Just about everything, fam. And, I do mean every single solitary element of society. In the years leading up to the dismantling of apartheid, the Western media cajoled and pleaded for the African Jim Crow to be torn asunder. Movies (including Lethal Weapon 2) and television portrayed practically all white South Africans as bloodthirsty Gestapo members chomping at the bit to oppress a helpless and downtrodden kaffir. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, you couldn’t hear enough tales of oppression coming from this Third Reich-esque police state on the Dark Continent.
The elections in April 1994 saw the communist African National Congress (ANC) win 62% of the vote (big surprise due to full suffrage) and the “coronation” of Nelson Mandela as president. This was truly the death sentence for South Africa – its transformation from the most advanced country in Africa to the “Rainbow Nation” of today – the nickname is quite fitting considering that AIDS is ravaging the country.
Between Mandela’s ascendancy to the presidency and his death in 2013 though, the Western media, particularly in the United States (and the United Nations) – which played a critical role in installing Mandela through a crippling embargo, essentially “memory-holed” the country. The entirety of the West aligned against South Africa (which they had done previously to Rhodesia) in an effort to eliminate the white-run government. Even Pope John Paul II used the power of the Catholic Church to apply pressure on the civilization makers of the country. After the damage had been done however, nothing. Nada. Zip. Forget that country even existed, goy.
If you ask a normie about South Africa today, you’ll likely get two responses: a look of Eloi-inspired insipidness or some denouncement of “muh apartheid!” They either know nothing or they only know of apartheid. And, to the normie, apartheid only means one thing – “bad.” No critical review of the country. No curiosity as to why it was established. No interest on even checking on the country today. Nelson Mandela = good. Apartheid = bad. Case closed. Time to binge watch Netflix and enjoy some craft beers.
I was at a house party a few years ago and there was a female hipster millennial there. Single, somewhat attractive, I approached her. She told me she had been traveling (I don’t think she was employed and she was using her parents’ money for the Eat. Pray. Love rite of passage) and had been staying in Johannesburg. I asked her if it was dangerous. And, with that question, a normal and civil conversation turned into a bizarre mixture of feminist tantrum, a hysterical condemnation of apartheid, praises for South African cuisine (which seemed to be her only interest in the country) and an increasingly neurotic interrogation of me on why I was “so bold” to ask such a question.
I walked away, without a word, to get a fresh beer and leave her to her hysterics. The host came up and whispered to me that her roommate had been murdered (home invasion) several months ago and that any discussion on South African crime was a no-go. I didn’t get the memo, but, truth be told, I didn’t (and don’t) care.
As a southerner, you’re practically born a race realist. Stories from my grandparents and parents made it crystal clear – Jim Crow was designed to keep us safe, but also provide some discipline to the colored people (and us). I correctly assumed apartheid was a similar and necessary system to keep South Africa functioning.
I started digging to see how dreadful South Africa has become since the nation was surrendered to the blacks. Apartheid is supposed to be the holocaust for blacks, so – with its destruction, it “should” be pretty easy to see that the country has performed wondrously since F. W. de Klerk betrayed the nation to militant black communists.
It is a colossal subject (and decline) when comparing Old South Africa to the Rainbow Nation.
Life expectancy was surprisingly good under apartheid (we know why), when compared to the criminal warzone that the country is today. Between 1960 and 1990 (under the “vicious” white-minority government), overall life expectancy in South Africa went from 51 to 61. But, I thought they were oppressive? It should get even better once the “people” rule the country, right?
In 1994 (right before apartheid officially ended), average life expectancy in South Africa was around 64, comparable to Ukraine. Life comes at you fast though, by 2009, according to The Lancet Journal, average life expectancy had plummeted back to 54. The U.N. puts it at 57, but that’s still worse than when whitey was in charge. Pretty quick decline too, I wonder why?
The U.N. Human Development Index, or HDI, reveals a predictable picture in terms of where South Africa has gone ever since whites were removed from power.
Prior to 1994, despite the “oppression” of apartheid, South Africa’s HDI ranking was regularly climbing upward, and the nation was ranked above most of the Orient and the kebab world, and certainly far ahead of the other sub-human lands of Sub-Saharan Africa. It was also higher than the world average.
But for some unknown reason and by 2001, South Africa’s HDI score had collapsed below the 1975 level. Today, the Rainbow Nation’s HDI level is worse than Libya’s – you know, the country we bombed fairly recently, ousted its leader and the country is in chaos.
To be expected, polls taken about a decade after the fall of apartheid showed that some 60 percent of South Africans felt the country was better managed under the previous, white-led regime. Who would have thought?
Robert Mattes, a poll director at the time, was quoted in 2002 as saying, “It’s not that they want to return to apartheid, but in retrospect it was a time when trains ran on time…It was a harsh, repressive, but seemingly efficient government.” And, it wasn’t just that the trains ran on time either – Old South Africa also had relatively low violent crime (compared to the rest of Africa and certainly when compared to the monstrosity it is today) and the thought of mass drought was unbelievable. Today though, not so much.
The Rainbow Nation, led by the despicable President Jacob “Shoot the Boer” Zuma, is in shambles. As an aside, Zuma once said showering reduces your chances of getting HIV, not sure if that was before or after he was charged with raping a 30 year-old woman known to be HIV-positive. But, with a firm grasp on reality like that, no wonder the good people of South Africa have ensured that the country is known as both the “rape capital of the world” and, according to the 2015 UNAIDS Report, the “HIV/AIDS capital of the world.
Rob McCafferty wrote an interesting comparison on South Africa’s crime epidemic – specifically, comparing Old South Africa to New South Africa. His 2003 report is titled, “Murder in South Africa: A Comparison of Past and Present.”
I’ve included his methodology, as well as, a graph highlighting the massive increase in murders that occurred once the whites were expelled from power. You’ll see two important pieces here: (1) New South Africa covers up or provides disinformation regarding violent crime and (2) all hell has broken loose since the white-led nation was handed over to the ANC.
“I have read an overview of the literature on the topic, examining criminology journals, websites (especially those related to crime statistics, for example, the South African Police Services (SAPS), Crime Information Analysis Centre (CIAC), Institute for Security Studies (ISS) and Interpol websites) as well as reviewing the major newspapers on crime statistics and related issues. Particular references are made to the Mail & Guardian. Because the web searches proved incomplete, I did a library search at the University of Cape Town’s (UCT) Government Library to review original source documents in an attempt to make sense of the crime statistics prior to 1994, which are not readily available. It was here that I sourced government archives of annual police reports dating back to 1950 which contain statistics on reported murders and also the Central Statistics Service: Statistics of Offence reports (CSS) which records all convictions of crimes.According to Interpol, South Africa’s overall crime rate is comparable to other developed countries. However, what sets South Africa’s crime apart from basically every other country on earth, is the incredibly high levels of violent crime. It is common for the literature to claim that crime statistics in the Old South Africa were “unreliable” (although little explanation is offered as to why), however the new statistics are “still unreliable” (Ibid.).1 At one stage the current government imposed a moratorium on crime stats. Although they repeatedly claimed that this was not to hide the problem of excessively high crime rates in South Africa, opposition parties protested otherwise. The government maintained that the purpose of the moratorium was to put systems in place that would ensure accurate crime stats. They were referring to the new computerised Geographic Information System (GIS), which, as of June 2001, had been implemented at 340 priority police stations covering 80% of the country. However after the moratorium was lifted, it has been asserted by the media that the crime stats remained “unreliable” because they were still based on the old system of collecting information about crime (M&G, ‘Unreliable’ crime stats released to SA, 01 Jun 2001). However, Antoinette Louw, head of the Crime and Justice Programme at the Institute for Security Studies, found that at “no stage” were the problems of data accuracy of “such an extent that a moratorium on the release of crime statistics to the public was necessary” (M&G, Crime stats the govt hides from you, 06 Apr 2001). It appears then that the crime stats still are not and never have been very particularly reliable, however they are accurate enough to provide us with some indication of the crime levels in South Africa.The following graph (Figure 3) reveals the marked increase in murders over the past half century. (Note that the figures used in the analysis includes South West Africa, currently Namibia, which was a protectorate of South Africa, until 1990. These do not however make a substantial increase to the “Old South African” crime statistics, as they averaged about 75 murders per annum).
This equates to 309,583 murders from the year 1950 to 1993 (44 years – averaging 7,036 per year), meanwhile according to SAPS statistics, 193,649 murders were committed in 8 years after the “new democratic dispensation” came to power, thus giving an average of 24,206 per year (crime statistics for 2002/03 are not yet available). However if we consider the Interpol statistics, which are only available on their website for the years, 1995-1999 and 2001 (6 years), the number of persons murdered in South Africa within those 6 years is 287,292 – averaging 47,882 per year. 2 Clearly the new government is not winning the war on crime, especially violent crime.”
So, white-managed South Africa went from averaging 7,036 murders per year (over the course of **44 years** – his numbering on the years), but black-mismanaged South Africa is averaging anywhere from 24,206 to 47,882 murders per year, per McCafferty’s 2003 research. The more recent (2015) media figures (which are likely clouded by the unreliable “official” murder rates) has the grim number at 17,805. Even using the low end murder number of 2015, we’re looking at a murder rate that has increased by over 150% since the Boer (and the Anglo whites) were removed from power in South Africa.
And, it’s not just the bloodshed that’s increased either (along with rape, robbery and corruption) – it’s the emerging water crisis the country is undergoing. Who would have thought black-run localities would experience some sort of water infrastructure disaster? Don’t think I’ve heard that one before.
According to one report on the city of Durban, 35 percent of the city’s water is stolen or given out through illegal connections. Also, preventative measures that were put in place such as the construction of dams have not even started or are still in the process of being built and those structures that are in place now are slowly collapsing. Shocking!
Those in rural areas still lack access to water. One report stated that in 2008 about 5 million people lack access to water and 15 million lack access to basic sanitation. I’m sure we can blame this on the Boer (before they go extinct).
The Nelson Mandela Bay municipality, home to a little over a million people, is on the brink of being declared a disaster area as the water crisis worsens. The mayor said 20% of residents in each of the 60 wards in Nelson Mandela Bay were consuming more than 70% of the city’s total water supply. High time preference in action.
In another report, it states that South African cities lose approximately 37% of their water supply through leaks alone. A slumming infrastructure, plus brigands stealing your water supply, equals a catastrophe of epic dindu proportions.
An unnamed white South African said this regarding the nation’s current situation:
When the ANC were handed the country on a silver platter (so to speak) 20 years ago there were over 1,020,000 farms successfully feeding its nation and exporting food – feeding the world. Today there are a mere 12,000 productive farms left.. and for the first time in it’s history S.Africa now is forced to import food to feed it’s own citizens. As I write, I just received word that in the Western Cape there is only enough water to last for 2 weeks! This is due to utter incompetence of ANC government blaming previous government for not building enough dams and not building what they did large enough. UGH! 22,000 dams were built by previous government were as a mere 2000 were built by ANC! When ANC became the new governors of the only country in Black Africa with decent infrastructure, resources etc, they opened the borders to every neighboring African country which flooded S.Africa draining the natural resources and bringing their crimes with them.
A scourge to communists, scallywags, hipsters and feminists, Silas Reynolds calls anywhere south of the Potomac his home. He has a penchant for muscle cars, firearms and 80’s action movies.