27 March 2011

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 28. De Klerk 1989 – 1990

By Mike Smith
27th of March 2011

F.W.de Klerk

In an interview with Murray La Vita of Beeld the Afrikaans daily, De Klerk acknowledged that he knows white South Africans viewed him as a traitor today. He also said that it did not bother him at all.

But was he a traitor or a victim of circumstance? We need to look at this serious accusation of treachery in an objective manner. In the old South Africa as well as during the Anglo Boer War, the punishment for treason was the death penalty, as it still is amongst many nations of the world.

At the same time of P.W. Botha’s reign during the 1980’s, F.W. De Klerk was Minister of Education. The school set work books suddenly started to change. Kids had to study all sorts of pro-black anti-white books such as “To kill a Mockingbird” and “Fiela se Kind” (Fiela’s Child). Dutch works such as “De Onrustzaaier” to invoke sympathy with Communist agitators were shoved down the children’s throats.

On the television, programmes such as the Cosby Show, Webster, later the fresh Prince of Bell-Aire, etc were shown that portrayed blacks as educated and the same as whites.

It was clear that a machine was in operation. A propaganda machine that was suppose to prepare our minds for the final takeover by Marxist Communist forces. F.W. de Klerk as the minister of Education was one of the major gears in this machine.

De Klerk at the time of the Rubicon Speech in 1985 was a staunch Conservative in the National Party. He was actually seen as a “major conservative stumbling block” by journalists such as Allister Sparks of the Rand Daily Mail who exposed the so called Mulder-gate or Information Scandal.

Nevertheless, as we have seen, De Klerk was the man who held P.W. Botha back on the banks of the Rubicon.

How conservative was F.W. de Klerk really? He was on the one hand in favour of segregated Universities, but on the other hand supported equal financial support to all schools. Was he a hypocrite, a “Tweegat-jakkels”, (a fox with two burrows)? This trait of F.W. de Klerk would evince throughout his life. The ultimate question needs to be asked. What made F.W. de Klerk change his ideology from one of the most conservatives in the NP government to that of one of the most liberal?

We know that in the early 1990’s he paid a serious of visits to Russia. Even visited the mausoleum of Lenin. Did F.W. de Klerk undergo Communist re-education?

How could such a conservative man be the one who ultimately gave the country away to black Marxist terrorist scum?

Within four years after the Rubicon Speech on exactly the same day, 15th of August 1989 De Klerk became the new president of South Africa, through a Palace revolution inside the NP which was a de facto coup d'état orchestrated by him and Pik Botha and the other conspirators of the Ou Sterrewag meeting in 1985.

The time was right for a new man to implement the decisions taken at that clandestine, cloak and dagger meeting. P.W. Botha groomed Finance Minister Barend Du Plessis as his successor, but the NP caucus chose F.W. de Klerk…”The man with the smile”…

That is how the newspapers and the rest of the media dubbed him. Whenever you saw F.W. de Klerk in a photograph or on television he always had a smile or a glitter in his eye. He radiated optimism. In fact he had the face of the perfect traitor. He was the perfect Pide Piper.

By the time F.W. came to power, people were tired of the face of his predecessor P.W. Botha.

P.W. Botha’s always serious and cynic face for the past ten years had become the subject of comical songs such as “Sit dit af” (Switch it off) by gay musician Johannes Kerkorrel who were referring to P.W. Botha’s constant talking head on SABC television.

Also Pieter Dirk-Uys a gay comedian started an entire satirical age against the National Party and P.W. Botha in particular, mocking him licking his lips and wagging his finger.

When De Klerk entered the stage, there was no more mocking…only praise and hope.

De Klerk, who is a chain smoker, never smoked in public or on the television. His perfect smile was regularly checked and cleaned for the cameras. His suit jackets swapped in order for him not to stink of smoke before important meetings. Everything about him was a false front. De Klerk became the new smiling puppet of his masters the major Anglo American business people involved in SA, and their spy agencies such as the CIA and MI6. He was their man that would deliver the riches of the treasure chest of the world into their laps.

Nevertheless, De Klerk was chosen to finally “Cross the Rubicon”.

Almost immediately after coming to power he started implementing the policies drawn up after the clandestine meeting at the old Sterrewag.

In September 1989 he allowed a demonstration of 35,000 dissident blacks, agitated by Communist forces, known as “The Big March” in full contravention of the State of Emergency.

On the 15th of October 1989 Walter Sisulu and seven other Marxist terrorists (sorry, political prisoners) were released. With De Klerk’s permission, they were welcomed back into Soweto at a huge ANC rally…the first in 25 years.

In the days after the fall of the Berlin Wall on the 9th of November 1989 that marked the end of the Cold War and the assumed end of the Communist threat to South Africa, De Klerk, on 16th November 1989 declared all beaches open and scrapped the Separate Amenities Act a cornerstone of Apartheid.

On 24 November 1989 he scrapped the Group Areas Act another cornerstone of Apartheid, in four “free settlement areas” that allowed blacks to live in white areas.

On the 13th of December, De Klerk entertained Nelson Mandela, a convicted Marxist terrorist, prisoner and mass murderer to a full banquet at Tuynhuis, his official residence in Cape Town…our equivalent of the White House…at full taxpayer expense.

One would think that all these gestures would have had a positive effect on the violence in South Africa at the time. Wrong! Quite the contrary.

As early as September 1989 the reports started streaming in via Roger Thurow of the Wall Street Journal, “Eleven dead in Mitchell’s Plain, four dead in Lavender Hill, and two dead in Khayelitsha. In all, church groups said 25 people died (police confirmed 12 deaths) and more than 100 were injured in the black townships around Cape Town…

Nevertheless the opening of parliament in the 2nd of February 1990 was drawing nearer. About 500 journalists from all over the world were congregating in Cape Town to hear F.W. de Klerk’s speech at the opening of parliament…would it be another disappointing Rubicon speech?

At this stage we need to halt and think what I said in Part 26 about the role of government, what the constitution is and what F.W. de Klerk did.

Remember that the constitution is a set of laws to control the government, not the people. The constitution is a set of laws spelling out what the Government can do…everything else is forbidden. The constitution states the basic individual rights of its citizens such as the right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. The sole purpose of government is to protect those rights.

When the South African public voted the National party into power (again) in 1987, they expected the social contract between the citizens and the government to be upheld and the government had no right to act outside of their mandate to rule as stated in the constitution.

So far we have seen that the National Party held a secret meeting at the Old Sterrewag a Military Intelligence conference place, on the 2nd of August 1985 and completely outside of their mandate conspired to hand the country over to Black Marxist Terrorists. This in itself is enough to try the entire previous NP government for conspiracy to commit treason.

The scrapping of the Separate Amenities Act as well as the Group Areas Act allowed dangerous Blacks and Coloured criminals into White communities . It endangered every single basic right that we allowed the government to exercise.

If one thinks back to the legal definition of treason, then not only were they betraying the citizens of South Africa, but actively supporting its well known enemies.

The release of legally convicted and highly dangerous terrorists such as Walter Sisulu and other Marxist terrorists without them having to denounce violence was a crime against the people of South Africa…Black and white…for the subsequent violence, terrorism and downright murder that followed across South Africa were directly orchestrated by them. It was a direct cause of F.W. De Klerk’s premature ejaculation to keep the Anti-Apartheid whores of the world happy.

I do not know how to emphasize this enough. We should never forget what a Constitution is and the limits it sets on government.

Within days of coming to power and within a few months thereafter, F.W. De Klerk and the NP were not only criminally acting against the constitution and outside of their mandate to rule, but also deliberately caused treason against ALL South Africans.

The government was constitutionally bound to protect ALL its citizens against the initiation of Force. The NP government was supposed to protect the safety of all its citizens.

History speaks for itself. The NP and De Klerk as State President. Failed magnanimously in their basic tasks as a government within the first few days of him coming to power.

1989 was not even out when we should have had them all on the stand for treason or conspiring to commit treason.

Considering that SA had the death penalty in place for treason in those days, I would say that F.W. de Klerk should consider himself lucky that he is still alive today. History shows the public killing their leaders for far less than what he had done

Anyway..If you think that was bad…wait for the next edition where more evidence of treason will be revealed.


  1. Anonymous2:40 am

    Very good !! There I had my daily dose .!

  2. Jamboth7:42 am

    Excellent!! Can't wait for the next episode!!

  3. Autoguy111:20 am

    What a load of Racist apartheid drivel. You should invite your other brain cell to tea so they can meet each other. Which planet have you arrived from its exactly because of people like you we went through hell in South Africa

  4. @Autoguy1…

    “Racist Apartheid drivel”?

    Surely then there must be “non-racist Apartheid drivel” . Care to give us some examples of “non-racist Apartheid”? Is “Racist” and “Apartheid” synonymous to you? If it is then you will have to define “Racist” and “Apartheid”.

    Who is this “We” that you refer to that “went through hell”…? Define this “Hell” that “We” experienced. Give some examples of this “Hell”.

    Your boring attempt at trying to be amusing by using clichés such as “two brain cells” and “What planet are you from” is a clear sign of your lack of originality and low intellect.

    Nevertheless, I am looking forward to your response.

  5. Anonymous3:55 am

    Typical response from uninformed individuals. Shout racism, shout Apartheid, blablabla. Care to dispute Mike's facts, Autoguy1? I'm also waiting for your reply in, hmmm, anticipation

    Krakende Kakebene

  6. Very nice. I enjoy what I read. But why did it happen? People in this country pretend to be Christians and God does not like it. All this is our punishment because we turned our back to God. Repent and accept the only One who can get us out of the current situation, Jesus Christ. Then and only then will things change. He told me even before the 1994 elections that this is going to happen. He said to me He is going to give us into the hand of our enemy until we turn back to Him. So, does not matter what says who or who does what, until we repent we will be under black rule.

  7. Anonymous10:30 pm

    My dear friend De Klerk is just a pouppet The New World Order runs things even with the ANC today,they control everything.They control everything.Our politicians are merely puppets.They get out of line the politicians get Fired or Killed by the New World Order.

  8. Anonymous5:15 pm

    "The ultimate question needs to be asked. What made F.W. de Klerk change his ideology from one of the most conservatives in the NP government to that of one of the most liberal?"

    I guess in the end, it boils down to F.W. de Klerk just being your average run of the mill professional politician. Professional in the sense that he is a politician merely for money.