All Episodes
Previous Next
May 17, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:18:40
3688 The Fall of South Africa | Simon Roche and Stefan Molyneux
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
I'm here with Simon Rush.
He is the head of the office of the HQ of the world's largest non-state civil defense organization called the Swedelanders of South Africa.
And he once worked with the African National Congress and was an activist there.
He now works...
To prepare for an impending catastrophe in the rainbow nation of South Africa, you can check out his website at swedelanders.org.
That's S-U-I-D-L-A-N-D-E-R-S. Simon, thank you so much for taking the time today.
It's a pleasure.
Thank you very much for having us.
So South Africa emerged, of course, in the late 70s and 80s up until the early 90s as sort of the home of white privilege, the home of apartheid and segregation and all of the accumulated evils of Western colonialism and exploitation.
And there was sort of a brief flurry of interest as apartheid was dismantled.
And like a lot of quasi-leftist experiments, the results seem to have been flushed down the memory hole.
So for those of us who have been tracking this South African situation for many decades, and I have family connections there, I visited twice and so on, and I have some understanding of what's going on.
But I do want to help people circle back because it is very instructive as to what has been going on, what was promised versus what has delivered.
But for most of our audience, of course, African history starts the moment that Bruce Springsteen starts talking about it and stops the moment he moves on to some other pet liberal project.
I wonder if you could help people understand a little bit more of the deep history of South Africa and how various factors formed what is occurring now and what may potentially occur in the future.
Well, South African modern history, if you like, began on the 6th of April 1652 when a group of Dutch Calvinists, really the religious aspect is quite important, landed at the Cape of Good Hope and began to build a fort.
A few decades later, Huguenots from France came to South Africa and they augmented that population.
They were fleeing The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, in other words, they were being persecuted in Catholic France.
A few years after that, German Lutheran soldiers, this is some decades after the Thirty Years' War, a knock-on effect, these male men soldiers came to South Africa.
Those three groups formed the core of what later became the Boer Africana population of South Africa.
For 125 years exactly, The contact between those white settlers and the indigenous population was limited to the contact with the San and Koi people, in other words, what used to be known as the Bushmen and Hottentots.
125 years down the line, here comes a commander of the fort at the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Town.
And he wanted to engage in the slave trade, but there were no broad-shouldered, black-skinned people to be exploited.
They were just the small family groups of the little frail aboriginal people of South Africa.
So he set out on a two-year expedition to find black people.
He knew full well that there were black people along the east coast of South Africa who were being traded as slaves by the Muslims.
To the Arabian Peninsula, about 14 million in total, considerably larger than the slave trade to the Americas.
Of course, nobody knows about it because the Islamic slave trade was characterized by immediate emasculation, castration.
So all of those slaves were prevented from being able to procreate.
But anyway, he knew that they existed, so he wanted to get his hands on slaves, and it took him two years to find the first black-skinned people between Cape Town and the slave-trading ports on the upper east coast of Africa.
He found them on the Great Fish River of South Africa.
So that means that around about 45%, perhaps a little bit more, of South Africa had never been occupied by the black people of the time.
At the turn of the 19th century, the early 1800s, we know from all of the most conservative, liberal, if you like, demographic models that the black population of South Africa was somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million.
Some people would say considerably less, but let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 2.5 to 3 million.
King Sharka Zulu, the famous King Sharka, began a series of wars And the people who observed those wars at the time, including his best friend, Henry Francis Finn, an Irish guy,
they were such close friends that King Sharpe personally gave him nine wives and he shared three of them with his brother Frank Finn, observed at the time that the wars, the Infitania wars,
massacred about two So this population of between 2.5 and 3 million people It
was reduced to about one million by 1840.
And at that time, almost exactly at that time, the Boer Afrikaner people of South Africa fled British dominion in the Cape and moved into the hinterland and formed two notable sovereign republics that were recognized by the world.
There were about seven republics altogether, but two notable ones.
And it was then that there was first big contact between the blacks and the whites, notably when the Boer Afrikaner colonists purchased a piece of land in 1838 from the Zulu king.
He subsequently massacred them all by impaling them on stakes up through their rectums after forcing them to watch their children die.
Then cut their stomachs open and drank the gall out of their bladders.
And I'm sorry, just to interrupt, this would not be the last time that white farmers suffered at the hands of this kind of brutality, which we'll get to in a little bit, but please go on.
Okay, so I think that's more or less the synopsis.
So at that point in time, 1838 was when there was first big contact, big conflict between Between the Boers who'd gone into the hinterland and the black tribes who were beyond the Great Fish River in that sort of 50%,
55% of South Africa that was indeed occupied, although by this time, as recorded extensively by particularly the London Missionary Society in journal after journal and report after report, the hinterland was utterly depopulated.
The London Missionary Society famously detested The Boers, so they're not a natural ally of our organization and our culture, but they recorded extensively how there were just no people.
There were crawl after crawl, homestead after homestead, unoccupied, and bones lying bleached in the sun.
But just no human beings.
So we have, I mean, for almost 200 years, we have boa expansion into generally unoccupied territory.
I mean, it's like setting up your farms on the Antarctic.
I mean, you know, you maybe displace a few penguins, but you're not really impacting human settlements.
For close to 200 years, there is this use of land, and of course, a productive use of land, which wasn't really happening before, and an expansion without much human contact.
And then, as you point out, a little under 200 years later, boom!
There starts to be overlap and conflict, but part of this has to do with the detritus left behind by a massive intertribal black-on-black war that, as you point out, kills millions of people.
Yes, yes, that's right.
So the number of people, black people, occupying this 1,221,000 square kilometer area Was around about a million people, give or take.
So you're looking at about one person per square kilometer.
Very, very, very sparsely populated.
Comparable perhaps to Australia or to the USA. Not comparable to the densely populated regions of Africa as most people know them.
Right.
So let's pick up the story mid-19th century and what happens after that.
Well, in 1838 there was three massacres of these Boer Afrikaners after they purchased this giant piece of land and very sadly the women and children were treated very badly.
The Boers were furious about it and that kind of set the tone for later engagement.
The Boer Afrikaners felt that the people that they were dealing with were going to Get them under their thumb, unless they were very strong and bold in the way that they handled themselves.
It didn't precipitate much war.
It wasn't until later on that large-scale conflicts happened, but that was largely between the Zulus and the Osa people and the British on two different frontiers.
So these sovereign states, the two in the hinterland that I described to you, They were recognized in 1852 and 1854 respectively.
They were called the Orange Free State and the Zait-Afrikaansche Republic, the South African Republic, commonly known as the Transvaal, across the Waal River.
And then the discovery of diamonds in the 1870s led to immediate British attempts at annexation.
The British were heavily smashed in the war.
of 1879, early 1880, but then gold was discovered 10-15 years later and the British came back en masse and that's when the famous Boer War happened where Britain sent 445,000 troops to fight against Boer militiamen and all the photographs of course famously show You know,
old men and young boys, this ragtag militia fighting off the British very bravely and the 45,000 again hammered the British severely until the British adopted two schemes under Herbert Lord Kitchener, namely the scorched earth policy where they burned down every farm that they could and then took the women and children and put them in concentration camps and starved them to death very deliberately.
As the letters and records show, in order to break the morale of the Boers.
And that, of course, brings us to the early 1900s that Anglo-Boer War ended in 1902.
And I'm sorry, just to interrupt again, for those who like the little historical tidbits, to my understanding, Simon, this was the first real recorded instance of what we would call modern concentration camps, Which we, of course, associate with the Nazis and the Soviets and so on.
But this was the British dealing with the Boers in South Africa.
Also, this is where Churchill got his start.
He was captured, made his way, escaped.
It became quite famous.
And this is sort of where he got his first leg up in politics.
Yes, people very conveniently overlook the fact that the first two uses of modern concentration camps were against Christians.
The Boer women and children of the Anglo-Boer War of 1899 to 1902, and then of course the Turkish employment of concentration camps against the Armenians in World War I, an often overlooked thing in which the most reasonable estimates are about a million people killed by the Turks, Armenians, Christian Armenians killed by the Turks.
And somehow history has managed to sort of Dodge it, you know, skip its way around the facts very conveniently.
Or the mainstream media, certainly.
I mean, you never ever hear in a BBC documentary or sort of an American PBS documentary any reference to Nazi concentration camps.
And, oh, by the way, this is something that was developed 20 years earlier by these people.
You know, it's as if it didn't happen.
Well, of course, if any historical narrative can be used to cover up crimes against Christianity, right, the 2% of Christians currently attempting to struggle to survive in the Middle East are not considered to be worthy potentials for refugees.
But of course, everybody else who can grab a cell phone and a boat can be considered a refugee.
So unfortunately, it's not uncommon for this kind of history to be overlooked.
And it was interesting, if not downright shocking to me to realize that it was the British who pioneered concentration camps against Christians in South Africa.
Yes It reminds me a bit of that scene in Good the Bad and the Ugly where the judge or the sheriff is reading out the sentence against the guy who's about to be hanged and he says, for the rape of a woman of the white race.
You know, it just seems as if that kind of tension that you feel when you listen to those words, knowing that they're politically incorrect, It's the tension that everybody feels now in the world if you sort of refer to a particular group of people that's not fashionable in a crisis.
You know, they're not fashionable.
Did we really say that?
Did we really hear that?
Did anybody notice it?
Does anybody, you know, did it slip out?
There's an uncomfortableness that people get and it's very, very sad.
Well, we've lost universal ethics and we've devolved into pressure group victimization, civil warfare through the power of the state.
But we'll get to that perhaps a little bit later on.
Let's pick up the story in the early 20th century and what happened in South Africa leading up to during and after the First World War.
Well, very notably, the British now having annexed South Africa, succeeding eventually in beating these 45,000 militiamen, Conducted a census, as good colonials do,
you know, it's the right thing to do, assess the resources at your disposal, how much wine is in the cellar, as it were, and they recorded a black population at the time of just about two million souls.
In World War I, we'll come back to that, in World War I, the Boer Afrikaner people, the people who formed the core of our organization, St.
London, rebelled against Britain, dragging them into World War I. Their attitude was, you killed our wives and mothers and daughters just a dozen years ago, and now you expect us to fight on your side against the Kaiser.
You're absolutely mad.
We're never going to do it.
So there was that rebellion.
And indeed, in World War II, there was almost a hangover of that.
Many of our people still refused to go on the side of Britain against Germany, irrespective of what Germany was doing.
That's having a little bit in common with the Irish, Southern Irish at least, but go on.
Yes.
And shortly after World War II, in 1948, the Boer Afrikaner people of South Africa managed to wrest control of the parliament from the English-dominated regions of South Africa.
So the Boer Afrikaners managed to get control of the parliament.
And in 1950, they famously did a census of their own, again, to assess for themselves what resources they were taking over in the country.
And the black population was then 5 million.
The white population was just about 2 million.
Now, let's pause on that for just a moment, because the numbers, as you've pointed out, go way out of whack in terms of parity after that.
But let's remember, of course, largely unpopulated land, that there was a lot of intertribal black on black warfare that decimated the population.
But the population of blacks under white, I wouldn't say rule, but under white authority has been steadily increasing.
And that is not what people often think about when they think of, you know, the decimation of colonial powers and destroying the local population, driving them off cliffs and into the ocean and into graves.
Here we have a situation, and it has a lot to do with the farming genius of the Boer people, where the amount of food production, which is one of the great limiting factors in survivability within South Africa, the food production is enormous.
And out of that A rise of population of both the whites and the blacks, but it's not way off from parity in the post-Second World War period.
No.
Well, between 1950 and the year 2000, the black population, as we said, went from 2 million to 5 million.
Now it goes from 5 million to 40 million.
An eightfold increase in two generations.
It's a phenomenon.
And these are the things that make us so frustrated.
These egregious facts and figures that the world overlooks, and we believe it's deliberate, because how can such phenomena not be acknowledged?
This is another thing that people sort of need to understand a little bit about South Africa and poverty as a whole, that generally if white people or East Asian people get a lot of resources, they end up focusing on careers and learning how to play the flute and learning how to...
Do kabuki theater with skiing gloves and stuff.
But what happens with other populations, if you give them a lot of resources or there's more money or food around, they just have a whole lot more kids.
And that, of course, is the big challenge when it comes to trying to solve the problem of poverty.
There's an old saying that the best contraception is industrialization.
That's not true for all populations around the world.
It's not true.
It goes to our selection theory.
The simple reality is that some people will react to it in a certain way, and other people will react to it in a different way.
You know, to increase your population from 2 million to 40 million in the space of 100 years, a generation in sociological terms is nominally 25 years, so in four generations, to increase your population by 2,000%, It's not even possible, but it happened.
It happened because there was a surplus of clean running water, a surplus of electricity, a surplus of disposable income, a surplus of...
Good medicine, right?
Good medicine was a big issue.
Well, if any of the liberal viewers of your channel ever make a pilgrimage to Nelson Mandela's house in Soweto, they'll pass the world's largest hospital on the left-hand side on Old Potch Road, It's called the Chris Hany Baragwanath Hospital.
The largest hospital in the world was built in the middle of Soweto.
That is what permits people, or assists them, if they don't rein themselves in, to produce phenomenal population expansion, such as, with all due respect to your viewers, Europeans and Americans don't comprehend.
They just have no frame of reference to appreciate.
This, I don't know, explosion.
Well, so there are 38 million blacks in South Africa that may be forgiven for giving some thanks to what is called white privilege or colonial exploitation and so on, because the odds of them being alive, if this had not come to pass, are pretty much zero.
Yes, well, we know that in pre-colonial times, in Iron Age-type societies, that's not the correct term, but As an easy term, was more or less stable.
Those populations were more or less stable.
There might have been some slow and steady growth over time, yes, but there were more or less the same number of people.
And, of course, that changed dramatically with healthy eating, nice hard work, surplus income, good health, and so on.
Helping you to live your life in such a way that you're safer, Greater warmth, shelter, clothing.
these things make all the difference in the world.
And of course, having a sort of European style centralized government that prevents intertribal warfare.
This is one of the great challenges of trying to understand what has happened with colonialism, and in particular with South Africa, because of this liberal bias and the stories about apartheid and so on.
There was not, I think it's fair to say, there was not a giant moral utopian solution that was not pursued.
Because the intertribal warfare is, you know, one never wants to think of any race within a geographical environment.
It's just being one big giant blob of similar interests.
Lots of competing tribes, lots of competing groups.
countries in Africa which have literally dozens of languages and nobody understands each other and everyone's opposed to each other.
So tamping down on this intertribal conflict, which as you pointed out regularly cost millions of lives in the past, was another one of these things that allowed for this phenomenal population growth.
Yes, yes, that's right.
And it was done in the spirit of a sort of Christian conservatism.
You know, unlike, and this is not to say that we're entirely benevolent and everybody else is bad, but the simple reality is that that kind of benevolence where you build the world's biggest hospital for people that you're oppressing didn't occur in Mozambique, Angola, and in Congo, Zaire, under the Belgians, but it was very much a product of the The hard, tough Boer Afrikaner people.
Yes, apartheid.
Yes, this.
Yes, that.
Yes, the other.
But there was always a kind of thing in the background of we will be judged if we don't do a bare minimum for the people.
If we're too cruel and too hard, we're going to get punished for it.
And that's why I alluded earlier to the Calvinist Huguenots and Lutherans.
You know, this Christian ethic is a core, core, core thing.
Characteristic of the people.
So, okay, dear me, we better build hospitals and schools and what have you that didn't happen in other colonial environments with the results that we've discussed.
Well, you don't study the history of Genghis Khan and see a lot of hospitals and schools sprouting up in his wake.
And this is something that is often underappreciated in this sort of general demonizing of Europeans, demonizing of Christianity, demonizing of whites.
It has swung too far.
Of course, criticisms can be leveled upon all occupying powers, all governments at all times.
The question is, where would you rather live in the 19th century, in the 20th century, if you had the choice of everywhere in Africa?
And if you just judge by the footprint, South Africa was considered just about the best place to live, certainly in sub-Saharan Africa, because that's where everyone tried to get into.
The blacks tried desperately so often to get into South Africa, where there was a stable government, where there was a productive economy, where there was a good access to healthcare and education.
People would literally wander through the Serengeti and risk being eaten alive by lions just to get into South Africa.
So this idea that it was just horrible and exploitive and destructive and murderous and so on, it shows complete disrespect to all the blacks who died trying to get in.
Yes.
This is another phenomenon that the people who know – This thing don't speak about because it's inconvenient to them.
It's impossible that all of the historians, anthropologists and sociologists at all of the universities in the north and west of the world, in the modern and liberal world, don't know this stuff.
They do know it, but they deliberately choose not to speak about it.
People fought to get into apartheid South Africa and the records are there where people think maybe I'm lying because it suits me they can go and look it up for themselves.
They came from far and wide.
They traveled thousands of kilometers and To get into apartheid South Africa and to live with clean running water and electricity and proper shelter and a job and the means to sustain a family and not to have a 50% infant mortality rate.
They were desperate for that.
Or the Rwandan-style genocides and civil wars and Idi Amin and all of the kind of stuff.
When you've got rulers who are cannibals, it's not going to be a particularly dawning day of civilization in your particular region.
And so this is important.
And the other thing I wanted to point out, and correct me if I go astray here, but when it comes to this story that the Europeans came in and raped all of the resources, the natural resources of the country, it's like, well, they've been there for...
I don't know, 150,000 years that we've had Homo sapiens around.
The resources were.
The gold was right there.
The diamonds were right there.
The copper, the minerals, everything was right there.
But when Europeans got to sub-Saharan Africa, as I've mentioned before, we've got no written languages.
We've got no two-story buildings.
We've got no invention of the wheel as yet.
They weren't making cathedrals.
I'm sorry?
Or adoption.
That is the key thing.
The wheel didn't have to be invented.
Because we know that it was introduced to Africa by the Chinese eunuch Zheng He one millennium ago.
We know that it was introduced by the Omanis and the Yemenis trading with the Horn of Africa.
It wasn't adopted.
That's the thing that people with all due respect don't appreciate.
It didn't even have to be invented.
You just had to keep on using it there.
That's how it works.
It's a round thing.
It's a little bit rolly.
Off you go.
And people chose not to adopt, not to make that progress.
And this is beyond dispute.
All of the people in the world, all of the liberals can hate what I'm saying.
It doesn't change whether or not it is a fact.
It is a fact that these things were brought and presented and shown and shared and given, and people deliberately chose not to use them, not to advance.
Well, I mean, the choice in all of that, we can touch on this again a little bit later, but I just wanted to remind people, as I have before, that standardized IQ testing in sub-Saharan South Africa shows that the black population is between one and two standard deviations below the average in America.
And that has a significant impact on the kind of society that you can have.
It has a significant impact on violence levels, on criminal levels, on corruption levels.
You know, as IQ in a country is lower, corruption tends to be higher.
So there are those challenges, which are no one's fault.
This is just evolution.
It's just human biodiversity.
But these are factors that need to be taken into account, which I think have a lot to do with where things have played out from then.
But of course, we're jumping all over the place with our time machine.
Can we pick up a little bit on the post-Second World War establishment of apartheid, the effects therein, and the movements to overturn it?
Right.
It's very important to clarify one thing.
Apartheid was begun by the British after their success in the Anglo-Boer War in 1902.
There are extensive records, and I won't go into all of them.
People can go and look them up for themselves and see how it was the British who said, all right, these Afrikaners have been here for a while.
They're living in more or less peace with the blacks.
Yes, they're dominant.
Nobody's suggesting that the Afrikaner Boers were not dominant.
But there is not conflict.
There is an absence of conflict, and the two parties are occupying more or less the same land, the same territory, the same sovereign states.
The one is recognized citizens.
The others are second-class citizens.
But the fact remains, they're okay.
The British then devised various techniques and strategies which later became known as apartheid.
Well in advance of apartheid, up to 50 years before.
And there are extensive records of this.
We're going to put in trains and railway lines.
Right, we'll put the black people in the third-class carriages.
A British thing.
We're going to define clearly, rather than permit it to be ad hoc, define clearly where the black people may live.
You can only live there.
That was an entirely 100% unmitigated British thing.
I'm sorry to interrupt as well, but this sort of bungeeing in of colonial administrators who do not sit and absorb the wisdom of people who've lived cheek by jowl, groups that have lived in a peaceful way cheek by jowl for hundreds of years.
This is one of the great frustrations.
You can see this all over the place in the Middle East, where you get the colonial powers Divvying up these countries according to random burpy crayon markings without taking into account Shia, Sunni, different ethnicities, different languages and so on.
And this bungeeing in saying, well, I know how to run this country because I've read a book or two and let's not take any information for all the people who've lived here for hundreds of years peacefully.
Yes.
This is so frustrating because the Boers and the Blacks had developed a productive way of living together and working together without segregation.
Boom!
In comes a government program from idiotic British generals with overpolished mustaches who don't have a clue how to run things and set events in motion that can be entirely catastrophic.
Exactly.
They set in motion the catastrophe of South Africa.
Just as Sykes-Picot set in motion the catastrophe of the Middle East after the divvying up of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War.
You know, it's so sad to think how such clumsy, selfish people can have led to the deaths and misery of so many millions in different parts of the world.
Sanctimonious colonial rulers have You've done more harm to the world than the ostensible perpetrators of conflicts.
You know, we sort of wag fingers at guys like, whether it's Assad or ISIS or whatever, and we overlook the fact that it was the blasted British and French, excuse my language, who are more responsible for that crisis than any other party possibly could be.
Yes.
And the same with us.
So in 19...
1948, when the Boer Africanus took over the government, control of the government.
And sorry, how did that occur?
I assume that in general, after the Second World War, the British did not have the military might to maintain the empire, which puts a lie to the idea that the empire was somehow economically productive for the people as a whole.
When you can't afford to subsidize it through massive infusions of tax money into your overseas armies, well, then it falls apart.
And so was it to do with the weakness of the British military at the time?
Was it more democratic process?
How did that transition occur?
It was a completely democratic process that was due to the weakness of the British empire at the time.
And And by that I mean that the British Empire was vulnerable at that time.
They weren't able to devote the colonial resources that they previously had.
They were somewhat exhausted.
And so the Boers set out or began a process of manipulating the democratic processes completely legally.
But they would put through laws and changes to laws that redefined voting district boundaries and this sort of thing.
So they very cunningly and shrewdly twisted things to their advantage while the British, as it were, were licking their wounds after the Second World War.
Gerrymandering is an often underutilized tool within, I mean, the leftists in the States use it fantastically, but just to remind people, but sorry, go ahead.
Yes, so 1948, and then I told you about the census of 1950, and off we go from that period until 1994, when the democratic elections, the universal elections happened.
And in the intervening period, South Africa was an extraordinarily successful country.
In my childhood, I'm 46 years old, in my childhood, our currency was worth two dollars.
It now costs us $13 of our currency, I beg your pardon, $13.50 to buy $1.
So it gives you a sense of perspective.
27 times devaluation.
That's correct.
That's astonishing.
Not easy to do.
You've got to put your mind to it if you want to read something like that.
Wealthy, middle class, Not egregiously wealthy, not stinking rich, but everybody lived a comfortable life.
Of course, there was a tier of second class citizens in the form of the black African people and the colored people, that is to say the mixed race people who insist on being called colored, for anybody who's unaware of that.
And the Indian population, we have the largest population of Indians outside of India in South Africa.
Which was Gandhi's route, right?
I mean, just by the by, if we can detour for that for a moment, what is the historical origin of this Indian population in South Africa?
They were indentured labourers brought to cut sugar cane on the east coast of South Africa in the province of Natal.
Named by the Portuguese because they found it on Christmas Day as in Nativity.
But they were brought there to provide a source of reliable, dependable, industrious, productive labor.
People who would get a lot of work done.
Because the farmers were struggling to find that sort of industrious labor.
So that's the Indians.
Gandhi came along.
Many of your listeners may not know that Gandhi said during that period, we've now moved on to the second half of the 20th century, but when he was in South Africa practicing as a lawyer,
he famously said, I'm trying to think of his words verbatim so I don't misquote him, but he said something like, I can understand the British implementing these harsh laws against the black savages, but how can they do it to the decent Indian people?
So, you know, altruistic Gandhi, it turns out, was never any such thing.
He had very clearly defined racial stereotypes in his mind, and that is beyond dispute.
It's on record, and that is only one example of it.
So during the second half of the 20th century, very often when books were published, they would say on the inside leaf, Macmillan, for example, publishes New York, Toronto, and Johannesburg, or Paris, Johannesburg, and London, that sort of thing.
The result of this flourishing of the economy was quite a large influx of people from the United Kingdom.
When we were at school, we all had a few British kids in every class.
Their parents came to find new opportunities in South Africa.
Famously, many Lebanese fled Lebanon, Maronite Lebanese, Christian Lebanese came to South Africa.
Portuguese, large Portuguese populations during the Civil War in Cyprus, Christian Greek Cypriots fled and came to South Africa, and to this day there are many, many Greek people in various parts of South Africa, so we did terrifically well.
As I've described to people during the 1980s, South Africa produced, just to give a frame of reference, there are now 54 countries in Africa.
At that time, there were 52, of which South Africa was one.
South Africa produced more clean running water than all of the rest of Africa put together.
This was the nature of the genocide that people speak about.
And again, to put this in context, you have – and we can see this happening in South America at the moment in Brazil and in Venezuela.
One of the fascinating aspects of human evolution is that there are different groups with different levels of average IQ.
Again, individuals can't be judged.
But when you have a high IQ population in charge of a country, you tend to get these kinds of productive outcomes.
And then what happens is a lot of communists come along and say, ah, they've stolen it from you and it's yours and you've got to fight to get it back.
And there are evil exploiters and racists and so on.
It's like, well, Mother Nature may be a racist, but that's neither here nor there.
And so what happens is then there's a displacement of the higher IQ population by lower IQ populations.
And then what happens is society begins to fall apart.
All of the structures, all of the wealth, all of the infrastructure, the roads, the plumbing, the medicine, the clean water, all built and sustained by high IQ populations – When you get rid of those high IQ populations or remove them from power, you can say, well, this makes everything more fair.
Okay, there's an argument to be made for that for sure, but what it does do inevitably is it makes the country begin to fall apart, and that process tends to accelerate over time.
I know we're jumping ahead of ourselves, but without seeing that, it's sort of like how they used to try and calculate the location of planets when they thought that the Earth was the center, not just of the solar system, but of the universe, and they tried to figure out the motion of the planets by putting the Earth at the center.
It got ridiculously complicated and eventually just never worked.
If you replace the Earth with the Sun, then it all makes sense, and it all – so this is something really, really important to understand.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but this is a context that if you don't have, so much of what happens in the world remains incomprehensible, and it tends to fire up a lot of moral outrage at things that aren't anybody's fault in particular.
Yes, yes.
And I think that's one of the challenges that we have on the right-hand side of the political spectrum, Stefan.
We're trying to help people to understand things that they can't begin to comprehend because they've been lied to about what happened.
Yesterday, Stefan shot somebody dead.
But more than that, they've been lied to about some sort of background.
Stefan had a hundred guns in his cupboard.
Did you know?
Stefan has a history of psychiatric problems.
You know, there's a platform of lies that has to be undermined before we can even begin to say to people, no, Stefan wasn't there, he wasn't involved in that shooting, he's a nice enough guy, whatever.
The liberals and the mainstream media have succeeded not only in perpetrating a lie, but in perpetrating the background knowledge required to assimilate the lie.
And so it's far more difficult for us to win this narrative than it is for them.
And this has nothing to do with any particular preference for any race or ethnicity.
My particular concern is as much for the blacks in South Africa as it is for any other group.
Because if the general idea that population swells because higher IQ groups are in charge, and then if those higher IQ groups are displaced, then what happens is the conditions that have allowed for the creation of the larger population, if those begin to fall apart, then you face the death of millions of people, you know, through starvation, through war, through disease, through infant mortality.
You set the stage for a staggering amount of suffering and...
And so the idea that, well, you know, we've just got rid of apartheid and now everything's going to be sunshine, roses and magic ponies is extraordinarily dangerous because there is a large population right now in South Africa.
And in other places, of course.
That the causes of apartheid, the productivity of apartheid, regardless of how we look at this morally, economically, it was enormously productive.
I'm not sure that there was a very clear sense of how things were going to work other than magic pixie dust of egalitarianism and democracy is going to make everything even better than it was before.
Was there anything else in place that I wasn't aware of that was going to aid in this transition?
No, no, not at all, Stefan.
You know, the whites...
Handing over power is very much to do with this conservative Christian ethic thing.
It was easy, relatively easy, to persuade people to do this unprecedented thing.
I mean, almost unprecedented in history, where a group of people says, oh, all right then, you know, we feel so guilty, we're so bad, we're such nasty people, go on, you can have it.
Of course, there were many people who said this is going to end badly.
But by and large, people didn't want To be responsible for being the bad guy.
What they had done, what was necessary, built this terrific society, this exceptional society, and then started to think, well, maybe, you know, we've been a bit too nasty.
So it was quite easy to twist people's perspective, you know, from inside apartheid to outside in a moment.
Right.
Well, and the same thing, of course, is happening with questions of demographics and immigration in the West at the moment.
So this is a big challenge.
Part of what we're trying to do, of course, is bring facts to people, because if you don't ever have facts, the right facts, then you can't ever make good decisions.
So let's talk a little bit about the before and after snapshot.
Right now, we're going past 20-odd years now.
Let's talk about some, you know, we've talked about the fall of currency.
Let's talk about unemployment.
Let's talk about crime.
Let's talk about AIDS. Let's talk about infrastructure.
Because the idea, of course, was it was going to get better.
So the economy had been getting stronger.
Life expectancy had gone up enormously by many, many years for the blacks under apartheid.
So the idea, since everything was getting better already, the idea, I think, was that this was going to accelerate and make things getting better with the additional whipped cream on top of justice.
So what has been the practical empirical outcomes of this experiment?
I can illustrate it this way.
As you said earlier, I did a lot of work for the African National Congress, a hang of a lot of work, much of it's sensitive as well.
And of course, I don't speak about everything because it's not the right thing to do.
But one example is that I was the project manager of the ANC conference that elected our current president to the presidency of the ANC. So he's now the boss of the party.
And that permits him to become the boss of the country, as it were.
That is the channel of how it works in South Africa.
During the final debates, the ANC enforcers, if you like, walked through the entire audience, looked for all the journalists who were hidden there, perhaps making clandestine recordings, tossed them out, turned off all of the cameras, so this was never reported, and closed the doors.
And said, right, now we're going to conduct the debate, which they proceeded to do so.
At a certain point in time, it got out of hand and people, these are the senior representatives of our governing party.
And they began to smash the tables and the chairs and the microphones and the voting systems throughout the room.
I was the project manager of the occasion.
I was the only non-African National Congress person in that room.
I turned to one of the technicians who was assisting me, a very renowned African National Congress activist who I'd known for many, many years.
He came from a region, an area, a little town very close to my own hometown.
His name was Ugly.
His mother, when he was born, Thought that he was so ugly that she christened him ugly.
And I said to him, ugly, why?
Why?
Why are these guys smashing all this stuff?
Why are they so frustrated?
Why so much anger?
And he said to me, because, son, of one simple thing.
The whites built better houses and schools for us during apartheid than Nelson Mandela and his successors have done since then.
We now have a situation where a few weeks ago we were downgraded to junk status by Standard& Poor Moody's Fitch.
We have 3.2 million taxpayers and 16.3 million people on social grants.
We have an unemployment rate of a minimum.
Nobody knows for sure because our Department of Statistics is notoriously weak.
But an unemployment rate of between 25% and 50%.
Most moderate observers will tell you that it's 40%.
40% unemployment.
We have a president who famously said last year, while sort of substantiating an answer that he'd given to a question posed by a journalist, he paused and he said to substantiate his original answer, Remember that Africa is the largest of all of the continents, so much so that all of the other continents could fit inside Africa with space left over.
Indeed, Africa is the only continent.
Think for a second about physics, how gravity works.
If you're familiar with water, you'll understand this well.
It is the only continent that is not cut through by a river, That flows in one end and out the other.
In other words, it's the only continent that is not halved by a river.
And he then went on to...
He turned back to the journalist and said, or into a quarter.
So we have massive, hopeless incompetence of a level that many people in South Africa don't appreciate.
They think that some people are making a few mistakes here and there.
They don't have...
The sense of perspective to realize that their leaders, bless them, are rank imbeciles, that they're certifiably idiotic.
And I say that with love.
Hopelessly, hopelessly, hopelessly unable to govern a modern society.
And so it is that we've had this implosion which has come to something like a head in recent weeks, as I say, where three ratings agencies in one week said, that's it.
Enough of the Rainbow Nation sentiments, enough of the credit or the benefit of the doubt that we gave to Nelson Mandela, enough of the good luck and good wishes of the new South Africa.
Now we're going to get pragmatic and realistic.
Boom.
Junk status.
Game over.
Let's talk a little bit about the crime.
The crime is...
Maybe if you live in inner cities in America or other places, it's somewhat comprehensible, but for most of us, the level of crime, the fear of being outside your own home, the fear sometimes of being inside your own home, the need for barbed wire and safe rooms and weaponry and so on, Let's have a look.
Just walk us through the numbers of murders under apartheid versus the number of murders occurring every year in South Africa at the moment, the rape capital of the known universe.
Let's go through some of the before and after so people can get a sense of what's happened.
The crime statistics from prior to apartheid are fractional compared to the ones that we're going to discuss.
I'm trying to think out of my head of some good examples, but until I do, I think that the best reference point that I can give is that South Africa was known for the fact that nobody had garden walls during apartheid.
I remember somebody coming from France, and I attended a talk that they gave in the 80s, and they said that was the most outstanding characteristic for them.
Having come from France, which is not necessarily a very crime-prone society, but just to see how nobody in South Africa has walls around their gardens.
And that's indicative of just how safe it was to live in South Africa.
Now, everything has changed quite drastically.
The number of murders of whites by black people since the beginning of apartheid is around about 74,000.
Nobody is certain Because since 2007, the government has refused to permit people to see the statistics, the crime statistics, so that the police department has said nobody's allowed to look at the books.
Nobody's allowed to see who was killed, when, why, how, who.
And so nobody knows.
But the best extrapolations and records Show something like 74,000.
And to put that into perspective, the number of American soldiers killed in Vietnam was about 58,000.
The danger multiple is 0.44, meaning that as a three-year-old South African little girl, white girl, or as a 90-year-old granny, you stand just about half the chance of being murdered As you would have if you'd fought as a soldier in the Vietnam War.
It's a phenomenon that's not being discussed.
It's not being aired.
It's not in the mainstream media.
But if it was Scots doing it to Welsh or French doing it to, I don't know, Basques or Italians doing it to people from the Umbria region, there would be a hysterical shrieking purely because of the sheer scale of it on the front pages of every newspaper in the there would be a hysterical shrieking purely because of the sheer scale of
Well, and the sentiment, this is even as of 2002, 60% of South Africans said that life was better under apartheid, which had only ended eight years earlier.
And then, you know, this is when it's to me, it's sort of like a trajectory, like when a society is going up and a decision is made that fundamentally undermines the forward or upward progress of that society.
There's momentum, you know, the infrastructure doesn't fall apart all at once and the economy doesn't collapse all at once.
It slowly goes out of focus, you know, like eyesight in your 50s or something like it slowly goes out of focus.
And so even just eight years after the end, people, 60% of people said that it was better under apartheid.
When apartheid ended, life expectancy in South Africa was 64, which was Turkey and Russia territory.
Now, so as of 2013, it was down to 56.
And we also have seen, of course, a massive explosion in AIDS cases, which is a demographic and medical and cost.
Yes.
Time bomb that is entirely, well, not entirely, is somewhat ignored in the analysis of the country.
Yes, yes, that's absolutely right.
You know, you know, You just told me those life expectancy rates, and I'm staggered.
I was unfamiliar with them.
And I'm thinking to myself that that's in less than a generation.
In nominal terms, a generation is 25 years in sociological averages, 25 years.
Yeah, this is 21 years after this is the collapse.
Yeah, so in under a generation...
We lost eight years of our life expectancy.
How do you do that?
How much effort do you have to put in?
How hard do you have to try?
What hours do you have to work to wreck something that badly?
Here's another example.
Of course, I grew up, much though I like the musician, being programmed into these sorts of sentiments by songs like Biko from Peter Gabriel.
And here's an example, another statistic that people really need to digest.
More people are murdered in one week under African rule than died under detention of the Africana government over the course of 40 years.
More people are murdered in one week than who died in detention under the Africana government over 40 years.
God bless you for saying it, Stefan, because people don't know this, and I mean it very sincerely.
You are doing something...
With all due respect, I doubt appreciate fully what you're doing by exposing these truths.
I appreciate that.
And where it's going, and we'll get into this in a few minutes, How bad it is is appalling enough.
Where it's going is escalatingly more dangerous.
This stuff exponentially goes up at a steep curve.
And you think things are bad now, and where things can head...
I mean, I've been having these arguments since the 80s with people and, you know, being a philosopher means always being sorry that you're right.
It is just one of these basic things.
I would have loved nothing more than to be proven entirely wrong in this circumstance and in this situation.
But as it's turned out that...
Even though I thought it was going to get bad, I did not recognize just how bad and how escalatingly bad it was going to get and the spiller of over effect of potential refugees and other people fleeing.
So let's take a quick detour to something that is...
Not reported on much in the West, which is the farm murders.
And here we're going to bring in the term which many experts have brought into.
It's not just a term that we abandoning back and forth, but this question of genocide.
And according to the Human Rights Organization, Genocide Watch South Africa is at a pre-genocide stage 6 of 8, which is preparation.
And 8, of course, is extermination.
So you never want to be anywhere on that continuum, but you sure as hell don't want to be closer to 8 than you are to 1.
Yeah.
Let's talk about the ideology behind all of this, because, of course, as black rule tends to get worse and worse, well, what do governments do?
Do they honestly step up and admit failure and demand reforms and replace themselves voluntarily?
Hell no.
What do they do?
Let's find ourselves a scapegoat.
And of course, leftist race baiting is more than happy to serve up whites as a scapegoat.
So let's talk a little bit about the incompetence, the growing violence, plus the anti-white racism that appears to be escalating enormously in South Africa.
Well, let me put it to you this way.
We famously had what we call xenophobia.
So when whites are nasty towards black people, it is reported in The media as racism, but we have a special term for when it's a black thing.
It's called xenophobia, which is an English word, but it has been strongly adopted in the official nomenclature of the New South Africa.
We had a xenophobia in which black African migrants from Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, wherever, were killed in the streets a couple of years ago.
And the Zulu king precipitated it.
King Goodwill is the guy who famously said in a speech a couple of days prior, these people should pack their bags and leave.
And as a Prince Regent of another, I would prefer not to mention his name, as another of another tribe said to me, in our culture, you don't condescend.
You don't say, as a king, please may I have a cup of tea.
You say, I am thirsty.
The people around you then say, my lord, what may I get you?
And he said, as loyal subjects in our culture, those people responded the correct way.
The king is not happy with foreigners in the country.
They up and go and kill them because it's the right thing to do.
This is what the prince regent of this other kingdom said to me.
And with that in mind, I'd like to tell you two anecdotes.
The first is on the 6th of January 2015.
Our president, Jacob Zuma, said at a dinner banquet in Cape Town, all of the problems of South Africa can be traced back to the arrival of whites on the 6th of April 1652.
Again, as this Prince Regent said to me, in our culture, Simon, He's saying to people, if we didn't have them, we wouldn't have any problems in this country.
And another anecdote, as I said, on the 7th of November last year, the leader of our third largest political party called the Economic Freedom Fighters, the leader's name is Julius Malema, said in the town of Newcastle in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, 7th of November, as I said, I am not calling for the slaughter of all whites yet.
Again, this Prince Regent said to me, in your culture, that could mean many things.
In our culture, it can only mean one thing when a leader says that.
We have a different use of words.
We imply things differently.
We instruct things differently.
He is saying, I will call upon you to slaughter all of these people.
Get ready to do it.
That's the situation that we're in.
And farming in South Africa, which again is the foundation, as you know, of significant amounts of the population growth that is necessary to sustain the population.
And, you know, whether the farms are expropriated or nationalized, basically stolen through state force, it doesn't matter whose hands they end up in.
If they're going to be managed by the government, you're going to end up with this Killing Fields Khmer Rouge style starvation or the Holodomor Ukrainian style starvation.
These were all whites who took over the farms, but because it was run by the government, it was ridiculously inefficient.
Farming in South Africa is the most dangerous occupation on the planet.
There are more murders per capita for farmers in South Africa than on any other community in the entire planet that isn't currently in a war zone.
What is going to happen to the food source and the food supply if the Boers, if the Afrikaners, if the farmers don't stand firm, and I don't think any sane person would have any problem with them cutting and running.
There is a sense of loyalty, a sense of tie to the land, a sense of responsibility to the community that they feed.
What is going to happen if this continues to escalate?
Well, as we always say, you know, to those people out there who...
Struggle to discern these things.
Think of us as carrots or as broccoli.
Whatever you like if you don't want to think of them as whites.
Divorce yourself sentimentally.
Think in purely abstract terms.
It is more dangerous to be a white farmer, as you just said, than it is to be a policeman in Guatemala.
Now, when we speak about farmers, we speak about the family, not The male alone in these statistics.
So that means that you've got more chance of dying as a four-year-old daughter in a farmstead in South Africa than you have if you're a policeman in Guatemala.
We show when we go through the USA on this tour that we've been doing for the past 10 weeks to raise funds for this crisis, we show people some photographs and we say to them, Look, there are endless photographs.
You can go and look on various websites and see for yourselves.
We've just taken a sample, but let's help you to understand how brutal is this thing.
And we show little girls, three, four years old, raped by two or three men, and then set on fire.
Or where the husband's eyelids are cut out so that he can't not watch his wife being raped.
Or where the children are strangled to death or where a little girl, famously in one case, was crucified to the kitchen table and then raped in front of her parents and so on and so forth.
It's a degree of brutality and barbarity.
That people can't relate to.
It's almost as if they don't believe that it could be possible.
These are clearly hate crimes because if it was merely they want your wallet, they want your cell phone, they want whatever it is you've got, then this torture and rape and mutilation and so on, which we talked about occurring hundreds of years ago, In South Africa, it would be entirely unnecessary.
These are ideological crimes.
These are hate crimes.
These are race-war-provoking crimes that are predicated largely on, again, socialist fuel, lefty fuel, resentment of the farmers who are doing better justice.
The communists did in Russia when they went to all the poor farmers and said, oh, those farmers are only rich because they've stolen everything from you.
And then they took the land from the more productive farmers, gave it to the less productive farmers, and everyone starved damn well to death.
These are crimes of ideology.
They are not crimes of poverty.
Well, would you believe me if I told you the following?
We've had, since the end of apartheid, One of the ANC's national policies has been to endeavor to redistribute land to black people, and they have been doing it on the basis of the willing buyer, willing seller.
So what happens is that Simon, as a black person, goes to the government and says, Stéphane Molyneux's great-grandfather stole my great-grandfather's land, and under this policy, I would like it back.
The government goes to Stéphane Molyneux after assessing the matter and says, look, You know, it does appear to be the case.
Would you like to give your land up?
We'll pay you for it.
Would you believe me if I told you that in 93% of the successful applications, the land, the successful applications, so I win the case, the land is not taken.
The people, so desperate for the land, so desperate to honour their patrimony, so desperate to go back to the soil, say to the government, you know what, we'll have the money, thanks.
93%.
If there is, as has been talked about by a variety of government representatives, A forced nationalization of this land.
How does this not become a race war?
I can't imagine.
I can't imagine, knowing what I do about the Africanists, that a lot of them are just going to say, well, that's fine.
We'll give up our land.
We'll go live in the squatter camps, along with hundreds of thousands of other whites that have been rendered unemployable by more than 100 segregation race-based laws that have come into effect since the end of apartheid, even more than they were under apartheid.
Aren't they going to fight for For what they have, and given the death count disproportionality between blacks and whites historically, is this not going to be something entirely gruesome to behold?
Yes.
I'm not answering you directly, but I think that you might find this kind of a valuable angle or kind of periscope to look at what you're saying.
Dr.
Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch of Washington DC is the guy who famously predicted the Rwanda genocide a year before it happened almost to the day.
He said it will take the following number of months and the following number of incidents and then we can expect it to happen around about this time and he was almost spot on.
So he's the world's foremost expert at this.
When he visited South Africa, when he left, he said the thing that worries me most of all is that the murder of the farmers and of the whites appears to be orchestrated.
He said, my instinct is that these crimes are happening because they are being encouraged implicitly by the government.
So the crimes allegedly, according to the world's foremost expert, are part of a genocide.
A deadline has been given of the 3rd of August by certain radical parties on the left in South Africa.
They want the land immediately, all land, and as one leading politician put it, from that point onwards, the Afrikaner Boer people of South Africa who arrived in the Cape on the 6th of April 1652 will be treated as guests, and they will have to learn to conduct themselves as visitors.
He has said it repeatedly.
He has said that the policy will be that they will be guests.
In other words, a form of second-class citizenship, a form of apartheid, that this is what has been promised.
And at the same time, in conjunction with this thing, Stefan, a number of leading, one of our former judges, president, A very, very well-known political observer in South Africa and others have said, we are standing on the cusp of a civil war.
We are going to have a race-based civil war in South Africa.
These are black observers.
So I think that you're 100% on the money.
It appears as if this nationalization is going to be pushed forward and it appears as if the senior black leadership believes that it will precipitate a civil war.
Never mind what white people are thinking, that blacks are preparing for a civil war over this matter.
And the only way, if there is a way, to stop it, I think, is to bring these facts to the attention of the world.
What goes on in South Africa is not going to stay inside of South Africa.
If there is a civil war and this habit that whites or Europeans have of going and building a particular civilization and then being displaced and the civilization falling apart, which happens in cities and it happens in countries, and the only way to find a way to mediate this in a more positive way is to accept basic facts and And to find ways to have a conversation about what's going on on the ground rather than just allowing this ignorance and this momentum and this escalating racism against whites to spill over into violence which will
be astonishingly ugly for everyone involved.
And it's going to have a spillover effect.
If there's violence in South Africa, there's civil war in South Africa, I'm guaranteeing you millions of people are going to push forward.
You know, it's funny because even given the current instability in South Africa, the downgrading of the currency and the credit rating to junk bond status and so on, investors still consider it the most stable country in Africa, even at this point, if there's civil war in South Africa, you will get millions of refugees fleeing north, fleeing wherever they can get to, making it to other countries in Africa, making it north past the new slave markets in Libya, into the Mediterranean, into Europe.
It is going to be a huge issue.
Ignoring this is not an option for the rest of the world.
I don't care, even if you don't care, I don't care about their lives that will be lost, but it's going to impact everyone around the world should this occur.
The destabilization and ripple effect is going to go through Africa.
It's going to go into the Middle East.
It's going to go into Europe.
We don't have a choice but to look at the facts and really have a conversation about what is going on and ways to avoid it.
They're 40,000 strong group who are resisting any potential takeovers of their land.
They're begging for mediation with the government.
They're begging for ways to avoid what seems to be coming down the pipe.
But if everybody ignores it, if everybody avoids it, it seems that's what makes it inevitable.
Nothing else.
Yes.
Yes, you're 100% correct.
I can't add anything to that.
So, let's talk about the imminence.
Do we have any sense, I know that you've had experts, you've quoted the expert before who predicted the Rwandan genocide, do we have any sense of timeframes?
You say in August they may be making a decision about this land takeover.
We could go from the sort of political civil war to a hot civil war within a matter of months.
Do you think that that might be a potential estimate?
Yes, we believe so.
St.
London has long had a sort of disaster risk assessment, disaster management model that we've worked from and we have been far and away the most reliable predictor or forecaster of events in South Africa.
Because we're not hidebound by ideology.
We don't toe the line of the narrative of the new South Africa where you're supposed to overlook certain things and pretend that others don't happen.
We call it like it is.
And so, at the risk of being a little bit conceited, we've been spot on over the past 16 years, more so than anyone else.
And we believe That we are seeing the first signs now of the beginnings of a crisis.
In the past couple of weeks, a couple of towns have been utterly rampaged, where people have come in and destroyed every single shop, store in the main street, And the police have stood by and watched where those crowds have run out of town once they've looted and pillaged absolutely everything and gone on to the farms on the outskirts of the towns and set fire to the farms,
the farmsteads.
And it is our opinion, time will tell whether we're correct or not, that this is the beginning of a severe crisis.
When will it become fully hot?
When will it be a 10 out of 10 and an all-out, full-scale civil war?
We don't know for certain, but we believe that it could be as soon as August, which is somewhat coincidental.
Yes, it's a very important coincidence, but it is somewhat coincidental to the land expropriation thing.
We believe that there are two processes happening in parallel, which may culminate in August.
Our worst, or let's say best case scenario is a better way of putting it, is perhaps for this thing to come to a head in the November, December, January, February period, which is quite a characteristic period in South Africa because we're in the Southern Hemisphere.
We have summer over that period.
It's the high summer.
And there are various other things that coincide, which we believe will play a role.
I won't go into all of them, but there is a reason why Christmas, New Year and the national holidays are relevant to this process.
So we believe November, December, January, February is perhaps the latest point at which this conflagration will We're good to go.
White's shooting blacks, saying that they're resisting legitimate black rule and they're racist and so on.
This is only going to make things worse.
And everybody who's out there, who watches this, who listens to this, you now have an obligation.
This is the great price of knowledge.
With knowledge comes responsibility and obligations.
If you know how to cure a disease, well, guess what?
Now you're the guy who's responsible for curing the disease.
And if you're listening to this, you need to have conversations with people.
You need to help them prepare for the propaganda that's going to be coming out of the mainstream media.
You need to help them understand the history.
You need to help them understand the developments.
You need to help them understand race and IQ differences, however unpleasant it is.
And it breaks everyone's heart who learns about these things.
This explains a lot of the facts.
It allows us to understand what's happening without demonizing anyone in particular, just recognizing that there are challenges to work with.
Everybody who knows this needs to have conversations with people about this because if and when this escalates, there's going to be a spin put on it that's going to make it even worse.
And the only way to have it not go – if we can prevent it, so much the better.
But should it come to pass, there are ways of de-escalating it which just don't involve all of this race-baiting stuff and all of this escalation stuff.
As the Boers pointed out before the British came, before governments got in and started mucking about with everything – There are ways for blacks and whites to live together peacefully in South Africa.
It worked for well over 150 years when they were living cheek by jowl with all of the differences.
It is the government programs that are causing these problems.
It is the positive discrimination.
It is the segregation laws, as I pointed out, that are higher now in number than they were even under apartheid.
It is the state having the power to manage racial relations that causes all of this tension, just as when the state had the power to set up a state religion, all the religions tried to gain control of the state for their own ends.
It has been shown peacefully to work in a time where there was much less consciousness of differences than there is now.
So it can work, but there are ways that we need to approach this learning from the lessons of the past about peaceful coexistence that we need to start reexamining.
But if all we do is demonize the past and refuse to learn anything from it, we're going to continue to make all of these mistakes.
Sorry, Simon, there's no question in that.
I just wanted to get that off my chest before we finished up.
Thank you very much.
Well said, Stefan.
Very well said.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, we'll stay in touch over the course of the summer, I hope.
And we do more than keep our fingers crossed.
Please, everybody, everybody work to try and find a way to return to the peaceful coexistence of the past before apartheid, before this modern, different apartheid.
So please go and check out Simon Rush's work.
His website, again, well worth perusing.
And share it, swedelanders.org, S-U-I-D-L-A-N-D-E-R-S.org.
Simon, thank you so much for all of the work that you do to try and keep the peace in this challenging region.
And thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you, Mayor.
I'll just ask one thing.
If anybody is interested in reaching me, making contact, having us visit them to do a presentation in the USA or Canada or elsewhere, they're welcome to contact me through hk@stlunders.co.za. they're welcome to contact me through hk@stlunders.co.za.
So there's a different suffix there between my email address and the website.
It's not.org.
It's hk.org.
We'd love to hear from you.
We'd love to come and do a presentation and share things with you face-to-face.
And I'll just let the audience guess which of the two of us, myself or Simon, mispronounced Saitlanders through most of the presentation.
But thanks very much for your time again.
I appreciate it and we'll stay in touch.
Thank you very much, Stefan.
▲
Export Selection