Will Bantu Supremacy in South Africa Spark Another “Rwandan Genocide” Which Was Also Perpetrated by The Bantu?

The Zulu and Xhosa in South Africa and the Hutu in Rwanda, who committed the Rwandan Genocide, are all part of the same Bantu tribe and both are a Majority Government where oppression of the minorities, suppression of Freedom of Speech and racism and xenophobia are rife!

The Hutu, who committed the Rwandan Genocide, are from the same Bantu tribe as the Xhosa and Zulu in South Africa who now publicly sing “Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer“. Even Presidents mandela and Zuma sang this publicly on stage.

The almost daily occurrences of xenophobia, often deadly, on the part of the bantu against immigrants from elsewhere in Africa and the murder rate of 54 people per day should be a serious cause for concern.

What should be even more startling is that the Bantu are the majority government in South Africa, as they were in Rwanda, and therefore any warning signs of genocide will be quashed and not be given the appropriate treatment, despite being a signatory to the ICC’s Rome Accord. This should put in perspective the ANC regime’s decision to leave the International Criminal Court (ICC). It literally is like asking the wolf to guard the sheep.

Add to this the potent explosive cocktail of constant racial oppression against the minorities in South Africa and racebaiting and victimhood which the ruling Bantu use to excess for personal gain, self enrichment, political power and to settle personal scores or make headlines.

The Rwandan Genocide was a genocidal mass slaughter of Tutsi in Rwanda by members of the Bantu Hutu majority government.
The Hutu /ˈhuːtuː/, also known as the Abahutu, are part of the Bantu ethnic group which includes the the Zulu, Xhosa, Pedi, Sotho, Venda, Ndebele, Swazi, Shona, etc. etc in Southern Africa.

In South Africa Freedom of Speech has been so eroded that we have seen a person from the minority white race actually jailed for merely uttering a word, the dreaded, yet profitable for the bantu, “K” word, which stands for “kaffir“, a term the British brought from their Arab colonies and used to refer to the Bantu, which is derived from “kufar” which means unbeliever. Another white lady has been fined the equivalent of an annual salary simply for using this word in public. Yet a farm murder from the majority Bantu tribe is released with a mere slap on the wrist!


The tragic irony and joker card that allows all this to occur without being questioned? Any Bantu can simply say the word “Apartheid” or “Racist” and immediately be forgiven for any wrong doing! This excuse or “defense” for oppression and abuse has become endemic, institutional, systemic and almost instinctual and embedded as a default reaction. Literally!

There are 119 race based laws, rules and regulations which prevent whites from getting jobs or places at tertiary education institutions or government departments.

Will you be complicit in genocide and ignore this warning or will you do something to raise awareness and hopefully prevent another genocide? Will Bono be charged with incitement to genocide for his public denial of this genocide?

Consider yourself warned. When the South African Genocide is over, will you still pretend ignorance or regret not having done something to stop it? Raise awareness and share this now.

South African Genocide


With Every Genocide, the propaganda of a country first start to declare the victims a menace (eg. they are presented as oppressors and even racists) and when they start to be killed, the propaganda in the media ignores and downplays the extent of the ethnic murders, their numbers are questioned and they are presented to the citizens of the country as a public enemy and a threat.

Most citizens, who naturally respect authority, fall for this propaganda and even spread it.

In this way- their compassion is suppressed to the extent that they have no sympathy for the victims. They may even feel that the victims deserve to be murdered. The caricaturization of the victims make them foreign and distant to the regular citizen.
The human mind is easy to manipulate when the manipulation happens on a large scale and when the narrative is promoted and accepted as true by the majority.
The voices of the oppressed are ignored, usually until it is too late. Because they are castigated, marginalised and demonized, nobody listens to their cries for help. This is exactly what is being seen in South Africa with the murder of farmers. The issue is kept well hidden by the majority Bantu government and compliant mass media (who not only get their licence from the government, but make most of their profit from the majority). It is this land on which the Boers have traditionally farmed for generations that is coveted by the Bantu and their partners in crime, the socialists, as well as their conservative values that are hated by the powers that be.

“In the world we live in, history is being turned into modern day lies, and modern day lies are being turned into history”.



The southward Bantu occupation of sub-Saharan Africa (south of the Sahara), started some 2,000 years ago, with the introduction of crop farming and iron age technology from Nubia which made expansion, weaponry, conquest and supremacy possible.

The new crop farming from Egypt increased the population and necessitated an enlargement of territory, which led to the expansion of Bantu African black tribes from the Great Lakes in central Africa, to the colonisation all the way to the south of Africa. This was one of the largest human conquests in history!

A linguistically related group of about 60 million people originating in West and Equatorial Africa, gradually expanded their Empire down the continent into Southern Africa, killing all tribes in it’s path!

Why were there no written records or major buildings or any large established settlements / Cultures? Could it be that the entire sub-continent was a war zone and has been left depleted and destroyed?

How many cultures, nations, peoples, and populations were destroyed in this Genocidal Bantu Conquest?

What happened to the Sandawe, Hadza, Pygmy, San, Khoi Khoi and many other indigenous populations BEFORE whites arrived?

Contrary to popular “politically correct” propaganda put out by mass media, the Bantu, like Europeans, are also settler’s in Southern Africa, having arrived in Northern South Africa about the same time Europeans arrived in Southern South Africa (The Cape). The Bantu had arrived after an extended conquest and genocidal migration southwards from West Africa (Nigeria).

Etymology, history, origins and expansion of the proto-Bantu people of Africa: 

Bantu peoples are comprised of 300–600 ethnic groups in Africa who speak Bantu languages. Much like “European” includes various European languages The word Bantu and its variations means “people” or “humans”. Versions of this word occur in all Bantu languages.

About 2,000 years ago, speakers of the proto-Bantu language group began a millennia-long series of migrations eastward from their homeland in West Africa. Current scholarly understanding places the ancestral proto-Bantu homeland in West Africa near the present-day south-western border of Nigeria and Cameroon. Bantu-speaking communities reached the great Central African rain forest and later pioneering groups had emerged into the savannah in what are now the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, and Zambia. Another stream of migration, moving east was creating a major new population centre near the Great Lakes of East Africa, where a rich environment supported a dense population and extreme population explosion.

Movements by small groups to the south-east from the Great Lakes region were more rapid, with initial settlements widely dispersed near the coast and near rivers, due to harsh farming conditions in areas farther from water. Before the expansion of farming and herding Bantu language speaking peoples, Africa south of the equator was populated by neolithic hunting and foraging proto-Khoisan-speaking peoples, whose few remaining descendants, the Khoekhoe and San, now occupy the arid regions around the Kalahari desert.

The Hadza and Sandawe populations in Tanzania comprise the other modern hunter-forager remnant in 

Africa of these proto-Khoisan-speaking peoples. Over a period of many centuries, most hunting-foraging peoples were displaced and assimilated by incoming Bantu-speaking communities from West, North Central and Eastern Africa. There is no record of how many genocides this involved as whole tribes disappeared.

The Bantu expansion was a long series of physical migrations. Between the 14th and 15th centuries, Bantu states began to emerge in the Great Lakes region in the savannah south of the Central African rain-forest.
In Southern Africa on the Zambezi river, the Monomatapa kings built the famous Great Zimbabwe complex, the Bumbusi in Zimbabwe and Manyikeni in Mozambique.
From the 16th century onward, the processes of state formation among Bantu peoples increased in frequency. Examples of such Bantu states include the Lunda and Luba Empires of Angola, the Congo in the Great Lakes Region, the Buganda and Karagwe Kingdoms of Uganda and Tanzania and in Zambia / Zimbabwe region, the Mutapa Empire, Rozwi Empire and the Danamombe, Khami and Naletale Kingdoms of Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

Smaller pioneering groups reached modern-day KwaZulu-Natal along the coast and the modern-day Northern Province where they began to make contact with northward migrating white peoples from the Southern tip of Africa.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the flow of Bantu slaves from South-east Africa increased with the rise of the Omani Sultanate of Zanzibar and Tanzania. With the arrival of European colonialists, the Zanzibar Sultanate came into direct conflict with Portuguese and other Europeans along the East coast, leading to the fall of the Sultanate and the end of slave trading in the mid-20th century.
So REAL history (not fanciful, imagined ANC pan africanist nonsense) tells us that when Jan van Riebeek established a trading post at the Cape the Nguni tribes had barely began to reach Zimbabwe and Mozambique.


Today Bantu in South Africa often tell Afrikaners and other minorities such as the Coloureds, Indians, Chinese or Jews to’ adapt to their oppression, misrule and corruption or “Go Home”, implying that we, who have been born here, who hold legal citizenship through successive birthrights; should emigrate to Europe, Malaysia, India or Israel. That the only ones who have a legal claim to South Africa, all of it, are the blacks.

Blacks believe that they are ‘ indigenous to South Africa ‘ – but they are not: it was proven by DNA research. We are ALL settlers in South Africa. All South Africans are settlers, regardless of their skin colour, and their DNA carries the proof.
So says Dr Wilmot James, head of the African Genome Project, a distinguished academic, sociologist and, more recently, honorary professor of human genetics at the University of Cape Town.
Where is the archaeological proof that blacks ‘settled’ South Africa? Apart from a few scattered archaeological remains found of black culture in the far northern Transvaal prior to 1652, it is generally agreed that Blacks and Whites were contemporary settlers of South Africa. I use the term “Settler” loosely, because blacks never ‘settled’ South Africa, their presence was nomadic. Blacks were itinerants who traveled from place to place with no fixed home. Whole capital “cities” of grass huts could be moved if grazing was exhausted. They had no demarcated areas, no fences, no borders, no maps, no title deeds to proof ownership of any land apart from a verbal claim and mutual understanding that their temporary presence in a certain area in a certain period of time constituted “ownership” of the land. They left behind no foundations of buildings, no statues, no roads, no rock paintings, not a single proof of “settlement” of the land prior to the Whites settling South Africa.
The only rock paintings were made by the Bushmen and the Hottentots (Khoi-Khoi and San) in the caves they temporarily occupied. Blacks were pastoral-nomads and the Bushmen/Hottentots were hunter-gatherer- nomads. The UN has been asking the bantu ANC government to declare the Khoisan Bushman as indigenous First Nation status, the Bantu have refused for over a decade.


In fact, the pyramids of Egypt are proof of white settlement going back thousands of years – and also the Phoenicians settling Carthage and the Greeks settling Alexandria. The Arabs settled North Africa soon after the Prophet Mohammed died and the whites settled Southern Africa from 1652 onwards.
Today there are three Africa’s as Dr. Eschel Rhoodie calls it in his book “The Third Africa” (1968). Arabic up north, Black in the centre and Whites at the south. The White settlers of the Cape first came face to face with the Bantu around 1770 on the banks of the Great Fish River, 120 years after Van Riebeeck came to the Cape and 1,000 km east of Cape Town.

Bantu created their own homelands themselves, thanks to Shaka Zulu.
The common misbelief is that the ‘black tribes at the time were all living peacefully and in the spirit of ‘Ubuntu’ with each other in a virtual liberal paradise’. Nothing could be further from the truth. Shaka-Zulu was a genocidal maniac who wiped out some 2-million black people in the “Defecane”.
The Zulu tyrant Shaka, at the time was committing genocide against other tribes. Wiping out an estimated 2 million people in what is now known as the Defecane (great scattering). The Swazis and the Ndebeles fled back north in the direction of central Africa where they migrated from. The Sotho’s fled into the mountains of what is today, Lesotho. The rest of the smaller tribes huddled together trying to find strength in coalescing. That is the history of bantu South Africans that blacks prefer to ignore. that blacks drove other blacks off their land, not whites.
It is into this Maelstrom of black chaos that the Boers trekked in 1838. As far as they went they found large open sections of country uninhabited by anyone. Bantu tribes fleeing Shaka’s carnage grouped themselves into areas finding protection in concentrated numbers. This is how Sir Theophilus Shepstone later found the remnants of black refugees huddled together on self-created reserves. He just demarcated it in order to protect them from each other.

The creators of the Bantustans were not the Boers or the Whites, it was a black man called Shaka.”



Taking the South African constitution into consideration, this whole scale condemnation of and contempt towards a substantial population group of South Africa, can be regarded as hate speech. Zuma and mandela are known for singing “Kill the Boer (white people)” at ANC rallies where they speak of the ANC’s defeat of white colonial rule and the “settlers in our midst”.
Is the white Afrikaner nation a “settler nation” that dispossessed black people’s land, as black politicians so often assert?
To reach a valid historical perspective of the human relations pattern in present-day South Africa, one has to go back to the days of Columbus, close to five centuries ago.

In the 14th century, five years before Columbus set out on his trans-Atlantic voyage which resulted in the discovery of America, the Portuguese navigator, Bartholomew Diaz, reached the southern-most part of Africa. Here, in 1652 at the Cape of Good Hope, halfway between Europe and the East, the Dutch East India Company established a victualing station for passing East India men. The Dutch intended the station to be self-supporting, but this soon proved to be impracticable without allowing officials to settlers “free burghers”.

In 1657, the first free burghers were permitted to become private farmers, and in this way the foundations of a new nation in Africa were laid. The ranks of the original free men were subsequently strengthened by the people of Dutch, German and French descent. The term “boer” (farmer) was elevated to the honorable concept of “Boer”, with a wider connotation, viz.pioneer and settler. “Boer” became synonymous with the appellation “Afrikaner”, a term used as early as 1706 to denote people who had their roots in the African soil. Their permanent links with Africa were emphasized by the spontaneous and natural way in which the various 17th century Dutch dialects evolved into a new tongue, Afrikaans.

The only indigenous peoples to come in contact with the Boer-Afrikaner community, were nomadic Bushmen and Hottentot tribes. In the case of the Hottentots, deculturisation and the ravages of a series smallpox epidemics led to the disintegration of the main tribes and their subsequent progressive involvement with Negro and East Indian slaves, as well as with sailors, soldiers and people of other races, in the crystallization of a new ethnic group, the Cape Coloureds. A further element was admixed with the Cape Coloured community upon the arrival of Bantu tribes.

The Bantu tribes, the forefathers of the majority of modern day black people in South Africa, are established mainly in the part of the continent south of the Sahara desert. Today many local Black sophisticates prefer to be called Africans, a misleading appellation considering that contemporary Africa is the mother continent of a large number of different ethnic, racial, linguistic and religious entities.

The first meetings between Afrikaner farmers, or Boers, and black tribes took place during 1750-1770 roughly where the Eastern Cape is today. For an entire century, unaware of the existence of black tribes, Afrikaner farmers, who have mostly already been born on African soil, expanded their settlement to over 170 000 square kilometers (more than twice the size of Austria) of desolated and unoccupied land. Only towards the end of the 16th century did the Afrikaner farmers increasingly come into contact with Black tribes. In the 1770’s, some what thousand kilometers to the north-east of Cape Town, the Afrikaner migratory stream came into substantial contact with the vanguard of another migratory movement, namely the Xhosa-speaking tribe. They were the advance guard of a Black migratory movement from the vicinity of the Great Lakes of Central Africa. It would appear that by the end of the 15th century these tribes had moved as far as present-day Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. They probably crosses into the present-day Republic of South Africain appreciable numbers in the course of the 17th century – at about the same time as the Afrikaner free farmers’ settlement was expanding inland from the Cape of Good Hope.
The Black population movement into the area which later became known as British South Africa did not constitute a single coherent expansion.

It took the form of successive waves of small tribes representing four different Black ethnic groups – Nguni, Sotho, Venda and Tsonga – responding to the push and pull of economic conditions and tribal conflicts. These migratory tribes simply moved to wherever nature offered most and enemies threatened least. Among these migratory tribes the modern Western concept of a geo-politically defined country and land ownership was practically unknown. In the case of the white group this concept was strongly developed, and it was therefore quite natural for the Dutch Governor at the Cape to react to the White-Black contact situation by proclaiming in 1778 the Fish River as the official boundary between the two groups. This deliberate geographical demarcation, coupled with a recognition of the existence of specific Black territories, has remained the basis of the White-Black relationship pattern for many years.
After the Napoleonic Wars, the Cape of Good Hope was formally ceded to Britain. From 1806 on wards, relatively large numbers of English, Scottish and Irish settlers arrived at the Cape.

The Boer trekkers, increasingly dissatisfied with British colonial rule and with a growing sense of independence, decided to leave British jurisdiction. From 1835 onwards – at about the same time that the American pioneers undertook their famous westward trek – nearly a quarter of the Cape’s White population left the colony in a series of organized movements, collectively known as the Great Trek. The movement coursed over vast tracts of empty land. Areas that had been inhabited by migratory Bantu tribes had become depopulated as a result of the “Mfecane” (the “crushing”) – a series of Black, specifically Zulu, reigns of terror. For nearly a quarter of a century, there was an era of internecine warfare characterized by the most appalling bloodshed and devastation. The impis (regiments) of the Zulu king, Shaka, reigned supreme in Natal and even penetrated the Transvaal across the Drakensberg Mountains, leaving a trail of destruction, exterminating or dispersing all other tribes with which they came into contact. Shaka was not the only ruler responsible for this kind of destruction. Mzilikazi, one of his former lieutenants, broke away from the Zulu king and established a following of his own – the Matabele tribe.

The Boer trekkers who moved into Natal encountered various Zulu tribes. In February 1838 Piet Retief, the leader of the trekkers, negotiated with Dingaan, the Zulu king and successor to Shaka, and obtained from him a document granting the trekkers “the place called Port Natal, together with all the land from the Tugela to the Umzimvubu rivers…”. Before Retief and his party could return to their people they were murdered in Dingaan’s kraal. The written contract, was however retrieved by the trekkers and still exists today.
In the light of this, the claim that the Afrikaner nation is a “settler nation” is unfounded and historically incorrect. Considering that the first Whites at the Cape arrived only 32 years after the Pilgrim Fathers set foot on American soil in 1620, it would be fallacious to label present-day White South African society a still a settler or immigrant community.



In fact, there were stable White communities in the South African interior before the founding of most of the Latin American republics. The first West European arrivals at the Cape antedated the colonization of Australia (1788) and New Zealand (1790) by 136 and 138 years respectively. The white community was also economically settled on unoccupied or negotiated land before the most and major black tribes even crossed the modern day borders of South Africa.


Coming closer to the present time, one cannot ignore the significance of the White South African nation’s role in the two world wars, amongst others as a founding member of the the League of Nations and the United Nations.
The white South African nation has been created by the historical forces of more than four centuries. Measured against all accepted historical and demographic criteria, this nation exists as an integral part of the African continent’s socio-political structure.



Today, the Whites of the Republic of South Africa rightfully consider themselves a permanent established African nation, geo-politically rooted in a part of the continent which has in the course of more than four centuries become their only motherland.”


Don V

See also: 4.6 Million (10%) of SA Blacks (Bantu) live in 7,000 100% race pure Bantu towns, NO Coloreds, Whites or Asians at all!