The Dark Truth About Why South Africa Destroyed Its Nuclear Weapons in 1990

racismWhy would any country voluntarily dismantle its nuclear weapons which take years and billions to develop?

South Africa is the only country which ever give up its nuclear dissuasion power.

But Why? Did they dismantle the country’s nuclear weapons because they believed in a vision of an Africa free of nuclear weapons, as the press reported?

NO.

The white apartheid regime didn’t want a Black Nation to possess nuclear weapon, a dissuasive power in our contemporary world.

Foreseeing a democratic South Africa where Black people will be in power, the white regime destroyed all the country’s main military facilities, ballistics missiles and dismantling all six complete nuclear weapons shortly after the release of Nelson Mandela from prison in 1990.

South Africa hastily joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and seven weeks later the country signed a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

According to Greg Mills “South African authorities co-operated fully with the IAEA during the whole verification process, and were commended by the then director-general of the Agency in 1992, Dr. Hans Blix, for providing inspectors with unlimited access and data beyond those required by the Safeguards Agreement

In less than 3 years all South Africa’s ballistic missiles were scrapped, its six nuclear weapons dismantled, and any remaining missile engines destroyed.

To prevent any future attempt by any upcoming South African administration to empower the country, the apartheid regime enacted the most self-restricting legislation in the form of the “Act on the Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction” that makes provision for a South African Council for Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction to control exports of dual-use materials, equipment and technology.

While South African apartheid leaders’ actions were met with praise by the western medias and leaders, many saw this speedy destruction of  all the country main military infrastructures as a sign that the racist apartheid regime and many western countries didn’t want  the upcoming Black leaders to inherit such a powerful arsenal.

“The whole thing was dressed up as an honourable retreat from a nuclear Africa” said Frans Cronje, deputy CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations, a Johannesburg-based think tank.

“A nuclear African state would be taken more seriously and would have a stronger leadership role – it forces people to take you seriously.

In leadership terms, renouncing nuclear weapons does the opposite – it reduces your influence in foreign affairs and international politics.

If renouncing nuclear weapons grows your influence, others would be falling over themselves to surrender their nuclear arsenals.” continued Frans Cronje

While a racist, violent, and brutal oppression white apartheid regime was trusted to have and manage nuclear weapons, a Black and democratically elected regime was not trusted to  manage them.

That historic decision was all about racism. Nothing else.

South Africa would today be stronger on the international stage if it had retained a nuclear arsenal.

Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN

About Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN

Mawuna Koutonin is a world peace activist who relentlessly works to empower people to express their full potential and pursue their dreams, regardless of their background. He is the Editior of SiliconAfrica.com, Founder of Goodbuzz.net, and Social activist for Africa Renaissance. Koutonin’s ultimate dream is to open a world-class human potential development school in Africa in 2017. If you are interested in learning more about this venture or Koutonin’s other projects, you can reach him directly by emailing at linkcrafter@gmail.com

57 Responses to “The Dark Truth About Why South Africa Destroyed Its Nuclear Weapons in 1990”

  1. Geoffrey

    If you look at the corruption in South Africa since the blacks took over, no wonder the world did not want a black dominated government with nuclear capabilities. They would have been sold to the highest bidder.

    Reply
    • Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN

      This is just another racist comment. France which has one of the world highest corrupted politicians in the world (by the number of politicians in prison or indicted) still can have nuclear power, right?

      Now what about Pakistan? What about India? How less corrupted are those countries compared to South Africa Black politicians?

      What about Ukraine, Belorussia, Lithuania and many other east European countries which have nuclear plants?

      Now about corruption in South Africa, how come that the white minority which is less than 10% of the population owns more than 80% of lands and the whole economy?

      Racism blinds you here, because you think White South African politicians were more virtuous simply because they are white.

      Reply
      • Black Angus

        When a black nation is capable of marshaling the resources and intellect capable of making a nuclear weapon, then they can be trusted with one.

        As it is, black people can’t even be trusted with electricity or gasoline.

        Reply
      • icetrout

        the racist of the New & Improved South Africa are BLACK ! over a million Afrikaners are being held in Prison Camps waiting to be executed…White South Africa foked up by not nuking the BLACKS !

        Reply
      • Yendiza

        While a racist, violent, and brutal oppression white apartheid regime was trusted to have and manage nuclear weapons, a Black and democratically elected regime was not trusted to manage them.

        Yeah, right. Keep your blinkers on Mawuna! The current “democratically elected regime” can’t organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone manage a nuclear arsenal! Thank God the “racist, violent, and brutal white oppressors” had the foresight to get rid of the stuff.

        Reply
      • Guest

        Your whole comment is full of shit. There is no way you wrote this drivel with a straight face.

        South Africa is the rape capital of the world and is one the most corrupt nations on the planet. You have an extremely high homicide rate and you’re slaughtering the white population in droves.

        Let’s be thankful that they disarmed that shit whole called South Africa.

        We all know exactly what you’d do with those weapons if you got a hold of them.

        Reply
    • Qabaniso Dube

      Geodffrey is right and straight to the point, these corrupt morons cant manage Eskom, Post office, SAA, SABC, and many more other institutions, what more will be managing nuclear weapons, black people need to learn to take criticism and facts from others without having to blend it racist.

      Reply
  2. Vince Cushite

    Of course they wouldn't want indigenous African to have that kind of weaponry. European in Africa knew that it what just a matter of time before Africans will govern themselves. Now it's time to get back the land and resources in South Africa, that Europeans stole from the indigenous.

    Reply
  3. W Grey

    I respect the views expressed in this article and would encourage the exploration thereof. I do, however, disagree with two points in this article.

    It is worth stating to that the end of the apartheid regime, great uncertainty remained about the future of South Africa. There was no guarantee that Nelson Mandela was going to succeed in transforming the country in the way he did. If he had failed or if he were assassinated or deposed, things might have looked a great deal different today. I had a conversation with friends a while ago in which people of various races discussed the current progress transformation and empowerment. One of them told the group to look around and embrace the fact that we are not all trying to kill each other. This is the exact sentiment I wish to hihglight. If the possibility of a Syria-type civil war seemed even vaguely possible, it would only make sense te dispose of all nuclear arms. If they were to fall into the hands of the wrong people, a catastophe beyond imagination would unfold. Although it would be silly to assert that race had no part in their decisionmaking, I hardly think that the decision was primarily based on racial hatred.

    Secondly, I don’t think South Africa’s standing in the world has diminished as a result of the disarmament. I would in fact argue the contrary. The only nations who currently posess nuclear arms, have either developed it during the cold war and are currently decreasing their arsenals (American-Russian START), or have developed it in the past two decades(North-Korea and potentially Iran). Those who have recently developed these weapons are seen as wreckless and stupid. South Africa now has the moral high ground as far as disarmament is concerned. We can now focus on achieving success in what would hopefully be a nuclear-free age.

    Reply
    • mesue .P.

      Plausible argument! Also remember that the know-how as well as the formula for putting together a nuclear program may still be in South Africa. Amen.

      Reply
  4. W Grey

    I respect the views expressed in this article and would encourage the exploration thereof. I do, however, disagree with two points in this article.

    It is worth stating to that the end of the apartheid regime, great uncertainty remained about the future of South Africa. There was no guarantee that Nelson Mandela was going to succeed in transforming the country in the way he did. If he had failed or if he were assassinated or deposed, things might have looked a great deal different today. I had a conversation with friends a while ago in which people of various races discussed the current progress transformation and empowerment. One of them told the group to look around and embrace the fact that we are not all trying to kill each other. This is the exact sentiment I wish to hihglight. If the possibility of a Syria-type civil war seemed even vaguely possible, it would only make sense te dispose of all nuclear arms. If they were to fall into the hands of the wrong people, a catastophe beyond imagination would unfold. Although it would be silly to assert that race had no part in their decisionmaking, I hardly think that the decision was primarily based on racial hatred.

    Secondly, I don’t think South Africa’s standing in the world has diminished as a result of the disarmament. I would in fact argue the contrary. The only nations who currently posess nuclear arms, have either developed it during the cold war and are currently decreasing their arsenals (American-Russian START), or have developed it in the past two decades(North-Korea and potentially Iran). Those who have recently developed these weapons are seen as wreckless and stupid. South Africa now has the moral high ground as far as disarmament is concerned. We can now focus on achieving success in what would hopefully be a nuclear weaponless age.

    Reply
    • Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN

      I’d say that the argument and analogies you’ve used here are high speculative:

      1. The Syrian war is a proxy war, not a real civil war.
      Apartheid was an evil system installed by the local white people to crush the soul of the black people. And the ANC and other organisations fight was legitimate and right.

      The analogy here might be rejected.

      2. There is no record in history books of Black people killing white people in mass or engaging in genocide. But the White people has plenty of this in their history records.

      if someone has to be trusted to be a better person it’s the black person, not the white apartheid regime.

      3. The fear you are referring to, was more white people fear, because they did not trust black people, but were forced to deal with the fact that they have lost the moral war. Therefore, they have engaged in sabotage of the country, and the upcoming leadership.

      The sabotage was not limited to nuclear weapons, read my other article here: http://www.siliconafrica.com/mandela-a-great-fighter-who-lost-his-final-battle/

      Reply
    • George

      Well, I would be careful assigning selective motives to JUST the white race, when after all, African tribal leader’s actually captured, then sold their own, FOR PROFIT, to the highest bidder of the Euro slave traders from Spain.. Then there was Pol Pot, who killed 2 million Cambodian’s, there was the Rwandan Genocide, there was Charles Taylor, R. G. Mugabe, Idi Amin, Kagame, Paul Biya, Sani Abacha, Sekou Toure, Nguema, Siad Barre, Hissene Habre, … I can name more of them… These names and many others are your reasons that Africa continues to falter, and fail.. Not Europeans! Europeans have tried to give Africa technology, but the inhabitants just destroy it.

      Reply
      • John Odeh

        Pol Pot was a Cambodian dictator and mass murderer who killed over 1 million of his own people, but Cambodia is a South East Asian country and not an African country. So how come Pol Pot’s name is being mentioned in the same breath with a mention of African tyrants? It is the same thing as reading off a list of Latin American dictators, and including Adolf Hitler among them. Pol Pot was a brutal Asian dictator and not an African one. We have enough black dictators, you have no need to be so racist that you would claim a yellow (or brown) skinned south east Asian, is a black man. Or is your inclusion of Pol Pot in this list of miscreants, more a case of ignorance rather than stupid racism?

        Reply
  5. Ben Dunigan

    Koutonin a world peace activist" yet you arguing against the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. That is one Hipacritacal stance if I've ever seen one. While you argument is probably true it was still the right decision and one Mandela supported. A nuclear Africa would not help to do anything but create a new arms race. No world peace activist would ever argue against the destruction of nuclear arsenals.

    Reply
  6. Joe Papp

    Wow, it boggles the mind to read an alleged activist for peace, race-equality, nonviolence, blah blah etc seemingly argue IN FAVOR of nuclear proliferation!

    This kind of mentality is prima facie evidence of why the world owes a debt of gratitude to the inspired South African leaders who dismantled the country's nuclear weapons…

    Reply
  7. Leon

    Blacks HAVE engaged in genocide. Someone should read up on Haiti. And the US slave rebellions.

    Just because blacks have been historically too poor to be EFFECTIVE at their genocide, doesn’t mean they are morally superior and incapable of that evil.

    Ignorant arguments are always annoying.

    Ignorant AND racist arguments doubly so.

    Reply
  8. Leon

    With “world peace advocates” as ridiculously uninformed and morally deluded as you, it’s no wonder world peace remains a pipe dream.

    Reply
  9. Mario Tremaine

    Whether the decision by the apartheid government was racist or not (and I don't disagree with that argument), your statement of "“A nuclear African state would be taken more seriously and would have a stronger leadership role…" is a tired relic of cold war era politics and, if you'll allow me, illogical. To pursue the bomb at this point would be a reckless pursuit of power and open up a pandora's box of trouble. As somebody whom I must respect for wanting to "empower people to express their full potential and pursue their dreams", I would beg you to rethink this idea. Peace be with you, my friend.

    Reply
    • Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN Mawuna Remarque KOUTONIN

      Nuclear bombs have brought more peace to the world than the UN and all peace activists combined.

      Without the atomic bomb, India and Pakistan would be fighting more. The same about china, japan.

      Europe would have started another world war already if not the fear of nuclear bomb.

      i’m peace activist, but not naive about world realities.

      Reply
  10. bhongo

    I should Just drop a nuclear bomb on all your stupid assess…fuck all this race talk.and No “so phim” you are a stupid white cunt..deal with that bitch

    Reply
  11. Hank Wilson

    Stop you are not fooling anyone, brown and black people of this world already understand why that old aparthied government gave up its nucs.

    Reply
  12. Mawuna R. Koutonin

    Nuclear bombs have brought more peace to the world than the UN and all peace activists combined.

    Without the atomic bomb, India and Pakistan would be fighting more. The same about china, japan.

    Europe would have started another world war already if not the fear of nuclear bomb.

    i’m peace activist, but not naive about world realities.

    Reply
    • Shawn

      Are you nuts all it takes is one asshole to unleash hell if you think it’s safer because of nuclear weapons your fuckn crazy I agree Africa is to corrupt most countries are everyone should give up nuclear weopons now before we’re all dead but we won’t cause we humans not black or white need to kill everything me included that’s how were built

      Reply
  13. Billy

    Ask yourself where did the 9 battle field ready nuclear weapons end up?

    Also, which country helped build the weapons?

    Only 6 made it to Chicago for decommissioning. One to North Korea on the black market. The other two?

    Is that why Mr. Blair and Mr Bush were so sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

    One final point. Is this the real reason for the so called civil war in Syria? Follow the money!

    You can be the change for good in the world if you would only open your ears and hear and open your eyes and see.

    Reply
  14. George Hetzel

    Do you seriously think the people running South Africa now could be trusted with nuclear weapons? They can't even run the power plants.

    Reply
  15. Emma du Buisson

    23000 murders per year since 1994 when democracy hit SA, compared to 1500 murders per year during apartheid! Dead bodies dont lie!

    Reply
  16. George Blackmore

    We know this for certain, if the Dutch had not moved there, South Africa would still be trying to get someone to install electricity in that nation! But, can you blame them for eliminating Nukes, they knew what was coming along behind them, that was perhaps the greatest gift to the world we all may ever know? Look what has happened to that Nation in the past 23 years? Would you trust Jacob Zuma w/ the bomb, for God's sake? That moron feels it's okay to waste a fortune redecorating his men's room?? The African continent possesses the worst, most brutal government regimens on Earth, if a country can even KEEP one going.. What makes me chuckle is that every African male is BORN to be a King, so he believes, and he is every woman's desire, so he thinks. Africa needs fewer EGO's, and many more educated brains.

    Reply
  17. Vince Cushite

    Please, murdering, raping and stealing land and resources is no trade for electricity. Installing a color caste system to keep mental illness alive and well throughout the continent doesn't serve indigenous Africans either. So spare the fantasy of the savior European nonsense.

    Reply
  18. Vince Cushite

    That is nothing compare to all the murders European elites have committed in Africa and every stolen land around the world. Facts are facts.

    Reply
  19. Brianne Strümpher

    Not saviours, just the only ones who can bring and maintain civilization. Im sure murder and rape never, ever happened prior to us horrible Europeans either, you make a very well thought out point there.

    Reply
  20. Brianne Strümpher

    I see that having all that precious farm land is doing Zimbabwe a world of good now that they chased away the only people to ever harness it. Vince likes to overlook everything but his all out hatred for Europeans. The only reason South Africa is under black rule is BECAUSE the Afrikaaners gave it to them, as if they could ever build anything even close to what South Africa is on their own.

    The truth hurts I know but thats what it is, the truth. Anyone who takes a look at Africa now can see that. But, of course, its all the white mans fault….

    Reply
  21. Hank Wilson

    Brianne Strümpher Same old talk from the invaders; we took the land because "god told us to take the land." A quote right out of god's mouth…huh! Invaders and thieves they can always find justifications for their psychopathic behaviors. I.E., anyways, they weren't making proper use of the land. Hey, invader what is the proper use of the land. Could that be making the land uninhabitable due to your new found technologies and causing industrialize poisoning every where on this planet?

    Reply
  22. Vince Cushite

    The consequences of stealing land and resources from indigenous African people is that future generations of people of European descent are living in denial and don't want to deal with the realities that are faced. Of course, the need to hide, cover up and try to brainwash people into believing that they are magical beings who deserve your lands and resources is their only answer.

    Reply
  23. George

    Hello Vince,
    your preoccupation with “white” is going to cost the nation’s of your continent many natural resources, and lots of money because “yellow” is the color of your 21st century “invader,” and no other.. They build no schools, they use their own labor, and no Africans benefit directly from the money that goes to the Government Officials who are in charge.
    *
    Until all the Nations of Africa establish a Law & Order regimen from the top to the bottom of society, then the everyday people will suffer because global trading partner’s must to do business with whomever the recognized Officials are in each country. If, there are no laws the govern Officials, or there are no oversight bodies to watch officials, then they become corrupt. Of course, this is not to say every nation is lawless because that is not true, there are many laws across the many nations, I would guess that many Legal regimens are just incomplete. I have seen on PBS documentaries these underground, anti government groups crop up to steal from the masses through clandestine activities, like theft from pipelines, theft of Gov’t services, & theft of supplies bulk food supplies, etc..
    *
    The ordinary, everyday harmless people of Africa are then left to suffer. The United States of America were extremely fortunate in the late 1700’s because there were a group of civically minded, highly educated people, large numbers in fact. The main group were to become known as “The Founding Fathers,” they were the responsible parties who wrote the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, The Articles of Confederation, then the Constitution of The United States. Of course, the colonies as they had previously been known were under constant oppression by the British and were forced to fight to break away. And, it took nearly ninety years more time before slavery was to be broken, that is a scourge our nation is still healing from, and will take another hundred years to heal completely.

    Reply
    • John Odeh

      The Chinese are not invaders, they are trading partners, and far more honest ones than the lying, cheating, treaty-forcing/treaty-breaking European traders we dealt with a century (or two) ago, who fooled our naive ancestors into signing lop-sided treaties with them, only to turn around and break the very same treaties they drafted, declare war on our ancestors, conquer them, and/or enslave them, and then loot their resources, and colonize them. Sure the Chinese are out for their own interests and not primarily for the interests of developing African peoples, but that is hardly surprising, for that’s “the nature of the {international trading} beast.” It’s simply business. In business it is your business to look out for your own interest, while the other party looks out for his or hers, so I have no quarrel with the Chinese. Black people cannot keep on complaining that white people gave us the shaft, brown people (i.e. middle-eastern or north African Arabs) gave us the raw-end of the stick, and that now yellow people too, are giving us the shaft. As the people of one ethnicity in my native land are accustomed to saying regarding duplicitous business transactions, “If you’ve been duped, you’ve been duped!” It is left to you therefore, to ensure you are not duped! Black people I think (or at least hope), are now wise enough to make sure foreigners don’t just come around to our lands, rope us into stupid one-sided trading arrangements, and then dupe us. But if it turns out that we’ve not yet learned from the past, i.e. the perhaps understandable mistakes of our ancestors (who clearly did not understand the principles of international trade, not to mention being disadvantaged due to a lack of technological parity with the people they were trading with…), then we richly deserve whatever we have coming…

      Reply
  24. Coenraad Van Der Zanden

    Leaving nuclear weapons in the hands of the current SA government is like putting an AK-47 in the hand of a chimp. Oh wait, I see that's already been posted on YouTube!

    Reply
  25. Sam Hess

    We are building support and capital in the USA to overthrow the ANC. The ruling ANC will be butchered by the growing expat US middle class that is demanding segregation be restored in the USA. The jew media will not report what is really happening in the USA. The Chinese State policy is to exterminate the Negro Bioweapon hitech smallpox blankets then enjoy the wealth of Africa. This is taught in Chinese Communism.

    Reply
  26. Michael Fletcher

    SA should not have had them in the first place. If you think you gain status by having weapons of mass destruction then they aren't safe in your hands. And how did one of the pelendaba weapons get sold to North korea? Dr David kelly was involved in that 'decommissioning' job.

    Reply
  27. Shin Ryan Yi Cheng

    Nobody really think about the alternatives. China does build Atomic boom / ICBMs in 1960s in a condition of absolute poverty. But why would today's SA not being able to build their own? Nothing can be truly taken away if you are willing not to.

    Reply
  28. Haroldl Clayton

    If any society wanted to restart a military technological program it must start with its people and not its hardware !! SA can educate young people in STEM and in less than a decade if they wanted to …. they'd have the hardware !!!!

    Reply
  29. George

    I see two wrong sides, not one side victimized and one side criticized. I see two sides not loving their fellow human being and thus situations like this and articles in this line. The simple truth is this, whits took advantage of the black man years ago, let’s agree on this. But now restoring this imbalance is being implicated in a very aggressive manner one which I do not agree with at all. So take out your own hypocricy and then let’s try and change the other one. Unfortunately this will never happen because not all will accept the way Jesus said we should love.

    Reply
  30. John Odeh

    Having read this article and all of the commentary in response, I must say that racism is clearly alive and well. While the core premise of the article is true; namely that the apartheid regime in the former Republic of South Africa did not dismantle its nuclear weapons/nuclear-weapons-capability out of a newfound commitment to anti-nuclear-proliferation, its actions are hardly surprising. When apartheid was still in its hey dey, its security forces made it clear that one of their greatest fears was a mass invasion of South Africa by a combined force of hostile black African countries (especially the surrounding “Frontline States.” To both deter, and failing in that …repel… such an invasion (which was touted as a race war, or war of extermination against whites in SA), the nuclear project was authorized. So how and why in the heck, would the same white people who had developed nukes to counter, neutralize, deter, and defeat an alleged black genocidal threat, then stupidly turn around and hand over those very same weapons they built to defend themselves from potential black attacks, into black hands. Of course there was absolutely no possibility that they would ever do so, zero, ziltch, zip, nada!. Hell would have frozen over, long before the apartheid regime would ever have handed over it’s nukes to a government run by its former enemies; the African National Congress. That’s just simple human nature, and not even racism. So the core premise of the article is right! I am black, but if committed black people to the great task of defending a black minority ruling class from a potential white majority’s (…genocidal…) uprising, by developing super-weapons, or weapons of mass-destruction, I wouldn’t turn around later and be so stupid as to hand over the very same weapons I sweated to build, in order to protect my people, to the control of my former enemies. That would just be plain dumb. And say (or think) whatever you may wish about white oppressors (…believe me I have no love for them…), they were/are darned smart, and the last thing I’d expect from them, is such stupidity. If black people want to have nuclear weapons someday (…and the jury is still out, as to whether or not we should ever build such disgusting and mass-murdering weapons…), we’d better start thinking of acquiring the techno-savvy, not to mention political and military balls (…for the kinds of economic sanctions the West would impose upon any black led nation that ever tries to build nukes is not even something to contemplate at this point, not to mention the air-strikes they would launch at our nuclear facilities…), required for the task, ourselves. Nobody on Earth is going to build nukes, and hand them over to another people or nation, on a platter of gold. Maybe someday if South Africa ever does become a truly united nation; i.e. the “Rainbow Nation,” Nelson Mandela said he believed in, and white South Africans feel threatened by other white people, Asian people, nuclear-armed moslem peoples, etc., (…i.e. elsewhere in the world…), they will decide to reactivate South Africa’s nuclear program. But until then, you’d better kiss that program goodbye, for it’s dead, Kaput, gone, gone, gone! And nothing is gonna bring it back. Yeah the way the Western Press touts President Botha’s disarmament policy is disingenuous to say the least, for they disarmed to protect white South Africans against blacks, just the same way they built the damn things in the first place, to protect whites against blacks. But I cannot say their actions surprise me, or were wrong, for if I were a white South African person, I’d have done exactly the same thing.

    Reply
    • D

      Truth of the matter is…. when blacks kill and deport the white folks who had made settlements, they are left not knowing what to do.

      For example, in Zimbabwe when they got rid of the Europeans we’re left eating cow dung….

      Out of food, Zimbabweans eating cow dung
      Harare, Zimbabwe, Dec 10, 2008 / 08:01 pm (CNA).-
      http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/out_of_food_zimbabweans_eating_cow_dung/

      It’s a sad reality, Africa is an old place yet they still do not seem to have a civilization going on…

      I am curious to see what will happen in the USA, African-americans are the majority in prison. They kill European descendants and the media doesn’t broadcast it. They only broadcast if it’s a black killed by a white. To stir up problems. Divide and conquer.

      Truth of the matter is that atlantic trade slave was done mostly by jewish folks and it was mainly jews who owned black slaves. At least 90% of the boats we’re owned by jews. Only 2-3% of whites had slaves. ps. jews are not white/European folks.

      And to my angered African friends. Don’t worry, look at the situation now.
      The elite wants to get rid of the Caucasians/native Europeans. They are bringing in mass immigration from Africa and middle east. You are all coming over and getting free stuff !!! Free house, free food, free European women.
      This is repearations, a silent genocide of the europoean folk.

      Also, it’s true that a lot of Africans believe they are born to be kings :).
      But that’s just my experience, they are not like that. I don’t blame them, even I believe I am born to be of use for something. I think that’s why they get a long with the white women. The white women believes herself to be a victim, so does the African man at times. But the black man has a high esteem of himself, that’s why I think they don’t mind driving rusted cars (my experience).

      Where as, the common Caucasoid man has a good match with Asian women.
      Yellow fever as they call it. They appreciate a gentle/nerdy white man. Compared to the white woman who sees the white man as weak, always looking for someone to put her into place. Again, this is general experience, not the norm.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Loading Facebook Comments ...