24 October, 2006

Boer Song

Posted by alex in South Africa at 2:32 pm | Permanent Link

I am a Boer in exile, and this music video made me cry.

This is a song about Gen. Koos de la Rey who was a bittereinder general in the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902. In this infamous war, the British, acting as proxies for Rothschild, Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Beit and the rest of the Jewish gold and diamond mine owners, conducted a scorched earth policy in which they not only burned the Boers’ houses and crops in the field, and slaughtered all their livestock, but put the women and children in the first concentration camps in the world in which one fifth of the Boer population perished, due to starvation and disease. This was indeed an attempt to genocide the Boers. However, the Boers gave the Brits the worst hiding in their history, even when towards the end of the war, they were fighting by ambushing the Brit supply lines and using their own ammunition against them Today, as the Boers are in the midst of another genocidal attack, another proxy by the same forces, the song asks “De la Rey, will you come and lead the Boers?” (We’re ready…) Hope you enjoy this as much as I did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGh4lA1S7yc&mode=related&search=


  • 14 Responses to “Boer Song”

    1. Celtic Warrior Says:

      Yep, for centuries the enslaved British people have been used as cat’s paws in the jew global plan. Kissing the kike ass hasn’t helped them one bit, they are marked for extinction like the rest of the White world.

      The Boer republics were forced into the conflict, but in retrospect they fought too early. If they could have held onto their independence for another 10 years the outcome would have been different.

      WN can learn from the Boer experience.

    2. Carpenter Says:

      It is important to not get too carried away when Whites have been at war with each other. When Whites have fought each other over territory, it is regrettable we may think, but it is simply human nature, the instinct to expand. When Whites have gone to war because of Jewish media, lobby groups and politicians, we must keep in mind that some of these Whites are duped, while others are controlled and silenced. Those on the other side, the people the Jews want occupied, would also have fought for the Jews, if they had been controlled the same way. There are no supermen. No people is blessed with inherent immunity against propaganda and control.

      That said, of course we should hope that something can be saved for the Boers; that some time in the future, the South Africa built by Boers and British can be restored, this time sans an anti-White Boer church, and gullible Boers and Brits listening to it every Sunday, until they give away what is theirs.

    3. jimbo Says:

      the ONLY CHANCE for the remaining whites in Sth Afreaka now is: ARM YR-SELVES TO THE TEETH, ORGANISE, RISE UP & START KILLING NIGGAz IN GREAT, BLEEDING BATCHEs!

    4. Mati The Estonian Says:

      I think whites should go out of Africa for 100 years – then it will be empty space again …

    5. bryan o'driscoll Says:

      If the mentality of the Bittereinders had been prevalent among the Boers in the 1970/80s when South Africa was a militarily powerful, white-run country then the disaster of the last twenty years in southern Africa would not have happened. A policy of no compromise would have kicked out the kike trouble makers and the jew controlled Americans and British would have been ordered to stop interfering in the country’s internal affairs. A couple of Sharpsville incidents and the hanging of uppity nogs like Mandella would have quickly had the savages back in their kraals. However, like in all white countries, the Boer leadership, political and religious, was corrupt and degenerate and they sold out their own people. If the remaining South African whites did take jimbo’s advice and managed to gain some military control of the county again how long do you think it would be before American and British, or UN, troops were invading to ‘restore democracy and multiculturism’? I think that the only hope for the whites there, and perhaps everywhere, is the destruction of the Jew World Order.

    6. Timothy Says:

      The “British” Empire would be more accurately referred to as the Yiddish Empire.
      100 years later ,nothing has changed except that America is now the catspaw of international Jewry.

    7. steven clark Says:

      I can understand the condemnations about jews, but try to understand if South Africa didn’t have so many blacks allowed in, there wouldn’t have been such a chance to destroy it. If the Boers had been like the Americans and simply driven the natives out, much of the black problem would have been solved. The South Africans, Boers and English, depended too much on their black servants, thought them a necessity and could ‘advance them’, and paid the price. Had there been a labor market of europeans only, there wouldn’t have been such a huge crush of blacks, and they were used as the shock troops of those who wished to destroy South Africa. Never…NEVER import cheap slave labor. The current Mexican problem in America is simply the Apartheid problem transferred to America.

    8. alex Says:

      South African Gold: Still Prey for the British Lion

      By

      Reg Howe

      February 12, 2001

      Not until eighty years after the war began did Thomas Pakenham publish his authoritative history, The Boer War (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1979; Abacus paperback edition, 1992, reprinted 2000, to which all page cites refer). Relying on material largely unavailable earlier, Pakenham emphasizes at the outset that he uncovered four new themes. Two of them are particularly relevant today, as is a third point summarized by the heading — “Milner’s War” — given to Part 1 of the book.

      Cecil Rhodes conceived and funded the notorious Jameson Raid, now generally perceived as the war’s opening battle although it preceded the declaration of war by almost four years. However, prior historians assumed that Rhodes, Alfred Beit and Julius Wernher, who collectively controlled the richest gold mines of the Rand, were not directly involved in causing the war in 1899. “But directly concerned they were,” says Pakenham (p. xvi), who adds (pp. xvi-xvii): “I have found evidence here of an informal alliance between Sir Alfred Milner, the British High Commissioner, and the firm of Wernher-Beit, the dominant Rand mining house. It was this secret alliance, I believe, that gave Milner the strength to precipitate the war.”

      The gold mining companies were prepared to endure the certain disruptions and costs of war to secure two important long term advantages which they expected a British administration to deliver: (1) more favorable tax treatment than under President Kruger’s Boer government; and (2) a plentiful and reliable supply of cheap black labor. “What made [the gold mining moguls] such wonderful allies was that they repeated over and over again the dictum that there would be no war — that is, if Britain called Kruger’s bluff and sent out the troops,” writes Pakenham (p. 89). He adds (id.): “Possibly Rhodes believed his own forecasts. But Beit, Wernher and Fitzpatrick knew the Boers. The dispatch of British troops would precipitate war.”

      The second new theme underlined by Pakenham is that the heaviest burden of what contemporaries labeled a “white man’s war” fell on South Africa’s black and coloured populations. Not that the main protagonists did not suffer enormously. In men, money and materiel, it was Britain’s costliest war since the defeat of Napoleon, not to be outdone until World War I. Relatively speaking, the costs to the Boers of their “Second War of Independence” were even higher. But, says Pakenham (p. xvii): “In general it was the Africans who had to pay the heaviest price in the war and its aftermath.” Adding insult to injury, in the Treaty of Vereeniging ending the conflict, the British agreed to a provision postponing the franchise for blacks and coloureds until after the introduction of self-government, when of course the local white population would not grant it.

      Perhaps the most startling point to emerge from Pakenham’s book is that absent one man, Alfred Milner, British viceroy of South Africa, the war would never have occurred. Motivated by his belief in Britain’s imperial role and a personal ambition to rank among its heroes, Milner hoodwinked his own government into waging war over a controversy that it desired to settle by negotiation and compromise. The public justification for the war — to secure the franchise and fair treatment for the Uitlanders, white and mostly British immigrants who had followed the gold rush into the Transvaal — was largely a sham. Worse, with the aid of a few like-minded friends as well as the gold mining interests, Milner deceived his superiors, including the Colonial Secretary and the Prime Minister, regarding the actual course and content of his negotiations with the Boer government. Referring to the war as “Milner’s War” is no exaggeration; it is the simple truth.

      About the time that he assumed office, President Kennedy remarked that modern statesmen ought to read Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August. His successful handling of the Cuban missile crisis suggests that he profited from his own advice. Pakenham’s The Boer War is similar must reading for anyone concerned with modern South Africa or today’s gold market. Against this history, the gold price fixing allegations of my Complaint are scarcely far-fetched. Rather, they read like a new variation on an old theme: the plunder of South Africa’s gold reserves for the primary use and benefit of British and other outside interests.

      The gold cabal orchestrated by top officials of the Clinton administration and the Blair government, with maestro Alan Greenspan and assistant Eddie George directing the BIS ensemble, bears uncanny resemblance to the machinations that brought on the Boer War. Motivated by ambition and greed, cloaked in deceit, both schemes set political power and private profits as their ultimate goal. Both required cunning, Machiavellian leadership. Elements of Milner are readily apparent in Mr. Greenspan, self-described as “among those of us engaged to replace [the gold standard],” that is, to create the economic version of alchemy. Reeking of world class hypocrisy, the IMF gold sales were no more proposed for the benefit of poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa than the Boer War was prosecuted to secure the franchise and other democratic rights for the Uitlanders.

      When the British lion roared its defiance of Hitler through the mouth of Winston Churchill, South Africa stood by it notwithstanding painful memories of the Boer War. But the British lion is not like the African lion from whose paw Androcles pulled the thorn. Rather, the British lion displays today the same morality that it seems to have taught its most famous Rhodes scholar, recently departed from the White House: “What have you done for me lately?”

      Speaking at the Indaba African Mining Conference last week, one African minister warned that democratic governments cannot expect to take permanent root in developing countries unless they deliver measurably improved living conditions within reasonable time frames. Nor can they succeed unless they provide the basic building blocks of republican democracy: the rule of law, free markets and sound money. Gold mining remains a mainstay of the South African economy, which dominates that of the whole sub-Saharan region. It is hard to imagine anything that would do more to stimulate economic growth in the area than an increase in gold prices from the low levels set by manipulation to their more natural equilibrium now estimated by some at around $500/oz.

      To most Americans, strong U.S. support both for the new multiracial government in South Africa and for other African nations trying to move toward stable democratic regimes appears unquestionably in the national interest. Few would accept that U.S. policy in the region should be hijacked by the Fed for the benefit of a few bullion banks, let alone that the Fed and the Exchange Stabilization Fund should conspire with the BIS and the British government to manipulate the free market price of gold. On the birthday of America’s Great Emancipator, the new administration in Washington should make clear that its policies toward South Africa and its neighbors will be governed by the law, the Constitution and the national interest.

      But it would be a mistake to conclude that the future of South Africa or its gold mining industry rests in the hands of officials in Washington, London, or elsewhere outside South Africa. It is a nation rich in human as well as natural resources, and possessed of considerable spiritual resources as well. More like the United States than Canada or Australia, South Africa never lived comfortably with the British lion, and completely withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1961. Its great military battles are its own, not engagements in foreign lands on behalf of the Crown.

    9. Celtic Warrior Says:

      I read sometime ago that Alfred Milner contributed to Lenin’s funding in 1917. The documentary evidence linking Schiff and Warburg to the “Russian” revolution is well established, but can somebody provide details of Milner’s activities?

    10. planter Says:

      General De la Rey was known as the “Lion of the West”, but don’t forget about Christiaan de Wet, the original Desert Fox. He was the only fox the British couldn’t catch. The many books written about the Boer War, including de Wet’s own, make fascinating reading and also show how to carry out a classic guerrilla war against conventional armies.

    11. Carpenter Says:

      The “British” Empire would be more accurately referred to as the Yiddish Empire.

      So gross an exaggeration that it isn’t an exaggeration any longer, but a lie. There were Jews in England. They had political influence. But the Empire was not founded through some plan to further their interests. It is natural for a people to expand its territory when it can do so.

    12. Carpenter Says:

      Fun fact: the Boers invented the camouflage uniform, or so the story goes, when fighting the English forces. There is a lesson there. They adapted and broke with centuries of tradition regarding fancy uniforms, opting instead for what worked better. Some would scoff at it and say it isn’t honorable to hide, I am sure. But it works. And the only thing that matters in the end is winning and making sure your people lives on.

    13. jimbo Says:

      re: good stuff from Herr Linder: re: origins of the Boer War.
      I just think some might be blaming Cecil Rhodes a bit too much: he demonstrated some sterling pioneer qualities as per his Aryan ancestry: re: his suppression of the Zulu menace and the carving out of a white home-land(Rhodesia).

      The machinations leading to that un-fortunate fratricidal conflict were, as the article states, doubtlessly the bad work of Sir Alfred Milner; un-questionably a chabbez-goi and probably a ‘free-mason’ to boot!
      (the internment of white Boers in concentration camps, their subsequent mis-treatment: re: starvation and the destruction and confiscation of Boer land and property smacks, of course, of Talmudic direction behind the scenes….and masonic “step ‘n’ fetchits” as the ‘go-fers’!)

      Aussies have always felt a certain brotherly kin-ship with the Boers: in spite of our involvement on the side of the Brits 100 or so yrs ago: they are viewed as a people with a similar pioneering spirit and a similar heritage(despite the language difference)!

      Also: re: the above: un-fortunately, Aussies also adopted the Boer practice of using non-white servants and having them near their settlements: hence: the current problem in Oz with ½ &
      ¼-breed Aboriginals.

      Nevertheless: WRT these cmmnts:
      “More like the United States than Canada or Australia, South Africa never lived comfortably with the British lion and completely withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1961”…..that is TRUE AFA it goes: re: military & governmental intstitutions; however, in the important area of miscegnation: Aussies are more like the Boers: overall: they despise and shun non-whites AFA ‘inter-breeding’ is concerned: they may use them as ‘servants’ or ‘cheap labour’ but they don’t race-mix!….and THEY DON’T VIEW THEM AS ‘equals’ as per: the mis-guided ‘religiousity’ of the JewSA!

      A similar aversion to the Boers as per close association with non-whites and a desire for ‘separation’ was, of course, demonstrated by the long-standing White Australia Policy; which, in one form or another, went bact to Australian Federation…i.e: about the time of the Boer War.

      Sir Edmund Barton, the first Prime Minister of Australia and
      Alfred Deakin, his Attorney-General and later three-times Prime Minister were avid and determined advocates of a ‘white Australia’ and that “these fair shores should not be stained by impure blood”
      (Alfred Deakin: a great Australian and a PROUD WHITE MAN!)

      Billy Hughes, Oz’s WWI prime-minister, was ALSO a fervid advocate for a White Australia and was absolutely determined that the sacrifice of tens of thousands of Aussie lives in the trenches of the Western Front should NOT be for NOTHING: he DEMANDED (and got!) guarantees @ the Versailles Peace Conference that Australia would ‘remain white’ and that non-white immigration would not occur: much to the chagrin of chabbez-gois like Woodrow Wilson!

      The White Australia Policy was continued after World War Two by Arthur Calwell, a devout Roman Catholic, staunch trade-unionist, leader of the Australian Labor Party and Minister for Immigration……it was Calwell who was largely instrumental in bringing large n°s of white European migrants to Oz to work on the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme

      It was only with the disastrous jew-engineered ‘counter-cultural revolutions’ of the 1960s & 1970s, following hard-on-the-heels of the catastrophic defeat of that ‘Great White Hope’, the Third Reich, that the widely-popular White Australia Poicy was finally over-turned!

      *foot-note!*
      “It is hard to imagine anything that would do more to stimulate economic growth in the area than an increase in gold prices from the low levels set by manipulation to their more natural equilibrium now estimated by some at around $500/oz”

      shouldn’t that be $US5000 per ounce?
      my under-standing is that the price of gold, a scarcer commodity than diamonds, apparently, is kept artificially LOW so that the kikez can snaffle ALL the RESERVES and, then, let the price reach it’s ‘natural level’: i.e: $$$thousands$$$ per ounce NOT $$$hundreds$$$ !

    14. Celtic Warrior Says:

      British Empire = yiddish Empire, it is an exaggeration but the statement contains more than a grain of truth.

      The British leadership class of the last 300 years appear to be completely permeated with Talmudic poison. To get an appreciation of this read any of William Cobbett’s writings. Cobbett was a proud Englishman, though in no way chauvinistic, writing in the early 19th century of the sufferings of the British people.

      An ancestral WN!