The printed version of this book is available for purchase from PRAAG Uitgewers
Outeur/Author: Dan Roodt
Titel/title: The Scourge of the ANC
Aantal bladsye/number of pages: 144
Prys/Price: R120, BTW en posgeld ingesluit/R120 including VAT and postage
or internationally from Amazon.com
Cost: US$ 19.00
The book consists of two parts: 1) The Scourge Of The ANC; and
2) Afrikaner Survival Under Black Rule.
The following extract is from The Scourge Of The ANC section, reproduced with kind permission** from Dr Roodt. Copying or unauthorised distribution is expressly forbidden. Copyright reserved by the author.
** Pending: Creation of this page intended as a sample / demo only
“ANC rule in South Africa represents the biggest scourge visited upon the country since our traditional enemy, Great Britain, invaded us one hundred years ago … It took us fifty years to recover from the British invasion. It is anyone’s guess how long it will take to recuperate from the current rapine practised by another invader, the erstwhile foreign terrorist group known as the ANC. Since coming to power in 1994, a staggering 300 000 people have been murdered, and our beautiful country has become a criminal state. Not only has government become corrupt to the core, as exemplified by the R60 billion arms deal, but South Africa is also the preferred domicile of hundreds of foreign crime syndicates. We have been transformed – to use a fashionable piece of official jargon – into a den of iniquity, the international crime capital and centre for drug-trafficking, prostitution, money laundering, child pornography, rape, murder, car hijacking, and so on.” In these two polemical essays, the author argues persuasively for a speedy end to ANC rule. No-one in the last ten years has had the courage to denounce the racial madness and patent injustices of this unwanted and bloody regime.
Image: Dr Dan Roodt
Dan Roodt holds a Ph.D. from the University of the Witwatersrand and a D.E.A. from the Université de Paris VIII (Vincennes/St. Denis). He is a well-known novelist and Afrikaner commentator who has played a leading role in what has become known over the past four years as the “Third Afrikaans Language Struggle.”
More about Dr Roodt (click this link)
Meer oor Dr Roodt (kliek hierdie skakel)
Please support the extraordinary work of Dr Roodt. Visit http://www.praag.org for a superb selection of books, or to make a donation to the cause of Afrikaner and White survival in South Africa.
THE SCOURGE OF THE ANC
BY DR DANIEL ROODT
ANC rule in South Africa represents the biggest scourge visited upon the country since our traditional enemy, Great Britain, invaded us one hundred years ago. During the Anglo-Boer war, Britain burned most of the countryside, including churches and farm houses, and committed genocide on 27 000 Boer women and children in the concentration camps. British soldiers, as well as their armed black henchmen, raped 35% of Boer women in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. English officers in Pretoria raided the Irene concentration camp for Boer girls as young as ten and eleven, to be kept as sex slaves and raped for days on end. It took us fifty years to recover from the British invasion. It is anyone’s guess how long it will take to recuperate from the current rapine practised by another invader, the erstwhile foreign terrorist group known as the ANC.
Since coming to power in 1994, a staggering 300 000 people have been murdered, and our beautiful country has been turned into a criminal state. Not only has government become corrupt to the core, as exemplified by the R60 billion arms deal, but South Africa is also the preferred domicile of hundreds of foreign crime syndicates. We have been transformed — to use a fashionable piece of official jargon - into a den of iniquity, the international crime capital and centre for drug-trafficking, prostitution, money laundering, child pornography, rape, murder, car hijacking, and so on. To top it all, the press recently carried details of a so-called snuff movie made in Johannesburg during which an 18- year old girl, Tanya Flowerday, was murdered. What a fitting tribute to South African mores, post-1994!
How did all of this happen? The one moment we were still at loggerheads over apartheid and forms of representation for the various ethnic and linguistic groups inhabiting the country, the next a gang of has-been communists and revolutionaries languishing in Cuba, Britain and former East European capitals were imported to come and rule us. In one of the most insane moments in history, the former National Intelligence Service under Niel Barnard, together with Justice Minister Kobie Coetsee, amid pressure from Britain in the form of M16, had decided to resuscitate the ANC from its near-death state and awaken its so-called leaders from their alcoholic torpor in Zambian camps or sleazy state-owned flats in Warsaw or East Berlin.
The image stuck in my mind is that of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, where God extends his life-giving finger to Adam’s listless hand. After forty years in power, presiding over the most advanced state on the African continent, a mini-superpower with nuclear capability, a well-developed arms industry, as well as powerful and dedicated security forces, the National Party had come to believe it was God. If not God, FW de Klerk, the naive platteland attorney who had ingratiated himself with the rest of his party to become president, thought that he had at least a hotline to God. He could muster the international media to breathe life into the veritable Frankenstein of the African National Congress and its Communist Party ally, thereby creating a new force in South African politics. Like Doctor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s tale, he thought that he could control it, tame it, bend it to his purposes of finding international acceptance for his policies and so end South Africa’s diplomatic isolation. In the end the monster he had created not only overcame him, but went on to seize power and to rule, thereby triggering the calamity that has since plagued South Africa.
The National Party created the ANC phenomenon, post-Berlin 1989. Even Nelson Mandela would have been a nobody sinking into oblivion on Robben Island, refusing to come out of his prison tell without renouncing violence as he had done under P.W. Botha. But by the mid-eighties the National Party was reeling under international criticism, and needed someone to negotiate with. They could have called a national conference of internal leaders, including the homeland leaders, the newly formed United Democratic Front, the parliamentary opposition, the Coloured and Indian leaders participating in the tri-cameral parliament, but they caved in under foreign pressure to bypass the internal leadership and negotiate solely with the most radical foreign exiles and until recently puppets of the communist dictatorships in Eastem Europe, otherwise known as the ANC.
Soon after the unbanning of the ANC and SACP on 2 February 1990, tons of weapons flowed into the country. In fact, the ANC used its newly acquired legal status to foment revolution and to plan the violent overthrow of the old government. In July 1990 the police discovered Operation Vula, a plot by three Communist Party members, Mac Maharaj, Ronnie Kasrils and Siphiwe Nyanda to overthrow the government and start a civil war. The spark would have been provided by the assassination by a high-ranking ANC official, which would have been blamed on the NP government. If the old SA Police Service had not been more vigilant, Operation Vula would have been a success and South Africa would have been plunged into a bloodbath.
The ANC then proceeded to eliminate the moderate black leadership, the homeland leaders, even its internal ally, the UDF, whose leaders with one or two exceptions — were sidelined and their organisation taken over. After the discovery of Operation VuIa, the idea of overthrowing the central state was seen as too ambitious, and Kasrils specifically started to target the homeland administrations. This led to the march on Bisho which triggered a massacre when Lennox Sebe’s police force panicked, as well as the mini-revolution in Bophutatswana during which Lucas Mangope was removed and three AWB members were shot in cold blood by a Bophutatswana policeman.
Sometimes the NP acted in cahoots with the ANC, especially to intimidate Chief Buthelezi of the Kwazulu homeland. In fact, when Roelf Meyer took over from Tertius Delport as the chief NP “negotiator”, he soon betrayed not only Chief Buthelezi, but also his own constituency the Afrikaners, whites and other minorities. In the words of Chris Louw, an independent Afrikaner joumalist and until recently the editor of RadioSonderGrense’s morning news programme Monitor:
“On 26 September 1992, after live months of deadlock, the Record of Understanding was signed between the ANC and the NP which made continued negotiations possible. With the signing of the accord the NP broke the core of its electoral promises and the basis of its own referendum... The Record of Understanding was essentially a one-sided accord in which the government finally caved in to the ANC’s demands and abandoned its plans for an informal anti-ANC alliance in which lnkatha would have played an important role... This one-sided agreement between the government and the ANC finally alienated Inkatha from the National Party, and Chief Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi withdrew from the negotiations. “
FW de Klerk is a consummate liar who has by now shifted his position so many times that no-one remembers the details from ten years ago anymore. However, he and Roelf Meyer sold out their own people, the Afrikaners, as well as their electorate and former allies such as the homeland leaders and Inkatha, For the sake of “good publicity” in the foreign media. De Klerk had so totally lost contact with reality that he had thought that not only could he and Meyer outwit the sharp—minded leftist lawyers in ANC ranks during the negotiations, hut that by drawing his belly in a bit, the ace matador could outmanoeuvre the raging black bull he had bred and fattened himself. Both NP leaders were increasingly given to phantasms: shortly before the elections, De Klerk seriously enquired from his intelligence service “whether the ANC would accept electoral defeat by the National Party.” Perhaps it was hubris, or maybe it was the excess testosterone generated by his extra—marital affair with Elita, but he regarded himself as infallible, running the risk of wiping out 350 years of history and setting South Africa upon an uncertain path under a radical black nationalist government driven by the familiar passions that had laid waste most African countries in the post—colonial period. His former wile Marike, who has since been strangely and brutally murdered in a Cape Town flat, made a fool of herself two weeks before the 1994 elections by seriously confiding to a group of German diplomats that she was not moving out of Tuynhuys as her husband “had told her that the National Party
was going to win the elections.” Obviously, the Germans laughed in her face, to her acute embarrassment. The value of such anecdotes is that they demonstrate De Klerk’s utter lack of judgement, his almost childish belief in his own political powers and equally infantile need to be loved by the foreign media. Those foreign journalists who lavished praise on him for surrendering to the ANC are today reporting in Iraq and elsewhere, and have since abandoned South Africa to her increasingly anarchic, bloody fate.
Once the genie was let out of the bottle, there was no putting it back. A self-styled “National Liberation Movement” like the ANC will seize power by any means possible, whether through a coup d’etat, a violent revolution or - as it happened the ballot box. Hitler, incidentally, came to power through similar methods: first the stormtroopers rough up and intimidate the competition, and when hardly anyone is left standing, the country goes to the polls in a populist frenzy. Mugabe attained an 80% majority in 1980 and has clung to power since. Once in power, the rule of a “liberation movement” becomes a matter of divine right, never to be questioned. We have seen this in Namibia and Zimbabwe, and in the ANC’s support for Mugabe. The seasoned liberal commentator, R.W. Johnson, made a fitting comparison of ZANU-PF and the ANC, saying:
“The National Liberation Movements share what can only be termed a common theology. National liberation is both the just and historically necessary conclusion of the struggle between the people and the forces of racism and colonialism. This has two implications. First, the NLMs — whatever venial sins they may commit are the righteous. They not merely represent the masses but in a sense they are the masses, and as such they cannot really be wrong. Secondly, according to the theology, their coming to power represents the end of a process. No further group can succeed them for that would mean that the masses, the forces of righteousness, had been overthrown. That, in turn, could only mean that the forces of racism and colonialism, after sulking in defeat and biding their time, had regrouped and launched a counter-attack. Thus it Follows that having won, a NLM should stay in power forever. Many NLM true believers still favour a one-party state - even if it has become impolitic to say so - for if other parties are allowed or encouraged to compete with the NLM, they can only become the vehicles of imperialist counter-attack.”
As long as multi-party democracy serves to legitimate NLM power, it will tolerate opposition parties. however, if ever an opposition party manages to overcome the obstacles of state and media bias, corporate fear of supporting opposition parties, de facto restrictions on organising and canvassing in areas considered the fiefdoms of the movement, as well as the virulent racial nationalism with which its followers are constantly brainwashed, (he NLM will simply resort to other tactics, like Mugabe. In the 1970s, Joe Slovo, writing in (he African Communist, his party’s official organ, acknowledged that the SACP had actually failed, abysmally so. Not only had any popular uprising against the then South African government failed to materialise, but the so-called armed struggle, urban terrorism and attacks on civilians were not making any headway, despite logistical support from
the Soviets and financial aid from the Scandivanian countries, particularly Sweden. The Swedish parliament had voted vast sums of money to be transferred to the ANC, some of it in secret, with no questions asked about its ultimate use. Oliver Tambo, the leader of the ANC in exile, became mysteriously rich and the source of his wealth was definitely not some smart deal on the stock exchange.
In 1985, when P.W. Botha made his ill-starred Rubicon speech, the ANC-SACP was a spent force. Opinion polls indicated that only 5% of the South African population had any sympathies for it; more importantly, most people had never even heard of it. Buthelezi was a far more popular figure who enjoyed widespread support among black South Africans, especially Zulus. Today we are being fed the propaganda diet of a glorious liberation movement founded in 1912 that won victory in 1994 after years of so-called struggle. This is all historical fantasy, invented retroactively. The organisation founded in 1912 was called the “South African Native National Congress” and had very little to do with the ANC of today, a new organisation that essentially came about in the early 1990s as a direct result of the National Party’s ham-fisted attempts at managing its international image problem. The old ANC-SACP of the Rivonia trial was an anachronism, completely overtaken by events in Eastern Europe, the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989, and would have died a natural death, were it not for the intervention of Niel Barnard and Kobie Coetsee who thought they could create another political player in South Africa. Having seen the Mandela name being seized upon by British pop artists and European communist parties who were desperate for some moral capital amid the crumbling socialist empire, National Intelligence and Kobie Coetsee were grooming Mandela for a leadership role, actually adding to the publicity surrounding him, In buying him clothes and giving him lessons in his comfortable home on the grounds of Victor Verster prison.
Acting in cahoots with National Intelligence, the secret Afrikaner organisation known as the Broederbond, aided and abetted by British intelligence, was itself making contact with the exiled terrorist wing of the ANC in Switzerland, with a view to ensnaring it in negotiations. Throughout all of this, the electorate was kept in lie dark, while the flower of young white males were still required to fight and sometimes die in the Angolan war.
Big Business was suffering from sanctions and had never seen the National Party as competent to govern South Africa. The powerful Oppenheimer dynasty controlling Anglo and De Beers, as well as other companies, have always regarded South Africa as simply an extension of Great Britain and were horrified by the increasingly sovereign and independent state created by Afrikaner leaders in the twentieth century. The existence of a republic with its own currency was anathema to them. It is revealing that one of the first moves by the Oppenheimers, as well as South African Breweries, Old Mutual, Gencor/Billiton, Investec and others, has been to relocate to London. Under ANC rule, Johannesburg is no longer the financial centre of South Africa; London is reassuming the traditional role that it played in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As a friend recently put it, “very soon the Kaffirs (British slang for South African mining shares) will be trading in London again, like they should.” He was being ironic, but what goes for mining shares, goes for everything else: most things in the new South Africa have “made in Britain” or “made elsewhere” stamped on it. We are no longer masters of our own destiny.
Over the last two decades, South Africa has been betrayed many times over, in a tradition that goes back to the Jameson Raid. In late 1895 Leander Starr Jameson and his 600 men attempted to overthrow the legitimate government of Paul Kruger by staging a coup d’etat. History repeats itself, and today we are reliving the sequel to another Jameson Raid of more gigantic and sinister proportions. The coup d’etat staged against us, the formerly sovereign people of South Africa, as well as the Afrikaner nation who fought twice to secure our independence from Great Britain, has been so subtle and well-engineered that we can only now, ten years after, recognise this Jameson Raid for what it was.
In one sense, the so-called new South Africa can be interpreted as nothing but the reintroduction of ”indirect rule” from Great Britain. The pathetic bunch of exiles recalled from former East European capitals or Zambian camps where they were living on food aid, is in essence a puppet government open to manipulation by Great Britain and global business. All governments are corrupt to some extent, and the old South African government had its fair share of financial scandals. But it was quite rare for government officials or serving politicians to be bribed by foreign powers or companies. As we have seen during the arms deal, British Aerospace and Daimler Benz distributed bribes in the form of cash or motor vehicles to members of the ANC government. The Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel, entered into a secret agreement with Britain, bypassing parliament, that he would borrow money from the International Monetary Fund in the event that South Africa could not honour its hard currency obligations to British companies arising from the arms deal.
Thabo Mbeki, the current president of South Africa, represents an uitlander who spent most of his life living overseas, notably in Britain. He has no proper command of Afrikaans or any other South African language. For all intents and purposes, we might as well have been governed by the Reverend Jesse Jackson from the United States. In culture, outlook and identity, there is no difference between the two. Mbeki does not give two hoots about South Africa. First and foremost he is an “African”, meaning a black man, and the only function of our country is to provide him with a very expensive aeroplane and the necessary funds for a peripatetic existence in foreign countries where he feels much more at home than here among us. In fact, having taken the cue from his British masters, Mbeki really looks down upon us as being parochial, backward people with our own local identities, languages, poetry and the like. In a telling phrase, Mbeki made mention of American Langston Hughes as “one of *our* great poets.” He would never refer to N.L. van Wyk Louw or Breyten Breytenbach in the same vein.
The British journalist and author, Anthony Sampson, has proudly remarked on Mbeki’s very British demeanour and culture. One of the most characteristic photographs of
Mbeki, apart from the one where he is smiling and holding hands with Robert Mugabe, both of them festooned during ZANU-PF’s victory celebrations in the last Zimbabwean election, is one where he is riding in an open Royal carriage with Queen Elizabeth II of England. He did not look like a visiting statesman, if ever one could describe a
petty African terrorist and schemer like him as a “statesman”, but more like a subject of multicultural Britain paying obeisance to his queen. The man should follow the lead of others and relocate to London forthwith, except that he might not become Prime Minister there. However, being on very good terms with Tony Blair, he would surely he employable as a Minister of Cooperation and Development, a position for which he would he eminently suitable, given that his conception of politics is mostly to hold out the begging bowl for poor old Africa.
Reflect upon this for a moment. Until 1989, shortly before the organisation was unbanned and hoisted to the exalted level of “government in waiting” by the National Party, the ANC was classified by the Pentagon as a “terrorist organisation”. In terms of efficiency, it found itself fairly low down on the list of international terror cults. It had managed to commit about 500 incidents of sabotage, murder, bombing, and so on, with the help of East German and Russian instructors. By itself it was probably incapable of anything. Quite recently, ANC member Tokyo Sexwale, one of the recipients of black empowerment largesse, was refused a visa to the United States as a result of his terrorist past.
Imagine Germany being governed by Andreas Baader and Deutsche Bank or Daimler-Benz being managed by Gudrun Enslin. Or more appropriately, Osama Bin Laden ensconced in the White House. This is where we are in South Africa. At the time the National Party and particularly its intelligence operators had decided to negotiate and, as it happened, hand over power on a plate to the ANC, it was nothing hut a surrogate bunch of failed terrorists subsisting on the sympathy of the former communist regimes in the East. If De Klerk had waited another year or two, the ANC would have disappeared into oblivion, never to be heard of again. Nelson Mandela would have had to renounce violence before being freed, and would have spent his retirement in relative anonymity, like many of his fellow travellers that were released before him. De Klerk and his abject lackey, Roelf Meyer, must be the two most incompetent politicians ever to have held positions of influence in South Africa. They are directly responsible for having brought the calamity of ANC rule onto our country. If ever Afrikaners attain self-rule again, it is conceivable that FW de Klerk and Roelf Meyer might be charged with high treason by their own people; they could well die in front of an Afrikaner firing-squad one day.
But even a traitor might be motivated by the self-interest of staying in power. As we have seen, De Klerk had every intention of staying on as president. One avenue open to the National Party, given that it was under pressure from the West to negotiate with the ANC, would have been to hold out longer; more importantly, it should first have destroyed the ANC militarily before entering into any form of talks. This is the conclusion drawn by the respected liberal historian, Herman Gilliomee, author of a recent book on Afrikaner history. Many generals from the old SADF have stories to tell of how they were on the verge of “taking out” some ANC terrorist commander or installation somewhere, when the phone would ring from Pretoria telling them to hold off or to cancel the operation. South Africa was vilified in the world media regardless of what actions it took, good or had. Going up to Lusaka to bomb ANC training camps would hardly have made the old South African government less internationally popular than it already was.
Even prior to 1990 the National Party was soft on the ANC, and did not respond like any responsible government should under such circumstances, i.e. eliminate the terrorist threat wherever it was to be found. Contrast the behaviour of the Americans after 11 September 2001 with that of South Africa after the Church Street bomb in Pretoria on 20 May 1983 in which 19 people died and 200 were injured. Instead of going up to Lusaka and striking directly at the vipers’ nest, National Intelligence, unbeknown to the public and the electorate, was already secretly negotiating with the ANC and in essence surrendering in the face of terrorist violence.
The height of irony is that the author of the Church Street bomb, Aboobaker Ismail, has been rewarded by his appointment as head of security at the Reserve Bank in Pretoria, the same bank where a British subject, Ian Plenderleith, holds the position of Deputy Governor in an unprecedented move in modern history where one country’s central bank is partially controlled by a non-national. On the East Rand, the notorious terrorist Robert McBride, who murdered three innocent women and injured another 73 civilians during the Magoo’s Bar bombing in Durban on 14 June 1986, has been appointed as head of the metropolitan police force. The ANC is synonymous with outrage, either through its many half—truths and lies about South African history, or in its appointments of former terror operatives to high government posts. Mbeki himself defended McBribe’s candidature for police chief by stating in ANC Today “We will not agree that Mr. McBride should be condemned for having been a liberation fighter.”
The influence of the Western countries in Southern Africa, particularly Britain, has been very negative, on the whole. When not invading South Africa as it (lid a century ago, Britain, as well as France, Germany and even the US have been supporting the most radical black nationalist movements such as ZANU-PF, FRELIMO, SWAPO or the ANC-SACP, not as parties to be negotiated or settled with, but as rightful governments. The Western fascination with the most violent, radical, terrorist, often communist or Marxist-Leninist movements in Southern Africa has deep psychological roots in colonial and white guilt. Western politicians, representing ageing and pacifist populations abhorring violence on their own soil, seem to admire anyone abroad who believes in Mao’s dictum that “power grows from the barrel of a gun” and see a commitment to violence or “armed struggle” as it is euphemistically called, as a manifestation of youthful virility, idealism and a natural quest for power.
Issues of democracy or human rights only enter into the equation as a last resort. The French philosopher and commentator, André Glucksmann, wrote a hook with journalist Thierry Wolton on the Ethiopian genocide under Mengistu Haile Miriam in which they asked why the world was concerned about a few hundred deaths in South Africa over forty years of white minority rule, whereas it turned a blind eye to a million dead in Ethiopia within a few short years. The explanation they offered was that Western whites identified with other whites and felt guilty about their killings. When blacks kill other blacks by the millions it is just a case of “the Negroes having a go at each other.” When whites are guilty of undemocratic behaviour, it is a cause for concern. I once quizzed John Simpson, a high—profile TV journalist from the BBC, on why Britain and other countries had imposed sanctions on apartheid South Africa, hut not on Ethiopia or Rwanda, and his lame reply was, “You whites should have known better, not to behave undemocratically.” The peculiarly racial approach that Westerners adopt towards human rights in Africa needs further analysis, apart from Glucksmann and Wolton’s exploratory remarks.