CICA – Crime Intelligence & Community Awareness – South Africa
(CICA) respond to Mumsy Maphakela after hate speech, racist and
incitement to violence posts were posted on social media. Here is the
response.
Mumsy Maphakela you are disgusting – you should be charged with
incitement to violence and hate speech telling protestors to take white
people hostage.
People like you will destroy South Africa. The corrupt politicians want
and need racism to further their corrupt objectives. They WANT to
“Divide & conquer” with racism to hide their antics, and you are
helping them. Silly silly little child.
Your ignorance is astounding. We have black, white and Indian admin at
CICA and we were discussing your vicious and blinded bigotry. Did you
know that more than 70% of white people voted YES to end apartheid in
the white only referendum which was held pre 1994??
You are no different to PennySparrow. You are disgusting and should be charged with hate speech.
Recent ANC reports indicate that 23, 3 million black South Africans
have more than 25 percent Western Eurasian DNA, and fit into the (B-)
sub-group.
Scientists in Gauteng believe that a mysterious migratory event
occurred around 3,000 years ago known as the ‘Eurasian backflow’ – when
modern humans who left Africa around 50,000 years ago, suddenly flooded
back. This resulted in a shift of DNA percentage in African populations
over the course of a couple of generations. For many it resulted in a
(B-) sub-group categorization, which is evident today.
This revelation is creating much angst within the ANC due to their
hopes that the black (B+) group would be larger, thereby providing them
with a smoother path towards accelerated economic empowerment.
Kebby Maphatsoe – veterans’ minister, has stated that the
re-categorization of the (B-) sub-group is just a temporary setback, and
will not slow their plans for economic advancement. Although he does
not believe that the 23, 3 million people being categorized as ‘too low
in black DNA’ will be well received, especially if it prevents them from
full land and business ownership rights.
Some see this (B+) and (B-) System as an ANC strategy to speed up the
transition of wealth from non-blacks to blacks (diminishing majority),
in order to win back the hearts of many of their disillusioned voters.
There is still consternation of how the population will react when 23, 3
million people are told they are essentially defined as non-blacks due
to their excessively high levels of western Eurasian DNA levels.
Following defeats in recent municipal elections, politicians from the
ruling, African National Congress have spoken out against what they
call the new “economic apartheid”. As a result, there is renewed
interest in implementing this new program to help facilitate a smoother
economic distribution based on sub-Saharan DNA distribution across the
broader population – they believe this will help swing voter support in
metro areas back towards the ANC in 2019.
The big question will be how 23, 3 million people react when they are
told they don’t have enough black DNA to qualify for full benefits.
Once again, our government appears to be sliding down a precipitous
path of racial profiling to leverage their political muscle, and
desperately hold onto their diminishing stranglehold over a country that
so desperately needs a competent government who uses legitimate methods
to spur the economy, not cosmetic surgery that only results in further
scarring.
It is the year 1946. Exactly 70 years ago. After Word War II the
newly-formed United Nations sanctioned a census among all member states
to determine borders. In the Union of South Africa a census was
diligently conducted. In the Union’s 472 494 square miles of land just
over 11 million people made a living.
It was the year 1946. Two years before the National Party took office
and as a government started to promote a policy of separate development
(Apartheid). If you believe ANC and liberal propaganda you surely would have heard
of the forced removals of approximately 1,5 million black people to
black areas. The injustice of it! The inhumanity! The disgrace!
Now, here is where official figures come in, Sirs ANC, EFF and DA:
the census was conducted per district in the Union and these figures are
available.
You come from where, Sir – myth of apartheid and forced removals – Image – Front Nationaal
• First of all: your laughable figure of 1,5 million blacks being
forcibly removed from white areas. It may come as a shock to you, Sirs,
that less than 1,7 million blacks were living in the so-called “white
areas”; 516 954 of those in just fifteen mining and industrial areas
such as Witbank, Vereeniging, Springs, Roodepoort and Krugersdorp. These
half a million black people were mostly mineworkers with their homes in
their traditional areas and staying in hostels in the fifteen “white
centres”. In the major cities including Cape Town, Bloemfontein,
Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg whites outnumbered blacks by
far. To tell the truth – in the 50 biggest cities and towns of the Union
of South Africa whites outnumbered blacks by 1 220 416 to 951 834. Your
propaganda of 1,5 million blacks being forcibly removed by bulldozers
and the like, is a lie. It will always be a lie, no matter how many
times you repeat it. Your land claims are lies, no matter how many times
you repeat it.
• The second lie of course is how blacks were held back in education.
That the “white government” maintained almost five black schools for
every one white school is ignored. A mere three years later, in 1949, Dr
EG Malherbe told the international conference at Colombia University in
the USA that the Union of South Africa (the ‘Apartheid State”) had
further increased the black education expenditure tenfold and that black
learners had doubled. The conference took note that Alan Paton’s book
“Cry the Beloved Country” was utter nonsense. South Africa ended their
financial year with a surplus of five million pounds.
• During the following fifty years after 1946 the National Party
government built more than a million brick houses, schools, clinics and
universities to accommodate the influx of blacks into “white” areas;
apart from the millions of rand pumped into the traditional “homeland”
areas in development. Soweto, Alexandra, Thokoza, Attridgeville,
Sharpville… all burst out of their seams; subsidized heavily. Not shacks
– brick houses, albeit small.
• The peaceful struggle by Zulu and Indian together against
‘Apartheid’, incidentally, proved another lie. In Durban Zulus bandied
together against Indians and 137 people were killed; one white, 53
Indians and 83 Zulus. Thirty whites, 768 Indians and 1085 Zulus were
injured. Zulu chieftain Ndodembi Ngcobo said: “A large number of
children are born among my people who are not children of my race. They
have straight hair like the hair of an Indian. This is a repugnant sight
for Zulus, just as when a cow gives birth to a goat kid”.
• The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations
apologized unconditionally to South Africa for erroneous statements in
its annual report that black children in the Eastern Cape had starved
because Union aid had been withdrawn. This was a lie spread by the Bantu
representative in Parliament, Sam Kahn of the Communist Party.
• Far from just withholding aid from the black areas some of the
“white majority” towns of 1946 were handed over to blacks – Mafeking to
Boputhatswana, Rustenburg, Umtata to Ciskei etc. – all to advance the
blacks in their own traditional areas.
CONCLUSION: The South African government was far from lily-white in
their actions, but the figures and history show exactly how the
communist ANC grabbed their opportunity for false propaganda as more and
more African countries joined the UN, together with the Soviet Bloc,
the East and China. The false propaganda continues to this day as the
ANC, EFF and DA continue to blame everything on Apartheid, trying to
rewrite history.
Front National SA has always said, and says it again: we don’t want
to return to Apartheid simply because we never again want to take
responsibility for any other race or ethnic group apart of our own. We
want self-determination where we will not repeat the mistakes of the
past by supplying jobs or opportunities simply to be overrun by an
uncontrolled birthrate and liberal ideas of the “noble barbarian”. Once
bitten, twice shy.
On the same day, both Julius Malema and Mmusi Maimane had a lot to say about white people.
Malema said, white people should focus on learning to pronounce
African names correctly instead of braaiing. While Maimane said that
white people should learn an African language.
The European response:
1. Furiously angry with Malema
2. Mmusi for President
Now what? I no longer see much of a difference between Malema and
Maimane. They both have the same approach toward the white man in South
Africa.
