Constitutional Prof. Pierre de Vos Insulted by Evidence that Apartheid raised Black living standards to Highest in Africa!

Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees

Constitutional Prof. Pierre de Vos has a new Black Liberation Theology (beat whitey with white guilt to exterminate whiteness) blog post up, under the title of “We can never forgive black South Africans for apartheid”.

He starts off with how the new SA Constitution gives everyone the right to freedom of expression:

The South African Constitution protects freedom of expression in very clear terms. Every South African is guaranteed the right to speak their minds on almost any topic and can say almost anything – even if what one is saying is deeply offensive to others or challenges their most cherished beliefs. One can argue that organised religion is an oppressive presence in our society or even that those people who believe in a god at all are delusional. One can argue that homosexuals will burn in hell or that god will punish women who do not know their place and do not want to serve their husbands diligently and with respect.

Then deals with some of the constitutional limits to freedom of expression, such as: Propaganda for war; incitement of imminent violence; or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, etc.

He then delves into how SA's are intolerant of other people's views, and how this censure of opinion occurs:

But in reality freedom of expression is a more complex beast than the provisions of the Bill of Rights would suggest. Not all South Africans are tolerant of opinions with which they disagree and often take steps either to prevent a person from expressing his or her views or to try and intimidate a person to ensure that the person refrains form expressing a particular view in future. This can take a physical form, for example, by preventing a politician from speaking at a public gathering. But the silencing also takes many other, more subtle, forms.

In this post I wish to focus on this subtle kind of silencing (knowing full well that intolerance of the opinion of others often take a far more violent form). In our society (like any other), who is provided with a public platform to speak, what one is allowed to say on such a public platforms and who is actually listened to and who is ignored, depends on a complex web of factors.

He continues in that vein for a few more paragraphs, and then comes to the crux of his argument about how whites are not sorry enough for apartheid, and that whenever he raises the subject white people get upset with him and call him names, and don't dialogue constructively and with evidence and reason.

It is therefore striking that almost every time I highlight the failure of some white South Africans to deal with their complicity in our apartheid past or their lingering racial prejudices, many readers of this Blog are incapable of engaging in any constructive or logical manner with the argument that I present. Instead of pointing out why my views might be misguided or presenting an alternative analysis, some readers get so offended that they can only spew vitriol. Your view, they seem to say, may not be expressed. By expressing this view you have forfeited any claim on civility. For such individuals, the only way to respond is to try and kill the messenger.

[...]

A German colleague joked today about how some Germans would like to say: “We can never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz”. When some white South Africans respond so vehemently, so irrationally, so vindictively to any mention of the apartheid past and their complicity in it, it sounds as if they are saying: “Us whites can never forgive black South Africans for apartheid.” This is of course a rather sad state of affairs as it reminds us of how broken and how morally confused many white South Africans are and how incapable they are of dealing with the past. For those white South Africans, the only option is to try and erase the past. (As anyone who can read and wants to understand would have noticed, I talk about some white South Africans, not all white South Africans.)

[Read Further]

Poor Constitutional Prof: Appears he really was most insulted by my second comment's evidence for how black SA's benefited from Apartheid, that when I posted my third comment, I found out I had been censored. Here follow all three comments (images were not included in comments).

Andrea Muhhrteyn says:
October 15, 2010 at 12:47 pm

If there is somethign I should feel guilty about, please clarify it for me clearly, and hear my response. I ain’t got a problem with taking responsibility for anything, but when I acted in self-defence, from aggression, surely I have a right to do so? Why should I feel guilty?

Here is some food for thought for — Poverty Pimping lets not address the root causes of poverty and political violence — Professor De Vos’s Right to Breed ideology….

—————–

If you finish high school and keep a job without having children before marriage, you will almost certainly not be poor. Period. I have repeatedly felt the air go out of the room upon putting this to black audiences. No one of any political stripe can deny it. It is human truth on view. — Excerpt from John McWhorter’s Review of Professor of Law Amy Wax’s book: Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century

“Population control will be difficult enough to achieve peacefully if society has merely to deal with families that differ in their desire to have children. If groups larger than the family assert their intention to exceed community norms, the difficulty in achieving population control will be greatly compounded. This problem is often stated as a racial problem. Some exponents of “Black Power” identify all proposals to control population as “genocide” and call upon blacks to engage in a breeding war” – Garrett Hardin, Stalking the Wild Taboo: Population, Biology and the Law, p.231


Excerpt from Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae in Support of a Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of TRC Act:

73. In Stalking the Wild Taboo, Garrett Hardin deals with the concept of competition, a process that is inescapable in societies living in a finite resource world, and the competitive exclusion principle.

The meaning of this principle can be easily explained in a strictly biological setting. Suppose one introduces into the same region two different species that inhabit the same “ecological niche”. If, by hypothesis, two species occupy exactly the same ecological niche, then all that one species needs to know to predict the ultimate outcome of their competition is the rates at which they reproduce in this ecological niche. If one of them reproduces at a rate of 2 percent per year while the other reproduces at a rate of 3 percent, the ratio of the numbers of the faster reproducing species to the numbers of the slower will increase year by year. In fact, since their rates of reproduction, like compound interest, are exponential functions, a little algebra shows that the ratio of the two exponential functions is itself an exponential function. The ratio of the faster species to the slower species increases without limit. If the environment is finite – and it always is finite – the total number of organisms that can be supported by this environment is also finite. Since the size of the population of a species can never be less than one individual, this means that ultimately the slower breeding species will be completely eliminated from the environment. This will be true no matter how slight the difference in the rate of reproduction of the two species. Only a mathematically exact quality in their rates would ensure their continued coexistence, and such an exact equality is inconceivable in the real world. As a consequence, two species that occupy exactly the same ecological niche cannot coexist indefinitely in the same geographical area.


Excerpt from Application to Concourt to Proceed as an Amicus Curiae in Citizen v. McBride:

Imagine if blacks had chosen to adopt a cultural trait of personal responsibility and concern for their children, whereby they refrained from procreation until they could provide for a stable and loving environment for their offspring in a small committed family environment. If so, South Africa would currently be populated by 10 million predominantly educated citizens, 50% white & 50% black and coloured, most of whom had grown up in loving small family homes, with responsible parents.

For example: According to National Security Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth:

“… population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. Segmental (religious, social, racial) differences, migration, rapid population growth, differential levels of knowledge and skills, rural/urban differences, population pressure and the spatial location of population in relation to resources — in this rough order of importance — all appear to be important contributions to conflict and violence… Clearly, conflicts which are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots. Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities.”

What role did population growth factors play in South Africa’s Apartheid violence? If understanding demographic roots is a prerequisite for understanding their subsequent symptomatic political violence, and hence preventing their future re-occurrence, why was this not a priority for the TRC to enquire into?

What role did the ANC play in contributing to the Population Explosion of Cannon Fodder and Resource War Violence? Why was the ANC not required to take responsibility for their population production of poverty stricken cannon fodder? According to Witchcraft and the State in South Africa, by Johannes Harnischfeger:

Especially evening assemblies girls had to attend as well: “They would come into the house and tell us we should go. They didn’t ask your mother they just said ‘come let’s go.’ You would just have to go with them. They would threaten you with their belts and ultimately you would think that if you refused, they would beat you. Our parents were afraid of them” (quoted by Delius 1996:189).

All those opposing the wishes of the young men were reminded, that it was every woman’s obligation to give birth to new “soldiers”, in order to replace those warriors killed in the liberation struggle. The idiom of the adolescents referred to these patriotic efforts as “operation production”. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives. (Delius 1996:189; Niehaus 1999:250)


Excerpt from Radical Honesty Amicus Curiae to Concourt in Support of a Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of the TRC Act:

[68] In response to questions from the TRC about the motives for apartheid, FW de Klerk clarified the Afrikaners very rational demographic ‘swart gevaar’ motives and fears:

As far as relations with the other peoples of South Africa were concerned, the National Party believed initially that its interests could be best served by following a policy of “separateness” – or apartheid. It felt that, only in this manner, would the whites in general – and Afrikaners in particular – avoid being overwhelmed by the numerical superiority of the black peoples of our country. Only in this manner would they be able to maintain their own identity and their right to rule themselves.


CONCLUSION:

Until I am provided with alternative evidence addressing demographic root causes and just war theory legal principles — it is my working hypothesis conclusion

Considering among others African culture’s Breeding War policies and cultural violence towards each other, and lack of affinity for Western values based on reason, education, persoanal responsibility to procreation, etc:

Apartheid was a Just [War] for Afrikaner Demographic Survival

What is there to apologize for, for defending your culture and race from being exterminated by people who are unable to control their sexual breeding behaviours, and who label anyone who even discusses the issue of demographics and personal responsibility for procreation a ‘racist’?

Let me remind you:

If you finish high school and keep a job without having children before marriage, you will almost certainly not be poor. Period. I have repeatedly felt the air go out of the room upon putting this to black audiences. No one of any political stripe can deny it. It is human truth on view. — Excerpt from John McWhorter’s Review of Professor of Law Amy Wax’s book: Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century

There were no responses.. I am almost always entirely ignored when I post a comment to that blog. Anyway... the discussion continued as if I had never posted my comment about how much whites had unfairly benefited from apartheid and which whites, and how guilty they all were.

Eventually a few hours later I posted the following comment:

Why Whites Don't Want to Apologize for Apartheid

Andrea Muhhrteyn says:
October 15, 2010 at 22:12 pm

Who benefitted from Apartheid?

Hmmmm

Verwoerd’s Apartheid “launched the greatest programme of socio-economic upliftment for non-whites that South Africa had ever seen,” which raised poor blacks living standards to the highest in Africa , granting them greater self-determination under Afrikaners , than other minority black tribes in Africa enjoyed under majority black rule.

And…..

In 1961, then foreign minister of SA, Eric Louw presented to the UN a factual comparison of the living conditions of blacks in South Africa compared to other African states. He proved that Blacks in SA had a higher per capita income, better educational opportunities , far superior medical and social services and altogether a higher standard of living than anywhere in Africa.

????

“Did you know that the life expectancy of black South Africans nearly equaled that of Europeans during the last decade of Apartheid? Did you know that the black population nearly trebled during Apartheid? Did you know that black South Africans had the highest per capita income and education levels in Africa during Apartheid?”

What about????

“Undoubtedly, racial inequity existed and full democracy was absent. But social, health and material provisions — the best in Africa — existed for black people. Long before 1994, blacks had voted directly, at least, for urban and rural councils and executives — izibonda and bungas. Now all races don’t even vote for central and provincial legislators but for mere party representatives.” — Salute the bravery and vision of SA’s founders, Meshack Mabogoane, Business Day, 2010/05/05

and????

“Since 1970 the budget for black education was raised by about 30% per year every year. More than any other government department. In the period 1955 -1984 the amount of black school students increased 31 times from 35,000 to 1,096 000. 65% of black South African children were at school compared to Egypt 64%, Nigeria 57%, Ghana52%, Tanzania50% and Ethiopia 29%. Amongst the adults of South Africa, 71% could read and write (80% between the ages 12 and 22). Compare this to Kenya 47%, Egypt 38%, Nigeria 34% and Mozambique at 26%. In South Africa, the whites built 15 new classrooms for blacks every working day, every year. At 40 children per class it meant space for an additional 600 black students every day!!!” — Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 11– Bantu Education under Apartheid, by Mike Smith

Not to mention????

“At the height of Apartheid in 1978 Soweto had 115 Football fields, 3 Rugby fields, 4 athletic tracks, 11 Cricket fields, 2 Golf courses, 47 Tennis courts, 7 swimming pools built to Olympic standards, 5 Bowling alleys, 81 Netball fields, 39 children play parks, and countless civic halls, movie houses and clubhouses. In addition to this, Soweto had 300 churches, 365 schools, 2 Technical Colleges, 8 clinics, 63 child day care centres, 11 Post Offices, & its own fruit and vegetable market. There were 2300 registered companies that belonged to black businessmen, about 1000 private taxi companies. 3% of the 50,000 vehicle owners in 1978 were Mercedes Benz owners. Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time.” — Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 9 – The lies about the Townships, Mike Smith Political Commentary

So, what was the problem??????

Outcast Cape Town investigates how Apartheid came to be, the roots of apartheid, traced back to Cape Town’s establishment in the mid-seventeenth century, and the many social, geopolitical, demographic, political, racial, etc. factors which contributed to Apartheid. For Apartheid was not inevitable. Had certain demographic factors been different, it may not have occurred. Had it managed to avoid its massive problems of demographic surges and attendant unemployment, these different factors and sequences of events might have brought more similar societal results to other parts of the world, with similar factors. Even once apartheid was legislated, the ‘Nationalists with all their Sowetos could hardly keep up with the Black demographic realities of rural-urban migration and absolute population increase. At immense cost, they as it were ran as fast as they could, only to stay in the same place.’ — English social geographer, John Western…

Why was apartheid not inevitable???

Imagine if blacks had chosen to adopt a cultural trait of personal responsibility and concern for their children, whereby they refrained from procreation until they could provide for a stable and loving environment for their offspring in a small committed family environment. If so, South Africa would currently be populated by 10 million predominantly educated citizens, 50% white & 50% black and coloured, most of whom had grown up in loving small family homes, with responsible parents.

How many Afrikaners would have voted for Apartheid if they had sweet nothing to fear from the Black Power Breeding War / Swart Gevaar ????

Short while later I tried to post the following comment as further evidence (remember the Prof's blogpost about reasonably and civil commenting.. Well I think its reasonable to provide evidence for your argument. So I tried to post the following comment, but appears I have been censored or banned or whatever you wish to call it.

For those unaware of SA's demographic surges...

SOUTH AFRICA (White vs Non White) Population Growth:

________ Total _________ Non Whites ____ Whites ______ W % of Total
1868:____ 800,000 ______ 400,000 _______ 400,000 _____ 50
1948:____ 11.5 M _______ 8.5 M _________ 2.5 M _______ 21.7
1980:____ 29.5 M _______ 26 M __________ 3.5 M _______ 11.8
2001: ____ 44 M ________ 40 M __________ 4 M _________ 10


For those unaware of demographic youth bulges and violence:

Demographics and Violence: Youth Bulges

[46.] Numerous reports provide details how population age structures have significant impacts on a countries stability, governance, economic development and social well-being. Put differently, countries with large populations of idle young men, known as youth bulges, account for 70 – 90 percent of all civil conflicts. Additionally a wealth of historical studies indicates that cycles of rebellion and military campaigns in the early modern and modern world tended to coincide with periods when young adults comprised an unusually large proportion of the population. Youth Bulge Reports:

* The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters to a Safer More Equitable World, by Population Action International

* YouthQuake: Population, fertility and environment in the 21st Century, by Optimum Population Trust

Seems the Constitutional Expert Professor is not interested in discussing any perspective that does not fit with his views about how whites should feel guilty about apartheid and beg for forgiveness, for simply attempting to defend themselves, and their culture from being exterminated by a culture that refuses to practice responsible breeding, and prefers to participate in the population production of poverty, while blaming their poverty on whitey.