it basically works like this...

Several political parties compete to rule the country to represent the people. The party that has the best sales pitch, that appears to be the most just will win, voted in by the majority population. Once in power the self-enrichment starts. The politicians do not care one bit about the people who have voted for them. Their sales pitches, lies, empty promises, bullshit and fraud is all just to get to the feeding trough and pocket the spoils, but open theft will soon end them into prison so they have to be sly about it.

All governments spend more than they raise in taxes. Government officials borrow money from gigantic banks and other financial institutions to finance their building of roads, houses for the poor, etc. They then contract the jobs to companies that they themselves own, their families own, etc. This borrowed money ends up in the pockets of the politicians, but the loans needs to be paid back. This is where our taxes come in. Our taxes pay back to the banks what our governments have stolen.

The more liberal/socialist the government, the bigger the government structure will be and the bigger the theft, nepotism and corruption will be. Conservative and nationalist governments tends to be smaller and the corruption a lot less.

The more uneducated the people of a country is, the least they will grasp this thieving principle and the fewer checks and balances will be kept on their thieving government.

That is why liberal/socialist governments will introduce dumbed down education systems such as Outcomes Based Education and Training (OBET) to keep the people uneducated. In fact everything from sports to radio, newspapers and television will be changed to keep people ignorant of the theft going on behind the scenes.

It is important to reiterate that theft and corruption happens in ALL governments to some extent. Some of them are mild when it comes to corruption, but most are aggressively greedy. The longer they stay in power, the longer they are in the front row of the feeding trough. That is why a socialist government like the ANC in South Africa has one goal and that is to stay in power for ever. Or as Jacob Zuma said, The ANC will rule until Jesus comes back

In order for us to understand the reasoning and rationale behind Apartheid it is necessary to briefly look at the role of Government.

We as human beings want to live and survive. We want to pass on our genes into the future and in this short period of being here on earth, we want to be happy.

Part of being happy is to have a house, furniture, a television, or whatever makes us happy...basically to own property.

This is called the right to life and the pursuit of happiness through the ownership of property.

Problem comes in when someone wants to take your life away, take your property away or interfere in anyway with your pursuit of happiness.

Such a person is then initiating force. He is stealing from us, physically attacking us, defrauding us, etc and therefore threatening our survival and our pursuit of happiness which are the most fundamental rights an individual can have.

When you are a strong burly bloke, you can easily defend yourself against such a person and your retaliatory force will be just. You did not initiate the force, but protected your right to life and happiness.

But what if the assailant has weapons, or there are more than one? What if you are a child, a frail woman, an elderly person or mentally handicapped? How do you then protect yourself against the initiation of force?

And that dear people is why we have a government. The ONLY job of any government is to protect our individual rights. The role of any government is to protect our right to life and our pursuit of happiness from those who wants to take it away from us.

The way government does it is to have an army to protect us from those outside of our country who are or might be attacking us and threaten our survival and pursuit of happiness and to have a police force to protect us from those inside our country who wants to take our individual rights away.

The government therefore needs to uphold the laws that the citizens feel are rightful and just to protect them from the initiation of force and what threatens their individual rights...First as a warning to those intending on taking away those individual rights and also to punish those who break these laws.

One thing a government should never do is to initiate force against its citizens. This becomes a dicey topic, because extorting taxes is a form of initiation of force. A government can actually totally fund all its expenditures through other moral means such as setting up trust funds with all the money and property it owns, donations and people paying for services such as passports, toll roads, vehicle registration, etc.

Companies who want to transport their goods through harbours, by rail or road, etc should pay for using this infrastructure. Taxes therefore become obsolete. There is not a single government department that cannot FULLY pay for itself.

Nevertheless, I am digressing.

The National Party government in 1948 were faced with all these dilemmas when they came to power. Their primary task as a government was to protect ALL the citizens of South Africa.

In the previous instalments of this series I tried to explain the background to this dilemma, considering the vast diversity of South Africa’s people, their cultures, their religions, their languages and their histories.

I explained how Blacks from literally hundreds of smaller tribes were fighting against each other for hundreds of years before the whites came to South Africa, often wiping each other out completely.

Credo Mutwa writes in his book “My People” (1969), chapter eleven, page 244:

“One of the High Laws of the Bantu is the law of revenge...The result of this law is that there are blood-feuds going on all over Africa which show no sign of dying out. Some of these have already been going on for generations. The Zulus have been feuding with the Basutus (Sothos), and also with the Shanganes of Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique), for more than a century. The feud between the Baluba and some of its neighbouring tribes has been going on for nearly six hundred years, while the feud between the Masai and the Wakambi in Kenya has now entered its tenth century. The Bahutu (Hutus) and the Wa-Tu-Tutsi (Tutsis) have been at each other’s throats for as long, and as recently as 1963 the newspapers reported that this senseless feud had accounted for another 30,000 Wa-Tu-Tutsi lives”.

Note how Credo Mutwa writes about the animosity between the Hutus and the Tutsis of Rwanda in 1969, referring to a relatively small massacre of 30,000 Tutsis in 1963. It culminated in full blown genocide of between 800,000 and 1,2 million Tutsis in 1994.

This is exactly the chaos Apartheid tried to prevent.

The South African situation was unique. It was a major challenge and it had to be solved fairly. The NP had to find a compromise that everyone could live with and be happy with.

The White NP government intimately knew the blacks of South Africa and the blacks of Africa in general. They knew about Shaka’s Defecane that was worse than the Rwanda genocide, they knew about all the inter cultural and inter tribal differences of the blacks of South Africa. They knew about the massacres of whites during the Xhosa wars, the massacre of whites at Bloukrans, the Battle of Blood River and countless more.

The only way to keep the peace, protect all the citizens of South Africa and to secure the individual rights of all the people of South Africa was to separate them, let them develop at their own pace, give them autonomy the right to rule themselves, draw up their own laws and enforce those laws with their own armies and police forces...The official government policy was called...”Seperate Development”...The Media called it, “Apartheid”. Proposed in 1973 accepted and enforced in 1976The United Nations General Assembly declared Apartheid a crime against humanity without offering an alternative to South Africa’s situation.

The question is thus open. Considering the background that I have sketched so far in this series...what would you have done if you were in charge of South Africa at the time, faced with the same challenges? What would your solution have been?

The worst that Apartheid critics can dig up...the worst “Massacre” they can ever refer to...is the Sharpeville shootings in 1960 when 69 blacks died.

Compare that to Rwanda 1994...

Rwanda is exactly what Apartheid tried to prevent. It does not matter what people says about Apartheid today...on the watch of the National Party, no Rwanda style massacre ever occurred on South African soil.

More than 3000 white farmers were not killed by black savages under Apartheid, reported rapes of 50,000 per year never happened under Apartheid.

Contrary to what most blacks and/or liberal whites would like to think about what whites supposedly did to blacks under Apartheid. There are no mass graves, there is not a single concentration camp, and there are certainly no gas chambers where whites tried to exterminate blacks.

Quite the contrary. White South Africans built the biggest hospital in the world, Baragwanath (today called the Chris Hani Barragwanath hospital) for blacks with white expertise and white taxpayer’s money... 3200 beds and 6760 staff members.

For that, and many other altruistic and charitable endeavours, whites of South Africa were and still are made out as the evil skunks of the world.

.../to be continued

Apartheid - Part 6

2012-02-24T13:24:00.001+02:00

http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 6 Other rationales for Apartheid.
By Mike Smith
30th of April 2010

So far I have only scratched the surface and told the reader about the more common practices and customs of Blacks that whites know about and find abominable such as, Lobola (buying wives with cows), the initiation rituals of boys and girls, witchcraft, superstition, muti-murders, raping babies to cure AIDS, etc.

There are so many more rationales for Apartheid that one can actually write a book about them. And indeed someone has written a book about it...several books actually. His name is Credo Mutwa and the name of the book is “My People-The writings of a Zulu witch-doctor”. (1969) ISBN 014003210X

The book is extremely rare and few people know about it. It is not even mentioned on the Wikipedia page of Credo Mutwa. It is a fascinating book, giving you insight into the various traditions of black South Africans of various tribes, their beliefs, their superstitions, their customs and their mindset.

Credo is the most respected Sangoma and Sunusi in the whole of South Africa. He is a traditional healer, a black historian and an authority on traditional customs and beliefs of the black tribes of Africa. If one has to compare him to Christianity, then Credo Mutwa would be the pope of traditional healers.

He mentions several practices that is just too ghastly for the pious whites of South Africa to accept.

One of the things he describes is the Black law of infanticide when twins are born. This practice is still carried on today. Think about it...look around you...how many black twins have you seen in South Africa?

“The law requires that if a woman gives birth to twins, one must be destroyed by having a round pebble pushed down its throat. But in the case of triplets, one must die and two must live”

“My People”, Chapter 10, Pg. 218

So the few “twins” we see amongst blacks were actually triplets of which one was killed.

Blacks also killed their own wounded soldiers

“The wound would fester and sooner or later the patient would die. Even small gaping wounds spelt a write-off of the patient; large mPanga slashes were regarded as fatal at the outset and warriors thus wounded were given a mercy death. Many battle axes were furnished with special ‘dispatchers’ for this purpose.”
“My people” Chapter 11, pg. 234.

I will conclude with a topic that very few people wish to address and prefer to ignore...But if we are going to be honest about blacks and why we had Apartheid, then we need to mention the facts that blacks are untidy and...well they smell funny.

One just has to look at how blacks live. From ancient times until today, it does not matter where in the world one goes, a black area looks like a pig sty. I have seen this in Trinidad and Tobago, in Haiti, in Jamaica in the Bahamas and everywhere I went in Africa. I have seen this from black areas in European cities to ghettos in the USA.

Blacks just cannot keep their environment clean and tidy. Everything is disorderly, chaotic and dirty...Rubbish lying all over the place.

Another phenomenon that one sees in townships of South Africa, is that Blacks do not plant grass, flowers or trees amongst their tin shacks. This is amazingly odd. Firstly, because blacks work as gardeners or bricklayers for whites.

So the ability to build is there, the ability to keep lawn and a garden is there. Why is it that blacks never do in their own areas what they do when they are working for whites?

Maybe their environments are reflections of how they keep their bodies orderly and tidy as well.

This is how blacks are. They are actors. They can even mimic a White accent, white behaviour or intelligence and appear almost the same as whites. Many whites fall for this and indeed believe that blacks are the same as whites...but it is when one gets to know blacks up close and personal that one sees through this veil and behind the mask.

Blacks can bullshit a lot, especially when they work for whites. Then they know they have to put their best foot forward or lose the job. That is when they wash, dress respectably and behave almost white. In the workplace, blacks who are utterly incompetent will fake competence, bullshit their way through every day, steal other’s work...all an act to hide their incompetence and when they are caught out, they just change jobs and repeat the process.

That is when one realises that the so called intelligent words coming out of the mouths or pens of Martin Luther King or Barack Obama are all stolen. All non original thought and written by speech writers or whispered in their ears by advisors.

But something blacks find extremely difficult to hide is their body odour. Blacks smell. Everyone knows this. You go to Poland, you go to Japan and you ask anybody about blacks, you will hear they say, “Blacks smell”.

Maybe there is a biological reason for it, but I am not exactly keen on finding out. All I know is what my nose tells me and that is that Blacks smell really bad and that I cannot live with that.

But let me quote what Credo Mutwa says in his book, “My people”, (1969) chapter ten.

“Xhosa women also prepare mysterious potions to secure their husbands to them, so that they will not be forsaken. This potion is prepared as follows: The woman refrains from taking a bath for several days, and then rubs the body dirt off her skin in little rolls. To this she adds the hair she has shaved off her private parts. Then follows ground Bangalala root which, when mixed with milk, is a violent aphrodisiac. The recipe may also include the powdered dry petals of a sunflower, a little spittle, and a piece of sandlewood. The whole concoction is then heated in a bowl until red hot and thus reduced to ashes. These ashes are then stirred into the milk of a nanny goat which had a deformed kid, until a thick putty is formed. This is then rolled into little balls or pills, which are added one at a time to the husband’s food.”
“My People”, Chapter ten, pg. 213.

It is clear that the religions, cultures, customs and the behaviour of blacks are just too different than that of white, Christian people.

These cultures are worlds apart and totally incompatible with each other.

Whites and blacks will never get along in South Africa. Anybody who believes such a pipe dream as a multicultural “Rainbow Nation”, does not know black culture or white culture. Such a person would only be fooling himself through masturbating his own delusional, liberal, feel-good mindset. No, I am sorry to disappoint such people, but blacks and whites are NOT the same.

The reality of South Africa is so that few options actually exists. Either one of the two, black or white, totally wipes out the other or they separate completely. Not partial separation as under Apartheid...Total separation.

The reasons for Apartheid are still as valid today as they were 100 years or 50 years ago. Whites can never apologise for Apartheid, because whites cannot help for the inferior cultures, customs and behaviour of blacks. Separation and separate development of all the tribes is and was the most humane and fairest solution for all the complex groups of South Africa.

.../ To be continued

Apartheid - Part 5

2012-02-24T12:11:00.002+02:00

This part explains the difference between White and Black and their COGNITIVE ABILITY. For those who do not know, cognitive ability helps you solve problems, find solutions, to evolve and develop and so on.

http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

F.V de Wet

_________________________________________________________________________________

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 5 – Black cognitive ability. Third Rationale for Apartheid.

By Mike Smith
27 April 2010

Long before studies like “The Bell Curve” or “Race and Reason” were published, before IQ tests were invented, we whites of Africa knew the mind of the black man intimately.

Nobody had to prove anything to us. We knew the limitations of the African black and his capacity to break whatever he touches. We knew his strengths and his weaknesses.
From simple, obvious and uncomplicated examples the white man drew his conclusions about black’s cognitive abilities.

The white man noticed that the blacks from South Africa never invented the wheel. Blacks never had any written languages. They had no dug-out canoes, let alone ships. Their dwellings were nothing but single roomed shelters that resembled poor imitations of inverted bird’s nests, made from sticks and grass. They had no woven cloth and were wearing animal skins. They had no maps and no borders. They had a primitive belief system and their tribal laws were held and changed by “elders” at will after drinking their tribal beer/brew.

They were nomadic cattle herders that never permanently settled in one place for too long. They hardly grew crops and if so, it were small patches of subsistence maize introduced by the whites who brought it back from South America, the only place where it grew and existed.

Yes that is right. Maize, which is today the staple food of all Blacks throughout the entire Africa, comes from South America and was introduced to blacks by white European settlers. Blacks today cannot even imagine a life without maize, yet they say that whites never brought anything good to Africa. As I said before, blacks needs to go down on their knees and thank the Lord for sending the white man to their evil continent. Because as far as providing for themselves...they are useless.
Blacks have proven that they cannot farm. They hardly understand the principle of irrigation, let alone ever building any dams. When a slight drought occurs one year all their crops fail and they starve.

Whites in South Africa developed commercial farming into a science and built universities such asElsenburg at Stellenbosh

...blacks who have worked on white farms for their entire lives, for generations, never learned a thing and every white commercial farm that was handed over to blacks failed, even after vast amounts of money was thrown at them, training was given and the most modern implements bought for them by the government.

This tragedy is documented in a book by Dr. Phillip du Toit called, The Great South African Land Scandal . Dr du Toit has made his book available online, free of charge.
Liberals and cultural relativists will be quick to point out that there are many blacks today who are academics, medical doctors or lawyers.

They will tell us that the environment determines IQ. They somehow believe that a black child raised in a white household, who went to white schools and who had all the opportunities as a white kid would magically become equal or better than a white child.

It is only the simpleminded who believes this. Eskimos live on the same parallel as Northern European Whites, but have never been able to reach the same level of development and ingenuity as Whites from Scandinavia, Russia or Germany. Blacks who live in Tropical conditions have never been able to build the structures of the Incas, the Mayas or even anything resembling the beauty of Angkor Wat in Cambodia.

Besides, the Australians tried it. They took Aborigine children away from their communities, raised them in wealthy white households, sending them to only the best schools, etc. The results were that these Abbo children reverted to the same behaviour and sometimes worse than that of their traditional communities. Today we refer to them as The stolen generation

So what about those clever blacks you ask?...The ones who are doctors, etc...?
Anybody who has ever taught blacks anything, lectured to them or tried to jerk them into the twentieth century will understand what I am about to say?

I have to tell you a little story here.

When I was at school in South Africa I had a friend. Let us call him “Manie”.
Manie was a hyper intelligent young boy. At the age of eleven when we had the “Rubik Cube” craze, he was solving the puzzle in 50 odd seconds. Later on in high school, Manie produced straight A’s, he could play several musical instruments including the drums, guitar and trumpet. He played Rugby and was also a martial artist of note. Manie became a dentist and is currently practicing in the UK.

While he was a medical student I once asked him how difficult the course was. He said to me that to become a doctor is not difficult. It is a SHIT load of work to study, but it is not difficult as in Engineering or Physics. I asked him why he opted for Dentist. He told me that when he wants to drive a Porche, he wants to go out there and buy him one. He was honest. He did not become a dentist, because he had some calling in life...he did it purely for the money.

So for blacks to become medical doctors is actually not that difficult.
The black (Zulu) historian and Shaman, Credo Mutwa talks about this in his book, “My People” (1969).

Credo says that blacks never had any written language so they have no written history. Their history is passed down orally from Sangoma to Sangoma. See, the Sangoma is not only the traditional healer, he is also the preserver of the oral history, the tribal laws and the ancient rituals and customs of the blacks.

He explains that blacks have an excellent memory that they drill from childhood through stories, rhymes and songs. To remember detail they use what we would call “memory association”.

For instance, Credo Mutwa says that the blacks have a huge respect for the late president of the ZAR, Paul Kruger. President Kruger had an ability to mimic the sounds of all birds through whistling. Even till this day the township of Mamelodi east of Pretoria, capital city of the ZAR and South Africa is named after Paul Kruger, the whistler. His statue stands on Church Square in Pretoria.

When one teaches blacks, it is not uncommon to find that they score well to very well in tests or exams where they have to repeat what they were taught. In fact it is almost well known amongst educators that blacks are better at this than whites.
But when it comes to applying knowledge...when it comes to using logic, faultfinding and problem solving skills, blacks fall by the wayside. They just cannot do it.

A black can pass all the theory exams to become a pilot, but put him in a simulator and subject him to crisis situations where he has to think rapidly, then one sees the cogs of the black cognitive system start flying all over the place. And I am talking about the one percent...the best of the best,. The other 99% are only good to dig ditches, provided they do not break the pick or spade.

The proof is in the pudding. It is not as if the world is over run by Nobel Laureates for hard sciences like physics or chemistry. How many black astro or nuclear physicists do you know?

Today much is being said about Black education under Apartheid, but the truth is that in 1987 at the height of Apartheid, six million black children were at school, a new record for South Africa at the time. In the previous year 1800 classrooms for secondary education were built by whites, with white money for blacks. About 130 new schools were built. If one considers the schools burnt down by blacks at the same time the education standards of blacks could have been even higher.

At the time black South Africans had the highest literacy rate amongst other blacks on the entire continent. Blacks had eight universities in South Africa producing lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc of world standard. None of those people would say today that their education and degrees are of an inferior standard. Quite the contrary, they are extremely proud of their education they underwent during Apartheid. Telling them that their education was “Sub standard” would be insulting them.

As I have mentioned before, South Africa was a world leader in medical science during Apartheid and established a unique Medical university called MEDUNSA which produced amongst others on average 200 black doctors per year. MEDUNSA also trained nurses and other medical staff.

The most amazing thing is that no matter how well Blacks are educated, they never let go of their superstitious believes in the Tokoloshe, Muti witchcraft and ancestor worship. Blacks who hold high positions today such as ministers in parliament or judges...blacks who are engineers, still consult the witchdoctor on a regular basis. Blacks still run around and attack everyone, including their own with pangas.

No amount of western education will ever be sufficient to change the African black savage into respectable human beings. They are what they are. We have to be honest with ourselves and with blacks and accept them them for who and what they are. We have to realise that our cultures will never be compatible.

Just as the Boers never wanted to rule over the Blacks, the Boers will NEVER accept blacks ruling over them.

The previous National Party government was not stupid. They never took any decisions without thoroughly investigating all options. They studied the Swiss Canton system and the Belgium model with the Flemish and Walonians ...No sytem could be compared to the unique South African situation. Apartheid was not the only option. There were others to consider like the Stalinist option of just exterminating all opposition in their millions. But BJ Voster asked us to accept the reforms, because the other options were just too ghastly to comprehend for the pious Whites of South Africa.

.../ to be continued

Apartheid - Part 4

2012-02-24T12:05:00.000+02:00

Another brilliant piece written by Mike Smith. You can find his blog at the below mentioned link.

http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

F.V de Wet

_________________________________________________________________________________

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 4 – Black culture and customs. Second Rationale for Apartheid.

By Mike Smith
27 April 2010

I find it rather amusing that the cultural relativists wants to tell us that all cultures are equal and that no culture is better or higher than another, but these same primitive cultures they want to make equal to our White Western culture, rejects the notion of equality outright.

In South Africa we observe this amongst blacks on a daily basis. Again the examples are legion, but let us start with the way the African black treats his women. I said women (plural), because Black men are polygamous. They can marry as many women as they can afford.

When a black man walks down the street, his wife is lucky if he allows her to walk five paces behind him. Most of the time he tells her to go walk on the other side of the street and a few paces behind him. You see this all the time in South Africa, but we who grew up in South Africa just accept it as “it is just the way blacks are”.

Although black women can vote in official government elections, on a tribal level they have no political say and are not allowed to even sit amongst men least raise an opinion.

I said that a black can have as many wives as he can afford. That does not mean that he has to work and look after his wives. Quite the contrary. Traditionally the women do all the work in black culture.

Black men buy their women and pays for them in cows in a system known as “Lobola”.
It starts with five cows and then the two families barter a price. The price is dependent on her social status, whether she is still a virgin or already has a child, what education she has, etc. The daughter of a chief is worth around twenty cows, but normally the price is kept down to between five and ten cows for ordinary women.

Once married the woman is chattel and becomes the possession of the man, to breed and beat as he feels fit. The Xhosas practice what is called, uKetwala (the hunting down of a young girl and raping her to make her his wife)

Missionaries from Europe have tried to convert the Blacks to Christianity ever since the whites first set foot on African soil. These missionaries came across savages who believed in the powers of their dead ancestors, rather than that of a deity. Just about all civilisations had deities of some sort, but it was absent amongst blacks in South Africa. Believing in an almighty God and abstract thoughts such as time infinity takes intelligence that blacks lack.

These missionaries saw the results of intonjane (female initiation) and ukwaluka (boy’s circumcision and initiation into manhood) where some boys were lucky to live after their penises fell off due to gangrene, etc. They saw the licentious behaviour and customs of the blacks, but none of their efforts could ever win the blacks over.

They struck up compromises in the hope to later convert the blacks, but even after their best attempts the best they achieved was that blacks accepted Christianity as an addition to their tribal religions and beliefs, not as a replacement. Blacks continue to practice their traditional beliefs in parallel with Christianity up until this very day.

Read about the fruitless experiences of the missionaries here

The bible says in Mathew 7 verse 6:
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

In Mathew 13, Jesus said to plant the seeds on fertile soil only, because the rest will only produce thorns and weeds.

But let us explore the weed and thorn infested soil of African customs.

To us whites the initiation rites of blacks are horrific and barbaric practices that are still practiced to this very day. No Xhosa will ever be accepted as a man if he as a last resort to save his life, went to a western hospital during the circumcision period.

The Zulus initiation into manhood is called ukeshwama. A group of boys have to kill a bull with their bare hands. They pull out his tongue, stuff dirt down his throat, squeeze his testicles till it burst and then finally wring his neck by gripping the horns until his neck snaps. They also have to tear meat from the carcass with their bare hands and eat it raw. This is all in the name of “Culture”.

But the most horrific practice amongst blacks in South Africa and Africa in general has to be “Muti-murders”.

One just has to make an internet search or a search on a news site like IOL for “Muti-murders” to be shaken to the core at the brutality of the black man.
Muti means “medicine”. It is made from plants or animal organs, but the most powerful muti is made from human body parts, harvested while the person is still alive.

Everything from sexual organs to hands, lips, ears and other organs are cut from victims of all ages while they are still alive, including young children and babies.
Some will say that these are a few dissident Sangomas (traditional healers) who practice “muti-murders”, but the shear amount of these killings tells us that there are huge markets of believers amongst the black communities which drive these killings.

Blacks further believe in the “Tokoloshe”, a hairy goblin-like creature with a huge penis, who is sent by the Sangoma to attack them if they have done something wrong.
One can literally write volumes on the evil practices and beliefs of black South Africans.

In more modern times new “cultural beliefs” of blacks have emerged that shows their primitive mindset that no amount of education or conversion to Christianity has been able to change.

Blacks believe that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. This has resulted in horrific rapes of babies as young as six months.

Black men rape lesbians, to “correct” them. It is called by the media, “corrective rapes”.

How can any cultural relativist ever be able to convince us that these practices, customs and cultures are the same as ours?

The problem is that people who do not know Africa, or more specific, South Africa, will never believe anything I wrote above, yet it is all true and only a fraction of the truth about the blacks of South Africa. The information is today freely available on the internet and in books.

Cultural relativists should first go and try to preach their “equality” and “relativism” to the blacks of Africa, before they try to convince others of it.
The whites of South Africa learned the hard way from observing the black man in his natural habitat over hundreds of years since they first settled on South African soil in 1652.

Despite all this evil, never, not once, did it cross the minds of the Whites to annihilate and obliterate the entire black populations of South Africa, although they had every reason to do so. The whites were too pious and despite all the evils committed against them during the nine Kaffir wars, at Bloukrans, at Bloodriver, at Makapansgat, etc, still believed in “Peaceful co-existence” with Blacks.

The whites acknowledged the nature of Blacks, with all their evil customs, cultures and superstitious beliefs. The whites did not want to change any of it like the missionaries attempted (and failed) to do. No, they just wanted to separate themselves from such evil as far as possible.

In the end the piousness of whites would mean their downfall. What they should have done was to extinguish this evil.

.../to be continued

Apartheid - Part 3

2011-11-07T15:49:00.000+02:00

Another wonderful piece written by Mike Smith on how we were made to believe that Apartheid was wrong. Check out his blog at http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

This part explains the true nature of Black people, how violent they were and still are and why the Apartheid system was introduced. Just remember that Apartheid was also a system which prevented the Afrikaners / Boers to be oppressed by the English again. Even if you were not apart nor grew up with Apartheid laws, you simply need to look at the violence, rape, torture, hijackings, murders, corruption and many more "ills" that are contributed by Blacks in modern day South African Society to see why Apartheid was introduced in the first place and why it went on for so long.

Ever since Apartheid was abolished and named by the international community as a "Crime against Humanity", you can clearly see in what direction our society went. It went from a relative peaceful country (except for the violence caused by Blacks in the townships) that had little crime, to a country in chaos and about to burst out of it's seems with crime, racial hatred and corruption.

Apartheid might be wrong in the eyes of many, but none of them is seeing what it prevented and what it accomplished in about 40 years and what was accomplished in less than 20 years by the same people who deemed Apartheid wrong. In less than 20 years of "freedom from racism, equal opportunity, equal rights and no discrimination", we have become the most violent society in the world (our crime stats prove just this). How do you explain this? When a system was in place that discriminated against non-whites, they lived in peace, they had higher education standards, more jobs, far less crime and actually tripled in numbers, yet under a "free democratic system", they are dying like flies. They have no educational standards anymore, less jobs, far more crime and since 94, more than 300 000 people have died from HIV / AIDS alone. How do you add up these figures and exactly how good is the current democratic system really? Looking at crime / death figures, the life under a democratic system is far worse than that of a so-called discriminating system where far less people died of illness and far less people were murdered.

Which system is really a "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY"??

F V de Wet

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

Apartheid - Part 2

2011-09-14T16:25:00.001+02:00

Second post from Mike Smith on Apartheid.

You can find his blog here. http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

This part explains the different cultures, languages, heritage etc between the many different races in South Africa and why they were separated, not just White from Black, but Black from Black, Black from Indian, Indian from White etc. Ever since the White man set foot in Africa, he has noticed various wars between Black tribes, especially between the Zulu's and Xhosa's. Due to the fact that most races / cultures cannot get along, even if they are the same colour. Apartheid was a policy where different cultures and races would not mix, a lot like oil and water. You can mix oil and water as much as you like, and for a small period they will seem to become one, but given time, they both separate from each other again and go their separate ways. A lot can be said about different races / cultures and this "Oil / Water" mixture. When they are forced together, they will "pretend" to get along, but given time, one tries to control the other, and soon they separate again.

A Culture defines who we are, what we are and what we do, it gives us an Identity of where we belong, were we came from and where we are going. To take away someones culture, is to destroy that person and take away his identity in total.

F V de Wet

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 2 - What “diversity” means in South Africa.

By Mike Smith
23rd of April 2010

Nobody can understand Apartheid unless they understand the diversity of the people of South Africa.

Let us start with the whites.

In South Africa there are several groups of whites. The two main groups are the Afrikaans speaking and the English speaking ones.

The Afrikaners are the descendants from mainly Dutch, Flemish, French, German and some other Western European backgrounds. The Afrikaners have a unique culture, their own language and they are mostly protestant.

The English speaking whites of South Africa are from mostly British background. They are made up of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish descendants...as well as a large contingent of ex Rhodesians. These English speaking Whites of South Africa can today not be referred to as British anymore. Very few hold British passports. They developed a unique accent and culture in South Africa and are fully South African today. Their forefathers came to South Africa long before there were any Whites in Australia or New Zealand.

South Africa also has other large white communities such as the Portuguese (300,000), the Greek (+/- 100,000) and the Jewish communities (70,000). They all have their own religions and cultures. The Portuguese are mostly Catholic, the Greeks are orthodox Christians and the Jews are mostly orthodox Jewish.

Further, South Africa has a Chinese population who arrived around 1870 to work in the gold mines until Chinese immigration was stopped by an exclusion act in 1904. The South African Chinese community is about 300,000 strong.

The Cape coloureds are also diverse and complex from a wide variety of backgrounds. Today there are the two main groups, Christians and Muslims. There is about 4 million coloureds in total.

It is commonly understood by most foreigners and also amongst many South Africans, that the coloureds are a mixture of Black and White ancestors. This is false. The coloureds as a group existed long before the Whites saw any Blacks for the first time around 1770 in the Eastern Cape about 1000km from Cape Town. This was 120 years after the Dutch settled at the Cape (1652).

The indigenous people of the Cape were the Khoi Khoi(Hottentots). They were almost 90% annihilated by a smallpox epidemic at the Cape (1703).

The Dutch also imported artisans such as bricklayers, carpenters, etc from Malaysia and Indonesia. These were the Muslims or Cape Malay people. The KhoiKhoi and the Cape Malay also intermarried and interbred. A small percentage of Whites also married coloureds, but it was actually very rare. A large amount of the passing sailors frequented coloured prostitutes. Today the Cape Coloured features vary from dark brown to almost White or yellow and their hair vary from peppercorn curly to straight black. Some have KhoiKhoi features and some Arabic or Malaysian. Today the Muslim and Christian coloureds have distinct and different cultures. Some speak a dialect of Afrikaans and some English.

In Natal we find most of South Africa’s Indian population. They total about one million and are descendants of indentured labourers (for the sugar cane plantations) and traders from India and Sri Lanka. They speak mostly English, but many still speak Tamil, Hindi or Urdu. Their religion is mostly Hindu but many are Muslim.
So far I have not even started with the blacks yet.

Most foreigners believe that South Africa has one group of Blacks that speak one language and have one culture. Nothing could be further from the truth.

South Africa’s Black population is not homogenous. There are several different tribes who all speak different languages and who have distinct and hugely different cultures.

There are main tribes such as the Zulu, Xhosa, Tswana, Venda, Ndebele, Sotho, Swazi and the Shangaan/Tsonga people. But it does not stop there, because these main tribes consist of smaller tribes. For instance the Xhosas are made up of Mpondo, Fingo, Thembu, Bhaca, Nhlangwini and Xesibe tribes. The Sothos are made up of North Sotho (Bapedi) and South Sotho (Basotho) tribes. The Tswanas are only a part of the main tribe known as the West Sotho. Other tribes that make up the West Sotho are the Kwena, Kgatla, Tlhaping, Tlharo, Rolong and Ngwato.

The Venda tribe is made up of mainly the Mphephu and the Lemba, but in total the Vavenda can be bordered off into 27 clearly distinguishable tribes.

The Zulus are made up of about 200 smaller tribes

The Swazis are made up from the Nkosi, Shongwe, Khumalo and Hhlatyawako tribes. The Northern Sothos are made up from the Pedi, Koni, Phalaborwa, Lobedu and Kutswe tribes....

And so I can go on...All in all South Africa has nine official Black languages, with 23 sub categories and innumerable dialects.

Yes, these different tribes of South Africa all have different languages, cultures and belief systems. The Vendas for instance have a special affinity to crocodiles. The Zulus consider themselves as a warrior tribe and they do not circumcise their boys when they are initiated into manhood, they have to kill a bull with their bare hands. The Xhosas on the other hand do circumcise their boys and therefore Xhosas consider Zulus as mere boys regardless of their age.

When a Xhosa and a Zulu work together and they have words, the Xhosa will first and always accuse a Zulu of being a boy, thus not a man.

Another remarkable piece of information that very few people know about is that the Lemba people who form part of the Venda tribe are JEWISH.

No. They did not convert to Judaism after meeting some Jewish immigrants to South Africa. President Kruger found them already with their Jewish belief system going back more than two thousand years. They migrated from the Kenya or Ethiopian regions. South Africa’s black Jews

I hope that the reader can see that South Africa is a palette of people, cultures and religions, but also note that I started with the white people who were leading in the atomic age into Africa and I ended with Blacks who are for all intents and purposes still nomadic Negro tribes stuck in the stone-age.

With this background, is it really so unimaginable and difficult to understand that the way of “Separate development” (Apartheid) was the best and fairest solution for the problems of South Africa?

.../ To be continued

2011-09-13T14:08:00.000+02:00

Nie dat ek n probleem het met n "once-off wealth tax" nie, die probleem is dat hulle net verwys na wit mense en aandring dat alle wit mense geld gemaak het uit Apartheid. Kom ons stel die storie reg, ja wit mense het geld gemaak in daardie dae deur hulle besighede ens, nie van Apartheid nie. N besigheid het verkopers (besigheid wat diens of produkte voorsien) en dan is daar die kopers (mense wat gebruik maak van die dienste of produkte). Geen produkte of dienste voor 94 is verkoop of gekoop onder die handelsmerk "Apartheid" nie. So geen wit mens het geld uit "Apartheid" gemaak nie. As dit gaan oor die feit dat mense geld gemaak het tydens die jare van Apartheid, dan is dit nie net wit mense wat die tax moet betaal nie. Talle SWART, INDIER en ander besighede het ook geld gemaak tydens die Apartheids jare soos die Taxi bedryf, wat dan nog van die firmas en besighede wat in Soweto en ander swart gebiede ontstaan het daardie jare?

F V de Wet

Constitutional law expert supports wealth tax

2011-08-15 22:25

Fienie Grobler

"Johannesburg - Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos came out in support on Monday of Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu's call for a once-off wealth tax imposed on those who benefited from apartheid"

"Not only is a wealth tax on white South Africans who earn a minimum amount of money constitutionally valid," De Vos wrote on his blog,Constitutionally Speaking. "It is also an important and welcome idea that must be supported by all right-thinking South Africans with even a smidgen of a conscience or common sense.The tax would be a small gesture towards reconciliation and redress, he said"

Hier is waar dit half snaaks raak. Hy beweer dat jy as wit Afrikaner, met n minimum salaris, n tipe tax moet betaal vir Apartheid

"If I had been born black and poor, I almost certainly would not have gone to University and I would almost certainly never have been a Law Professor at UCT [University of Cape Town], earning quite a nice salary, thank you."

De Vos criticised the FW de Klerk Foundation for rejecting the idea of a reparations tax, and for saying in a media statement that it would be unconstitutional to do so.

"Such measures are not 'reverse discrimination' or 'positive discrimination' but are rather 'integral to the reach of our equality protection'."

ConCourt ruling

De Vos cited a ruling that was handed down by the Constitutional Court, titled Minister of Finance versus Mr Van Heerden in July 2004.

In this case, Van Heerden had complained that parliamentarians who first joined parliament in 1994 were getting better pension benefits over a five-year period than those who were parliamentarians in the apartheid era.

"Mr Van Heerden, an old apartheid era parliamentarian, complained that the scheme discriminated against whites because the vast majority of new parliamentarians in 1994 were black and those who served before 1994 were mostly white.

"The court rejected this argument, pointing out that Mr Van Heerden was still going to be far better off in terms of his pension than any parliamentarian who entered parliament in 1994 for the first time."

De Vos argued that this judgment supported Tutu's idea of a once-off reparation tax, which the Archbishop again raised during a lecture at the University of Stellenbosch last week, in reference to a recommendation made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

"A once-off wealth tax imposed on white South Africans who earn more than a certain amount as a small gesture towards reconciliation and redress would almost certainly pass the Van Heerden threshold because whether one supported apartheid or struggled against it, one invariably benefited from it if one is a white South African (whether born before or after 1994)," said De Vos.

Annual tax

He would go even further and suggest that an annual tax be imposed for up to two years.

"Why not impose such a tax of – say – two percent or three percent of one’s annual income for a period of a year or two and then divert that tax into a special fund, administered by a respected panel of experts...

"How many school libraries could be built with that money? How many fully stocked laboratories could be built with that money? How many soccer fields and pavilions could be erected with that money?

"How many new computer labs with internet access could be provided to students who now can only dream of having access to computers and the internet?," asked De Vos.

"The problem is, of course, that some white people – out of shame or ignorance or maybe a bit of both – do not want to admit that white South Africans almost all benefited from apartheid."

Apartheid - Part 1

2011-09-13T14:04:00.000+02:00

This is a series written by Mike Smith about Apartheid. Apartheid was something that was not fully understood by the youth of today, nor was it experienced in full by us. All we know, is that it was deemed "Evil" and a "Crime against Humanity". Due to this, I have searched far and wide, read many books and searched the internet constantly for something that could explain Apartheid to me in order for me to understand it. Everywhere I searched and read, all I saw was what the "Liberal Leftist" media mentioned which was a bit of a one sided story. They simply published bits and pieces of the so-called "Atrocities of Apartheid" and made it out that only whites were to blame for the "Crime Against Humanity". That is until I found this series, that told a different side of the story.

So please read the other side of the story and make up your minds.

His Blog can be found here: http://mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com/

F V de Wet

Time to open Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 1

By Mike Smith
22nd of April 2010

When we were children. We could never understand what the church minister meant when he said that all sins are sins and all sins are equally bad. It did not make sense to us, because telling a lie is not as bad as murdering someone...or is it?

Personally I believe that lying is far more dangerous than murder. Lying can kill entire civilisations.

You see...Lying is an art. There are many facets to it, but basically successful lying works like this:

You start with a massive lie. Some idiots will believe it, some will be mildly sceptic and a few intelligent ones will dismiss it as hogwash. Then you tone the lie down a bit, and those mildly sceptic ones becomes believers and the few intelligent ones who thought they knew the truth start doubting themselves and think, “OK, some of it might be true, but it is mostly bullshit”.

And so it carries on...you tone the lie down a little bit more until everyone accepts it as the truth.

See, people do not believe lies, because they have to, but , because they want to...But there are lies and then there are statistics...and then there is the truth. And that is what I profess to.

And so the lie of Apartheid and everything about it was started as a massive lie until Apartheid was accepted as a crime against humanity on the 30th of November 1973.
The Crime of Apartheid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid
Was it a Crime? A Crime against humanity?...or was it the fairest system ever created for multicultural societies?

These are the questions I want to explore in a series of articles.
“Why”, you ask?

This so called “Crime of Apartheid” is a daemon released from Pandora’s Box. It has far reaching consequences that were previously not considered. It has consequences and it is making people nervous...everyone from international corporations, international church organisations to sovereign nations are currently biting their nails...

What is the motivation to open Pandora’s Box? Does common sense not tell you to rather keep it shut? Do you really want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes?
When it comes to “The Crime of Apartheid”, the only motivation is GREED.
So who are these greedy people brave enough to open Pandora’s Apartheid Box? They are called

The Khulumani support group
Khulumani means “To speak out” in the Zulu Language.

So let us speak out. Let us not hold back anymore. Let us not pay 20,000 blacks R30,000 “restitution for suffering under Apartheid” like the ANC did after the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission”).

To understand it better I have to take you back a while to when us whites willingly handed power over to the Blacks in 1994...

We thought we had an honest deal. The deal was actually simple. We wanted the international community to lift all economic and sport sanctions against us so we could play Rugby and take part in the Olympics. In exchange we asked the ANC to stop planting bombs in shopping centres and landmines on farm roads, we told the international community that we were willing to bury the hatchet with the ANC, provided they do the same.

We wanted to bury Apartheid and build a fantastic country all working together to make the country even stronger than what it was. We thought it was achievable, because we always got on well with our Black domestics in our homes or our black colleagues at work.

We knew nothing about the communist agitations happening in the townships. Most of us, were political dunces at the time. Our political beliefs were very liberal after we left (brainwashing) school and entered the realm of Liberal activist student politics.

The reality was that when we buried the hatchet, the ANC continued the struggle. They have not at the time, neither now achieved their ultimate goal, which is a total communist South Africa...and therefore will continue the struggle until there is not a single white person left in South Africa.

How did I realise that the ANC was continuing the struggle?

I saw it with the TRC, I saw it with the introduction of Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment. I saw that the ANC was not willing to let it all go. They were not interested in burying the hatchet. The ANC was not interested in “A better life for all”.

The ANC was only interested in making as much money for themselves and screw the rest of all South Africans, Black or White.

The ANC equals Greed. Nothing will ever be enough. You cannot bargain or deal with them, because they will take everything you put on the table and demand more. It is futile to deal with these Marxist terrorists. Dealing with them will mean you will lose everything you have and they will not give up a single thing they have. You will keep on giving until you have nothing more to give, at which point you become expendable. That is when they will kill you. We as ordinary whites in South Africa are fast approaching that stage.

Along came the TRC who paid blacks in South Africa R30.000 each for their bullshit stories about how Apartheid oppressed them. The oppression and benefits will be dealt with in another article, but as far as I am concerned, when someone offers me R30,000 then I can also suck a brilliant story of oppression out of my thumb.
Make the sum people. R30,000 paid out to about 20 thousand black??? R600,million...is that enough?

So to take stock. We thought it was enough to hand over our country that we built with our money and our expertise. We thought it was enough to give them a first world country with a nuclear and space program. We identified every single black who supposedly suffered under Apartheid, we believed all their lies all 20,000 who came forward, we paid them restitution of R30,000 each...

But let me tell you, it was not enough, It will never be enough with these Marxist terrorist scum. No, they want blood. They want us to pay in blood...to the very last drop...more on that later.

They have started a court case in the USA against international companies who benefited from Apartheid. They name Land Rover (Leyland) and Mercedes who supplied vehicles to patrol the townships, they mention Oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell who ironically donated their headquarters in SA to the ANC that is now called Luthuli House. They name Barclays Bank who withdrew from SA and at the same time changed their name to First National Bank and continued to fund the ANC.
These same ANC scum now turns against their international masters and demands restitution...

But what about countries that supported the previous National Party?
We immediately think of Taiwan and Israel? Surely if you can claim restitution from international corporations who supported Apartheid then you can also claim restitution from countries who supported the Apartheid government at the time.
See, what I mean about opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box? The ANC should have left sleeping dogs lying, but no, greed has no brakes...

So let us see where this journey takes us. Let us see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
At the end of this series you will see that we never had any friends, nobody had any friends. Nobody is friends currently and nobody will ever be friends with anybody. Everybody lies about everyone else.

The biggest lie is the one that everyone believes about Apartheid.
These scavenges are all in it for the money and the power.

It is a dog eat dog world out there my friends, and we as White South Africans chose to be the EPOL biscuits.

.../to be continued.

SWART MENTALITEIT

2010-06-03T15:08:00.003+02:00

Vier vas nadat pa vermoor, dogters verkrag is - "Beeld"

Vier Mosambiekers is in hegtenis geneem ná die moord op ’n man van Meyerton wie se twee dogters van 16 en 18 daarna herhaaldelik deur hul pa se moordenaars verkrag is.
Die vier Mosambiekers is gister in die vroeë oggendure in Soweto gearresteer weens dié gru-aanval.
Volgens konst. Tikoane Sonopo, polisiewoordvoerder, het lede van die Vereeniging-trio-taakspan omstreeks 02:00 op ’n plakkershut in Orlando, Soweto, toegeslaan en drie mans in hegtenis geneem. Hul makker is later elders in Soweto gearresteer.
Volgens Sonopo het die vier mans die 50-jarige man Vrydag vermoedelik omstreeks 22:00 voor sy huis op die Boltanworld-hoewes ingewag.
Sy 16-jarige dogter het die voordeur vir hom oopgemaak en is terug na die sitkamer waar haar ma en 18-jarige suster saam met twee ander vroue gesit het.
Kort nadat die 16-jarige weer by die ander vroue aangesluit het, het hulle twee skote gehoor, waarna haar pa die kamer bebloed binnegestrompel het.
Hy het ineengestort en is voor die vroue en kinders dood. Hy is vermoedelik in die regterskouerblad onder die arm geskiet.
“Kort nadat die man die sitkamer ingestrompel het, het drie aanvallers die vertrek ingestorm. Hulle het min gepraat, maar was baie aggressief,” het Sonopo gesê. ’n Vierde man het later by die mans aangesluit en die vroue langs die oorlede man vasgebind.

Beeld het gister verneem die aanvallers het die twee meisies eers na ’n buitekamer in ’n motorhuis geneem en hulle daar herhaaldelik om die beurt verkrag.

Een aanvaller het toe een van die meisies in die huis ingeneem en weer verkrag.

Die ouer vroue is erg getraumatiseerd, maar ongedeerd.

Sonopo het gesê die mans het daarna ’n TV-stel en ’n radio gesteel en in die familie se BMW-motor gevlug.

Nadat die aanvallers weg is, kon die vroue hulself losmaak en het die polisie gebel.

Die twee meisies is na ’n plaaslike hospitaal geneem vir behandeling.

Die trio-taakspan het die gesteelde BMW die volgende dag in Diepkloof, Soweto, gevind en die TV-stel, radio en ’n pistool, vermoedelik die moordwapen, in die hut.

Die mans sal binnekort op aanklagte van moord, verkragting en roof in die landdroshof in Vereeniging verskyn.

Gevolgtrekking

As immigrante soveel geweld pleeg en krimineel aktief is, hoekom word hierdie DIERE in die land toegelaat, en as hulle onwettig hier is, HOEKOM sit die staat nie beter grens beheer in plek om hierdie DIERE uit ons land te hou nie. Maklik, die staat is gebonde aan ander Afrika lande omdat daardie Afrika lande die huidige Regering / Leiers gedurende die tyd van Apartheid, opgelei en gehuisves het. Noudat Suid Afrika in die hande van die Kommunistiese Vyande is, word sy deure oop gemaak vir ander Kommunistiese Afrikane omdat Suid Afrika die mees gevorderde land in Afrika is te danke aan die vorige WIT regering wat die land tot sukses gedruif en gebou het. Maar omdat hulle ŉ Apartheid stelsel gehad het, word dit nie raak gesien nie en WIT mense in Suid Afrika word nog steeds gesien as RASSISTE wat die prys van hul voorvaders se "sondes" moet betaal. Ek sal graag wil weet waste prys vir waste sondes? Watse sonde was dit om hulself te probeer skei van ŉ nasie wat heel duidelik nie beskik oor MENSLIKE eienskappe nie, ŉ nasie wat net behep is met geweld en wat hy verniet kan kry, en wat heel duidelik behep is om Suid Afrika nou in die grond in te wil dryf. Staats instansies funksioneer nie meer nie, en kan nie eers hulself help nie, hoe gaan hierdie instansies nog die mense van Suid Afrika help?

Die Staat / ANC, maak dan ook geld uit geweld, moord, verkragtings ens. want jy betaal belasting om geweld te voorkom deur belasting aan die staat (Polisie ens.) en dan nog Versekering op eiendom, asook ŉ Sekuriteit maatskappy wat jou moet beskerm. Belasting word op als gehef. Polisie kan nie geweld beheer nie, so die staat maak geld want jou belasting word nie doeltreffend gebruik om Polisie te betaal, op te lei en effektief te gebruik nie. Jy word nou besteel, vermoor of verkrag en betaal jy dus belasting op nuwe goedere / motors ens. wat jy moes vervang, jy betaal dan ook belasting op "hulp" wat jy by geleerde mense ontvang (doktors, hospitale ens.) asook die feit dat jy een of ander vorm van trauma konsultasie moet ontvang, waarvoor jy ook belasting betaal. So, die staat maak ŉ klein kakhuisie vol geld uit geweld / krimineleuit, dis hoekom hulle dit nie wil beheer nie. Meer geld wat die korrupte polisie / staat beampte in sy sak kan druk die einde van die maand.

Om terug te kom by die berug, hierdie was 4 SWART diere wat ŉ WIT man geskiet het en sy 2 WIT dogters herhaaldelik verkrag het. Watter tipe mentaliteit moet jy hê om hierdie tipe dade te verrig? Maklik, jy moet eerstens die mentaliteit van ŉ DIER hê, tweedens moet jy SWART wees, want vok weet, dit lyk my dis net hulle wat so gru kan wees teenoor Wit mense en hulle uitmoor en aanval op die manier wat dit deesdae gedoen word. Tot op hede is daar meer as 3000 wit Boere vermoor deur Swart DIERE, wat hulle op gru maniere martel, verkrag en vermoor. Dit maak my siek op te dink dat die mense net gelos word om te doen wat hulle wil. Mosambiek, net soos ander Afrika lande is arm, en nou dat die SWART Regering, met die hulp van Kommunistiese krag / hulp en ondersteuning ons Suid Afrika oorrompel het, wil hierdie DIERE hier kom bly want hulle eie lande, onder hulle eie SWART REGERINGS is te slapgat om die land te verbeter, iets wat hulle nog nooit kon regkry nie, want hulle besit nie die mentaliteit van MENSE nie, hulle besit DIERLIKE eienskappe en die kan duidelik gesien word in hulle KULTUUR en hoe hulle hul KULTUUR toepas.

Watter KULTUUR, slag mense soos skape, kap hulle op en gebruik dan die menslike liggaamsdele vir Muti, watter KULTUUR was die afgelope 300 jaar, onderdruk deur ander kulture en watter KULTUUR was al vir die afgelope 150 jaar so agteruit en onmenslik dat hulle nie hulle eie mense, kulture, lande ens. kon ontwikkel nie, watter KULTUUR het vir die meerderheid van die laaste 16 jaar in Suid Afrika meer voorreg, ondersteuning en hulp gekry maar is nog steeds in so nood dat hulle nog steeds onderbevoorreg verklaar word? Daar word net gesê dis die WIT mense se skuld en hulle moet betaal terwyl hierdie DIERE agteroor sit en kyk hoe biljoene dollars na hulle lande gestuur word vir voeding en ontwikkeling. HOE PATETIES moet jou RAS / KULTUUR wees as jy in 150 jaar se tyd nie eers jouself en jou land tot op ŉ menslike vlak kon bevorder of ontwikkel nie?

How the Corrupt tell a Story

2010-05-14T13:59:00.002+02:00

What a joke this letter is, especially if you see who wrote it. None other than Ronnie KASRILS, a person who has been seen / heard and recorded lying to the People of South Africa.

What makes this letter any more credible or fact if Ronnie's corrupt past shows us why he can not be trusted with telling the truth?

http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?doc=ancdocs/pubs/umrabulo/umrabulo31/art9.html

Bobbejaan en sy SPEELGOED!!!

2010-05-10T16:21:00.000+02:00

"Beeld - 9 Mei 2010"

Nóg twee motoriste was die afgelope naweek slagoffers van klippe wat van brûe oor snelweë gegooi is.
’n Man is Vrydag - nadat hy “genadiglik” toevallig van bane verwissel het - rakelings gemis deur ’n klip wat van ’n brug in Pretoria afgegooi is, sy ruit aan die passasierskant getref en weggespat het.
Dit was op dieselfde dag dat mnr. Gideon Ehlers (39), ’n ingenieur van Centurion en die pa van twee seuns, dood is toe ’n klip “so groot soos ’n wiel” van ’n ander brug in dié stad op sy motor gegooi is.
Kort tevore was daar nog twee soortgelyke voorvalle.
Volgens mnr. Berto Engelbrecht (34) van Bronkhorstspruit, wie se motor ook Vrydag getref is, het hy in Beeld gelees van Ehlers se dood.
Hy (Engelbrecht) het omstreeks 15:00 van Midrand na Rosslyn gery, onderdeur die brug waar die N1-hoofweg verdeel in die N14 (na Krugersdorp) en die Ben Schoeman-hoofweg na Midrand.
“Die padoppervlak het my geïrriteer en ek het effens in ’n ander baan ingery. Dat ek dít gedoen het, was net genade en het my waarskynlik van ernstige beserings gered. Net nadat ek onderdeur die brug is, het ek ’n helse slag gehoor en glas sien spat.”
Volgens Engelbrecht het die ruit by die passasiersitplek heeltemal versplinter. Die stukke glas het sy motor vol gelê.
“Ek was angsbevange en het net aangery. So 2 km later het ek stilgehou. ’n Man wat agter my gery het, het ook stilgehou. Volgens hom het hy ook net die slag gehoor.”
Engelbrecht sê die klip sou waarskynlik sy voorruit getref het as hy in die baan gebly het.
Ehlers, ’n sand-en-klip-ingenieur van Drift Super Sand in Muldersdrift, was dieselfde oggend omstreeks 01:00 in Pretoriastraat na die hoofweg op pad toe die klip hom getref het. Hy is op slag dood.
Kort tevore was daar nog twee soortgelyke voorvalle.
Mnr. Brian Engelbrecht (21), ’n sjef van Ndlovu Lodge, was Woensdag omstreeks 23:45 in ’n westelike rigting op die N4 op pad huis toe toe hy ’n klip van die brug net voor die N1-wisselaar sien val.
Engelbrecht het uitgeswenk, maar die klip het die passasierskant van sy VW Polo getref. Sy voorruit, kopstut en paneelkissie is in die aanval verwoes.
Sowat tien dae gelede het mnr. Gabriel Barnard (24), ’n gimnasium-instrukteur, omstreeks 23:45 in Kerkstraat langs die N4-hoofweg gery toe hy iets hoor “ontplof'', Barnard het gesê ’n klip het op sy agterste sitplek beland, maar hy het eers enkele meters daarvandaan stilgehou.
Gister het ’n Johannesburgse man aan Beeld gesê hy vermoed iemand het ook op sý motor ’n klip gegooi.
Mnr. David MacMahon (32) was eergister omstreeks 17:30 op pad werk toe.
Hy het op die M1-suid gery, onderdeur ’n brug by die Uncle Charlies-wisselaar, toe sy voorruit aan die passierskant skielik gebars het.
“Ek het nooit die klip gesien of in my motor gevind nie, maar al logiese verduideliking is dat dit van bo af gegooi is,” het hy gesê. “Dit is net genade dat dit die passasierskant getref het.”

Konst. Portia Maleka, polisiewoordvoerder, het gister gesê die polisie patrolleer gebiede wat as gevaarsones geïdentifiseer is.

“Dit lyk beslis asof die oortreders dit met opset doen en die meeste van die aanvalle vind in die vroeë oggendure plaas. Ons werk voltyds aan dié kwessie.”

News24.com: Galleries: South Africa: Breaking News

2010-04-09T15:55:00.000+02:00

News24.com: Galleries: South Africa: Breaking News

Outside the court in Ventersdorp, where the two accused stand trial. As indicated on the photo's, it is clearly seen how the Blacks support the two murder suspects and then chant "hero, hero". The new South Africa where the majority population (Being Black) chant "hero, hero" in support of murderers, the same country where BLACK YOUTH LEADERS sing hateful songs like "kill the boer, kill the farmer" in support of their "Struggle Against Apartheid". A system that was introduced into South Africa by the English after the second Boer war and was simply maintained by people from English Decent as well as being under English Influence in some instances.

"South Africans chant "hero, hero" outside the court in Ventersdorp as police escort one of the two men charged with the April 4 killing of AWB leader Eugene Terre'Blanche. (AFP, Alexander JOE)"

Apartheid was not introduced by the BOERS, but by the Government of South Africa, which was at that time, a mixture of Afrikaners (Not Boers) and the English, the same English that shaped so much of South Africa's economic culture that can be seen (Western Economic Culture). In most cases, it was the BOERS that did not agree with the ruling party at the time, the NP and even when apartheid came to an end, they fought the NP but not to preserve the Apartheid System, instead for the Government to grant them separate land. This was not to be racist, but looking at SA today and what has become of a once beautiful country, one can understand why they wanted to preserve their culture, their heritage, their language and their way of life as in SA today, being WHITE and being a BOER / AFRIKANER / ENGLISH, you have no place in SA today.

And looking at this picture, you can also understand why they fought so hard. The majority population see murderers as HERO's, FREEDOM FIGHTERS and REVOLUTIONARIES. The same Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma, all Presidents, past and present, are seen as HERO's, but these men were the direct cause for so many deaths. It's this mentality from the majority population that we are fighting, not their colour and that is what the AWB, FF+ and so many more are doing, fighting against an INHUMAN, BARBARIC, DESTRUCTIVE and DISTURBED group of people that just happen to fall into the majority Black population. Not all Blacks are like this, but you have to wonder, if you have 6 rotten apples and 2 that are not rotten, how long before the rotten infect the other 2??

F V de Wet

The White Settler

Zuma wants 'African' justice

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2012/11/02/zuma-wants-african-justice

Malema willing to shed blood for land

Aanslag op die Woord van God

Jes. 7:14

Jes. 63:9

Houding ten opsigte van die Nuwe Vertaling

How to Brainwash a Nation

RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR - PART 1

Apartheid - Part 12

Apartheid - Part 11

The "White Guilt" Complex - Part 1

Apartheid - Part 9

Apartheid - Part 10

In Defense of Mulder's Statement about Land Reform.

Wat Mulder eintlik sê

Apartheid - Part 8

White Man in Land Claim Bid

Apartheid - Part 7

Apartheid - Part 6

Apartheid - Part 5

Apartheid - Part 4

Apartheid - Part 3

Apartheid - Part 2

Constitutional law expert supports wealth tax

Apartheid - Part 1

SWART MENTALITEIT

How the Corrupt tell a Story

Bobbejaan en sy SPEELGOED!!!

News24.com: Galleries: South Africa: Breaking News