1.1.: While ANY change will have people who benefit and people who become worse off, the fact that black living standards and economic measures have declined while they rose under Apartheid is a critical fact.

1.2. One would naturally expect that the “high status” of white “interior ministry police” types would drop in a transition from a repressive white rule. (just emphasizing point 1.1) –if that was the only “bad aspect” of the transition, it would not be worth writing a fortune cookie over, not to mention a well documented book.

1.3 Thus, the fact that South Africa is going to hell for blacks as well as whites is also a perfect example of why your book is a defense of “classical liberalism” and individual rights, not a manual for white supremacy. If post-apartheid South Africa became a Singapore with white millionaires and black millionaires living beside one another with respect for private property rights, I seriously doubt you would be writing a critique of post-apartheid South Africa.

(2) . Krepel’s FIRST fallacy is based on the logical flaw: A dislikes C and B dislikes C and therefore A equals B.

2.1 Simple example of the logical flaw: A = Rabbi Menachem Schneerson and B = Joseph Stalin And C = Hitler and under the Krepel equation, Schneerson = Stalin.

2.2.. Specific case, A = Ilana Mercer and B = whatever “violent white racist” (which I sadly concede exist) Can be drudged up out of the gutter and used to attack Ilana Mercer by false analogy.

(3) Krepel’s SECOND fallacy deals with Eugene Terreblanche.

3.1. Ilana’s 9 April column was focused on rapes, looting, and murders against Afrikaner farmers, one of the victims being Terreblanche. I did not see any “lionizing” of any “crimes” that Terreblanche did or did not commit.

3.2. Assuming that Terreblanche was a racist and criminal who received and served a sentence for criminal activity, that makes him no more “deserving” of being bludgeoned to death that a woman with an active sex life is “deserving” of being raped.

3.3. All people are entitled to rights to life, liberty, and property regardless of whether they are white, black, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, gay, monogamous, fat, thin, racist, smart, stupid, witty, dull … and it is somewhat regrettable that the advocates of “toleration” seem perfectly willing to condone attacks on those whom they believe to be insufficiently “tolerant”.

First: You’re putting words in my mouth. I did not say Terreblanche “deserved to die”; I merely pointed out that it’s not surprising that a man who led such a violent life — leading people to their deaths, beating someone into a coma — had his life end in such a violent fashion. You, meanwhile, seem to have a problem admitting that Terreblanche is a militant white supremacist, so I was doing that for you.

Second: The anti-apartheid cred you claim flies in the face of your actual behavior, which includes 1) refusing to criticice Eugene Terreblanche’s white supremacism, 2) your suggestions that blacks are too stupid to govern, and 3) [the fact that you’ve published some op-eds] with VDARE, whose founder describes it as “white nationalist.”

All I’ve done is “unclear” blog formatting and point out what you won’t about Terreblanche. It seems to me you have a lot more to answer for than I do.

I’ve just finished reading today’s WND Commentary section and your article in it subsequent to initially reading your article here.

Weeks ago, I had bought and read “…Cannibal’s Pot”. I did not then and nor do not now think it is a racist position story. It rests in my mind as a telling of what was and what now is the status of the country.

I am originally from Detroit. Most old Detroiters who are white or black know about the 1943 riots as well as the 1967 ones. There were problems – fact.

What was once a predominately white populated city is now a predominately black populated city. Sounds like South Africa to me. It has become the poster child of “what not to do when you run a city”. There are any number of books, news reports, etc. detailing the history of its decline and the causes.

Now, I COULD BE ACCUSED OF RACISM by just writing these words. But, there exists some very funny things called FACTS that stand alone and can be researched by anyone.

It seems Terry Krepel was not very objective in his reading of your book.

One of the points I took-away from my reading of it was that government and rulers can change, but that alone does not prevent the new government and its rulers from enacting better, same, or worse laws and punishments.

The changes have to occur one person at a time – avoiding revengeful thinking and actions – so objective, moral, and workable solutions can be implemented. In that manner, a country – as Sean R. has always defined it – can peacefully exist and prosper.

Ilana, I commend you on writing what I believe to be a very objective recounting of what was and what is. FACTS are not racist. Mr. Krepel, Please note that and if you do a rebuttal, cite your reasons – factually.

[What does this phrase mean?]

[Chuckle.]