A tale of four killers – The continued incarceration of Clive Derby-Lewis

Andrew Kenny

07 July 2014

Andrew Kenny explores SA’s hypocrisy over the continued incarceration of Clive Derby-Lewis

DERBY-LEWIS AND THREE OTHER KILLERS

Why is Clive Derby-Lewis still in prison for the murder of Chris Hani in 1993 when worse political killers of that era are walking free? I am not referring to legal niceties or political deals or conditions of the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission). I am referring to fundamental justice and morality.

Let me list the four killers.

1. In June 1986, Robert McBride planted a bomb at Magoo’s restaurant in Durban. It killed 3 innocent women and injured 69 people. He was a member of MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe), the armed wing of the ANC. He planted the bomb a month after – let me emphasise after – the National Party Government had published a white paper to abolish the Pass Laws, the most hated of all the apartheid laws, the cause of the Women’s March on the Union Buildings in 1956 and the Sharpeville massacre in 1960 (see amnesty ruling here.)

2. In November 1988. Barend Strydom, the leader of the “Wit Wolwe”, shot dead 7 innocent, unknown, unarmed people and injured 15 more in Strijdom Square in Pretoria. He chose his victims entirely on race. He shot black people because they were black.

3. In April 1993. Derby-Lewis conspired with Janusz Walus, who did the killing using Derby-Lewis’s gun, to murder Chris Hani, head of the South African Communist Party.

4. By his own account Letlapa Mphahlele, Director of Operations of the PAC’s armed wing, APLA, ordered four men armed with guns and grenades to attack the St James Church in Cape Town in July 1993 where innocent men and women of various races were at prayer. 11 were killed and another 57 were wounded, including a Russian visitor who lost both legs and an arm. He also ordered the armed raid on another multi-racial crowd at the Heidelberg Tavern, in which 4 innocent people were killed on 31 December, 1993.

Today, Strydom, McBride and Mphahlele are free but Derby-Lewis is in prison. Strydom and McBride were imprisoned but released in 1992. Both received amnesty from the TRC. Derby-Lewis was refused amnesty. Mphahlele initially applied for amnesty, but then withdrew his application.

Derby-Lewis, who has been in prison for over 20 years, is now 78 and suffering with terminal cancer. He has been refused parole on several occasions. His lawyer is now applying for parole again, on medical grounds.

Why is it that so many politicians and commentators are so angrily opposed to parole for Derby-Lewis when they speak not a word of protest against the freedom of the other three killers, all of whom are worse than Derby-Lewis on almost every count?

One of the reasons sometimes given for this is that the murder of Hani threatened a “racial civil war”. But what of the other murders? In fact, of the four, the murder of Hani seems the least racially motivated. Walus said he killed Hani because he was a Communist not because he was black. This sounds completely believable. Walus, who had grown up in Communist Poland, hated communism. He could have argued that communism, on every single occasion it has been practised has proved worse than apartheid – ordinary people in every single communist country have fled it and tried to flee it; ordinary black people did not flee apartheid South Africa or try to do so. Walus’s “hit-list” included Joe Slovo, white and communist. (Gaye Derby-Lewis, who drew up the list, denied it was a murder list.)

The motive of Barend Strydom, on the other hand, was 100% racist. He chose his victims purely and entirely because they were black and not for any political consideration. More than any of the others, he was blatantly trying to stir up racial hatred and foment racial war.

Another odd reason given is that we must consider the feelings of Limpho Hani, the widow of the murdered man. While we must obviously sympathise with her, I don’t think the feelings of the murder victim’s loved ones should ever play a part in judicial decisions about the murderer. (If so, a murderer lucky enough to have a victim with forgiving relatives would get off, while another with vengeful relatives would not.) But what about the feelings of the relatives of 25 people killed by the other three? Were the loved ones of the 7 people slaughtered by Strydom consulted before he was released?

Among the requirements for amnesty under the TRC was that you had to show you had acted as part of a political organisation and that you had made full disclosure of your actions. A feeble reason for refusing amnesty for Derby-Lewis and Walus was that they had not acted on the instructions of the Conservative Party to which Derby-Lewis belonged. They certainly hadn’t. But they themselves formed a political faction, and the murder of Hani, a leading political figure, was the most clearly political killing of the four. The other three killed innocent people with no known political affiliations.

The most usual reason given for refusing amnesty or parole for Derby-Lewis and Walus is that they hadn’t made full disclosure. They hadn’t revealed the full extent of the conspiracy and named all the conspirators behind the murder. How do we know that they hadn’t? And how do we know that the other killers had? Such doubts lead to a black hole of conspiracies, some interesting, most silly, about the murders. Let me discuss some of them.

Let me first say that all my instincts are against conspiracy theories. If I have to guess between conspiracy and cock-up, I’ll always choose the latter. One hundred years ago, the world was plunged into catastrophe by the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. We now know that it was an impromptu act by a few young desperadoes acting alone. But suspicion that they were part of a wider conspiracy led to a war that cost 35 million lives. I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he killed President Kennedy. From 80 metres, with a rifle with telescope sights, I could easily have shot him myself and, unlike Oswald, I am not a trained marksman. So I believe that Walus and Derby-Lewis acted alone and the others within very small groups. But here goes with the conspiracies.

The conspiracist’s first question is always: “Who benefits?” In the case of McBride, the beneficiaries were the white reactionaries opposed to the reform and ending of apartheid. The Magoo’s bombing was a godsend for every racist wanting to maintain white minority rule.

Similarly the only possible potential beneficiaries of Mphahlele’s massacres would have been white reactionaries trying the derail the negotiations for majority rule. They were behind the bomb in Johannesburg on 25 April 1994, killing 9 people.

In the case of Hani’s murder, the conspiracists have a wider field. Some vaguely suggest that Derby-Lewis and Walus were part of a “right-wing” plot. (In this instance “right-wing” means white racist and nationalist.) But far more suggest exactly the opposite, that Hani was murdered by a plot from within the ANC alliance. Here the conspiracies follow the puzzle of the open door on the lion cage.

An important politician walks past a lion cage. A lion leaps through the open door of the cage and kills the politician. Nobody disputes that the lion killed him. The question is why the cage door happened to be open at the precise moment he walked past. Accident? Or planned? If so, by whom?

Nobody disputes that Walus killed Hani with Derby-Lewis’s gun. The question is why Hani was so unprotected at the time. Where were the bodyguards who usually attended him? The murder was extraordinarily amateurish and clumsy, leading to Walus’s quick and easy arrest. So was Walus like the lion, an innocent killer given the opportunity to satisfy his natural murderous instincts by plotters he didn’t know?

On “Who benefits?” two obvious names are Joe Modise and Thabo Mbeki. Hani was a competitor to Mbeki in 1993 for the eventual leadership of the coming democratic South Africa. But a far more likely suspect is Modise. He was MK Commander at the time, and in 1994 became Minister of Defence in 1994. By all accounts he was thoroughly corrupt and brutal. He had a gangster background that included drug running, was responsible for much of the torture in the MK camps such as Quatro, and was widely suspected of being an apartheid spy.

Chris Hani, by contrast, seems to have been clean and honourable, and was well aware of Modise’s cruelty and corruption. He had already written a memorandum to the ANC detailing Modise’s crimes. He was a huge threat to Modise and might have been about to make further damaging revelations about him. And so, the conspiracy goes, Modise, through various shadowy networks on both the ANC side and the apartheid side, arranged for the door on the lion cage to be open when Hani walked past.

In his history of South Africa’s transition, “South Africa’s Brave New World”, R W Johnson goes into some length to support the case that:

“Clearly, Modise was a prime suspect for having facilitated the assassination. He had every motive to want Hani dead – and had, indeed, tried to kill him before.”

Further support for this comes from the fact that the “right-wingers” would not have known about Hani’s security arrangements whereas the ANC/SACP would.

I am not convinced. To advance “Who benefits?’ to the logical absurdity, the biggest beneficiary of the Hani murder was Nelson Mandela. After the shock of the assassination, he rose to take command of the anxious, excited nation by appealing for calm. At that moment the mantle of power seemed to pass from the shoulders of F W de Klerk to his. Was Mandela behind the assassination of Hani? Oh, please!

Even if the lion cage theory is true, it is clear that Walus and Derby-Lewis were nothing but unknowing carnivores. They have told as much about the killing as the lion could have told.

So all the reasons for refusal to give Derby-Lewis parole fall away. Compared with the other three killers who are free, his crime was no more likely to provoke a racial civil war than theirs. Nor was he less part of a political organisation or faction, and his killing was the only specifically political killing, the only one to identify a purely political target. Nor is there good evidence to suggest he failed to give he failed to give full disclosure.

A final thought before my conclusion: the timing of these murders. McBride planted his bomb in 1986 when it was perfectly obvious that apartheid was in full retreat and when indeed the worst of all the apartheid laws had been repealed. This gives support to the theory that the ANC’s “People’s War” was not to end apartheid but to stop anybody else ending it.

My guess is that McBride, very much like the others, formed a sort of small, personal, maverick gang vaguely associated with a political intention, in his case to promote the People’s War, which meant murder and mayhem against ill-defined targets. McBride not only won freedom but high office in the new government. He was by no means the only such one guilty of atrocities in the People’s War to do so.

Strydom killed his innocent black victims in 1988, perhaps sensing the fear and uncertainty that many whites felt over the ending of apartheid, hoping somehow to convert alarm into war. But I think this is crediting him with too much intelligence. I cannot help thinking he was simply a mentally retarded white racist. The fact that he thought he could kill innocent black people with impunity (which happened to be true) reveals a primitive, bloody, childlike racism, which unfortunately characterises clashes between races down the ages.

The other two murders happened after F W de Klerk’s famous speech in Feb 1990, which effectively ended apartheid and white minority rule. Thereafter, the cause had been won. Black majority rule was assured, and it was just a matter of negotiating its terms. The murder of Chris Hani in 1993 was a sort of rear guard action by two white reactionary nutters.

The worst of all were the slaughters in St James Church and the Heidelberg Tavern in 1993. They are probably the most cowardly atrocities in South African history. They happened after the apartheid leaders had ceded power. The Heidelberg Tavern massacre occurred after the date for South Africa’s first fully democratic election had been announced as 27 April 1994. Letlapa Mphahlele, snubbed the TRC and refused to apply for amnesty. He was charged in 2002 but the case was eventually struck off the roll after the National Prosecuting Authority failed to pursue the matter.

He is on public record as stating that as Apla’s Director of Operations “I ordered the killings of white civilians.” He told one television programme that he “gave the orders for attacks on different civilian targets among them Heidelberg Tavern, St. James Church, Queenstown Steak Restaurant and King William’s Town Golf Club.” His proudest moment “was when I saw whites being killed on the battlefield” (The battlefield, one assumes, was a church of people at prayer.) The TRC, well conceived but badly executed, proved to be a work of hypocrisy. I suppose we might credit Mphahlele for exposing the hypocrisy to the full.

In conclusion, why are Strydom, McBride and Mphahlele free while Derby-Lewis is in prison? We all know why. The victims of the first three were ordinary people, humble unknown South Africans, black and white. Hani was very important, a political leader, very influential, part of a new ruling class. He mattered. The other poor sods didn’t matter. The people who are deciding on the parole for Derby-Lewis are all part of the ruling elite to which Hani belonged.

Let me sum it up: if in a political cause you murder an ordinary person it doesn’t matter very much; if you murder an important person it matters a lot.

This is the entire case in terms of morality and justice for refusing parole to Derby-Lewis.

It stinks.

‘n Kort vergelyking tussen Hendrik F. Verwoerd en Jacob Zuma

John White

Vergelyking tussen Suid Afrika se beste en swakste staatshoof ooit.

Verwoerd:

-Waarskynlik die intelligentste staatshoof wat Suid-Afrika nog gehad het. Ook waarskynlik een van die begaafdste staatshoofde van die moderne era. Het omtrent nooit aantekeninge vir toesprake gehad nie.
-Nog nooit enige mens skade aangedoen nie
-Het duisende skole, universiteite, huise en hospitale vir swartes gebou
-Het nie in die inherente meerderwaardigheid van een ras geglo nie, maar het die potensiaal in elke ras gesien en het geglo dat daar slegs ‘n verskil in ontwikkeling tussen die rasse was.
-Wêreldleiers soos Kennedy en MacMillan het aan sy lippe gehang
-Het hom as jongman vir die armblankevraagstuk beywer
-Was lief vir swartmense en baie swartmense was mal oor hom en het selfs honderde kilometers gereis om na sy toesprake te luister. Het selfs vir sy swart tuinman Afrikaans geleer op Saterdae en koffie gedrink saam met huiswerkers.
-Kon baie tale spreek, insluitend Afrikatale.
-Het ‘n eenvoudige eenverdieping vakansiehuis en twee motors gehad, waarvoor die staat nie ‘n sent betaal het nie.

Zuma:

-Het ‘n graad 3 sertifikaat (word nou ook betwyfel). Lees sy toesprake van papiere af.
-Het die dood van verskeie onskuldiges gereel as ‘n SAKP lid.
-Veroorsaak die degradasie van skole, universiteite en hospitale. Faal om handboeke aan skoolkinders te voorsien.
-Glo nie aan die meerderwaardigheid van een ras nie, maar glo dat die swart kultuur belangriker as die Westerse kultuur is.
-Word vermy deur wêreldleiers en word selfs afsprake met David Cameron geweier. Word ook deur parlementariërs as ‘n dief beskou.
-Verooraak armoede en maak leë beloftes
-Kan Zoeloe en beperkte Engels praat
-Het 250 miljoen rand se opgraderings aan sy privaatwoning met staatsgeld befonds.

English:

Comparison between South Africa’s best head of state yet and its worst head of state.

Summary:

Verwoerd:

-Probably most intelligent head of state that Africa ever had. One of the most intelligent in the world. Never had notes for his speeches.
-Never killed a person in his life
-Built schools, hospitals and universities for thousands of black people.
-Did not believe in the superiority of one race. Believe that all had equal potential but were just at different stages of development
-Was admired by Harold MacMillan, John F Kennedy and black leaders such as KD Matanzima.
-Grew up helping poor whites
-Loved black people and was loved by black people – even sat in the garden on Saturdays to teach his black gardener Afrikaans. Blacks travelled hundreds of kilometers to listen to him.
-Could speak many languages, including Xhosa and Zulu.
-Had a simple, single storey house and two cars, for which the state never paid a cent.

Zuma:
-Has a grade 3 qualification. Reads his speeches.
-Arranged the killing of many innocent blacks when he was a SACP member.
-Caused schools, universities and hospitals to degrade and become non-functional. Keeps textbooks from children.
-Does not believe in the superiority of a race, but disrespects Western culture and even calls walking your dog a “white thing”.
-Is despised by leaders all over the world. David Cameron even denied a meeting with him. Is also called a thief by fellow parliamentarians.
-Keeps blacks in poverty and make empty promises.
-Can speak Zulu and limited English.
-Made upgrades of R250 million at his personal house at the state’s expense.
-Has more than 700 charges of corruption against him and many of rape.

ANC should focus on taking care of its own firearms – AfriForum


Ian Cameron

31 October 2014
Organisation notes that just yesterday two R5 rifles were confiscated next to the N1 in Gauteng

“Firearms do not kill people. People kill people,” says AfriForum

AfriForum today said the consideration by Government to amend the Firearms Control Act again, will expose law-abiding citizens even more to crime, and that this decision is based on an emotional, irresponsible reaction.

“The ANC Government reacts on emotion, following the murder of our Bafana Bafana Captain, Senzo Meyiwa in Vosloorus the past week. Firearms however do not kill people, people kill people,” Ian Cameron, Head of Community Safety at AfriForum, said.

Cameron said Government should realise that amendments to laws will not bring crime under control, but that the execution of current laws and the prosecution of criminals should be more effective.

The South African Police Service earlier this month confirmed to AfriForum, following a PAIA application, that about 2 300 government registered firearms have been reported as stolen or missing since 1 January 2009.

“Two R5 rifles were confiscated next to the N1 in Gauteng yesterday. These are police firearms which are used by robbers. The police and Government have to ensure that their house is in order before law-abiding citizens are adversely affected,” Cameron added.

“Government should be more responsible with their statements and should first execute current laws to their disposal efficiently. About one third of SAPS officers are not competent to handle firearms. This should rather be corrected to get the police up to standard.”

Statement issued by Ian Cameron, Head: Community Safety, AfriForum, October 31 2014

WHY A WHITE FARM MURDER DIES A MEDIA PAUPER’S DEATH.

plaasmoorde

Two days ago I have been reading about the murder on the South African Bafana captain Senzo Meyiwa– who was shot by vigilantes in an attempted robbery and a scuffle around his cellphone while visiting his girlfriend at Vosloorus black township. What the so-called “ robbers”( as NASPERS always describe black thugs)– robbed- was only cellphones and a few loose articles.

After I read this specific article- my idiot box went a bit wandering- and I had a discussion with myself. After a lengthy discussion- “we “came to the conclusion that this man was not shot because the NASPERS “robbers” were out to “rob” this chap- but this sounded much like a specific“hit” for the one-or-other reason…maybe politically- maybe financial- maybe corporate driven…I dunno. Think of it soberly- why would a band of three – well- “robbers” went into this specific home to “rob” and kill for  a CELLPHONE? Even Meyiwa’s team mate Tsepo Masilela, tweeted: “How do you kill someone for a cellphone?” The other very interesting question is this: MOST blacks in South Africa are soccer FANATICS– and they know each South African soccer player by name. They eat, drink and sleep soccer- these black South Africans. Thus- those threeNASPERS “robbers” that went into that house SURELY must have RECOGNIZE the “man of men”– the CAPTAIN of the NATIONAL soccer team as well as goal keeper of one of the most well-known soccer teams in the soccer league- Orlando Pirates. I mean- they saw this chap on TV, on computer, on Laptop, on Tablet, in advertisements, billboards…name it- in the black corporate sport world he was well exposed for all to see.  If you open any South African soccer journal- you are SURE to see his face. Thus- when this three NASPERS “robbers” stood in front of him- eyed him FACE TO FACE- it is hard to believe they did NOT know who he was. Most probably he also TOLD them  he was “the man“- yet- yet they whacked him for a CELLPHONE???? This sounds a bit ridiculous- even for a layman like me. Something tells me this boytjie was targeted and “greased ” by someone that wanted him wasted- but then again- I might be wrong…it is just a bit of hindsight and I only want to like they say- “put it out there.”

Now- that being said- it brings me to the second issue I also picked up as I rummage through the zillions of reports we receive on a daily basis. As I was scrutinizing all the news items-  my eye were caught by yet another senseless murder- the one of a white farmer- one Johan van Rensburg– who was shot and killed by yet another bunch of NASPERS “robbers“- iow black thugs that rather belonged on the end of a rope than among people in the street- but whose identity and race are vehemently “protected” by NASPERS to act “ politically correct” and NOT reveal the truth that the majority crimes in this old stink bucket of a country are committed by BLACKS….that would be ” racist.”

Right- to continue-This black ( Oops- there I went and indicate the race again)-vermin went into the farmhouse at Leeudoringstad in North West Province South Africa-  tied up two black workers, a man and a woman on the farm Droekraal in the area on Saturday afternoon. When the white farm owner – Johan van Rensburg– arrived a few minutes later – he was shot dead in cold blood. After this hideous action- they forced one of Van Rensburgs workers- one Jim Ndumiso – to clean up the blood of the innocent victim they just have murdered. The  thugs  then allegedly put him in the boot of his car and fled the scene also with…..yes you guessed it…. CELLPHONES! Again…are cellphones used as a cover for other more hideous hidden agendas?  I tend to think so. Again the question arise:   “How do you kill someone for a cellphone?”  This is a question we whites have been asking for years as many white farmers were brutally murdered just for “cellphones.”  Cellphones seems to be the cover for something much more clandestine- like an orchestrated government or corporate killing. OK- so an alert button was triggered by the workers- which set most of the neighbors racing down- and searching the NASPERS “robbers”– which led to two of them getting their just sentence as two of the thugs were killed themselves by the neighboring farmers after the thugs tried to point firearms at the farmers – and a third maggot got arrested for the murder and robbery.

Football - Absa Premiership 2012/13 - Chippa United v Orlando Pirates - Athlone Stadium

MURDERED SOCCER STAR SENZO MAYIWA

JVR

MURDERED FARMER JOHAN VAN RENSBURG

So- now we have two similar cases here- both unnecessary needless murders, both “ robberies”– both by black NASPERS “robbers“- both cases the main theme was CELLLPHONES– both cases involved THREE black maggots- and both cases the NASPERS “robbers” executed the male victims in front of their families. The white victim was shot  on Saturday- the black victim on Sunday of the same (last) week. So- as I see it- there is many similarities between this two cases. The only noticeable differences is one victim was white- and one black. The other obvious difference is one was a soccer star- and one a local community star….but that is about where the differences stops. With  relevance to the crime itself- there is not much difference bar one took place in a black township- and one on a rural farm.  It is about at this point where thewhole scenario  between the two similar crimes takes a crude racist and blatant nepotistic hippocratic turn.

According to news reports- the killing of Senzo Mayiwa hit headlines across the world- with ANC politicians falling over their feet to send condolences to the Mayiwa family- which from a layman’s point-of-view- appears to be a noble gesture ( If you can believe ANYTHING a politician- especially the ANC- means when they say something I must add.) Condolences poured in from all political parties, media outlets- and public admirers- and most news outlets carried the headlines. Some of the condolences are:

Proteas cricketer Wayne Parnell said: “Saddened to wake up here in New Zealand and hear such horrific news about the passing of Senzo Meyiwa”

Irvin Khoza: “This is a sad loss to Senzo’s family especially his children, to Orlando Pirates & the nation.”

Corne Krige, South Africa’s ex-rugby captain, also took to Twitter to express his shock: “As a nation we must start standing up against violent crime. Prayers go out to family.”

A police spokesman told AFP, with club officials describing his slaying as a “loss to the nation”. A reward of up to R150,000 is being offered for any information that can lead to arrests of the NASPERS “robbers” that killed Mayiwa. Even the South African Police commissioner- Riah Phiyega– launched a press release- saying that  a special task team has been set up to investigate the murder of Senzo Meyiwa. The police, who are frequently criticised for their handling of investigations, have been eager to show that they have a firm handle on the situation. The question is- why does the police not have a “firm handle” on the farm murders- but many times do not even come out to investigate, bungle up investigations, tamper with evidence- and sometimes  “loose” court dockets- but this case they go ” all the way?” There is a perception that those with money or celebrity are treated differently by authorities, which critics say was the case in the trial of South African Olympic athleteOscar Pistorius. ” It takes a famous person before Riah Phiyega sets up special tasks team to investigate murders?” – one tweeter Tshepang Sebulela hit  the nail  on the head.

Appearantly his death has shaken even those in the highest office. “We mourn the death of this young footballer and team leader whose life has been taken away at the prime of his career,” President Jacob Zuma said. “The law enforcement authorities must leave no stone unturned in finding his killers and bring them to justice,” his statement said. “As a nation, we must take a stand against violent crime because it affects us all. The death of Meyiwa unfortunately highlights how communities live in fear for their lives,” South Africa’s Times newspaper quotes IFP MPPetros Sithole as saying . So- Mayiwa’s murder immediately hit the world media headlines with much political and public pomp and interest- and rightly so. After all- the man was a sport “celeb”– and in South Africa( as most of the world)– sport,- especially soccer- is BIG. We accept the fact that if a “celeb” is murdered- there will be some barrage of media and political attention on the highest levels….it is human nature- and also have some capitalist financial ripples afterwards- bar the fact that the star was a sportsman representing his team and country.

Untitled-3

Now- after the Mayiwa media barrage- let us turn to the OTHER murder as described above- the murder of the white farmer….Johan van Rensburg( The WHAT farmer?????) Yea…..you read correct….the “what” farmer. Van Rensburg- although he also was murdered under thesame circumstances, the same week, the same way- by the same race NASPERS “robbers“…..his death did not even hit the back-page of most newspapers…least hitting the HEADLINES! There was just no space left as Mayiwa’s death was splattered all over the pages. Who WASVan Rensburg in any case.…just another white farmer that was murdered like so many others on a weekly basis. So…what is the big issue-killing white farmers in any case is a national sport among black (Oops) communist vigilantes- and also an approved operation that carries the authorization and approval from ilks like Zuma, Malema and many other ANC, PAC,EFF, SACP, ANCYL, SACPYL, Black Panther, AZAPO and hundreds of “black only” organizations…so- what s the big issue?  Whites are deemed ” fair game” by the communist despots anyhow. The“majority” want to exterminate the white colonials in any case- why should any rucus be made about it- it is just ” normal crime” in any case.Further-more- Killing white farmers is “constitutionally “ allowable  and acceptable as long as the majority can gain from it- and also if it could resolve Nkwinti’s  ”  whites stole our land” restitution and distribution  issue faster. Any case- In South Africa a white farmer has four times the chance of getting murdered than the average citizen and twice as many chances to get murdered as does a police officer.

The best the mainstream newspaper fraternity could do- was a report in Beeld and one in Maroela Media. It was mainly the social networksand alternative pro-white networks that carried most news of his dreadful ordeal….like most of the white murders in South Africa.  As for the rest of the national and international media – the ANC regime, our vile politicians, the “celebs”, the “who-is-who” fraternity and general public ….Van Rensburg was just another number that was added to the ever escalating crime statistics and white genocide that already surpassed70 000 victims  that will also eventually be doctored by shrewd police operators  to reflect as “ normal crime.” There were no politician that said anything after 4000 farmers and their families were brutally murdered- no IFP Petrus Sithole that said that the nation must “stand against violent crime ” as 4000 farm murders highlight how white farming communities live in fear. They will on the contrary- INSTIGATE farm murders by chanting “ Kill the Farmer- kill the Boer.” Only when one of “ theirs” are affected- they pay attention. Why does it take a black man – and not a white man- to be murdered to wake the communist “aristo” ANC fat cats up?  What is one life more important than the other? The reason…it’s all about politics and hipocracy. The bottom-line is thus: Our WORST enemies are not the soldier in another country, nor the Ebola or even natural disasters….- but factually our OWN  evil communist ” democratic” governments and  psychopathic politicians who wage a very deranged media psi-ops war against us to keep us divided.

To conclude- this is as far as “ the WHAT ?” farmer’s murder will go...no headlines, no condolences from politicians, no Corne Krige that sent condolences, no mentioning of the lost of a food producing star, no rewards of R 150 000, no special investigations….no Jacob Zuma that mourns his death or police that must leave no stone ‘ unturned” …..no nothing! His  murder will go down as yet another white media pauper- no recognition…no “special investigation” by a ” special investigation unit”…no nothing. He was just a white farmer- not even worthy to share the  same space in a newspaper front page along the news of celebs the likes of Meyiwa. This is how deep South Africa- and the world in general- has sunk into the deep abyss of communist hypocrisy and  liberal moral degradation. It has nothing to do with “racism”– it is not about Mayiwa or Van Rensburg-it is not about skin color,  it is not about classes...it is all about POLITICAL  and MEDIA hypocrisy!  The one murder get high profile attention…the other dies a pauper’s death. THAT is political  and media hypocrisy. The ANC communist regime and the South African media WANT to keep race division- they PROMOTE race segregation-they FLOURISH on racism- it keeps them in power and control. If there is no race distinction or division – they will eventually loose control, falter- and die.  As for Van Rensburg and many other innocent white victims and farmers that were brutally murdered and tortured in the name of “democracy’– well- their names will just stay numbers as long as we- the general conservative white public and so-called “Boer Organizations“- want to keep them just that through or own lack of patriotism…. unknown entities that died  media pauper’s deaths.

Source : http://www.whitenationnetwork.com/paper/?p=34340

Commercial farmers indispensable to South Africa

2014-10-28

Dr Pieter Mulder

For historical reasons, the need to have subsistence farms in South Africa from a political perspective is understandable, but it is important to realise that without commercial farming there cannot be food security in the country, Dr. Pieter Mulder, leader of the FF Plus says.

Dr. Mulder said in Parliament today in a debate on food security that a well-known leader recently remarked that the strategic ingredients to avoid a revolution in South Africa are an effective defence force, police and intelligence service.

“I do not agree. It is more likely water, energy and agriculture. Take these three elements away and there will without a doubt be a revolution,” Dr. Mulder said.

Referring to the National Development Plan (NDP), Dr. Mulder said economic welfare goes hand in hand with the production and the availability of food. Even if products are available, people still need money to be able to buy it.

Dr. Mulder said caution should be taken not to lose valuable time and energy by binding people to old fashioned subsistence farming or smallholder farming methods which do not generate income or offer a future.

“The average person does not want to farm to make a living. People prefer to look for work in cities with their modern economies. In South Africa subsistence farming is essential because it secures political stability. It is however important that the goal should be to lead these people to commercial farming.

“As deputy minister of agriculture I often said that South Africa needs more black commercial farmers. But it is important that to look to the future and not bind people with ideological chains to the past,” Dr. Mulder said.

With regards to the effect of crime and farm attacks on agriculture, Dr. Mulder said that only 37 000 farmers are producing 95% of the food in South Africa. If, for the sake of argument, it is calculated that 10 million people are producing their own food, it means roughly that one farmer produces food for 1 100 people.

“If one farmer is murdered as was the case the day before yesterday in Leeudoringstad, it can be said that 1 100 people will be left without food. Let us therefore appreciate our commercial farmers and their contribution to food security and improve the situation further by getting more black commercial farmers to assist with keeping the food basket of the country full,” Dr. Mulder said.

The rainbow nation – Cauldron of crime

Another day, more shocking headlines of another life lost to crime.  RIP Senzo Meyiwa. While headline stories like Shrien Dewani, Oscar and the latest high profile murder of Meyiwa occasionally draw attention to the high rate of crime in our country, crime never sleeps, it never rests, and it never pauses for a second.  Most people are not even aware of how bad it really is, which is why I’d like to draw attention to the SAPS reported crime stats below which relate to the period 1 April 1994 – 31 March 2014.Note that these figures should be regarded as the minimum as many crimes are not reported to the police.

Murder

During this period, the SAPS reported a total of 409,954 murders.  That equates to 20,497 per year, 56 per day.  A murder occurred every 26 minutes.

Culpable Homicide

We’re all aware of this crime category given the latest developments in the Oscar Pistorius trial.  Besides murder, this is the only other crime in which a life is taken by another and one would assume it would be serious.  Unfortunately it is seldom mentioned in the media and often left out of police reports and if you look at the official crime stats presented by the police each year, it’s not classified as a “Serious Crime”.  It’s a fact; the killing of Reeva Steenkamp is not classified as a “Serious Crime” according to the SAPS.

During this period, the SAPS reported a total of 243,939 culpable homicides.  That equates to 12,197 per year, 33 per day.  A culpable homicide has occured every 43 minutes.

This means that during this period, a total of 653,893 have been killed in reported homicides.  That equates to 32,695 per year, 90 per day.  A homicide occurred every 16 minutes.

Serious Crimes

Here are the numbers for the 20 categories of “Serious Crimes” reported by the SAPS during this period:

Murder: Total – 409,954; Per year – 20,498; Per day – 56
Attempted murder: Total – 477,024; Per year – 23,851; Per day – 65
Assault with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm: Total – 4,544,244; Per year 227,212; Per day – 622
Total sexual offences: Total – 1,240,461; Per year – 62,023; Per day – 170 (Estimates of actual sexual offences range between 6m (conservative) and 25m (aggressive))
Common Assault: Total – 4,321,777; Per year – 216,089; Per day – 592
Robbery with Aggravating circumstances: Total – 2,138,054; Per year – 106,903; Per day – 293
Common Robbery: Total – 1,335,212; Per year – 66,761; Per day – 183
Burglary at business premises: Total – 1,522,418; Per year – 76,121; Per day – 209
Burglary at residential premises: Total – 5,310,740; Per year – 265,537; Per day – 727
Theft of motor vehicle/cycle: Total – 1,716,024; Per year – 85,801; Per day – 235
Theft out of motor vehicle: Total – 3,172,934; Per year – 158,647; Per day – 435
Stock theft: Total – 728,785; Per year – 36,439; Per day – 100
Arson: Total – 165,261; Per year – 8,263; Per day – 23
Malicious damage to property: Total – 2,703,183; Per year – 135,159; Per day – 370
Illegal possession of guns/ammunition: Total – 287,106; Per year – 14,355; Per day – 39
Drug related crime: Total – 1,905,573; Per year – 95,279; Per day – 261
Driving under the influence: Total – 796,022; Per year – 39801; Per day – 109
Other theft: Total – 8,866,946; Per year – 443,347; Per day – 1,215
Commercial Crimes: Total – 1,362,433; Per year – 68,122; Per day – 187
Shoplifting: Total – 1,387,513; Per year – 69,378; Per day – 190
This equates to a grand total of: 44,391,664 “Serious Crimes” reported in this period.  That means 2,219,583 per year, 6081 per day.

Then there are also the crimes that do not fall under the “Serious Crimes” category:

Kidnapping & Abduction: Total – 103,186; Per year – 5,159; Per day – 14
Negligent & Ill treatment of children: Total – 69,990; Per year – 3,450; Per day – 10
Crimen Injuria: Total – 830,653; Per year – 41,532; Per day – 114
Culpable Homicide (including Reeva Steenkamp and Jub Jub victims): Total – 243,939; Per year – 12,197, Per day – 33
Including these not-so-serious crimes, the grand total of crimes reported by the SAPS for this period is:  45,639,432.  That means 2,281,972 per year, 6252 per day.

Bear in mind that our prison population sits at approximately 160,000…

Kevin King.

Racial propaganda on the resurgence in South Africa

Racecard115 October 2014

Race-aware intellectuals (of all colours) increasingly leading the charge against the country’s white minority

Over the past several months there has been a striking resurgence of racial propaganda in South Africa, directed against the country’s white minority. This follows in the slipstream of the African National Congress government’s renewed legislative efforts to solve the race question in South Africa by inter alia progressively limiting whites in all private and public sector institutions to their percentage of the total population; the efforts to gradually Africanise small business through the amended B-BBEE codes; and the vociferous calls from the Economic Freedom Fighters, and elements within the ANC, for land owned by whites to be expropriated without compensation for the benefit of the population as a whole.

It also occurs in a context wherein the ANC’s past efforts to deal with this question have collapsed into a morass of state dysfunction, corruption, high unemployment and low economic growth – while creating a narrow and hugely wealthy politically-connected elite.

However, unlike in the past, and particularly during the Mbeki-era, this propaganda is not being driven by the ANC and its cadres, but rather by race-aware individuals in South Africa’s mainstream media (of all colours) otherwise quite contemptuous of the Zuma administration.

This propaganda is generally characterised by an intense focus on any incident of violence or indignity inflicted by whites on blacks; allegations of continuing and undeserved “white privilege”; claims that property, and particularly land, owned by whites was “stolen”; the effort to downplay or diminish incidents of black on white violence no matter how brutal; and outraged reactions to any call for equal treatment for individuals from the white minority. The following examples are illustrative of the febrile atmosphere of South Africa’s media, when it comes to racial issues.

I

In February this year TimesLive reported – in a story titled “Another race attack at top university” – that “In an apparent racist attack, two white students at the University of the Free State (UFS) allegedly drove deliberately over a black student and repeatedly beat him when he confronted them.”

The newspaper claimed that the two students – subsequently named as Cobus Muller and Charl Blom – had, while driving through the main campus of the university in their bakkie, tried to swerve into three black women students (while “calling them kaffirs”) before hitting a fifth-year economics student Dumane ‘Muzi’ Gwebu while he was walking on the pavement. When Gwebu had confronted Muller and Blom at a nearby residence they had viciously attacked and beaten him.

In a statement issued to the newspaper the UFS said its leadership was “shocked and outraged” by the incident, that the two students involved had been tracked down and handed over to the police, and had been “expelled” from the university. Blom and Muller later stated that two days after the incident they had approached Vice-Chancellor and Rector, Professor Jonathan Jansen, to give their side of the story. Jansen had refused to hear them out and had instead immediately called in campus security who had handed them over to the police.

This incident provoked an outraged response across social media with much discussion of the continued problem of white racism in South Africa, and what to do about it. Eusebius McKaiser the Rhodes Scholar, Power FM talk-show host and columnist for Independent newspapers, tweeted:

A day or two later Jansen wrote an open letter to all UFS students indirectly accusing Blom and Muller, without naming them, of being “violent and hateful persons” and “criminals” who still act as “these are the days of apartheid.” He concluded by stating: “The two former students were expelled and will now face justice in the criminal courts. It is hoped that in the course of time they will come to their senses and seek restoration and reconciliation with the student they so callously harmed. They are not part of the university community anymore. That is the kind of university we are.”

Gwebu’s allegations were subsequently examined both by the South African Human Rights Commission and in the trial of Blom and Muller on charges of reckless driving, crimen injuria, attempted murder and assault. In their trial Blom and Muller denied that they had intentionally hit Gwebu with the vehicle, uttered any sort of racial slur or initiated their assault. According to their version Gwebu had dragged Muller out of the stationary vehicle and begun assaulting him. Muller had then head-butted Gwebu in self-defence. Gwebu had then gone after Muller again, before Blom had pulled him off.

It emerged in court that in their original statements the two black women called as witnesses had said the bakkie had not hit Gwebu, nor did they see him fall. He had also walked away normally. They subsequently changed their statement, after meeting with the prosecution, to say that Gwebu could have been hit. It also emerged from the SAHRC investigation that no witness could corroborate Gwebu’s claim that the k-word had been uttered, nor had he himself claimed to have heard it personally.

On September 9 magistrate Rasheed Mathews found Blom and Muller not guilty on all charges. Gwebu was found to have been a prejudiced, hostile and unreliable witness who contradicted himself repeatedly. Gwebu’s testimony was also not corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence. Following their acquittal the UFS issued a statement defending the original decision to “suspend” Blom and Muller. Jansen did however apologise “on behalf of the UFS to Cobus Muller and Charl Blom, their parents, and their families, for the disruption that the suspension brought in their lives and for the stress they had to bear during this difficult period. ‘For that, I am truly sorry,’ he said.”

More recently, the incident in which two white male University of Stellenbosch students dressed up as Venus and Serena Williams at a private fancy dress party, and blackened their faces, met with an equally irate response after a picture slipped into the public domain via social media. Although the students quickly apologised, the Daily Maverick thought this incident of sufficient national import to devote three opinion pieces – by Marelise van der Merwe, Mariann Thamm, and Sisonke Msimang – to denouncing the students. Thamm laid great emphasis on collective historic white guilt and black victimhood; while Msimang wrote that the best that could be said of the students “that they are naïve and unconsciously racist.”

The race-aware (white) ventriloquist Conrad Koch also expressed his indignation by tweeting through the medium of his (black) alter ego Chester Missing:

II

In February this year McKaiser told a conference that “no sense of guilt” needed to be felt over discrimination against children and young adults on the basis of their (white) race when it came to the allocation of positions in schools and jobs. In his writings McKaiser – who recently confessed to the Sunday Times that he “did once buy sneakers for about R13 000 cash” – has repeatedly written about the “unearned privileges” of young white South Africans who attended the same sort of schools and universities he did.

In a column in The Star on Monday this week McKaiser, who has recently left Power FM after a contractual dispute, wrote that the sense of shock that white individuals feel when being passed over for an appointment or promotion, in favour of a (less qualified?) black candidate, reflects an “unexamined sense of entitlement” and “an embedded, internalised sense of superiority.” He wrote:

“There is sheer arrogance involved here on the part of the white South African who can’t make sense of his or her failure without sustaining a secret belief that they are intrinsically more capable than blacks. You can only lament and be shocked by fewer job offers or promotions in the job sector if you think you deserve these more than blacks. Nothing innocent anchors such shock and disappointment. A sense of superiority, left over from apartheid, fuels this misplaced sense of being democracy’s victim. If you conceived of the possibility you might not be the best, other responses to failure beyond shock will open up. Apartheid’s beneficiaries aren’t yet in that head-space.”

McKaiser added that whites still need to do “psychological and moral work” and accept “that past discrimination, not genetic superiority or sheer effort, explains why you’re materially better off than me and my family.”

The underlying sentiment expressed by McKaiser, and other race-aware commentators, is that what the minority possess today was gained at the expense of the racial majority, through foul measures, over the course of hundreds of years. The corrective measures being currently taken against this minority are both justified and, indeed, considerably more lenient than this race deserves, given their past crimes.

III

This attitude may help explain why while the UFS and “Williams Sisters” incidents, referred to above, were met with public outrage, violent attacks on white and particularly Afrikaner farmers are met with equanimity in race-aware media circles. The South African Police Service recently disclosed that there had been 2 227 attacks on farms and smallholdings between April 2010 and March 2014, in which 245 individuals had been murdered. By comparison there were 198 robbery-related murders in Germany (pop. 80.2m) in approximately the same four-year period.

A police report described the circumstances around the murders of Nicolaas Lens and Martha Mary Magdalena Lens on September 3 2014 on their farm Elim in the Groenvlei district near Lüneburg in KwaZulu-Natal as follows:

“Mr Lens was shot from behind while he was standing or kneeling. The person who shot him, put the firearm against his head and pulled the trigger (in an execution style). His hat was found next to the body, a roll of binding wire, as well as a 5-litre plastic container containing a pair of fencing pliers and a metal saw… It seems as if his wife was busy preparing food in the kitchen, as they were going to have a braai, when the intruders entered the house. She was taken to the bedroom to open the safe. A panic button was found on top of the safe, which she had pressed to alert people that there was a problem. The panic button was pressed just after 17:00 hours. When the panic button is pressed, the radio’s microphone turns into a sender and people tuned in on the network can hear what is happening in the immediate vicinity. A person in the area heard over the radio how a woman was pleading with a person who was shouting at her, then a gunshot was heard. After that the Lens’ telephone was heard ringing through the microphone, but nothing else…. Mrs Lens was [later] found on the ground with her hands, in a ‘hands up’ position. She was shot in an execution style, with the firearm being pressed hard against her head when the trigger was pulled.”

In this context the controversy over the music video of the song “Larney Jou Poes” by Dookom – a largely-white rap group fronted by the (black) rapper Isaac Mutant – is revealing. The song (below) essentially contains 4 minutes of volksverhetzung directed against white farmers, beginning and ending with the call for the farms to be burned.

The video, with its violent fantasies of a reichskristallnacht on the land, may have remained in obscurity had City Press not decided to give it expansive coverage on Sunday. The newspaper quoted the (white) British member of the group as accusing farmers of “treating workers worse than animals” – suggesting that if there was violence the farmers would have brought it down on themselves.

The video was widely praised by race-aware intellectuals. TO Molefe, South African columnist for the New York Times Online, tweeted:

Ahead of publication, City Press had approached the Afrikaner civil rights organisation, AfriForum, for comment in an apparent effort to give some “balance” to its coverage. The organisation’s deputy CEO, Ernst Roets, told the newspaper: “Farm murders are a massive problem in South Africa, and to romanticise burning down a farm is ridiculous. We are considering laying charges of hate speech.”

This comment, in turn, provoked an indignant reaction from the race-aware UCT constitutional law professor, Pierre de Vos. In an article for the Daily Maverick De Vos, whose chair is funded by the Claude Leon Foundation, described AfriForum as an “organisation that fights for the preservation of white privilege” and the song’s deployment of Afrikaans as “exquisite”. He then entered into a long denunciation of white South Africans, stating inter alia:

“For many (but not all) ‘white’ South Africans their racial privilege thus remains comfortingly invisible – much like the air they breathe. When somebody claims ‘not to see race’ I try to give that person the benefit of the doubt and to assume he or she does not have the intellectual tools to realise that such a denial helps many of us ‘white’ South Africans to remain soothingly blind to the structural racism from which we benefit – whether we choose to do so or not.”

AfriForum’s comments also provoked an angry response from the journalist Lloyd Geyde. Writing in The Con, an online magazine, he stated:

“The fallacy of the ‘white victim’ is becoming nauseating…Farm workers are routinely beaten, raped or murdered in South Africa – just take a look at our court rolls – but white farmers hog the headlines with their claims of ‘genocide’. It’s clear slavery and apartheid are still alive and well in South Africa; they are just obfuscated with the language of democracy now.”

Finally, in an article in the Mail & Guardian online, the video was also highly commended by the EFF MP and former employee of the European Union funded Foundation for Human Rights, Andile Mngxitama. Mngxitama, who has long called for the dispossession of white farmers on Zimbabwean-style lines, described his interaction with the (white) director of the video as follows:

“One can’t help imagine Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained [in viewing the video]. Like the movie, black resistance is permitted by a white creator. Mutant is a front man of a white band. The video itself is produced by a talented white man who goes by the name Sirius Tales. When I tell him [at the launch] that he has pulled a Tarantino, he is pleased. But then I go further and tell him at the day of reckoning he must not expect any mercy from blacks, he frowns with disappointment and asks, ‘But why?’ I tell him I have no words to speak the weight of 700 years of black oppression. Dialogue ends.”