To talk of morals in a country run by ANC thugs is bizarre. Nothing was morally defensible about the way your ANC co-negotiators bombed, terrorised, intimidated and necklaced their way to power, mostly against their own people

Thought you'd be interested in this exchange of letters. It started out with the Farmer's Weekly giving TWO PAGES to F.W. de Klerk's excuses for his dishonesty and treason. Of course Farmer's Weekly didn't print Ms. Lawrence's reply. But Mr. Steward of the FW de Klerk Foundation stepped in he's paid to do this of course, and his reply speaks for itself.

Dear Madam,

Herewith all correspondence as requested.

Dear Mr. Steward

It has taken me some time to get over your reply. I wondered for a while whether we were on the same planet. Both Mr. De Klerk and yourself trying to convince me that we are now living in a "better South Africa" was bad for my health!

First of all, how dare you assert that you are the chosen ones who alone understand "the complexities of the negotiation process". There are no "complexities" when negotiating with communists who talk at the table with the machine gun hanging on a hook outside the door. (Remember the Chris Hani cry that "we will make this country ungovernable unless we get what we want! We will turn it into a asteland!").

To talk of morals in a country run by ANC thugs is bizarre. Nothing was morally defensible about the way your ANC co-negotiators bombed, terrorised, intimidated and necklaced their way to power, mostly against their own people. The reason you caved in to them was because of their savage violence. You couldn't handle it and you weighed up either fighting them on their own terms and ending up with a tough struggle on both sides, or retaining your comforts in a faux "power-sharing" charade which you then punted to your supporters. A nice additional bonus was de Klerk's approbation from the so-called international community.

If de Klerk and his ilk hadn't told so many lies - if he had declared to his supporters that there were no soft options available - it was either an ANC government, or a non-negotiable demand for a piece of South Africa for those who would not accept the ANC, we might have had a chance. At least we would have known where we stood. Remember, the ANC was nothing on its own. It had a few lawyers, lots of talkers and necklacers but nobody who could run a country, let alone feed a country. It needed the whites. We had some bargaining chips, but de Klerk never used them. He was too busy pulling the wool over the whites' eyes in a fraudulent referendum based on a spurious question about "continuing negotiations with the ANC". He had his eye on an international seal of approval and its concomitant perks: the speech circuit, a Nobel Prize and a status conferred by the ignorant on the indefensible.

His lack of honesty with his voters is what irks me. De Klerk and his Broederbond cohorts decided way back in the early eighties that they couldn't hold the line. INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE ELECTORATE WITH THEIR FEARS, they carried on promising their voters that the NP policy of own schools and own residential areas was inviolable. NP MP Roelf Meyer was punting these whoppers in 1983/4 already to the hapless white voters of Hillbrow, and those poor souls believed him. At the same time, de Klerk's National Party quietly instructed the then Attorney General not to prosecute group areas infractions in that area, pretending all the while to uphold this very law! It's the deceit that gets in my craw. The de Klerk catastrophe was exacerbated by deception. If you recall, the original NP policy was separate development, not domination. Who in their right mind would want to "dominate" and carry the can for millions of unemployable parasites whose population growth was unstoppable? Dominate? You've got to be kidding! "Carrying the burden" would be a better description. Millions of whites regularly voted for separation, knowing that once the "democratic" tiger was unleashed, we would get what we've got right now. (Those who punted a unitary state are either today bleating from the sidelines or they've relocated to Australia!)

De Klerk and the NP kept up the separate development policy charade, fooling their supporters into believing that they'd never give in to the ANC. I heard it with my own ears, and saw it with my own eyes."Negotiations" with the ANC, far from being "complex", was simply a game of "what can we get out of a handover when it comes" from the NP's side. De Klerk knew he'd give in right from the word go - an NP Cape newspaper editor stated unambiguously that apartheid didn't work because "we didn't want it to work". So a deal was made behind the scenes in other lands: that the NP and its friends would maintain their status quos, their properties, their businesses and their bank balances. In return, they promised to tamp down any right-wing resistance by luring patriotics who hated the thought of an ANC government, out of the woodwork. Hence plans by the Security Police to set up the Boeremag, as one example - these infiltrators were quite open about their methods and expressed this in court. A further promise to attack their right wing was made by the Broederbond-controlled Afrikaans press.

If de Klerk had said in the mid 1980's that NP policy would result in the ANC taking over, that a constitution they created wouldn't be worth a row of beans, that the country would sink into a pit of corruption and violence, that the police and defence forces would be destroyed, that millions would

> stream over our borders and squat in our cities, that we would become the murder and rape capital of the world and that foreign gangsters would descend upon us in droves to take over key elements of our economy, who would have kept de Klerk in power? Who would have voted for him? He would have been out on his ear. If he had told us then we would end up with a president facing 683 criminal charges for which he won't be punished, that scandals involving corruption, theft on a grand scale and gross incompetence would be the hallmarks of his government, how many whites would have voted for that?

The million or so whites who left South Africa after 1994 would certainly not have voted for that. But they voted for his deviously-phrased little question about "continuing negotiations" with the ANC because no one spelt out what the ANC would mean to South Africa. They believed the NP and de Klerk, to their peril. Communist Joe Slovo was smart. He knew what mattered to de Klerk and his friends - their comforts trumped a messy fight hands down. Slovo ensured the handover would go without too much huffing and puffing by inserting the infamous "sunset clause" which gave the de Klerk cabal the personal

Security they wanted. This was confirmed when none of them went to jail after the TRC disclosures, while some of their foot soldiers are still incarcerated.

That is the background. Now to the practicalities. There's no point in telling us, Mr. Steward, what a wonderful constitution we have and that you are now "combating attempts to undermine the constitution" by the ANC. How are you combating these attempts? The ANC despises you, de Klerk and all those who caved in to them. Cyril Ramaphosa told a TV interviewer he was surprised at how easily Rolf Meyer capitulated. How are you going to "combat" the ANC's destruction of South Africa? How will you bring them to book for stealing us all blind, for their incompetence, their cavalier unaccountability and their obtuse arrogance in being unable to see just how hopeless they are? Can you change their DNA? How will you "combat" their unions' assault on the country's mining industry? How will you encourage investors now that the country's labour laws are so onerous as to disable industry? Can you "combat" the wholesale murders of our farmers? What is your "combat" plan to save the ANC's destruction of productive farms under their ridiculous land redistribution program? You say you are "trying to protect my rights" How? By press releases? By $50,000 dollar speeches overseas? You say I am whinging and sitting on the sidelines". Well, tell me what to do to "protect my rights"? Tell me how to avenge my three family members who have been murdered, and the seven friends who have been assaulted, tortured and then murdered.   For your information I've read the constitution, and it is only as good as those who want to see it work. Knowing the ANC as I do, these rights I'm supposed to have under the constitution are not worth a row of beans. The ANC has all the power, it has absolute power (where in the world do cabinet ministers ignore court orders?) and all your "morally defensible" efforts will have no effect on the worse government this country has ever had.

And don't even think that power can be wrested back from the ANC gangsters they will defend it the way those to the north of us defended it – with violence, because this is all they understand and this is why you gave in to them, not because of any moral principles. You couldn't stand up to them and tell them they couldn't live for a week without the whites, and this is what the whites want (at least those who didn't want the ANC), and this is non-negotiable, Mr. Mandela - take it or leave it! They would have backed down because they can't feed themselves. They can't really do anything except talk, steal and destroy.

You imply that all the above was a price we had to pay to watch the Proteas and the Springboks. You say "please do not travel abroad" (we travelled every year abroad under apartheid where we were welcomed with open arms!). Under the ANC, our South African passports have been so debased that many of us cannot afford the expensive visas now imposed throughout the world because a South African passport cannot be trusted. You talk rubbish, Mr. Steward. You peddled apartheid for a salary when you worked for the previous government's Department of Information, and you are peddling de Klerk's deceit for a salary now.   I guess you need the job.

Yours faithfully

B Lawrence

Midvaal

From: Hierdie e-posadres word van Spambotte beskerm. Jy moet JavaScript ontsper om dit te lees.

To: Hierdie e-posadres word van Spambotte beskerm. Jy moet JavaScript ontsper om dit te lees.

CC: Hierdie e-posadres word van Spambotte beskerm. Jy moet JavaScript ontsper om dit te lees.

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:48:38 +0200

Subject: RE: F.W. de Klerk

Mrs Lawrence

Do you imagine for a moment that it was in any way possible - or morally defensible - to continue with white domination forever? Do you really think that whites - who comprise 10% of the population -

Could have maintained some kind of veto over a democratically elected government? What on earth do you know - or understand - of the complexities of the negotiation process? Do you really think that it would have been possible in the prevailing circumstances to negotiate a better constitution? The ANC

itself still complains bitterly about the concessions that it was forced to make.

The constitution that FW de Klerk succeeded in negotiating contains all the elements necessary to protect your rights and the rights of all South Africans. It places serious limitations on the ability of Government to act as it pleases.   It makes provision for a genuine democracy under the rule of law and includes a justiciable Bill of Rights. This constitution has enabled most of the members of the white community to prosper since 1994 (In fact, whites have done better than any other community. White unemployment is a 7% compared with black unemployment of over 40%). It has created the environment in which we could experience uninterrupted economic growth for the past 20 years - with the exception of 2009.   It has allowed us to return to the international community, to trade freely with the world and to participate in international sport . Please do not watch the Proteas or the Springboks again - because without the contribution of De Klerk - the man you despise - they would long ago have ceased to exist. Please do not travel abroad - because without the agreements we achieved you would no longer be able to do so. Please do not buy imported cars or products - because they would no longer be available. If you, or your family, are involved in a business the chances are that by now it would have been bankrupted. If you have sons consider that by this time they would be spending 6 months a year fighting on our borders or in our townships - just as the Rhodesians did toward the end.

The problems that we now experience do not have their source in the constitution that FW de Klerk negotiated - but in the misrule and corruption of the ANC. The ANC government is repeatedly and increasingly violating the constitution and the principles that it contains. FW de Klerk, at the age of 77,

continues to stand steadfastly by the agreements that he negotiated because he believes he has a continuing duty to all those South Africans how supported him during the negotiations - to do so. The FW de Klerk Foundation and our Centre for Constitutional Rights are at the forefront in combating attempts to undermine the constitution - in the media, in Chapter 9 institutions, in the political debate and in the courts. For more information on the manner in which we are trying to protect your rights -

and the rights of all South Africans - visit our website at www.fwdeklerk .org.

What are you doing to claim and protect your rights - apart from sitting on the sidelines, whinging and criticising those who continue to work for a better South Africa? My recommendation to you is this: read the constitution; do everything you can to defend it; assist those - like ourselves - who are working night and day to defend your rights; join the political party of your choice; use the democratic rights that the constitution grants you.

Sincerely

Dave Steward

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

From: Bess Lawrence [mailto:Hierdie e-posadres word van Spambotte beskerm. Jy moet JavaScript ontsper om dit te lees.]

Sent: 14 November 2013 09:06 AM

To: David Steward

Subject: FW: F.W. de Klerk

F.W. de Klerk

The FW de Klerk Foundation.

Attention: Mr. Steward.

Dear Mr Steward,

Herewith a copy of a letter which I sent to Farmer's Weekly in response to his article. Would you kindly give the letter to Mr de Klerk.

Regards,

B. Lawrence,

Midvaal.

From: Hierdie e-posadres word van Spambotte beskerm. Jy moet JavaScript ontsper om dit te lees.

To: Hierdie e-posadres word van Spambotte beskerm. Jy moet JavaScript ontsper om dit te lees.

Subject: F.W. de Klerk

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:47:31 +0200

Dear Sirs,

Firstly I am surprised that your magazine has given two pages to Mr. FW de Klerk trying to justify his political behavior in a magazine devoted to agricultural matters. Now that you have opened the doors, please allow me to reply to him.

His article is as deceptive and duplicitous as were his actions in the eighties and nineties. Let it be said that had he gone to his voters with the truth - that his actions would lead to an ANC government with little or no chance of ever getting them out of power, it is doubtful if he would have received ten votes from his electorate. He says so himself, stating that had he "raced ahead of the pack" and told us all what was in store, he would never have been able to bamboozle the electorate the way he did, with his

subterfuge and his "checks and balances" - guarantees which came to nothing. And to try and fool us now with comparisons to Charles Darwin's findings in the Galapagos Islands takes his deceit to even greater depths. Indeed change and adaptation were the core necessities to the survival of the species, and Darwin often used the birds of the different islands to illustrate this. But the birds (and the other species) adapted to change to IMPROVE their chances of survival. Here in South Africa, Mr. De Klerk's

change has sentenced the people of South Africa to a seriously ominous future (never mind a dire present!) under the worst government this country has ever had. Would anyone in their right minds have willingly voted for an ANC government if Mr. De Klerk had put the truth before the referendum

voters, that there would be no option other than an ANC government in store for South Africa? How many people would have voted for that? He bamboozled the voters with his nebulous statement about "negotiations" with the communists, and because he was head of the National Party, many voters fell

for his most people fell for his treachery. He talked of a "reform" program -what has been reformed under the ANC except the capacity to steal everything in sight?

We are now told that we must "manage" change? How do you "manage" an ANC dictatorship masquerading as a democracy? How do you adapt to the wholesale plunder of our country? Must we adapt to the murder of our farmers (double the rate for policemen and four times the so-called normal murder rate?)? Must we be content with our education system now right at the very bottom of

the world's ratings, and just avert our eyes to the baby rapes and the other rapes that occur every few minutes? Mr. De Klerk's two page soliloquy is a pathetic attempt to excuse his actions: we had no choice, he claims, we were isolated, we couldn't play sport, and so forth. But what he doesn't mention is that he and his party continued to assure their voters they wouldn't be abandoned, that they would still have their own residential areas and schools, and that their security would be in the bag with "power sharing". Wherever has there been power sharing in Africa?

In the mid eighties when he and his National Party were fighting elections on these promises, some NP luminaries were secretly talking to the ANC: they had in effect already conceded power. They were actually discussing how to secure their own positions under an ANC government, so they "power shared" with the ANC for five years under Joe Slovo's sunset clause to ensure their pensions, and to dupe their voters into believing they were indeed "in power" with the communist revolutionaries and, yes, murderers and terrorists.

I think it's a disgrace for FW de Klerk to be given editorial space. We are living in the murder and rape capital of the world, where the assets of the people are being stolen, where accountability and shame are nowhere to be seen, and where our justice system, our infrastructure and our international

reputation are being daily sullied by those who threatened all of us that South Africa would be a wasteland if they didn't get their way. Violence always worked for the ANC, and it still works, they having brought our mining industry to its knees. Our wildlife (700 rhinos killed this year alone) is being decimated, our passports have been debased, drug lords from Africa have taken over sections of our cities, and our president – facing nearly 700 charges of fraud - is trying to manipulate the justice system to avoid appearing in court.

If Mr. De Klerk believes we are now living a "positive environment", then he's obviously residing most of his time in his Mayfair flat. Maybe he is ignorant of what's going on, or maybe he's simply a dishonest charlatan. He is a stain on the history of South Africa and the fact that he uses the Farmers Weekly (farmers are murdered with horrifying savagery) to excuse his chicanery is even more insulting.

B. Lawrence

Midvaal.

You may find these words hard, but what we are suffering now after his handover is hard. It is tragic.