S.E.D. BROWN, EDITOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN OBSERVER MAY, 1983
IN DAYS gone by, most politicians and public men could be relied upon to make clear exactly where they stood politically. Such men, by being forthright and unyielding in their views, made many bitter enemies. They also made many loyal friends and adherents. And the man in the street at least knew where he stood.
Today, however, when we are confronted with the pragmatic, middle-of-the-road mentality which refuses to stand firmly on principle, but thinks only in terms of political power and expediency and “peace”, it is not difficult to understand the mental and moral stupor with which the average person has come to regard and accept the tide of events which is everywhere undermining the nations and civilization of the West.
Pragmatism reflects one of the most unpleasant traits characteristic of our age of “tolerance”, “broadmindedness” and “moderation”.
It reflects the increasingly popular cult of political and ideological double-think, double-talk and double-dealing which has penetrated very aspect of national life.
It is everywhere creating in men’s minds a vacuum – no less so in South Africa, since Dr. Verwoerd’s assassination – and making them ready to absorb and succumb to the degenerative, suicidal influences of Western liberalism of today.
PURVEYORS IN NATIONAL PARTY
Its purveyors in the National Party leadership of today have totally misunderstood the nature of man, the intrinsic character of our civilization, the innate trends of collective masses, the nature of technology and economy, the religious forces and the logical conclusions of irreligious attitudes, the implications of democracy, nationalism. Totalitarianism, and every form of determinism.
They’ve always misjudged the contemporary scene and acted with an air of arrogant infallibility on the wrong assumptions until we all finally ended up in our frightful predicament today.
Their pragmatism is the very warp and wool of their “outward” dialogue, and “total strategy” initiatives and, not forgetting their new Constitution plans – all of which spell integration from top to bottom.
And if the generally uncritical reaction of the main body of Afrikanerdom to these policies has clearly reflected one thing, it is the inroads pragmatism has already made into South Africa’s political thinking since the days of Dr. Verwoerd.
These policies with their “new norms” and “new thinking” and their promise to lead us into Africa and the world – together with all the talk about a “new world”, the urge for “renewal” and the need to “adapt ourselves to change, or else die” (Mr. Botha’s oft-repeated pronouncement) – all this is proof positive of the extent to which pragmatism, and political double-think and double-talk and double-dealing have threaded their way into every propaganda medium which bears upon the faithful but still credulous supporters of the National Party.
THE SAME PRAGMATISM
Is it any wonder then that within the main body of Afrikanerdom we see today the tremendous under-current of anxiety and fear of the future, whereas in the past the humblest Nationalist knew exactly where he stood with his leaders?
Need we wonder, too, why our pragmatic Prime Ministers during the past sixteen years have never attempted to outline or define their outward, détente, and “total strategy” initiatives and now their Constitutional plans for their “new era” or reform and radical change?
Nor have they made any attempt to outline what they see at the end of the road along which they systematically have been dragging the country by means of stealth, deception and, not forgetting, by force!
Theirs is the same subversive pragmatism which has undermined and destroyed the conservative base of the National Party, and paved the way for its takeover by the Afrikaans liberal establishment.
It is the same pragmatism which led to the destruction of the legitimate political Opposition in the country, the United Party, and paved the way for the Progressive Reform Party of Harry Oppenheimer to become the official Opposition – a party with revolutionary social and political objectives, but which sooner or later will converge with those of the National Party of today.
It is the same pragmatism which started the breakup of the geopolitical unity that once was Southern Africa, because the “price of confrontation was too high, far too high”!
The same pragmatism which pressurized Rhodesia into accepting black majority rule, and which at the moment is surrendering South West Africa to the U.N. and its same world revolutionary purposes.
And here, at home, in South Africa, their pragmatism has all along meant accelerating the process of radical change. Opening the way to a multiracial power sharing constitution and government to eradicate all forms of racial discrimination, will lead to vast changes that will overturn the whole constitutional structure of South Africa – and amount to nothing less than the destruction of a way of life.
Is it any wonder then, that the National Party should today suddenly find itself as it does, in conspicuous disarray, and dithering – and ensnared in its own double-think, double-speak and double-dealing and ideological contradictions, over the constitutional issue. Its unity gone forever.
Its sudden decision to call a referendum, and deliberate holding back of its new Constitution Bill until the last minute, must be seen as panic measures to meet the irresistible pressure building up as conservative Afrikanerdom awakens and gathers strength to block a constitutional plan which it sees as the death-knell of White sovereignty and national survival.
From the beginning of the constitutional exercise the Government had always been at great pains to avoid a referendum and the sudden switch must be seen as the Prime Minister playing his trump-card in an attempt to capture and hold the broad support of the White electorate.
Mr. Botha had previously stated openly that only drastic changes in the National Party’s 1977 constitutional process would cause him to call a referendum. That was on April 15, last year, during the debate on his budget when he said that having received the approval of the National Party congresses for his constitutional reforms, he would call a referendum only if there were drastic departures from the National Party policy.
And now by calling for a referendum before his constitutional plans are approved by Parliament he is breaking a solemn undertaking to Parliament, as well as admitting that his plans do deviate drastically from National Party policy.
BOTHA’S ‘MORAL ATTITUDE’
That his constitutional plans could well prove to be a drastic departure from National Party policy was also best formulated by P.W. Botha himself in a speech in Parliament in June, 1965, when he was still Minister of Colored Affairs, when he explained why it was not possible to bring colored people into Parliament! His exact words were:
“Shortly before his death Dr. Malan’s attitude still was – I discussed these matters with him – that we should never allow that corner stone of our constitution to be knocked out from under us and that the House of Assembly should stay White….Apart from the fact that if one permits this in the case of the colored, one has to allow it in the case of the Indian and the Bantu….because one’s whole moral attitude collapses. In the second place, if one allows the colored to sit here, what right has one then to tell him: You can sit with me in the same House of Assembly but I forbid you to sit with me in the same school? You can sit with in the same House of Assembly, you can entertain your wife and children here, but I forbid you to live in the same residential area as I do. What right has one to apply social segregation and residential segregation outside this House if one breaks down that social segregation in the highest Chamber of one’s country?”
This clear insight into the Prime Minister’s basic thinking processes simply goes to re-inforce the claim of his conservative opponents in the HNP, in the Conservative Party and in the AWB – and in awakening White South Africa – that for the present he will only be using the colored and Indian communities as the wedge-in-the-door for later inclusion of the Blacks, and that the opening of schools and residential areas to all races, and the abolition of all discriminatory laws, as all on Mr. Botha’s long-term agenda – and all encompassed in his vision for the future of South Africa.
For now, having turned his back on a lifetime of conservative principles, to adapt himself to the prevailing liberalism of his enemies, and with himself now standing ready to knock out the cornerstones of our White constitution from under us, by bringing Coloreds and Indians into our Parliament, it would be quite illogical and morally indefensible if he were permanently to exclude the Blacks from his new constitutional processes.
Otherwise, his whole moral attitude on the question of Coloreds, Indians and Blacks in Parliament would collapse.
Hence the overriding and never-ending need for all the double-think, double-speak, double-dealing and the ideological contradictions that have become a permanent way of life of the National Party, on its road to reform and radical change.
CONCEALMENT OF THE TRUTH
Truth is violated not only by a lie but by concealment of the truth. And nowhere has deliberate concealment of reality and the truth been more evident than with Mr. Botha’s ‘total strategy’ and its latest manifestation, his new constitutional dispensation.
The single most important fact of our situation is that Mr. Botha has never made any definite statements on his new policy or attempted to outline what he sees at the end of the multiracial road along which he is determined to drag the country, by means of stealth and deception, and by force whenever necessary.
His only difficulty, as he systematically tries to dismantle apartheid – which is ready to overturn the whole constitutional structure of the country – is how to do the dismantling by piece by piece, and topple apartheid, without giving the impression that it is he and his fellow revolutionaries who are doing the toppling.
Mr. Botha will go down in history as the South African Prime Minister who is presiding at the irrevocable breakup of the traditional National Party – a Prime Minister who rose to power strongly enforcing traditional policy and who then by means of double talk and double dealing began the process of dismantling it.
POLITICALLY EXPLOSIVE DOCUMENT
This double-dealing and deliberate concealment of the reality and truth underlying his total strategy initiatives, and now of his constitutional plans, was also patent in the secret, politically explosive document setting out guidelines for National Party canvassers in the current by-elections – in his attempt to garner support from conservative Waterbergers and from verligte (liberal) Waterkloofers at one and the same time.
Eight new National Party arguments – all mocking Verwoerdian apartheid policy as a pipe-dream- were given to the party’s canvassers in the current by-elections!
The First Argument: the reality of South Africa is that we all live mixed-up as nations. The canvassers have to get the voter to agree that races live and work together, that the process of urbanization contributed to the growing multiracial character of the country, and that the ‘sharing of facilities is essential’.
Argument Two: the non-white races, have ‘legitimate claims’ in so-called White South Africa. The canvasser must get the voter to agree that these claims cannot be ignored, that the homeland policy is ‘not the whole solution’ and that a ‘settlement’ is necessary.
Argument Three: and four: concern black population statistics. The canvasser must get the voter dis-heartened (“maak hom moedeloos” [make him desponded]) over the numbers preponderance and get him to agree that the rise of the black and brown races is ‘unstoppable.’
Argument Five deals with the multiracial realities of the South African labor picture. The canvasser must explain that the economy demands labor: without a sound economy our political situation is threatened with unemployment and revolution. Labor ‘brings rights’ with it.
Argument Six concerns the communist onslaught on South Africa. Canvassers are told to ‘get the voter to agree that the breeding grounds of communism, namely political and community conditions must be put right.’
Argument Seven concerns the realities of South Africa’s situation in Africa. The canvasser must ‘Get the voter to agree on three points – that we must make ourselves acceptable to Africa, that we must make ourselves indispensable in Africa, and that they expect this of us.’
Argument Eight deals with South Africa’s position in relation to the ‘reformist’ pressures from the West. The canvasser must get him to agree that South Africa is ‘internationalized, vulnerable and cannot do without allies.’
And yes – believe it or not – the canvasser must get the voter to ‘agree with Henry Kissinger’s advice’!
After putting the eight new arguments to the voter the canvasser must then compel the voters to realize that they won’t be saved by preferential treatment as Whites, by neo-colonial approaches, by one-sided apartheid, by radical separation or by dictatorship, the National Party document emphasized!
Is it any wonder Dr. Ferdi Hartzenberg, the conservative Party’s leader in Parliament, responded to the document by asking his colleagues what would have happened at the Battle of Blood River if Andries Pretorius had chosen to talk his followers into alarm, despondency and despair?
Is it any wonder, too, that the document was greeted by delight by members of the Progressive Federal Party, as being and propagating PFP arguments and policy?
It was, in short, just the kind of document that could be expected from the National Party leaders of today who have turned their backs on a lifetime of conservative principles to adapt themselves to the prevailing ‘liberalism’ of the West – and from leaders who have proved themselves no longer willing or able to stand up, straight and tall, to the enemies of their nation and civilization as did their predecessors in office, Dr. Malan, Mr. Strijdom and Dr. Verwoerd.
The document caused a furor in the Cabinet – and the ensuing row was the reason for the Prime Minister’s surprise decision, on March 30, to call a referendum, following the Cabinet rift over the way in which the constitutional proposals were being marketed to voters, in the “Berg” by-elections.
It’s not known how the National Party canvassers dealt with the matter of ‘Kissinger’s advice’.
But of one thing we can be sure, it is that the voters in Waterberg and Soutpansberg, and elsewhere, would not be reminded by these canvassers that it was the previous South Africa Government, in which Mr. Botha was Minister of Defense, that advised and pressurized Mr. Ian Smith into accepting Kissinger’s advice – the advice that paved the way for the final takeover of Rhodesia on March 4, 1980 by the forces of the communist world revolution, in the person of Robert Mugabe – the Marxist terrorist leader of the Soviet-backed Zanu-Patriotic Front which swept to victory in the Rhodesian election that year.
But little do so many trusting and well-meaning supporters of the National Party still seem to know that their present leaders are on the same road as was White Rhodesia, and that their self-appointed savior from the ‘total Marxist onslaught’, Mr. P.W. Botha, is himself well on the way to becoming South Africa’s own “Ian Douglas Smith.”
His new constitution proposals will at one moment wipe out the entire basis of the conservative Christian philosophy on which South Africa’s entire past has been built.
They will mark the end of the White Government not only in South Africa but the whole of Africa.
But just who is this Henry Kissinger whose advice the Botha Government is urging voters in the forth-coming by-elections to follow?
Just who is this Henry Kissinger, with his horn-rimmed glasses, heavy German accent, kinky hair, double chin, and expanding waistline – the man who has never left the corridors of power in the State Department and is still a guiding light on African and Southern African policy?
Who is this man who, in the Nixon-Ford ears, and who, with ‘instant solutions’ for every world problem, jetted from country to country still had time to dally with a long line of delectable film stars – the same man who ‘charmed’ Chou en-Lai of Communist China; Brezhnev of Russia; Le Duc Tho, the tough North Vietnamese negotiator in Paris; and General Sadat of Egypt and President Ghaddafi of Libya – and not forgetting B.J. Vorster, “Pik” Botha and P.W. Botha in South Africa.
KISSINGER IN PERSPECTIVE
Kissinger is the man who was installed in the White House by America’s invisible rulers, to bring about changes in the economic and political structure of the U.S. and to guide U.S. policy towards a ‘new international order’, in his own words.
The key to meteoric ‘success’ was that throughout every stage of his growing authority in the past, Henry Kissinger worked tirelessly and brilliantly to advance the Communist cause, the Zionist cause, and the global aspirations of International Finance.
For this he possessed all he attributes required for the greatest progress and the greatest accomplishments of these global forces, in their drive to impose their one-world tyranny on the total population of the earth.
In his ruthless climb to power and his brazen use of such ‘big lies’ as the claim that he was promoting world peace, he was a deceptive and cunning traitor, every step of the way, to his adopted country, the United States, to the Western world and its civilization, and to the peoples of every country in the world.
Such a man as Henry Kissinger could hardly have failed to see in today’s America, and in the pathetic leadership in the Western world of our day, including South Africa, a fabulous opportunity to advance himself and the internationalist causes he had long and ruthlessly been promoting.
ARCHITECT OF DÉTENTE
He is the man who planned the whole of America’s epoch-making foreign policy of détente – the Kissinger policy which sought to merge America’s, Europe’s and the world’s interests with those of the Communists in Russia and China.
He was the architect of Nixon’s and Ford’s new edifice of ‘world peace’ – namely a world peace based on co-existence with, and surrender to, world communism.
This is short, is the same Henry Kissinger who in the Nixon and Ford eras sold his policy of détente to B.J. Vorster and P.W. Botha Governments, which started the piecemeal breakup of the geo-political unity which was once Southern Africa – with South West Africa’s turn today and South Africa’s turn tomorrow unless her present leaders are speedily thrown out of office.
DEDICATION TO THE U.N.
Henry Kissinger’s dedication to the U.N. was also made clear when he acted as a host at a dinner in New York City on October 4, 1973, when honoring delegates to the U.N. General Assembly. He stated:
“In an age of potential nuclear cataclysm, in an age of instant communication amidst ideological conflict, our most urgent task is to overcome these apparently iron laws of history. These challenges cannot be solved by a world fragmented into self-contained nation states or rigid blocs. But only by co-operation in a world community…The vision of a world community is the necessity of our age…..I pledge you that the United States is ready to begin the journey toward a world community. Our sights will be raised even when our tread must be measured.”
In offering a toast to the U.N. representatives, Kissinger went on: “Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to join me in a toast to the United Nations – the treasury of man’s noblest aspirations.”
What Kissinger did not tell his audience was that the U.N. Charter has accurately been identified by Professor S.D. Madariaga, the internationally well-known Spanish Liberal, as being “….in the main a translation of the Russian system into an international idiom and its adaptation to an international community…the U.N. bore upon its brow from the very beginning the mark of Moscow.”
Nor did Kissinger tell his audience that since this ‘treasury of man’s noblest aspirations’ was set up to usher in a world of universal peace, the communists have increased their slavery from 200 million to over one-billion people in the word – and are now set to engulf the whole world.
Needless to say, Kissinger has long been an important figure in the gigantic secret organizations with world-aims, which are today spread over most countries, but which work in unison to achieve power over mankind through chaos, to build up their ‘new international order.’
Inside America and abroad, thanks to Kissinger and his ‘secret diplomacy’, the Communists piled one spectacular victory upon another, while America’s former anti-Communist friends and allies were systematically abandoned one by one, to the worldwide Communist tyranny.
Remember Vietnam, Cambodia, Portugal, Mozambique, Taiwan, Panama, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, Afghanistan, and a dozen other places around the world – with S.W.A. and South Africa next on the list!
WORLD GOVERNMENT AND ‘PEACE’!
The so-called ‘world community’ which Henry Kissinger has long been striving to bring about, through the instrumentality of the U.N. and other organizations, cannot be anything but a world community, in which all peoples of the world will have been stripped of their traditions, their race and nationhood.
As for the ‘world government’ which he is still leaving no stone unturned to bring about, he knows with an unerring instinct for his own advantage that the only people who will have any reason to be loyal to the ‘world state’ would be Jews, because with their fully integrated race-consciousness, they would be the only people to retain their own identity and would therefore themselves furnish the ‘world government.’
And as for the world of ‘universal peace’ which Henry Kissinger is striving to bring about – as he again starts to rush about the world with instant solutions for every problem – this will be ‘peace’ in a world in which there will be no longer be any opposition to Communism, the ‘peace’ of the collectivist slave.
The blunt truth about Henry Kissinger is that he proved himself to be one of the most pragmatically successful and, if one recognizes the communists as the viciously satanic enemies of man and God, then the most dangerous and treacherous political careerist on the contemporary scene.
Such then is this man – Dr. Henry Kissinger- whose ‘advice’ the voters in Waterberg and Soutpansberg are being urged by National Party canvassers to follow – and whose advice on African and Southern African affairs the P.W. Botha Government itself no doubt has long and faithfully been following – with Kissinger’s real great friend Mr. “Pik” Botha, as our Minister of Foreign Affairs.
This is the same Mr. R.F. “Pik” Botha who, in 1972, dropped a bombshell in his maiden speech in Parliament when he said that it was time for South Africa to adapt itself to the U.N.’s Charter of Human Rights – a Charter without any corresponding ‘Responsibilities’, and which from its very beginning bore the mark of Moscow on its brow.
PHENOMENON OF OUR TIMES
We have seen elsewhere in Africa, and also in the world, in one country after another, how White nations and communities have come to acquiesce in concessions and policies which are contrary to their own interests and their national survival, and which have gone down one by one.
This outstanding phenomenon, with the breathtaking speed of its advance, is largely attributable to the apathy and the failure of the people concerned to perceive in which direction their leaders are taking them.
This is precisely what is happening in South Africa, where so many of our people cannot perceive in which direction they are being led – by leaders who have turned their backs on a lifetime of conservative principles and policies in order to adapt themselves to those of the enemies of our race and civilization, and doing all this in the name of God and Christianity.
For this reason we say again that unless Mr. P.W. Botha and his fellow liberal revolutionaries are thrown out of power in double quick time, and unless responsible and conservative leadership is quickly restored, the White nation is doomed and headed for certain destruction.
ALL THAT IS NECESSARY
But we do not have to allow our enemies’ plan to be carried out to completion. We do not have to lose the fight.
We have many layers of conservative strength not yet rolled by all the infiltration and liberal subversion to which we have been subjected.
Our danger is both immense and imminent. But it is not beyond the possibility of being overcome by the conservative resistance that is available.
All that is necessary, is for every conservative man and woman to fall back on the proven values of his nation, his race and his civilization, and to judge every action of themselves and of others strictly by those values, without modification or exception.
All that we must find and build on and use – to win – is sufficient conservative unity and solidarity.
STAKES ARE ENORMOUS
Let us create that unity and solidarity and build that resistance with everything that we can put into the effort – while there is still time.
The stakes in this forthcoming by-elections, and in the referendum still to come, have been dramatically raised to a point where their outcome could alter the whole course of South African politics.
And there’s still no knowing what will happen in Waterberg and Soutpansberg on May 10.
But we can hope and pray that there will be a massive conservative vote, sufficient to rock Mr. P.W. Botha right back on his heels, and make the by-elections as fateful to his Government as the Wakkerstroom by-election that ultimately led to the fall of General Smuts’ Government in 1948.
All is done and gone, South Africa fell, we have a Black majority Communist Government. The hope that the Conservatives would stand up and be counted never happened. Why did it never happen? We have forgotten who we are, we have forgotten our values we have forgotten what civilization is. The leaven of the Jewish infiltration into our inner being destroyed all of that. The White Race is so guilt ridden they are committing suicide in the cruelest way possible, by allowing the uncivilized to torture and murder them one by one. Southern Africa is no more, but there is always another tomorrow.
Now Europe, United States and United Kingdom is on the brink of total collapse, all in the name of equality, peace (when there is no peace), will there be someone somewhere take the lead and lead the White Race out of the stupor? Surely we all hope and pray it would be so.
Again the Western World who worked so hard for the destruction of every White Nation and country in Africa can learn and realize what they have done and stop what is happening in their own backyard!