What Boers have in common with Jews.

[newman]

Half a century before Israel's rag-tag civillian army bravely won it's nations' independence against 100:1 odds, the Boer farmers of South Africa fought the World's largest Super power to a standstill!

Some 80 years later they would endure lies and blood libels in the world's press and be pressured into self destruction by the satanic UN as they are now trying to do to Israel!!.

We salute the Boer people!

[crazyhorse]

The South African Boers were certainly a proud people, and rightfully so. Yes, they took on the then mightiest and modern army in the world at the time.....and kicked the [censored] out of them. When you consider that the Boers were not a trained army, they were merely farmers (boers), asking nothing more than to be left alone to get on with their lives, and also considering their numbers of eligible fighting men and boys as opposed to the mighty British army of the time. But the British royalty and international bankers had other ideas and plans for Boer land, they wanted all the land of South Africa for it's immense wealth and were going to take it no matter the cost, the cost in British lives and South African lives. The British lost many good soldiers to the Boers, they thought taking Boer land was going to be a push over......what a shock and slap in the face for them when they actually met these simple determined farmers in battle. When the Brits realised what they were up against, when they realised that back home people were going to start asking too many difficult questions about the length of the war, the body count, the monetary costs, they decided to end the war the only way they knew how......by committing WAR CRIMES against the Boer population as a whole. The British government were ordered to take drastic measures against these people to secure South Africa for their own greed and power. So, the occupying army in South Africa proceeded to rape, pillage, burn down farms, kill all livestock (their infamous scorched earth policy), and as a last vile strike, imprison thousands upon thousands of Boer women, children, their old folk and even black farm labourers of the Boers in concentration camps to starve, be inhumanely treated and just left to rot away. Being the true men they were, the Boer fighters capitulated and finally surrendered at Vereeniging on the banks of the Vaal river in the Transvaal. How many unsuspecting Brits back home knew of this crime, how many today know of this truth or even want to know? Very few indeed!

The British are just as guilty as others they have condemned for abuse against people during war. They sided with the Arabs against the Jews in 1948.....for oil, greed and power once again. It would be difficult to name a country that Britain has not interfered with or been to war with in the last 150 years. But the Boers are a forgiving people. After what the British did to them as a people, many of them fought for Britain in two world wars. One of the finest fighter pilots in world war II was a white South African Boer by the name of Malan....."Sailor Malan" he was called, and if research is done, you will find he had the most kills in the Battle of Britain, but is this war hero recognized today or was he recognised in the past......no, because he was a white Afrikaans speaking South African! Rommel once said..........give me a few battalions of South African soldiers and I will secure North Africa. The British army are way over rated today, they have become a force of politically correct "yes sir no sir" drones. They are taught to fight their enemy to win their hearts and minds, not the war! If the British army were to have engaged the South African army in 1990 on South African soil, a lot more of them would have paid the ultimate price than they did during the nineteenth century slaughter they are so proud of against the Boer people of South Africa.

[newman]

And like Israel, the Boers cannot be destroyed by force. SA was murdered in an act of treachery by one of it's own. f w de klerk (Y'S)!

SA had de klerk, Israel has olmert. G_d forbid Israel is handed to primatives like SA was.

[JTFFan]

Great pics, keep them coming.

[newman]

Great pics, keep them coming.

I'm looking for some pics of pre-1990 SA riot police laying into leftists with shambocks. I hope Boergeneral has some.

[JTFFan]

Great pics, keep them coming.

I'm looking for some pics of pre-1990 SA riot police laying into leftists with shambocks. I hope Boergeneral has some.

  Finding those pics might be a little scarce. But, I'm sure Boergeneral might have some. 

[newman]

More pics:

"Get some, English!"


The English about to get some!:


The Original Boer General, Tobias Smuts:

[JTFFan]

More pics:

"Get some, English!"


The English about to get some!:


The Original Boer General, Tobias Smuts:

Awesome pics, newman. I especially like the one where it says the English about to get some!

[crazyhorse]

And like Israel, the Boers cannot be destroyed by force. SA was murdered in an act of treachery by one of it's own. f w de klerk (Y'S)!

SA had de klerk, Israel has olmert. G_d forbid Israel is handed to primatives like SA was.

Unlike Israel, who have the backing of the United States, South Africa's Boers can be destroyed. This genocide that is taking place in South Africa today against white South Africans is against all white South Africans, not only Afrikaans or Boer people. Whilst the ANC and it's fifty million black savages are allowed to do as they please by the west, and continue to do so, they will soon get through 3 million whites. Look at what happened to Rhodesia under communist black rule.......there are not more than a few thousand white Rhodesians left in that country today. Those that could emigrated, those that couldn't just stay alive as best they can, but soon enough, there will be no white Rhodesians left, just the memory and a history that will be defiled and torn from the history books of the new world. The main aim of the ANC, and 99.999% of all black people in South Africa, is to see whites exterminated, and while the west and the new world order united nations police force is allowed to continue their evil orders, the Boers along with all the other white South Africans will be destroyed. White South Africa does not have an army or police force any longer, they have no judicial system to protect them, they don't even have a leader or a country, they are strangers in the land of their birth.

The self hating Jews who control the worlds wealth, arms and munitions manufacturing corporations, pharmaceutical and tobacco giants, entertainment and sporting conglomerates, while their privately owned banking houses continue to print the real money of the world and lend it to the governments who must tax the people to pay back the interest on the loans, while the sheeple actually think their government is in charge of printing their money, the self hating Jews and Christians like DE Klerk who do their bidding will allow this silent genocide to take place, in fact they are allowing it to take place whilst their greed for power over all people hightens to a frenzy. They are using the backward Muslim idiots, just like they used the idiot savage blacks, they will continue to use whoever it is who can help their agenda for complete control of the worlds sheeple, then, when they are ready, they will do away with the opposition in the final stage. Remember, more than one million whites have left South Africa already, and there are another 2 million just waiting for the oportunity to do the same. The young ones are the first to leave and they are doing so in their droves, the government of that [censored] hole are just not printing the true statistics. Like Rhodesia, white South Africans will dwindle, the older hard core ones will stay because they have no other choice. While the puppets of the new world order are in control we are all on the road to slavery.

[newman]

Unfortunately, the Boers are facing extermination (G_d forbid). Just as the Jews will if the UN has it's way.

[crazyhorse]

By the way Newman.....great picture of mohamed!

[JTFFan]

By the way Newman.....great picture of mohamed!

yeah, I liked the mohammed one also.

[Cato]

Actually, it's not so clear what the Boers have in common with the Jews. S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

Afrikaaner dominance in the white community probably prolonged white rule by decades. However, the absurdity of affirmative action in favour of Afrikaaners at the expense of all other whites, most damaging in the public services but extending everywhere, was a major divisive force within the white community, and resulted finally in hardly anyone in successive cabinets being able to articulate properly in English. Has this not been the case, the argument in favour of a permanent white presence in Southern Africa could well have been articulated better and many countries, including the US, might even have bought it.

[newman]

S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

[Cato]

S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

Of course, but it's the "not being regarded as white" bit which told the story in the context of those times..

[newman]

S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

Of course, but it's the "not being regarded as white" bit which told the story in the context of those times..

I've never heard of Jews being regarded as non-whites in SA.

There were whites, coloured (indians) and blacks. Jews were considered white.

[Ambiorix]

S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

Of course, but it's the "not being regarded as white" bit which told the story in the context of those times..

I've never heard of Jews being regarded as non-whites in SA.

There were whites, coloured (indians) and blacks. Jews were considered white.

Also the blacks regard Jews as white,

That why they kill Jews.

[crazyhorse]

S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

Of course, but it's the "not being regarded as white" bit which told the story in the context of those times..

Jews in South Africa were never regarded as anything but White, they made brilliant doctors and lawyers also shrewed businessmen & women. Just look at the wealth of some of the communist terrorist loving self hating Jews in South Africa, like the Oppenheimers, Akermans and others who helped South Africa into the s h i t hole it is today.
I've never heard of Jews being regarded as non-whites in SA.

[JTFFan]

S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

Correct

[Cato]

S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

Of course, but it's the "not being regarded as white" bit which told the story in the context of those times..

I've never heard of Jews being regarded as non-whites in SA.

There were whites, coloured (indians) and blacks. Jews were considered white.

Sure. But my remarks were not related to the legal situation, but to the social one. Even today, the whites in S. Africa are divided along language lines, and the Jews relate more to the English-speakers than to the Afrikaaners. This is for good historic reasons - historically, both communities were concerned primarily with commerce and the cities, rather than agriculture. With some exceptions, of course. There was no question where Jewish sympathies lay in the Anglo-Boer War. It was the Irish, with their demilition units, who were closest to the Boers. The Jews were pro-colonial English-speakers, like any others. So what's the point of some of those pictures of commandoes?

Later in S. African history, the government was run for 40 years by an Afrikaans secret society, the Broederbond, whose objective was the furtherance of Afrikaaners at the expense of English speakers. In doing so, they divided white society, and in fact created an element of sympathy between the English-speakers and the other groups. But, more important, they took their eyes off the ball - the danger was black rule, not the English. The policy divided whites - even today, English emigrants quickly come to regard themselves as Australians, Canadians, or whatever, but less commonly as "South Africans", because they find that they are not be accepted as such by the Afrikaaners. By attempting to put in place a homeland policy which they did not have enough international know-how or English-speaking ability to justify, they sealed the fate of everybody.  In contrast, the international community would be more than happy with a Palestininan homeland, but is there a big difference between this and the Homeland policy, which was supposed to be a crime against humanity? No, it's just a question of presentation, and the ability to properly do so.

 

[newman]

S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

Of course, but it's the "not being regarded as white" bit which told the story in the context of those times..

I've never heard of Jews being regarded as non-whites in SA.

There were whites, coloured (indians) and blacks. Jews were considered white.

Sure. But my remarks were not related to the legal situation, but to the social one. Even today, the whites in S. Africa are divided along language lines, and the Jews relate more to the English-speakers than to the Afrikaaners. This is for good historic reasons - historically, both communities were concerned primarily with commerce and the cities, rather than agriculture. With some exceptions, of course. There was no question where Jewish sympathies lay in the Anglo-Boer War. It was the Irish, with their demilition units, who were closest to the Boers. The Jews were pro-colonial English-speakers, like any others. So what's the point of some of those pictures of commandoes?

Later in S. African history, the government was run for 40 years by an Afrikaans secret society, the Broederbond, whose objective was the furtherance of Afrikaaners at the expense of English speakers. In doing so, they divided white society, and in fact created an element of sympathy between the English-speakers and the other groups. But, more important, they took their eyes off the ball - the danger was black rule, not the English. The policy divided whites - even today, English emigrants quickly come to regard themselves as Australians, Canadians, or whatever, but less commonly as "South Africans", because they find that they are not be accepted as such by the Afrikaaners. By attempting to put in place a homeland policy which they did not have enough international know-how or English-speaking ability to justify, they sealed the fate of everybody.  In contrast, the international community would be more than happy with a Palestininan homeland, but is there a big difference between this and the Homeland policy, which was supposed to be a crime against humanity? No, it's just a question of presentation, and the ability to properly do so.

 

Garbage.

Jews were at the top of the professions and they ALL stayed in SA until the apes took over. Seems it wasn't too bad under the Boers.

[Cato]

S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

Of course, but it's the "not being regarded as white" bit which told the story in the context of those times..

I've never heard of Jews being regarded as non-whites in SA.

There were whites, coloured (indians) and blacks. Jews were considered white.

Sure. But my remarks were not related to the legal situation, but to the social one. Even today, the whites in S. Africa are divided along language lines, and the Jews relate more to the English-speakers than to the Afrikaaners. This is for good historic reasons - historically, both communities were concerned primarily with commerce and the cities, rather than agriculture. With some exceptions, of course. There was no question where Jewish sympathies lay in the Anglo-Boer War. It was the Irish, with their demilition units, who were closest to the Boers. The Jews were pro-colonial English-speakers, like any others. So what's the point of some of those pictures of commandoes?

Later in S. African history, the government was run for 40 years by an Afrikaans secret society, the Broederbond, whose objective was the furtherance of Afrikaaners at the expense of English speakers. In doing so, they divided white society, and in fact created an element of sympathy between the English-speakers and the other groups. But, more important, they took their eyes off the ball - the danger was black rule, not the English. The policy divided whites - even today, English emigrants quickly come to regard themselves as Australians, Canadians, or whatever, but less commonly as "South Africans", because they find that they are not be accepted as such by the Afrikaaners. By attempting to put in place a homeland policy which they did not have enough international know-how or English-speaking ability to justify, they sealed the fate of everybody.  In contrast, the international community would be more than happy with a Palestininan homeland, but is there a big difference between this and the Homeland policy, which was supposed to be a crime against humanity? No, it's just a question of presentation, and the ability to properly do so.

 

Garbage.

Jews were at the top of the professions and they ALL stayed in SA until the apes took over. Seems it wasn't too bad under the Boers.

Right-wing Afrikaaner politics was exemplified up to recently by the colourful Eugene Terrblanche, with his taste for English-speaking girls, but, anyway, who was brought up on a farm where his father was a devout student of Hitler. Eugene accepted these views as correct, and found no opposition to them amongst his tens of thousands of supporters, to whom Mein Kampf was far from unknown, having in one instance (albeit controversially) been studied in a school. To have people write to your Forum and argue that the Boers are natural blood-brothers of the Jews is totally absurd. At the outbreak of the Second World Wat, the S. African parliament only approved entry on the side of the Allies by the slightest of majorities, due to massive opposition by Afrikaaner M.P.'s.  As the war progressed, they performed magnificently in Africa, but were declined permission to enter Europe. Similarly, having dealt in my time with a lot of troops from the former Rhodesian Army, I can assure you that many of them wished that Hitler had won. The fate of Jews was never a subject of discussion.

I can assure, you, therefore, that my comments were not total "garbage". I any case have no quarrel with what you say - I was referring to the attitude of rural Afrikaaners to the Jews, not to the reverse. My point is simply that southern Africa is not necessarily a simple situation. But please be clear, I have to say that David and Chaim's video(s) on this subjest are superb, and the most honest and direct statememt of events there that I have seen in most of a lifetime of work in the region.

[newman]

S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

Of course, but it's the "not being regarded as white" bit which told the story in the context of those times..

I've never heard of Jews being regarded as non-whites in SA.

There were whites, coloured (indians) and blacks. Jews were considered white.

Sure. But my remarks were not related to the legal situation, but to the social one. Even today, the whites in S. Africa are divided along language lines, and the Jews relate more to the English-speakers than to the Afrikaaners. This is for good historic reasons - historically, both communities were concerned primarily with commerce and the cities, rather than agriculture. With some exceptions, of course. There was no question where Jewish sympathies lay in the Anglo-Boer War. It was the Irish, with their demilition units, who were closest to the Boers. The Jews were pro-colonial English-speakers, like any others. So what's the point of some of those pictures of commandoes?

Later in S. African history, the government was run for 40 years by an Afrikaans secret society, the Broederbond, whose objective was the furtherance of Afrikaaners at the expense of English speakers. In doing so, they divided white society, and in fact created an element of sympathy between the English-speakers and the other groups. But, more important, they took their eyes off the ball - the danger was black rule, not the English. The policy divided whites - even today, English emigrants quickly come to regard themselves as Australians, Canadians, or whatever, but less commonly as "South Africans", because they find that they are not be accepted as such by the Afrikaaners. By attempting to put in place a homeland policy which they did not have enough international know-how or English-speaking ability to justify, they sealed the fate of everybody.  In contrast, the international community would be more than happy with a Palestininan homeland, but is there a big difference between this and the Homeland policy, which was supposed to be a crime against humanity? No, it's just a question of presentation, and the ability to properly do so.

 

Garbage.

Jews were at the top of the professions and they ALL stayed in SA until the apes took over. Seems it wasn't too bad under the Boers.

Right-wing Afrikaaner politics was exemplified up to recently by the colourful Eugene Terrblanche, with his taste for English-speaking girls, but, anyway, who was brought up on a farm where his father was a devout student of Hitler. Eugene accepted these views as correct, and found no opposition to them amongst his tens of thousands of supporters, to whom Mein Kampf was far from unknown, having in one instance (albeit controversially) been studied in a school. To have people write to your Forum and argue that the Boers are natural blood-brothers of the Jews is totally absurd. At the outbreak of the Second World Wat, the S. African parliament only approved entry on the side of the Allies by the slightest of majorities, due to massive opposition by Afrikaaner M.P.'s.  As the war progressed, they performed magnificently in Africa, but were declined permission to enter Europe. Similarly, having dealt in my time with a lot of troops from the former Rhodesian Army, I can assure you that many of them wished that Hitler had won. The fate of Jews was never a subject of discussion.

I can assure, you, therefore, that my comments were not total "garbage". I any case have no quarrel with what you say - I was referring to the attitude of rural Afrikaaners to the Jews, not to the reverse. My point is simply that southern Africa is not necessarily a simple situation. But please be clear, I have to say that David and Chaim's video(s) on this subjest are superb, and the most honest and direct statememt of events there that I have seen in most of a lifetime of work in the region.

Your argument is a red herring.

Eugene Terrblanche and his movement were a minority who never held power. To tar all white South Africans (or even rural ones) with that brush is like indicting Americans over the rantings of David Duke.

The proof is in the pudding. Jews were NEVER disadvantaged in SA. We've NEVER received an anti-semitic post from a South African. We get plenty from Americans and Europeans, though.

[Cato]

S. African small-town cemeteries generally had white areas, distinct from Jewish areas, which said something in their terms.

It's actually Jews who require separate Jewish cemeteries.

Of course, but it's the "not being regarded as white" bit which told the story in the context of those times..

I've never heard of Jews being regarded as non-whites in SA.

There were whites, coloured (indians) and blacks. Jews were considered white.

Sure. But my remarks were not related to the legal situation, but to the social one. Even today, the whites in S. Africa are divided along language lines, and the Jews relate more to the English-speakers than to the Afrikaaners. This is for good historic reasons - historically, both communities were concerned primarily with commerce and the cities, rather than agriculture. With some exceptions, of course. There was no question where Jewish sympathies lay in the Anglo-Boer War. It was the Irish, with their demilition units, who were closest to the Boers. The Jews were pro-colonial English-speakers, like any others. So what's the point of some of those pictures of commandoes?

Later in S. African history, the government was run for 40 years by an Afrikaans secret society, the Broederbond, whose objective was the furtherance of Afrikaaners at the expense of English speakers. In doing so, they divided white society, and in fact created an element of sympathy between the English-speakers and the other groups. But, more important, they took their eyes off the ball - the danger was black rule, not the English. The policy divided whites - even today, English emigrants quickly come to regard themselves as Australians, Canadians, or whatever, but less commonly as "South Africans", because they find that they are not be accepted as such by the Afrikaaners. By attempting to put in place a homeland policy which they did not have enough international know-how or English-speaking ability to justify, they sealed the fate of everybody.  In contrast, the international community would be more than happy with a Palestininan homeland, but is there a big difference between this and the Homeland policy, which was supposed to be a crime against humanity? No, it's just a question of presentation, and the ability to properly do so.

 

Garbage.

Jews were at the top of the professions and they ALL stayed in SA until the apes took over. Seems it wasn't too bad under the Boers.

Right-wing Afrikaaner politics was exemplified up to recently by the colourful Eugene Terrblanche, with his taste for English-speaking girls, but, anyway, who was brought up on a farm where his father was a devout student of Hitler. Eugene accepted these views as correct, and found no opposition to them amongst his tens of thousands of supporters, to whom Mein Kampf was far from unknown, having in one instance (albeit controversially) been studied in a school. To have people write to your Forum and argue that the Boers are natural blood-brothers of the Jews is totally absurd. At the outbreak of the Second World Wat, the S. African parliament only approved entry on the side of the Allies by the slightest of majorities, due to massive opposition by Afrikaaner M.P.'s.  As the war progressed, they performed magnificently in Africa, but were declined permission to enter Europe. Similarly, having dealt in my time with a lot of troops from the former Rhodesian Army, I can assure you that many of them wished that Hitler had won. The fate of Jews was never a subject of discussion.

I can assure, you, therefore, that my comments were not total "garbage". I any case have no quarrel with what you say - I was referring to the attitude of rural Afrikaaners to the Jews, not to the reverse. My point is simply that southern Africa is not necessarily a simple situation. But please be clear, I have to say that David and Chaim's video(s) on this subjest are superb, and the most honest and direct statememt of events there that I have seen in most of a lifetime of work in the region.

Your argument is a red herring.

Eugene Terrblanche and his movement were a minority who never held power. To tar all white South Africans (or even rural ones) with that brush is like indicting Americans over the rantings of David Duke.

The proof is in the pudding. Jews were NEVER disadvantaged in SA. We've NEVER received an anti-semitic post from a South African. We get plenty from Americans and Europeans, though.

OK, let's end in some agreement, because basically I think we are not so far apart on this. You are 100% correct in saying that the Afrikaans (Broederbond) establishment was not anti-Jewish to a greater extent than they were e.g. anti-British. No problem. However, I was thinking more of the successors to those brave Boers shown in the photographs. In many years of working in rural Afrikaans communities, while most would have laughed at the AWB, not all did so, as shown by the World Trade Centre incursion, the Bophutatswana incursion, etc. The AWB was able to raise funding through farm visits without the slightest problem. Were I to post on this website a full-colour photo of an AWB stormtroopers doing just this, swasticas and everything, as I have seen in person, your readers would be shocked. My point is simple. It does not follow unchallenged, as was being done, that the identity of the rural Afrikaaner with the Jews is absolute. I simply wanted to challenge whether this should be accepted as an obvious truth.

Thanks for the discussion!

[newman]

You're trying to drive a wedge between Boers & Jews by citing a few individual anti-semitic AWB members. It won't work.

The fact is that South Africa and South Africans were greater supporters of Israel and less anti-semitic than ANY western country  apart from australia and the US.

Nice try.