Ne Ultra - Nothing Beyond

Chapter From Boerestaat From Robert van Tonder.

2017-04-09T14:16:00.001+01:00

About five years ago the insightful author of the BoereVolkstaat [ www.volkstaat.net ] web site started to post a few chapters from the important & informative book Boerestaat [ first printed in 1977. ] - which was authored by the notable & long running pro Boer self determination activist Robert van Tonder. This was a great service to the world as it helps to shed light on some often obscured facts pertaining to Boer history & their long running struggle for independence. I had always wanted to read this book myself, having heard quite a bit about it & considering that the author was the most high profile staunch pro Boer activist who started his campaign for the restoration of the Boer Republics ever since 1961 - the same year that the usurper Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd had declared the false Republic of South Africa [ after an October 1960 referendum on the matter ] in large part as a means of blocking the natural drive towards the restoration of the Boer Republics. [ Which was a massive movement during the 1940s & was attempted by force during the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 which was itself an offshoot of a 1905 decision a number of Boers made to go back to war against the British. ] Verwoerd's immediate predecessor Prime Minister J G Strijdom started exclaiming roughly a few months before his death that he believed that the only solution to South Africa's problem's was for the restoration of the Boer Republics, which was a shift from the National Party's drive to turn South Africa into a nominal republic. The following is the full Chapter 13 entitled: Boers and "Afrikaners". [ as initially posted at the BoereVolkstaat website at this link. ] from the book Boerestaat by author Robert van Tonder. I noticed that he made some of the very same points I [ & others ] have been making & did so decades before I did thereby further validating the viewpoint.

Chapter 13.

Boere and 'Afrikaners'.

Millions of Boere today refer to themselves as Afrikaners. This is understandable because since the advent of the Union of South Africa the title 'Afrikaner' has been used consistently by the politicians.

13.1 The historical sequence of events.

Originally the word 'Afrikaner', or 'Africaander' in its original spelling, meant simply 'African'. But with the advent of the Afrikaner Bond, a Cape political organization, it became politicized and referred to a specific group of people.

“The Afrikaner Bond was formed on the initiative of Rev. S. J. du Toit in June 1880 - the same year in which the Boere of Transvaal took up arms to rid themselves of British rule - and its aim was to look after the interests of the Dutch speaking colonials. Two years later in 1882 “Onze Jan” Hendrik Hofmeyer formed a Bond branch and the organization moved away from the idea of an exclusive Afrikaner movement and accepted the Queen's Sovereignty and membership of the British Empire. The Bond had great power in the Cape political affairs, especially because they could, by giving or withdrawing support, keep a certain ministry in office or initiate its downfall. From 1890 to 1895 even Cecil John Rhodes was in alliance with the Bond. During the Anglo-Boer War they held their members in check and consequently no large-scale Boer rebellion took place. In December 1911 the Bond amalgamated with Het Volk, Orangia-Unie and Volksvereeniging to form the South African Party with Louis Botha.[28]”

The Afrikaners of the Cape also supported the British war effort logistically by allowing them the use of their railways to transport troops and equipment to the north. Eventually they volunteered and fought on the British side against the Boere in the colony.

The Afrikaners of the Cape Colony formed a far more vital element in the British decision to enter into a war against the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek than most people realize. “The Raid (Jameson's) had made him (Chamberlain) keener than ever to have a go at the Transvaal. By alienating the Cape Afrikaners, however, it had also deprived him of the means.[29]” During Milner's visit to Chamberlain on November 22nd 1898 he was told the following: “If war had to come, Kruger must be the aggressor and the Afrikaners at the Cape - or at least a large part of them - on the side of the Empire.[30]”

13.2 The historical interpretation.

After 1910, in an attempt to unite the whites in South Africa into one nation - an action which directly inspired the founding of the A.N.C. in 1912 - politicians coined the terminology of English-speaking and Dutch-speaking Afrikaners. By 1925 it was decided that the written version of the Taal had become sophisticated enough to replace Dutch as an official language. It was then officially dubbed 'Afrikaans'. The whites were subsequently referred to as English-speaking and 'Afrikaans'-speaking Afrikaners. In general usage this was soon simplified to 'English' and 'Afrikaners”.

Now although these Afrikaners speak the same language as the Boere and although thousands of men from the northern and eastern Cape Colony fought along with the Boere forces in the great English War of 1899 - 1902 a large number of them were and are of British Imperialist orientation as regards their sentiments and traditions. [ Volkstaat.net edit: Boeretaal and 'Afrikaans', are not the same thing. The Boer language (“Taal” or “Boeretaal”) has been classified as 'Eastern Border Afrikaans', the region where the Boers and the Boer language were formed. The Cape Rebels, the inhabitants of the British Cape Colony who fought on the side of the Boer Republics, were in the vast majority Boers of the Cape frontier and not Cape Dutch / Cape Afrikaners. ]

In 'The Boer War' Thomas Pakenham has the following to say about Jan Smuts and his appointment as State Attorney by Paul Kruger: “Yet how incongruous the partnership appeared. Smuts was an Afrikaner from the Cape; his first language, for the purpose of writing, was English, his favourite poets were Shelley, Shakespeare and Walt Whitman... The keystone of his political faith, like that of other Afrikaners at the Cape, had been the idea of South African unity under the British flag [31]. During the peace talks at Vereeniging in 1902, Smuts would again demonstrate how adept he was at expressing sentiments he was very far from sharing.”

The naivete of politicians is astounding. During the last decade of the 19th century the governor of the Cape complained to the Colonial Secretary in London about the problems caused by the irreconcilability between the English, Afrikaners and Boers in the Cape Colony. The English were loyal to the Crown. The Afrikaners were also loyal to the Crown but they persisted in demanding that there 'primitive form of Dutch' be recognized as a language. The Boers were pointedly antagonistic towards the Crown. And this was after ninety years of British rule. On the other hand, until the advent of the mine magnates, the British immigrants to the Z.A.R. and the Free State were quite happy to be assimilated in the local population.

After the successful completion of Milner's plans to subjugate the Boere of Transvaal and Free State he had a draft constitution drawn up by the Milner-kindergarten for his dream of a Union of South Africa. This job was completed in 1905. In the nick of time as it turned out. Milner, as Governor of South Africa, agreed with the mine magnates that the best solution to the shortage of Africans willing to work at sufficiently low wages was the importation of indentured Chinese labour. The British Cabinet agreed on condition that “they not be flogged as though they were Africans” [32]. However Milner allowed the Chinese to be flogged and when the British Cabinet found out they passed a note of censure on him. Milner resigned and left the country. On his way out he passed the draft constitution over to the Governor at the Cape. This astute gentleman wrote an introduction to it and passed it on to the 'National Convention' of 1908 as his brain-child.

The Convention, which met to discuss the union of the four colonies and draw up a constitution, was attended by 36 delegates, sent by the governors who ruled the four colonies. Only 7 of the delegates represented the Boere faulk. The rest were British War Criminals, Cape 'Afrikaners', Jingoes, British subjects and a few Boere traitors. The only patriotic Boere that attended the Convention were pres. M T Steyn, genl Hertzog and genl. De Wet. They were completely unable to affect the course of events.

Here the new Union of South Africa was born.

Transvaal, our strongest Boere Republic, for instance, was represented by four British War Criminals, Messrs. Farrar, Fitzpatrick, H. C. Hull and H. Lindsay, along with the Boere traitors, Botha and Smuts and their two politically naïve bosom friends, Schalk Burger and Koos de la Rey. Genl. De la Rey's Boere heart got the better of him in 1914 when he rebelled against the British machinations and decided to wage a civil war to reinstate the Boere Republics. He was 'accidentally' shot by the police who had 'put out a road-block for the Foster gang'. His rebellion is to his credit.

In the same manner the Cape, Natal and Free State delegations were loaded with British War Criminals and their fellow-travelers.

In spite of the language problems that had already been experienced in the Cape and the fact that the Boere faulk was still in the majority in spite of the devastation of the War and British immigration, the Convention now insisted that English be the official language for the whole country. Dutch was only retained through the insistence of the Boere delegates of the Free State to the profound embarrassment of the traitors from the Transvaal. Hertzog's persistent campaigning for equal rights for Dutch, and later 'Afrikaans', earned him the label of 'racist'.

In the process they did every white person in the country, but especially the English, a tremendous disservice. Dutch was eventually, after only 13 years, replaced by the Taal which was duly dubbed 'Afrikaans' in the process. The retention of English has attached to the white population of Southern Africa the stigma of being colonials. It is also a well known fact that it is an awful bother for most adults to learn a new language. The result is that most English immigrants never assimilate into the population and they never become part of Africa but cling to their 'English Heritage' to the detriment of their cultural development in a new country. The same applies to immigrants from European countries who have a smattering of English learned at school and find themselves in an environment where they can get along quite well in English.

After the founding of the Union our Boere faulk found itself in a devil of a spot. The political dispensation forced us to co-operate with the 'Afrikaans'-speakers of the Cape and Natal in order to gain political control. That is when the word 'Afrikaner' was coined as a name for the entire 'White nation'. It had the naïve purpose of uniting both English-speaking and Dutch-speaking whites who 'put South Africa first' into one nation. The word 'Afrikaner' was at this time used with the connotation 'a white citizen of the Union of S.A. be he English- or Dutch-speaking'. That then was the advent of political racism in this country. When Dutch was replaced by 'Afrikaans' on the statute books the terms English-speaking and 'Afrikaans'-speaking Afrikaners were naturally simplified to English and Afrikaners. It eventually resulted in the 'Afrikaners' drawing together in one party and gaining the majority white vote. In the process the word 'Afrikaner' which before 1902 had been the name of a member of an 'underground' political group in the Cape, the Afrikaner Bond always worked behind the scenes, now became the name of a 'faulk'. The upcoming generations grew up under the illusion that their nationality is that of 'Afrikaner'. The activities of the secret Afrikaner Broederbond did nothing to lend clarity to the situation. In their efforts towards 'purity' they caused a rift between Boere of European descent and Boere of British descent and a false sense of union between Boere and Cape Afrikaners.

Before Union our faulk was world renowned as the Boere faulk, the Cape Colonists were generally referred to as Cape Dutch and members of the Afrikaner Bond singled out as Afrikaners.

After 1910 in the Union of South Africa we could no longer vote for our own faulk representatives in our own state. Even if we won all the seats in Transvaal and Free State it would have been to no avail because the Cape and Natal also had to be won in an election in order to gain the political edge. Now in the word 'Afrikaner' with its new meaning of an 'Afrikaans-speaking white citizen of South Africa' became a useful political tool. It was built up as being the name of the Faulk in order to gain political power by drawing all 'Afrikaans'-speakers together at the ballot-box.

Before this it had never been the name of a faulk. There were people who referred to themselves as Africaanders but it was to indicate that they were not natives of Europe or Batavia but natives of Africa. There was never any reference to the Afrikaner faulk of Transvaal and Free State. No, we were world renowned as Boere and our states were world renowned as the Boere Republics. The 'Kapenaars' were known as 'Colonials' or 'Cape Dutch' and the bunch in Natal as Colonials. The word 'Afrikaner' references all sorts of things belonging to an entire continent but it does not reference a specific faulk. The inhabitants of nearly all 53 countries listed at the start of this book are 'Afrikaners' or Africans. Linguistically that is the only correct meaning of the word 'Afrikaner'.

It is an amusing thought that the Afrikaners of the Afrikaner Bond probably knew nothing about inspanning a team of Afrikaners in front of an ox-wagon.

Furthermore, for us Boere the word 'Afrikaner' has associations of treachery. After 1852 while our Boere faulk enjoyed total political and language autonomy the 'Kapenaars' were still courting the British for protection. However, in 1875 the natives of Paarl started a 'language movement' that very soon ground to a halt. They tried, because a lack of freedom, tradition and culture, to promote the name 'Afrikaner' but as early as 1882 the Afrikaner Bond, under instigation of 'Onze Jan' Hendrik Hofmeyer, swore allegiance to Queen Victoria and the British Empire. This step was aimed at patching things up with the British after our Boere faulk had humiliated them at Majuba in 1881. Clearly an attitude of: “You Boere can go to blazes, we prefer the company of British Royalty.”

The Afrikaner Bond backed the arch-enemy of our Faulk, Cecil Rhodes, and got him elected as Prime Minister of the Cape Colony. After the Jameson-Raid the Bond, although they now turned their backs on Rhodes, continued to support the British and kept a pro-British government in power in the Cape that saw to it that British troops were transported by rail through the Karoo to our borders so that we had to fight on two fronts, a task totally beyond the military capacity of our Boere army. During the Vereeniging discussions one of our generals pointed out that we had 'lost the war because the Cape Afrikaners had left us in the lurch by allowing the British troops to be transported by rail through the Karoo'. The Cape rebel leader, the brave Boere Commandant, Japie Neser, wrote in his diary: 'In a heavy battle with the enemy my commando killed twelve men, they were all Afrikaners'. And in his memories genl. Ben Viljoen writes during his internment on St. Helena: 'The bad treatment of us Boere in the camp is due to the advice given to the British by the Cape Afrikaners who have always been enemies of the Boere'.

During the British War the members of the Afrikaner Bond, that still kept the pro-British government in power in the Cape, formed the core of the British Town Guards and they were the forerunners in hunting down the Boere-rebels that fought on our side. The word 'Afrikaner' therefor leaves a foul taste in the mouth of a Boer.

13.3 A Faulk's identity.

The deception of the Boere faulk since 1910 was mainly Cape Dutch inspired. Whit a stroke of the pen and the term 'Afrikaner' they nearly destroyed our Boere identity. What is generally forgotten is that the 'Afrikaans'-speaking Cape Dutch are not part of our Boere faulk!

A Faulk, any Faulk, has certain properties; a Faulk has its own unique history; its own traditions, festival days, political dispensation and political philosophy; own territory (state); own language; own race; own symbols, flags, faulksong [33] and folksongs. We Boere qualify one hundred per cent, but the 'Afrikaans'-speaking 'Kapenaars' that make up the N.P. government have none of these qualities. They had no part in our Boere history; they have never possessed their own territory (state); they never had their own flag and national anthem; own festival days and culture. That is why, to this day, they are so fond of British Royalty. This is clear from the adoration shown British Royalty by their journals: 'Die Huisgenoot', 'Sarie', 'Die Burger', 'Die Volksblad', 'Beeld' and Fair Lady.

Indeed, we are not of the same faulk at all. As a matter of fact, the Cape Dutch have never BEEN a faulk. They are still searching for a culture and a faulk tradition.

It will be of great assistance to them if the new independent Cape state Hexania comes about. The Cape Coloureds have long since deserved a state of their own and such a course of events will remove the thorns of animosity towards the Boere faulk. It is one of the evil results of the Union and Republic of South Africa that the Coloureds started perceiving the Boere, who have never had anything against them, as their enemies. The white 'Afrikaans'-speaking Cape Dutch oppress and politically control them. We Boere do not, but because we had to side with 'Whites' of the Cape to gain political power, we became implicated in their political impotence. Quite undeservedly so because we like they were dragged into the Union by the British against our wishes.

13.4 A referendum for the Boere of the Cape.

But, I repeat, we do not want to be proscriptive. We Boere are, however, going to restart our interrupted faulk development and restart our Republics. We must do it in order to survive! The thinly populated areas in the Northern Cape will probably decide to join the Boere state. That however will be their decision and we Boere will see to it that a referendum for such a decision will be organized for them. As already mentioned, most of the black states were founded on Transvaal and Free State soil. To compensate for the tremendous loss of territory the northern part of Natal, including Kosi bay as well as the harbours of St Lucia bay and Richard's bay must be added to the Boere state. North Natal was a part of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek. After the English War it was stolen by the British and attached to Natal.

28. -

29. -

30. 'The Boer War' by Thomas Pakenham p 31.

31. Smuts in a secret memorandum to the Transvaal executive September 4th 1899: … a frightful blood-bath out of which our faulk shall come … either as … hewers of wood and drawers of water for a hated race, or as victors, founders of a United South Africa of one of the greatest empires of the world … an Afrikaner republic in South Africa stretching form Table Bay to the Zambezi'.

32. Thomas Pakenham in 'The Boer War' p 575.

33. -

Contents of “Boerestaat”, by Robert van Tonder.

Found at this link.

I have read other books that explicitly mention that the term Afrikaner was a political term that was used to describe ALL White citizens of South Africa [ who were loyal to South Africa ] & that it was never meant to be used as a descriptor for an ethnic group - thus the fallacy of anyone going around proclaiming or presuming that their ethnicity is that of "Afrikaner" when in reality this designation lumped at least 3 different ethnic / cultural groups together.

Map of the First Boer Republics of the Cape Frontier.

2015-04-19T16:34:00.001+01:00

The first Boer Republic was established in 1795 out of the district of Graaff-Reinet followed a few months later when the district of Swellendam declared itself a republic. Both republics were later conquered after the British took control of the Cape from the Dutch power. A lot of folks often have no awareness of this important fact often erroneously presuming that the first Boer Republics arose during The Great Trek. This fact is important because it is a stark example demonstrating that the Boers have had a long running desire for independence in Africa while the Cape Dutch did not. I have mentioned these first Boer Republics before, but recently found a map outlining the areas where they were as someone made a map of the Graaff-Reinet & Swellendam districts during the era of Dutch / VOC rule up to 1795. Theses districts were on the Cape frontier where the Boers emerged [ from the Trekboers ] starting just a few decades after the initial arrival of the VOC at the Cape & where the Boer people lived until the Great Trek of the early to mid 19th cent took them across the Orange [ Gariep ] River & then the Vaal River.

The red / white & blue horizontal tri color flag was used for both republics of the Cape frontier.

For further reading: The First Boer Republic.

Kill the Boer – Kill the farmer

2014-03-10T18:55:00.003+00:00

Those visiting this blog for a while know we have posted a few articles on farm murders, or “plaasmoorde” in Afrikaans, in the past. You will also know that we have never proclaimed that white people bear the brunt of crime in South Africa.
What we have indicated is that if you look at crime statistics in terms of specific demographics, white people and specifically farmers, are more targeted per capita than any other group. Farm murders and attacks also tend to be more violent than other crimes.
We have even exposed the flawed logic and statistics of the South African Institute of Race Relations here:

Back-tracking faster than you reverse

So here is a video clip with various views on farm murders. It is the best part of 35 minutes, but I think it provides some objective views. It also acknowledges that where white farmers are attacked and murdered, their black staff are also attacked if they dared to assist the farmer or his family.
Don’t you think it is time the world takes as much notice as it did with Apartheid?
Kill The Boer Kill The Farmer from Marek Ranis on Vimeo.

The British Roots of the Afrikaner Designation.

2013-12-26T07:59:00.002+00:00

The term Afrikaner - as anyone studying its roots knows - is a political term that was first used to describe a political abstraction within a political context during the late 19th cent & was initiated by a Cape organization composed of Cape Dutch intellectuals & two individuals from Holland. As such, this term was significantly influenced by the British colonial power. The following are some quotes further outlining this important fact.

Quote: [ Another point of grotesque confusion that we need to clear up, is that Boers are not "Afrikaners". None of your co-workers seem to have any understanding of this. All Boers are aware of the systematic subterfuge and distortion of "identity" that has been the result of the makings of the Broederbond and the National Party, based upon the then image of the British imperialist gentleman. This artificial identity was meant to wean away the Boers from their strong identity, from their history, from their nationalism, and thus weaken them. ]

From: Professor Dr. Tobias Louw. Open Letter to the Institute for Security Studies. September 16 2003.

Quote: [ As a point of departure it should be stated that Cape Afrikaners, upon encountering British occupation, possessed only a rudimentary collective consciousness. The process of collective consciousness formation among them took place largely, as we have seen, under the aegis of British rule. Generations of Afrikaners had been born as British subjects before this process matured in the 1870s in ethnic political mobilization. British colonial experience, with all its contradictory ramifications, left a deep impression on their evolving collective consciousness. The manifestations of loyalty by the Afrikaner Bond serve as clear evidence thereof. It may sound somewhat speculative, but the admiration and love for the Queen may suggest that she played a role in the formation of Cape Afrikaner group identity and consciousness. They seem to have adopted Queen Victoria as a collective mother figure. Praising and congratulating the Queen on her birthday in 1890, the Z A suggested that if a president were to replace the Queen, the centrifugal forces in the Cape would increase. Cape Afrikaners seemed to have internalized their imperial monarchical experience. Beyond that, it was the balance of their colonial experience which influenced their disposition. ]

From: Page 61. Cecil Rhodes and the Cape Afrikaners. Mordechai Tamarkin.

Quote: [ THE "AFRIKANERS"

7.1 Thus at the time of the ending of the Second Anglo Boer War, there were three distinct ethnic groupings amongst the broad White population of South Africa:

(i) the internationally recognized and indigenous Boer people;

(ii) the Cape Dutch Settlers, loyal to the British Empire; and

(iii) the English speaking White settlers, also loyal to the British Empire.

7.2 The British Empire realized that it had to bring the Boers under control for once and for all, and therefore devised a plan to neutralize the Boer Republics - a plan to make them join up with the other two White segments of their colonies in South Africa.

7.3 The British masters of Southern Africa therefore engineered the National Convention of 1908, which saw the creation of the Union of South Africa. This union consisted of the former Cape Colony, the Natal Colony, and the two former Boer Republics. This union was not merely a geographic convenience, but a deliberate plan to try and destroy the independence minded Boers by mingling them with the Cape Dutch & English settlers.

7.4 It is worth noting that the British Empire used their technique in other parts of Africa as well -reference can be made to the short lived federation of Nyasaland (Malawi); Northern Rhodesia (Zambia); and Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) to name but one.

7.5 The prime representative of the British Empire in South Africa, Sir Alfred Milner, put it this way: "The new tactic (to subjugate the Boers) must be to consolidate the different areas of British South Africa into one nation. Although unification will be initially put the Boers into political control of the entire South Africa, it will, ironically, eventually lead to their final downfall."

7.6 This was of course precisely what happened - but not until a new name had been developed for the new "nation" which Milner spoke about. They could not continue to call the new nation a "Boer" state, because the Boers had been subjugated. They could not call it a "Cape Dutch" state, as the Dutch colonialists were now British colonialists, and they could not call it a British state, for obvious reasons. The answer then was to give a general term to all White inhabitants of the new union - "Afrikaners". Although the word originally meant "African" it was politicized by a group of Cape Dutch propagandists under one SJ du Toit in 1880 (the same year the Boers took up arms to fight the British colonialists) in literature of the time. It was then decided to try and blend the Boers into the Cape Dutch and English speaking White populations but calling them all Afrikaners instead of referring to their real ethnic bases.

7.7 This then is how the world began to hear of "Afrikaners" - although only 80 years ago there was no such word in the international vocabulary.

7.8 By forcing the Boers into the Union of South Africa, the British made them co- responsible for the policy of racial segregation, which had of course been established and legislated by the British colonial government.

7.9 The new "Afrikaners" - in fact a coalition of Cape Dutch, English speaking Whites and some Boers - tried as best they could to come to grips with the racial and geographic legacy left to them from the British colonial times - and it was from this disaster that the policy of Apartheid was developed.

7.10 It is of supreme importance to note here that the Boers were dragged unwillingly into the Union of South Africa - and at the first opportunity which presented itself they tried to extricate themselves by force of arms. This was the unsuccessful 1914 Boer rebellion, which ended when some Boer war era generals were killed or imprisoned by the pro-British Union of South Africa government.

7.11 It is thus unfair of the international world to regard the "Boers" as having been responsible for what happened in South Africa during the second part of the 20th century - the Boers were just as much victims of the colonial powers as were any other indigenous people of Africa. ] Source: [ http://www.arthurkemp.com/whoaretheboers.htm ]

From: The Boers of Southern Africa. Arthur Kemp.

Report on the Growing Impoverishment of the White Population.

2013-12-26T07:54:00.001+00:00

The following takes a short look at the growing poverty among the White population.

Most of the impoverished White people are often from the Boer population.

The Truth About the "Father" of Modern South Africa.

2013-12-26T07:50:00.002+00:00

The following video of libertarian commentator Stefan Molyneaux expounds further.

Note: Molyneaux erroneously asserts that Apartheid started in the 1940s when in reality it started during the British colonial governments of the 19th century & among the early governments of South Africa, most notably under JBM Hertzog. The term Apartheid was coined in 1917 by Smuts to describe the racial system South Africa had adopted & the term was later appropriated by his childhood friend D F Malan when the latter was running for office after assuming control of the National Party remnant. All 3 aforementioned politicians were from the Cape Dutch population.

The Local Natural Leaders Were Not Consulted.

2013-12-26T07:45:00.003+00:00

The following movie: The Truth on the ANC and South Africa demonstrates that the local natural leaders were not consulted during the "negotiation" phase as there was a clear behind the scenes effort to make room for the ANC to assume power. Neither were the Boer people [ outside of the Afrikaner claim over them which marginalized them in the process being outnumbered by the Cape Dutch descendents ] consulted.

<

Kenny Kunene’s letter to Zuma

2013-06-21T10:49:00.001+01:00

By Kenny Kunene, South African businessman

Dear President Jacob Zuma...

I'm writing this because I've never been more disappointed with the ANC you lead. I was once your fervent supporter, I attended some of those night vigils during your trials, and, like many, I believed you would be the force for change the youth and the poor desperately need in our country. Like many others, I donated to your cause when I was called on, and allowed my facilities to be used for ANC and Youth League meetings, sometimes for unusual meetings where your political comeback was planned.

You may wonder what qualifies me to make any kind of political comment. As everyone knows, I'm just a socialite and a businessman, but it's also no secret I am a hobbyhorse for politicians to ride whenever they want to criticise "crass materialism" and the decay of morals. It's true, I like to spend, and I'm not an angel, but unlike politicians I'm not spending taxpayers' money. My real point is that, as a socialite and a businessman, I meet many people, including politicians. When they speak to your face, Mr President, they tell you your imperial clothes are very stylish. When they talk to me, and feel they are safe from your army of spies, most of them admit that you, the emperor, have no clothes.

The Gupta issue alone should be the last straw for many South Africans. But the extent of how much the Gupta family controls you, and by implication this country, has not even begun to be understood. It's amazing how terrified most people in the ANC are to speak about this reality, because they truly fear you. Even if you're not in government, tenders are used to inspire fear among people of influence. Thank God my livelihood is not dependent on tenders. I'll save you the trouble of trying to find out if I have any tenders so you can cut me out of them. I don't have any.

You show no loyalty even to those who kept you out of prison. After the Shaiks and Julius Malema, the Guptas must know that you can drop them faster than they could drop your name. In your quest for self-preservation, you have become heartless.

The reason I supported you and your campaign is because you were marketed to us as someone who would unify us and get rid of the politics of fear, but today there's more fear and more division in the ANC than ever before. In public you smile and laugh, but in truth you behave like a monster, a tyrant who will target perceived enemies ruthlessly, and because of that fear few dare to speak openly. We'd have had yet another Cabinet reshuffle if your wings had not been clipped a little in Mangaung.

Of course, I am not so naive as to blame everything regrettable that happens in the ANC on you. But in my home province, the Free State, the premier, Ace Magushule, imitates your behaviour and even seems to be trying to outdo you in being entangled with the Guptas. He learnt it from you. He thinks its okay to blow R40-million (or R140-million, others say) on a website. It's not a great website either, by the way. When even your Kenny Kunenes start thinking a guy is wasting money shamelessly, you should know how bad it is. Of course, we'd all like to know where that money really went.

This is not what the ANC is or should be. We thought it was bad enough with the Shaiks - but who could have predicted your, and therefore our, wholesale nationalisation by the Guptas?

Even your immediate community, your neighbours in Nkandla, have to walk past your ridiculously overpriced palace donated to you by a once-unsuspecting public, knowing how you have your own private clinic they cannot use and their children must play in the dusty streets among the stones, while your compound has an astroturf sports field that cost the taxpayer R3.5-million and costs R100 000 a month to maintain. How is fake grass a part of security upgrades?

Everyone knows the Public Protector's report will find damning evidence of what went on there - but something must be said now already, in case you find a way to shut her up too.

It's no wonder the ANC lost the vote in Nkandla. If the people who know you best, the place you are from and where you occupy tribal land, do not trust you enough to vote for you, why should the rest of us?

This ANC is no longer the ANC of John Langa Dube, Oliver Tambo and other illustrious names. I'm also getting tired of hearing about how the ANC is bigger than any individual.

There are those who are stubbornly loyal to the ANC, as if it's some kind of marriage, who keep the faith that some day the party will return to its roots. But even if they're my friends, I can't enthusiastically join in with the declarations of those who say they will die in coffins wrapped in ANC colours, no matter what, as my former business partner Gayton McKenzie once said to me.

Mr President, I don't want to be one of those who tell you in fear that you have clothes on, when it's obvious you are completely exposed. I know the dogs will be set on me for saying this, but you have been naked for longer than most of us were willing to admit. And you're now stripping the ANC of the last shred of its integrity. The world laughs at us.

I love the ANC, or what it's supposed to be, but I don't love your ANC. For those of us who care, the question now is, as Vladimir Lenin asked: "What is to be done?" - The Star

* Kenny Kunene is a South African businessman. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Newspapers.

Dan Roodt on Youth Day

2013-06-17T12:54:00.001+01:00

This article by Dan Roodt is even more thought-provoking when compared to the recent Marikana incident.

Click on extract to read full article at PRAAG.

Rebuttal to Mike Smith's Latest Distortion.

2013-05-24T06:47:00.002+01:00

A few weeks ago IslandShark informed me that Mike Smith was up to his usual anti-Boer antics & sent me a link to an article where Mike rehashed old & discredited anti-Boer canards within the comments section. Someone pointed out that Smuts was not a Boer [ as he was from the Cape Dutch population ] which prompted Smith's anti-Boer rant which was full of distortions which in fact had been earlier dealt with at length on the ILSA blog a few years ago. I might have let this latest rant go if it were not for the fact that Mike promoted the notion that it was none other than myself who made the initial point about Smuts on his blog. I can tell you that it was not me as I have refused to visit Mike's blog for quite some time now. The last thing I read in full was Part 34 of Opening Pandora's Apartheid Box. Which was actually quite a good installment as it was mainly a referral to the book Sell-Out by adv Piet Pretorius who exposed the just how controlled the controlled opposition was. I have only read several articles of that series & not the entirety & neither did I ever make a regular habit of reading that blog too often prior as Mike & I had a final falling out on the ILSA blog [ when he was posting as Afrikaner ] as well as within Part 30 of the Opening of Pandora's Apartheid Box on his blog wherein he continued to promote straw man arguments & distortions against Boer identity & myself in particular.

Seeing as he is still promoting demonstrable falsehoods concerning Boer identity & Afrikaner identity as well & accusing me of saying things I never said & considering that a few of his followers seem to think that he is correct in his distortions: it is only fair to set the record straight once again.

The following is what Mike posted concerning this topic.

Ron is that you? We have been down this road before and I am not going down it again.

        I see you still peddle that bullshit that Afrikaners and Boers are different people.

        I see you are still on about Boers being of German decent and Afrikaners from French and Dutch decent.

        Listen pal, Jan Smuts comes from Malmesbury in the Cape, but he was a Boer General on the side of the ZAR.

        How about General De la Rey who had not a drop of German blood, rather Spanish, French and Dutch. Was he not a Boer?

        By your definition the other Boer hero General Louis Botha must be an Englishman seeing that he came from the Natal Colony. But his first and last names are French? Both Smuts and Botha sided with the British against the Germans. In your definition “traitors”, right?

        General Piet Cronje came from Colesberg in the Cape. So he was an Afrikaner and not a Boer?

        How about General Piet Joubert…more French than “Joubert” you do not get…he was from Prince Albert in the Cape Colony. In your narrow mind and by your thick skulled definition he was not a “Boer”.

        And what about General Hertzog? German surname, but born in Wellington in the Cape Colony. Afrikaner? …Or Boer?

        How about General Ben Viljoen who was also born in the Cape Colony…also not a Boer right? Seeing that he has a French surname and was born in the Cape, he was definitely and “Afrikaner”.

        How about General Piet Kritzinger, German surname but he was born in Port Elizabeth, Cape Colony. Was he an Afrikaner or a Boer?

        And then there is General Christiaan Beyers, Boer general and Bittereinder Rebel against the Botha government…born in Stellenbosch, Cape Colony.

        WOW!!! Is that not amazing? Just about ALL the Boer Generals and heroes were from the Cape Colony and therefore Afrikaners. Now who would have thought that? [ End of Mike's quote. ]

No it was not I who posted on his blog.

But since I was implicated while he posted even more severe distortions - I will have to respond.

The following is a rebuttal to his erroneous assertions & distortions once again.

I never said that the Boers & Afrikaners were altogether different people. I in fact pointed out that the term Afrikaner was a political / generic & arbitrary term which marginalized the Boers as the Boers are rendered a minority under the Afrikaner designation. I have noted however that the Boers are a different people from the Cape Dutch of the Western Cape as Professor Wallace Mills [ 1 ] & Journalist Adriana Stuijt [ 2 ] & Professor Tobias Louw [ 3 ] & Professor Irving Hexham [ 4 ] among others have noted & as the history shows as well. [ 5 ] I never claimed that the Boers are only of German descent as the Boers are descended from other groups as well. Furthermore German roots are part of both the Cape Dutch & the Boer populations. Mike's lie is easily refuted as I have a long history of pointing out the French Huguenot [ & other ] origins of the Boer [ & Cape Dutch ] peoples. One again all he does is throw up discredited straw man arguments & distortions without addressing the fact that the Boers are from the second colony founded on the Cape frontier during the 17th cent. by the Trekboers while the Cape Dutch are from the first colony founded in & around Cape Town.

1. Quote: [ Trekboers certainly recognized the differences in language, religion, etc. between themselves and the British. They had certainly developed a way-of-life and a set of values that were distinctive, but they were also significantly different from people of Dutch descent in the western province areas of the Cape. The latter regarded the Trekboers as rather wild, semi-barbarous frontiersmen and the sense of common identity was limited and incomplete. The westerners followed the Trek with interest and probably with a good deal of sympathy, but they certainly did not see the trekkers as the saviours of some mystical Afrikaner ‘nation’. ] From: Professor Wallace Mills. The Great Trek. [ stmarys.ca/~wmills/course322/6Great_Trek.html ]

2. Quote: [ There has always been a vast difference between the "trek-Boers", "Voortrekkers", "grensboere" and the so called Afrikaners - who were the elitist collaborators with the British at the Cape, and who also collaborated on the British side to help defeat the independent Boer Republics. After the defeat of the Boer Republics, its voters - who had always been known as Boers everywhere in the world - suddenly lost their identity because the elitist Afrikaners who started running things on behalf of the British, insisted that everybody be called "Afrikaner" and that everybody should be "reconciled." ] From: Journalist Adriana Stuijt post at Stop Boer Genocide frm 2004. [ http://www.stopboergenocide.com/10836266301.html?cc=0.5061473071974908&i=25271082#start ]

3. Quote: [ Another point of grotesque confusion that we need to clear up, is that Boers are not "Afrikaners". None of your co-workers seem to have any understanding of this. All Boers are aware of the systematic subterfuge and distortion of "identity" that has been the result of the makings of the Broederbond and the National Party, based upon the then image of the British imperialist gentleman. This artificial identity was meant to wean away the Boers from their strong identify, from their history, from their nationalism, and thus weaken them. ] From: Professor Tobias Louw. From an open letter he wrote to the ISS dated September 2003. [ web.archive.org/web/20031001202018/rebellie.org/Raaktief/rk_openletter_ISS.htm ]

4. Quote: [ The majority of the original white settlers, known as Cape Dutch, or in frontier regions Boers, maintained a nominal loyalty to the Dutch Reformed Church. ] From: Professor Irving Hexham. Christianty in Central Southern Africa Prior to 1910. [ people.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/irving/ELPHINK.htm#_ftnref41 ]

5. The Boers Documented as Distinct Nation.

Now it makes no difference whether Smuts was "on the side of" the ZAR Boers during the second Anglo-Boer War as he was not from the Boer ethnic group since he was from the Cape Dutch group. Mike's erroneous assertion that he was a Boer for simply fighting with the Boers is classic faulty logic as many different nationalities fought on the side of the Boers but that did not make them biological or ethnic Boers. One does not become a biological or ethnic Boer simply by joining their side of the war. Mike's assertion that De la Rey was not a Boer due to not having German roots is another total straw man argument & of course a total lie as he was born in Winburg Orange Free State. Furthermore just about all Boers have at least some German roots [ as well as French / Frisian / Dutch / Danish roots ] so his assertion that De la Rey allegedly had none is nonsense & pure conjecture & no doubt a rhetorical device aimed at creating confusion. His assertion that Louis Botha must have been an Englishman because he was born in northern Natal is laughably absurd because a lot of Boers had settled in Natal ever since the Great Trek.

As a matter of fact Louis Botha was one of the founders of the Vryheid Republic - also known as the New Republic: a full fledged Boer Republic - which was established within northern Natal on land granted to the local & Transvaal Boers by Zulu King Dinuzulu in 1884. This Boer Republic even adopted a Vierkleur designed flag with the blue & green colours switched from the Transvaal Vierkleur layout. No. Louis Botha was descended from a German named Bode. Now I have never denied that there were Boer traitors but Mike likes to hide the fact that there were far more Cape Dutch on the side of the British then there were ever Boers who sided with them during the second Anglo-Boer War. I rarely ever go around calling anyone a traitor. The only person who EVER throws the word "traitor" around is Mike! All I ever see from him is how the Boers are "a nation of traitors" while rarely ever defining his use of the term traitor. The truth is that he defines traitor as anyone who would get in the way of imperial control of South Africa. No wonder he views the Boers as "traitors" because their historical attempts at restoring their conquered Boer Republics is viewed as treachery towards the British created macro State of South Africa. Further: one would think that authentic Boer traitors [ ie: traitors against the actual Boer people & or Boer independence ] would be a boon for Mike's pan Afrikaans Afrikaner ideology since in order for the political ideology of Afrikaner Collectivism to work: the Boers must surrender their political sovereignty & cede their power to Afrikaner domination. Though strictly speaking, the Cape Dutch cannot be "traitors" since they are not even from the Boers BUT due to the larger numbers of the Cape Dutch: they OUTVOTE the Boers thus their numbers work against Boer self determination.

The town of Colesberg in the NORTHEASTERN Cape is part of the heartland of the Cape Boer people so Mike's ridiculous & erroneous assertion that this makes Piet Cronje "an Afrikaner & not a Boer" is a total joke! This is yet another example of his shameful straw man tactics of which I called him out on before, but to no avail as he stubbornly sticks to promoting straw man arguments & outright LIES & distortions about what I assert. But since he cannot debate according to the facts, he resorts to distortion & straw man tactics. One again his pathetic attempts fall apart because I never claimed that the Cape Boers were Afrikaners or were not Boers! General Piet Joubert was from the Cape frontier / the NORTHEASTERN Cape where ALL Boers were originally from! Mike is espousing a false dichotomy by claiming that all Caucasian Afrikaans speakers from the Cape are not Boers or are all part of the Cape Dutch Afrikaners. The Cape frontier was always home to the Boer people. Most of the Cape Rebels were from the Cape Boers of the frontier. I thought I settled this point years ago on the ILSA blog as well as within my information packed article of 2011:

The Cape Rebels Were Not Cape Dutch.

I pointed out long ago that JBM Hertzog was from the Cape Dutch population. [ I had to do this because Mike was asserting that "Boer Generals" ran South Africa until the 1940s to the point where it seemed as though he was cackling in his pathetic attempts at reversing the reality that the actual Boers were facing. ] His pathetic rhetorical device of asserting that Hertzog's German surname makes him a Boer is pure obfuscation because the Cape Dutch & Boer people are not determined by surnames but rather by line of descent & shared history. The Cape Dutch & Boers share very little history as they are from different colonies with the Trekboers putting even more space between the two then the later Voortrekkers putting even more space between the two. Just as the Quebecois & the Acadians share a lot of surnames but are two anthropologically different peoples with their own distinct identities. His snarky: "I ask you, who won the Anglo-Boer War?" [ which he used to exclaim in older posts & blogs ] was a transparent attempt at accusing the Boers for political actions which were not enacted by the actual Boer population.

General Ben Viljoen was a Boer but he persists with his straw man argument that anyone born in the Cape [ even when they are born in the Boer populated region of the Cape ] or has a French surname [ despite the numerous Boers with French surnames! ] is somehow not a Boer. Folks with discernment & any knowledge of the history of the region can see through his pathetic attempts at confusing the issue as he is clearly implying that the Cape Boers were somehow not part of the Boers of the republics or were just part of the Cape Dutch.

Few are buying his ridiculous argument & slight of hand trick that all of the Cape Boers were / are part of the Cape Dutch Afrikaners. Anyone with discernment can see that Mike's agenda is to get the Boers to forget about their true identity in order to allow themselves to be usurped & derailed by the larger Cape Dutch descendents under the dispossessing Afrikaner designation. He does this in order to dilute the strength of the Boer people, because if every Boer were to stand for independence: he could still OVERRULE them & nullify their position no matter how unanimous their decisions are by claiming that they are all just part of the larger Cape Dutch population as Afrikaners. That is why the Afrikaner designation is so dangerous to the Boer people as it marginalizes their just aspirations by forcing them to accept decisions made by the Cape Dutch population.

The Boer people will never acquire self determination under the Afrikaner designation & HE KNOWS THIS FULL WELL because the Boers are a minority under this arbitrary & dispossessing designation. He wants to convince the Boers that they are all part of the Cape Dutch dominated Afrikaners whose leadership works against any form of authentic Boer self determination.

No one has to "adopt the Boer name"... [ as he asserted ] as the Boers were simply submerged into the Afrikaner designation at a political level - while never at a cultural level - therefore the assertion of Boer identity does not "adopt" anything new but rather reasserts their authentic ethnic identity. He is well aware that his trick of asserting that the Boers are just part of the Afrikaners DILUTES the natural strength that the Boers would have if they were to disentangle themselves from Afrikaner suzerainty / decisions & political / financial domination. That has been his plan all along... coupled with tarring them & White people in general with the Apartheid stigma & defamation.

The assertion of Boer identity does not cause division in the least simply because all Boers can unite under their authentic ethnic identity but... it is in fact the assertion of the Afrikaner designation which causes division as it forces two different ethnic groups under the same umbrella leading to instant friction. The Cape Dutch will always outvote the Boers & he damn well knows this! That is why he propagates the lie that the Boers are part of the Afrikaners so he can STOP the Boers from acquiring any form of self determination.

One must remember that the folks who struggled for & obtained self determination during the 19th cent were Boers [ originally from the Cape frontier ] - not the Cape Dutch. The Great Trek was a movement of the Boer people of the Cape frontier. It was not something that interested the vast majority of the Cape Dutch who could not understand why anyone would want to separate themselves from the Colonial power.

There is no difference between the Cape Boers & the Republican Boers north of the Orange River but any historian will note that there are huge differences between the Boers & the Cape Dutch. Something that Mike tries to taper over as part of his anti-Boer self determination agenda. Although he himself has on occasion de facto admitted in some of his rants this distinction when he gets riled up over "liberals" whom he never refers to under their actual historic ethnic designation [ though he himself is a confessed "former liberal" & current neo conservative ie: not a true conservative ] while then living in the heartland of the Cape Dutch in Cape Town. He is well known for signing articles as coming from Cape Town.

Mike knows the truth & he also knows my TRUE position [ ie: that I know that the Cape Boers are part of the Republican Boers ] because I have posted it on my own blog numerous times & addressed him directly here & on his own blog as well. Therefore there is unfortunately only one logical conclusion to draw from this latest act of distortion & deception. During the debate on Part 30 of the Opening of Pandora's Apartheid Box he deliberately asserted the Trekboers of the 1600s & 1700s were really the Voortrekkers of the mid 19th century in a futile & very lame attempt at sidelining & obscuring the birth of the Boer people which occurred just a few decades after the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck & not during the Great Trek as Mike & some other Afrikaner Collectivist apologists like to claim. Read more at: The Purposeful Omission of a Distinct Nation.

Mike ludicrously & demagogically accuses me [ behind my back as I was not the Anon poster who kicked off the debate of late ] of divide & conquer when the assertion of Boer identity divides no one because divide & conquer only works when two peoples are forced together. The use of the Afrikaner designation is divide & conquer as it forces two ethnic groups under the same umbrella leading to friction. That is why Lord Alfred Milner promoted the Afrikaner designation as he knew it would destroy Boer identity & divide & conquer the whole Afrikaans language group.

Quote: [ The prime representative of the British Empire in South Africa, Sir Alfred Milner, put it this way: "The new tactic (to subjugate the Boers) must be to consolidate the different areas of British South Africa into one nation. Although unification will initially put the Boers into political control of the entire South Africa, it will, ironically, eventually lead to their final downfall."

This was of course precisely what happened - but not until a new name had been developed for the new "nation" which Milner spoke about. They could not continue to call the new nation a "Boer" state, because the Boers had been subjugated. They could not call it a "Cape Dutch" state, as the Dutch colonialists were now British colonialists, and they could not call it a British state, for obvious reasons. The answer then was to give a general term to all White inhabitants of the new union - "Afrikaners".

Although the word originally meant "African" it was politicized by a group of Cape Dutch propagandists under one SJ du Toit in 1880 (the same year the Boers took up arms to fight the British colonialists) in literature of the time. It was then decided to try and blend the Boers into the Cape Dutch and English speaking White populations but calling them all Afrikaners instead of referring to their real ethnic bases. ] [ http://www.arthurkemp.com/whoaretheboers.htm ] From: The Boers of Southern Africa. By Arthur Kemp.

I have never promoted the notion that one group of Boers are better than another group. We know that Mike's former bosses at the Broederbond [ which he admitted on the ILSA blog to handing our books for ] do divide & conquer the Boers along contrived political & even religious lines. I publicly disavow any attempt at dividing the Boer people. But one thing is clear: Calling the Boers Afrikaners dilutes the natural strength of the Boer Nation.

I have never claimed that the Republican Boers were different from the Cape Boers as his recent hit-piece rant post openly asserted. I am well aware that many Boer Generals were born in the Cape. Note that they were born in the EASTERN Cape: the region where all the Boers are originally from & where many remained. As to those fewer Cape Dutch from the Western Cape who joined the Boers struggle for independence: I have absolutely no problem with that at all. If all of the Cape Dutch were like the Boers then this debate would barely even be necessary but his pointing out of the few examples of pro-Boer individuals from the Cape Dutch does not change or negate the fact that most of the Cape Dutch have no interest in Boer self determination & are often opposed to it outright. He conflates [ deftly ] the Cape Boers with the Cape Dutch in the vain hope that you will not notice his deception.

This tactic of his is tantamount to pointing out the few Americans who supported the Boers struggle for independence as indicative of ALL Americans when that was clearly not the case. The problem with Smuts was not just that he was a Cape Dutch but that he was a British agent. There were two Colonies established at the Cape in the 17th cent. The colony in the west led to the eventual existence of the Cape Dutch while the colony established in the north & east led to the existence of the Boer population. All of the Boers are from the second colony while the Cape Dutch are from the first colony. The Cape Dutch were pro Colonial & pro British while the Boers were anti-Colonial & anti-British. The Cape Dutch had strong ties to Europe [ Cecil Rhodes and The Cape Afrikaners. Mordechai Tamarkin ] while the Boers had cut all ties to Europe. [ The Great Trek. Oliver Ransford. & The Devil's Annexe. Sidney Robbins page 59. ] This is not "division" [ try to have more than one thought in your head at the same time ] just a geo-political reality that must be taken into account & navigated around [ with no ill-intent towards the Cape Dutch & recognition & acceptance of those comparative few who do support the Boers ] if the Boers hope to reacquire self determination.

I have pointed out that the Cape frontier consisted of everything from Swellandam right up to Colesberg. [ & even beyond ] Read more at: The Cape Frontier: Birthplace of the Boer Nation. Hence my own words vindicate my points in this rebuttal & show Mike up for the liar that he is as I pointed out that the Boers are native to the northeastern Cape region. Thus his constant erroneous assertions that I ever said that the Cape Boers were not Boers is a provable lie. His incorrigible behaviour exposes himself as having an agenda. Mike is playing a mind game with his followers using the psy-op that the Cape Boers are somehow not part of the Republican Boers of the Boer Republics. I pointed out myself [ using Michael Barthorp as a source ] right on the ILSA blog years ago that there was a lot Cape Rebel activity at Colesberg.

Further irony is that Mike called White Nationalism White Communism when he himself promotes Afrikaner Communism / Collectivism with his forced political association of Cape Dutch & Boer under the Socialist based dispossessing Afrikaner rubric. The term Afrikaner refers to a specific REGIME that was built around a forced political coalition of Cape Dutch & Boer for the specific purpose of gaining control over the South African region. This idea was first pursued in the late 19th cent so there are a few notable Boers like F W Reitz who got on board this dispossessing Afrikaner agenda & called himself an Afrikaner in this pan political context. The Cape based Afrikaners of the 19th cent - mainly through the Afrikaner Bond - were floating the notion of creating a confederation for the specific purpose of controlling the South African region. This idea finally came about with the Afrikaner Broederbond of the 20th cent.

The term Afrikaner does not refer to an enthnicity as there are at least two involved within the designation. Those who use the notion that some 19th cent Boers called themselves Afrikaners are totally missing some key points. The Boers called themselves such in the context that they saw themselves as Africans part of the African continent. They did not use the term to imply that that saw themselves as being part of the Cape Dutch who NEVER used the term Afrikaner to describe themselves until the LATE 19th cent & only did so in order to promote a dispossessing pan Afrikaans identity in the wake of the gold & diamonds that were discovered in the Boer Republics. People must get street smart about this. The Cape Dutch historically used to look down upon the Boers to the point of ridiculing them for going on the Great Trek but then suddenly & out nowhere just a few years after gold was discovered in the ZAR / Transvaal Republic they suddenly start calling themselves Afrikaners for the first time in their nebulous & obscure history & start referring to the Boers as their "brothers" when prior they wanted nothing to do with them. It is a plain as day that the term Afrikaner was being promoted to DISPOSSESS the Boers out of ownership of their own republics & especially out of the resources found therein. This was not even really a Cape Dutch program because author C H Thomas asserted that the Afrikaner Bond was being controlled from Holland. Remember also that two members of the Society of True Afrikaners [ which was founded in 1875 ] were from Holland. The main political reason why some Boers of the 19th cent were calling themselves Afrikaners was due to the successful but limited effect of the Afrikaner Bond of the Cape whose political ideology was starting to get spread into the Boer Republics. Furthermore remember that the Afrikaner Bond began to promote war against Britain at a time when notable Boers such as President Marthinus Steyn of the OVS / Orange Free State & General de la Rey were still strongly against war.

The notion that Boer self determination "divides" Afrikaners is as absurd as suggesting that Dixie self determination "divides" Capitalists or that Estonian self determination "divides" Soviets or that Croatian or Serbian or Slovenian self determination "divides" Yugoslavians / Communists because the terms Afrikaner / Capitalist / Soviet / Communist & Yugoslavian are political concepts / constructs which were often used to divide & conquer the various peoples who were subjected & subjugated under the prospective terms. It is not possible to divide an amorphous political concept which is enforced in a top down manner. But these political concepts are used to create friction by lumping different people together.

Therefore:

The assertion of Boer identity aims to get out of this dialectical process of Afrikaner domination.

Blaming it on Apartheid

2013-05-22T16:10:00.001+01:00

HumanAction used to blog on economic freedom and state tyranny. Sadly, they don’t blog anymore, but you can still find some gems over at their site. I am reposting the following from their site, which will hopefully remain active for future reference.

In the first of their blog posts referenced here, they refer to News24 columnist Peet van Aardt and his article where he proclaims that all whites benefited from Apartheid. He seems to be one of those arrogant twats who thinks he has been given some right to make statements on behalf of other people and that his views are the correct ones. You know, the typical liberal leftist lackey mentality.

It is unfortunately for him and other socialist and Marxist-inspired revisionists of history not true that all whites benefited from the minority white government. Not all whites supported the National Party and certainly not all whites agreed with the specific laws and application of Apartheid. Some stood against what could possibly come into play when looking at the history of Africa. I am not going to debate the merits of which tribe was entitled to which land in what is South Africa today. There is enough information available for any person caring to look further than revisionist history and claims by groups of people who do little more than just claim entitlements in some form. You will certainly not find an accurate version of events in MSM publications.

As a simple starting point of the history of South Africa from the conception of the union in 1910, you will find that many laws intended to protect the interests of elite powers abroad, for instance in the mining industry. To this day, a significant part of the mining industry is controlled from outside the borders of South Africa. You can choose to believe a muppet like George Galloway that the majority of mines are owned by “Boers”. Or you can do some research and draw your own conclusions.

Blaming it on apartheid

By JGalt, on August 15th, 2011

The more the present regime blames absolutely everything on apartheid, the more people they are actually getting to believe them.

Peet van Aardt has written an article for news24 wherein he makes the case that because he benefitted from apartheid, that all white people should pay more taxes as per Desmond Tutu’s wish.

To argue on your superficial and topical level: How much did our sport stars, who weren’t able to get any exposure on an international level and hence not earn an internationally competitive salary, benefit?

In your proposed social engineering-restitution experiment should our past sport stars such as Danie Gerber not maybe also be compensated for this loss during apartheid? Are they not also “previously disadvantaged?”

If you benefited, while a guy like Danie Gerber didn’t, why don’t you pay a portion of your salary over to him every month? Why should all whites pay a redistributive flat-tax?

Also, why does no-one seem to ask the question of why the government should manage the great white-black redistribution? Why can’t the admitted guilty white apartheid benefactors such as Peet not manage the process. Wouldn’t this at least be a little more efficient?

Once, again, people keep overlooking the fact that apartheid was not a white vs black issue, but rather that it was the government vs all. Nothing has changed.

Forcing whites to pay higher taxes and redistribute to “previously disadvantaged” will only make our problems worse.

Read our (recent) past articles on the issue here and here.

Apartheid didn't benefit whites

By freeman, on June 24th, 2011

It is a pervasive and entrenched narrative (accepted with the same confidence that we accept that summer follows spring and spring follows winter, and winter autumn) that white South Africans benefitted from Apartheid while black South Africans suffered under Apartheid.

This myth needs to be squashed and refuted for the nonsense that it is once and for all. I doubt a little story on Human Action will change the collective belief in the lie (yet), but at least let’s get the conversation going.

Firstly, let’s get all the necessary caveats out the way and pay homage to the reality of Apartheid so that some reactionary readers don’t have a fit on the spot. Yes, blacks suffered painfully under Apartheid. Yes, Apartheid was evil. Yes, whites were inordinately privileged compared to blacks. Yes, whites lived better lives than blacks. Yes, whites had infinitely better economic opportunities available to them than blacks. Yes, whites were 1st class citizens and blacks were 2nd class citizens.

We all get this and we don’t need to deny it or overemphasise it. It happened. It sucked. Period.

But the central question we are posing here is: did whites benefit under apartheid? That is to ask in another way: were whites better off under Apartheid and the White Supremist Fascist Nationalist State than whites otherwise would have been under a (imperfect) constitutional democracy as has prevailed since 1994?

To this the answer is emphatically NO!

How on earth can we argue that whites benefitted from forced autarky, trade sanctions, industrial subsidies, central economic planning, capital controls, restricted association, lack of freedom of expression, monetary debasement, group areas act, forced ‘morality’, a police state, excessive military spending, international travel restrictions, and goods rationing?

The Apartheid state, to maintain the grossly unstable status quo of oppressing the vast majority of the population, had to destroy the basic freedoms of whites as well.

It is true that whites, as the owners of businesses, may have ‘benefitted’ from being able to hire black labour at below market prices, enabling more profitable businesses and cheaper production of goods for white consumption. But even here the assumption we are making is that by coercing blacks into forced settlement in the homelands wastelands, whites destroyed black living standards and economic opportunities to such a degree that they were able to offer very poor marginal labour opportunities to blacks that were readily accepted. But it could also be argued that by shunting blacks off to the wastelands, whites actually limited their available labour pool and therefore paid more not less for labour.

But even if the dubious proposition that labour was cheaper under Apartheid is indeed true, vastly countering this is the myriad of ways in which black subjugation created far more economic hardship than benefits for whites. The list is almost endless, but would include the following few:

Disallowing blacks from gaining skills kept those skills more scarce than they would otherwise have been, making goods and services produced by those skills more expensive, thereby excluding more whites from consuming those goods and services and/or forcing more income to be diverted to those goods and services, thereby diverting income away from other goods and services, limiting those business opportunities.
No blacks producing goods and services and running their own business meant competition was weak, allowing oligopolies to easily form and high prices to become entrenched, reducing real wealth and spending power.
Forcing blacks to accept horrible economic opportunities and denying them education and the ability to up-skill, create value and earn good incomes, not only kept the pie from growing and all benefitting (after all blacks and whites would have freely traded), but kept the size of the consumer market small, meaning that white producers had limited selling opportunities compared to what they otherwise would have had. That they were then subject to international sanctions meant that exports were limited in addition to a limited local market, a double blow for white entrepreneurs.
Whites could not legally take on black business partners and allow black ownership of their businesses, losing out on executive skills that blacks would have been able to offer.
White employers, due to the Group Areas Act, had to jump through numerous red tape hoops to legally allow a black person to live permanently on their property for the purpose of work. In fact, the Apartheid state had to enact a pot of alphabet soup of regulations pertaining to interracial business and economic relationships that made life unambiguously harder for white business owners.
Whites who spoke out against the government were jailed or killed.
White anti-state associations were banned.
Whites did not have legal or easy access to certain overseas products, books, movies etc. Choice for whites was limited under Apartheid.
Commercial trade between black and white (barring the employment-labour trade) was usually banned or greatly curtailed by law and by spacial aspects of the Group Areas Act. Few opportunities for trade definitely made whites worse off than they otherwise would have been, because, by definition, more free and mutually agreed trade is utility-enhancing for everyone, while less or restricted trade detracts from welfare and wealth.
Whites (especially Afrikaners) who were employed by the large Apartheid state, were generally employed in inefficient sectors, gained poor skills, and leached off the other white taxpayers. These folk may have appeared to ‘benefit’ under Apartheid, but when equal opportunity arrived, or technologies made their jobs redundant, these formerly state-employed protected folk were left destitute with little capacity to function successfully in a modern economy. Apartheid had benefitted them falsely.

There are certainly many other ways in which black racial subjugation by law, and the coercive statist rule that accompanied it, made whites’ lives worse than they otherwise would have been. We must understand that whites adopted Apartheid out of fear for what they PERCEIVED incorrectly as a potentially worse situation, that of black majority rule. But just because whites in South Africa were as economically illiterate as all other people anywhere in the world, and therefore derived a fallacial psychic benefit from black oppression, does not mean they ACTUALLY benefitted from it in an economic sense.

Blacks, or indeed anyone, who complain that whites are only in the prosperous economic standing they are because of Apartheid are completely wrong. Whites are where they are DESPITE Apartheid. Despite the bans and central planning. Despite the debauched currency and limited trading opportunities with blacks.

Since 1994, whites have been incredibly prosperous and are immeasurably better off than they were before (as indeed are blacks!), able to find better access to offshore markets, able to trade freely with blacks, partner with blacks in business, marry blacks, work for blacks, sell products to blacks, build houses for blacks, get good ideas from blacks, and generally live freely with people of all races (albeit an imperfect freedom).

The reality is that white South Africans’ living standards had fallen embarrassingly behind those of Americans and Europeans by the end of the 1980’s. White South Africans had become international country bumpkins, walking around offshore destinations wide-eyed as they gawked incredulously the living standards, choice, technologies, freedom, variety, colour and dynamism of overseas economies and societies. In short, Apartheid saw white South Africa stagnate and even begin to regress.

No my friends, Apartheid did not benefit whites any more than one would ‘benefit’ from never driving a car for fear of dying in a car accident: never dying in a car accident, but never driving anywhere either. In the same way, whites avoided black rule, but achieved nothing of true benefit. Apartheid stifled whites, yes to a wholly different degree to blacks, but stifled them nonetheless, and therefore it nonetheless was an economically irrational policy for whites to follow and retarded white development.

So the next time you’re sitting around a braai and someone pipes up that whites benefitted from Apartheid while blacks suffered, ask them to explain how then whites have done so well in the post-Apartheid world, and show them how whites too were disadvantaged by Apartheid and the evil system it was.

Maybe with this understanding, we’ll be able to think more clearly about our present and our future as well.

An Inconvenient Apartheid Truth

By freeman, on July 6th, 2011

This is a short follow-up post to our June 24th post “Apartheid didn’t benefit whites“, which has got under the skin of a few people.

As readers will have noticed by the general lack of reader comments on this site, HA is not the most widely read blog on this planet, but our Apartheid post certainly seems to have generated a little ripple in the Twittersphere (definitely not a wave yet:)).

Now it appears that for some black South Africans in particular (and possibly some folk in Oranje) the truth that whites didn’t benefit from Apartheid is a rather uncomfortable one. It seems to shatter their sense of injustice and sense of blame. It needn’t do this. White supremist nationalists perpetrated Apartheid and blacks got the raw deal of raw deals because of it. Period.

But it does remove from blacks their monopoly on Apartheid victimhood, which blacks have clung to rabidly for 17 years and more. The brutal truth is that ALL South Africans were victims under Apartheid, and our post simply showed that whites, the most privileged of unfree classes by far, were also victims of the Fascist-Socialist state. In fact, whites were peculiar victims, because they for the most part didn’t even know it at the time, such was their brainwashed, darkened stupor.

So we mustn’t conflate separate issues. It is two completely different things to talk about who was worse off under Apartheid and who actually benefitted. As far as I can tell, the genuine beneficiaries of Apartheid, as under any dictatorship, were a narrow state-centric elite, and even those of this clique who lived to see the democratic revolution in 1994 have had to live their days out in the greatest of shame, which must have rendered a fairly considerable psychic loss for all but the most callous bittereinders.

One Tweeter indignantly tried to argue…”it still doesn't mean that whites didn’t benefit in comparison to blacks.” By this we take this Tweeter to be arguing that somehow being relatively better off than someone else confers an absolute benefit. By that sloppy logic Indians and Coloureds also ‘benefitted’ from Apartheid right?

Our post was actually less about Apartheid and race, and more about economics, which is what this blog is about. It was about showing people that if you apply sound economics to our history you can start to draw different and interesting conclusions that can change your perspective to a truer one. Having a clearer and more accurate perspective of our history means we can live more constructively in the present and make better decisions about our future.

It’s high time we de-racialise and de-ethnicise economics and economic policy. Racio-ethic groups are always blabbering on about how they don’t want x, y, or z culture’s economics foisted upon them but want to forge their ‘own’ economy. So we hear about a uniquely ‘Latin economy’ suited to the ’specific culture’ of the Latinos, or we hear about a uniquely ‘African economy’ for African’s (which 9 times out of 10 you can take to mean “for blacks”), or about how unique and special ‘Chinese economics’ is. Usually this is nothing but a cheap front for adopting get-rich-quick-rape-your-capital-base economic policy.

This is nothing short of nonsense, pure nationalistic and cultural pride and, quite frankly, arrogance. Good and bad economics transcends race, culture and nation. Doesn’t matter if you’re white, black, pink or purple, saving more than consuming is still a good idea, free trade is still a good idea, individual liberty is still a good idea, freedom from state oppression is still a good idea.

If you want to disagree with our Apartheid post, prove with good economic argument that whites benefitted from Apartheid. We doubt you will be able to though with any credibility, because whites most certainly didn’t benefit.

In fact, in a great and tragic irony, many blacks, by arguing that whites benefitted from Apartheid, are actually doing the freedom they fought for such a great and debilitating disservice. They are arguing that state subjugation of certain identity groups benefits to the broad identity group of the state perpetrating the subjugation. It might not be a far step to use this logic to enact a ‘reverse Apartheid’ (some would say already well under way in a ‘lite’ form), in the hope of redressing the injustices of the prior Apartheid. All this would do, and indeed is doing, is keep blacks mired in their own mud puddle of poverty.

To the dissenters among the Twitterati, please stop conflating your retro-anger over Apartheid, with blacks getting the worst deal by far, with relative suffering between races, with sound economic reason. These are distinct issues and confusing them is getting in the way of your better judgement on these matters.

Cheers, and here’s to a better present and future where hopefully all race groups in SA can be allowed to steward their own property freely without interference, reap the full fruits of their own labour, take advantage of and create economic opportunities freely, live free of state oppression, trade feely, associate freely, and ALL BENEFIT from the fruits of genuine liberty.

Mandela & Church Street Bomb

2013-05-20T17:31:00.001+01:00

Today marks exactly 30 years since the Church Street bomb in Pretoria, on 20th May 1983.

You can read more about the terrorist attack here:

Europe Business Assembly awards to corrupt SA municipalities

2013-05-19T10:08:00.001+01:00

The Europe Business Assembly seems to be another organisation which doesn’t have a clue what is going on in South Africa. I suggest taxpayers from any country which sends municipal entries to it, should enquire with their local councils or municipalities on the validity of entrants and the value of spending their tax funds on rewarding corruption.

from Sunette Bridges:

South African Municipalities that are completely bankrupt and facing charges of fraud, maladministration and theft of municipal funds, are invited by this organisation to partake in Award Ceremonies at the expense of taxpayers.

Not only do taxpayers have to foot the bill for their entry fee, but end up paying for the travel, accommodation and meals of delegations that travel abroad to receive these nonsensical awards from people who have NO idea how badly these municipalities are actually governed!

There are numerous articles regarding the maladministration of the very municipalities being "rewarded". Some of the articles can be found at the following links:

This has been uncovered in an article in "Rapport" today. It is unfortunately in Afrikaans, but notes that awards have gone to Madibeng and Ehlanzeni municipalities – the same municipalities involved in corruption mentioned above.

http://www.rapport.co.za/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Uitgevang-20130518

‘White scum’ racist walks free

2013-05-18T14:46:00.001+01:00

from: The Scottish Sun

A RACIST churchman who told a shocked mother her kids “would be shot and hung” in his country walked free from court yesterday.

South African pastor Solomon Makhathoela branded neighbour Catherine Kerr “white scum” after learning the mum-of-two was unwed.

And the crazed bigot told her fiancé Alan Brown it was a “f****** disgrace” they had kids.

But Makhathoela escaped with a telling off at Stirling Sheriff Court despite being found guilty of racially aggravated abuse.

Last night Alan, 28, fumed: “I’m sure the courts would have dealt with me more harshly if it had been the other way round.

“The guy is worse than the devil. It’s a living hell having him above us and he gets off with not even a slap on the wrist.”

Just a month before launching his hate rant in April 2012, jobless Makhatholela was fined for trying to hit Alan with a golf brolly.

But the dad said his family welcomed Makhathoela, 49, when he moved into the flat above theirs in Raploch, Stirling, with his wife and two kids in 2011. He said: “At the beginning he was fine. I even helped him move his stuff in.

“He kept calling Catherine ‘my wife’ until eventually I told him we weren’t married.

“Ever since then, he’s been a nightmare. He said it was a f****** disgrace we had kids outside of wedlock.”

The animosity escalated until his racist outburst. Alan said: “Catherine went outside and he shouted she was ‘white scum’.

“Then he said if our kids had been born in his country they would have been hung and shot.”

But Sheriff William Gilchrist simply admonished Makhathoela, telling him: “You have to ensure there are no further incidents.”

Last night Tory Chief Whip John Lamont said the ruling appeared “too lenient”.

He added: “Sending Makhathoela away without punishment sends a bad message.”

Cops Supplied Boeremag Explosives: Proving False Flag.

2013-05-16T08:16:00.000+01:00

This recent news report further demonstrates that the so called Boeremag [ a term coined by the State & the media ] was in fact a State sponsored operation & thus a false flag as it exposes how the bomb was supplied by police. The bomb was earlier noted as being a military grade bomb that was not likely obtainable on the open market.

‘Cops supplied Boeremag explosives’.

February 25 2013 at 08:09pm

By SAPA

Pretoria - A former crime intelligence officer on Monday testified in the High Court in Pretoria that the police supplied explosives used to train rightwingers to plant bombs.

Retired Captain Deon Loots told the court he had kept on handling police spy JC Smit after deciding to leave the police in 2000, because Smit trusted him.

He gradually introduced Smit to a new handler, Col Louis Pretorius, who used to meet Smit at Loots' home.

Loots testified that during one meeting Pretorius suggested people had to be trained to manufacture explosives.

Loots was testifying in an application for a special entry on the court record, which could eventually be used on appeal in an application to set aside the treason convictions of the 20 Boeremag members.

Pretorius undertook to provide Smit with explosives “that would not be dangerous” so he could train people without causing damage.

Loots said Pretorius told them he had people in Bela-Bela who could be trained how to use explosives and sabotage power lines.

“I objected. I said it was unethical. You could not train people to commit crimes and then wash your hands of it... Col Pretorius said he could get explosives at a depot in the Potchefstroom area. Later he brought a person from the explosives factory with him to my house to train Smit how to work with explosives.

“I withdrew completely because I did not want to be associated with it,” Loots said.

“About two weeks later JC (Smit) phoned me one evening and said he had received explosives from Col Pretorius to train the people in Warmbaths (Bela-Bela) how to use explosives.

“I said he should not do it, but he said it was part of his instructions as an informer... I personally phoned Col Pretorius and confronted him for putting JC in a situation where he would make himself an accused by training people in handling explosives and making bombs.

“We had words to such an extent that JC feared Pretorius would have him arrested while he was on his way to Warmbaths with explosives in his car,” he said.

Loots helped Smit by taking the explosives in his own car to Bela-Bela, where Smit unloaded them, before going to where the training took place.

“Before we left I phoned Col Pretorius to express my discomfort. When we returned I told JC it was wrong. I said even if he had authorisation, how would he justify it if he trained people to plant bombs and someone died,” Loots said.

The trial continues. - Sapa.

Click for link to report.

Banana Republic thugs

2013-05-13T14:23:00.001+01:00

The following incident is described by the cyclist involved and posted here unedited. The video was captured by a school pupil.

On Wednesday, the 8th of May, while out on a training ride (bicycle) I was nearly hit by a Black Mercedes Benz on the corner of Roper (road leading out of University of Pretoria) an brooks, the vehicle drove down Roper street and didn’t attempt to slow down or stop at the stop street, and preceded to cut in front of me, traveling North on Roper with me having right of way. In my attempt to get the drivers attention by cycling next to the driver sides door/window repeatedly shouting and in a final attempt to get his attention, hitting down twice on his side wing mirror (which was completely un damaged), the vehicle deliberately tried to run me over by swerving into me right outside Pretoria Boys High and the 3 way stop street on the c/o Roper and Anderson, in a manner that also nearly caused a traffic accident as the vehicle nearly collided with another vehicle travelling south on Roper. It then became evident by registration of the car that it is a DIPLOMATIC vehicle. [key to note here is that a short while later the Driver 1. Admitted that he saw me at the previous intersection and felt he didn’t have to stop and that I will have to take evasive action to counter act his driving decisions, 2. The driver also stated that the second incident of deliberately trying to run me down was by instruction of the Diplomat sitting in the car, he also told this to the police officer who was on scene, when the police officer asked him why he broke protocol by not driving to the embassy.]

After an exchange of words/ heated argument, where I told the driver after him asking me why I was throwing such a scene was that I wanted him to apologies as it is drivers like him that hit and seriously injure cyclists using our public roads (mostly captured on video) the driver of the car (who broke diplomatic protocol by instruction of the Diplomat in the car) threatened to brake my neck (this has been admitted by the driver to witness and there is a recording of him saying that he himself did say it) , along with this the driver tried to prove that he will act out his threat as in the process of stating it, he removed his jacket and tie in an attempt to intimidate me. He tried to tempt me to hit him by telling me t o, but I refused as I knew everything was being taped, and that I have not done anything wrong and wanted to keep my side of the story clean.

I repeatedly tried to obtain the nationality of the diplomat;

1stly tried to ask the driver, and the diplomats B1 body guard who had by know gotten out of the passage side of the vehicle, but they refused, and I then proceeded to take photos of the vehicle, license plate, car license, the body guard and the driver (during this process the driver/body guard told me take photos, it will get you nowhere).

2ndly I attempted to ask the diplomat directly through the drivers open window where the diplomat himself directly threatened me and told me I was going to go to jail and that he will see to it, the driver then pulled up the window.

The situation went calm as we where waiting for the police to arrive, the driver/diplomat had called them. Minutes before the police arrived the diplomat turned down the window opposite to him, I used this opportunity to take a photo of him as no one wanted to tell me the nationality of the diplomat. The body guard saw this, and the driver the preceded to hit my phone out of my hand cracking the glass of the phone, and took the phone after the body guard openly assaulted me while I was screaming for help (captured on tape by n school boy who's details I have and will receive the video).

After practically being rescued by passers by and parents of student, the police (Diplomatic police) arrived, I told them what happened, that I wanted to press charges, and required their assistance. They where rude (the police) and arrogant, took down only my info, address, cell etc. and got into their car and everybody drove off as of nothing happened.

I then went to the Brooklyn police station to press charges and open a docket where they told me "they cannot open a case and that I have to go to some headquarters in troy street. As it involves diplomatic police and foreign diplomats”

South African govt ignores Jihad camps

2013-05-13T10:42:00.001+01:00

Let me see if I get this. The SA government via Crime Intelligence could entrap a bunch of concerned citizens in the “Boeremag” saga, keep these guys locked up for more than 10 years while their farce of a trial is going on with SAPS intelligence officer testifying how the state manipulated and set up these guys, but they ignore known Al Qaeda terrorist camps?

Sounds like a typical anti-white, anti-Boer day in South Africa.

from Eye Witness News:

JOHANNESBURG - It has emerged that the police's specialised unit, Crimes Against the State (CATS) and the State Security Agency (SSA) have uncovered Al Qaeda linked military training camps operating in South Africa, but are doing nothing about them.

The year-long investigation by the Daily Maverick revealed inaction by the police despite incriminating evidence about the training camps and those who set them up.

State intelligence agencies started monitoring the activities soon after the World Trade Centre attack on September 11, 2001 but ceased their surveillance in 2010.

After nearly a decade of top secret surveillance and intelligence gathering, it has emerged that state intelligence has even stopped spying on known military training camps.

The Daily Maverick investigation found camps setup near Erasmia, east of Pretoria, on a farm in the Klein Karoo and attempts to create one at a golf estate along the Garden Route in Tsitsikamma.

The camps are equipped with training facilities and barracks which are believed to sleep mostly Pakistani and Malawian immigrants.

The operations are said be led by Johannesburg dentist, Junaid Ismail Dockrat and his cousin, Muslim cleric Farhad Ahmed Dockrat who have been identified as Al Qaeda financiers, recruiters and facilitators.

The pair dismissed the Tsitsikamma claims saying it emanated from a disgruntled former employee.

The Hawks declined to explain why their operation was halted, saying they do not comment on ongoing investigations.

United States and British intelligence agencies regard South Africa as an international terrorist halfway house.

For nearly a decade South Africa's intelligence agencies had been spying on Islamic military training camps and those linked to them, but this was all stopped in 2010, without an explanation.

In addition to the camps, undercover intelligence operatives in conjunction with the South African Revenue Service (Sars) have established that more than R9 million has been smuggled to terrorist organisations in the last two years.

In October 2008, SARS traced an amount of more than R31 million which was smuggled overseas by a Pakistani group.

(Edited by Tamsin Wort)

Zuma kicks off his stand-up career

2013-04-30T09:36:00.001+01:00

SA Promo Magazine commented on Jacob Zuma’s Freedom Day speech on 27 April 2013. They suggest that he confused the date with 1 April, as he describes South Africa being at the forefront of fighting corruption. They may have a point.

On closer inspection it actually reveals the problem of having a president with grade 3 education running what was once a thriving powerhouse in Africa. He probably has the emotional intelligence of a 9-year old too. It also confirms a theory I read many years ago regarding types of managers in an organisation. The most destructive type was described as those with significant limitations not aware of their own limitations. Unfortunately for South Africa, Zuma falls into this category.

from SA Promo Magazine:

Click on extract above to read full article

Censored Viewable Post at ToxiNews Gets Resurrected.

2013-04-30T06:17:00.002+01:00

Looks like it was intentional that my post at the ToxiNews blog was not posted as the editor has censored / removed a previous post I submitted that was up for a period of time. No doubt the editor is not interested in debating the issue, but to resort to censoring the entire post reflects badly on both of us. On himself for being afraid of a little truth or at the very least a disagreement - & on myself as readers could be left with the impression that I strayed from the topic of infringed against common blog rules or etiquette. The following is the short post that was censored at Survival of the White South African Part 2 . I could have written a larger response, but I responded to just a few basic points - which was deemed too much for the author.

The following is the post.

Quote: [ Talking about "so called Boers" is part of the problem because the Boers still exist even if too many were conditioned to see themselves as part of an artificial macro grouping under the Afrikaner designation. Just because the Boer Republics were "signed away" [ which were supposed to regain full independence as part of Article 7 of the Vereenigning Peace Treaty but were denied ] does not mean that they can not be reinstated or restored.

All peoples want their independence. This has always been especially true of the Boer people. You talk about the Republic of South Africa as some crowning achievement when it was simply an Afrikaans version of the old [ British ] order. You talk about the "Republican flag" of South Africa as though it was an authentic flag of the Republic of South Africa while forgetting that it was in fact the flag of the UNION of South Africa [ the flag in question was adopted in 1927 ] because the Republic of South Africa simply inherited the old flag of the old dispensation. The National party wanted to adopt a new flag & Verwoerd even signed off on a new design shorty before being assassinated.

The added irony is that you document quite well how the various components within the White population could not live together [ as they were different people with different traditions & outlooks ] yet attack them for not wanting to be united for the sake of the nominal republic.

The notion that the Vierkleur is "stupid" rather says a lot about the author than it does the Boers as the Boers lost 50% of their child population in the concentration camps defending the freedom they had under that flag. No. The VOC brought the Indians to the Cape. Not the Boers. The Boers were ruled by the VOC but the VOC was not run by Boers lest you want to corrupt the term as many folks do to mean all White people in South Africa & even the world. ] End of censored post.

I spotted this censoring after not long after finding his: What is a Boer? post.

Obviously the author was not interested in having his erroneous assertions countered.

I could have gone on longer - but this little bit was too much.

It looks like he redacted the word "stupid" within his article after reading my response.

Thank goodness I try to save just about everything I post.

A chance to meet old friends

2013-04-18T17:23:00.001+01:00

Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi reflects on attending Baroness Thatcher’s funeral.

You probably know this by now, but I have loads of respect for Dr Buthelezi. For one, he could see past hate and race to possible solutions for South Africa when the ANC killed people of all races in terrorist attacks on civilians in the 1980s and 1990s. He is an honourable man. He is a visionary. He even helped David Cameron understand the facts…

from News24:

I am thankful to the Thatcher family and the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for inviting me to attend Baroness Margaret Thatcher’s funeral.

As I stated at the time of her passing, apart from our strong political ties, she was for me a real friend. I could have not missed the opportunity to pay tribute to her along with thousands of people who wished her farewell in her last journey inside St Paul’s Cathedral, in the streets of London and around the world.

The funeral was a huge operation. VIP guests were required to be at Lancaster House by eight, although the funeral service only began at midday.

I felt that only the British could organise and conduct such a huge and complex operation so well and in such a style.

We were seated in the cathedral by 10 am, with the warning that no toilet facility would be available there.

As groups of participants arrived in procession, including Her Majesty the Queen, one was left in no doubt that this was a very sombre and dignified occasion.

For me it was also a wonderful opportunity to renew old acquaintances. They included former US secretaries of state Dr Henry Kissinger and Prof. George Shultz. After the service I met former US Vice President Dick Cheney, whom I last met when he awarded me Charlton Heston’s Courage under Fire award.

I also met Mr Lech Walesa, the founder of Solidarity, the great Polish trade union.

I reminded him that when the great US trade union AFL-CIO created the prestigious George Meany Human Rights Award, he was its first recipient and I and the late Dr Neil Aggett were the second co-recipients.

From our own country, we were joined by our former president FW de Klerk and his wife, Elita, and by our Deputy High Commissioner, Bongiwe Qwabe.

Former president De Klerk and I met UK Prime Minister David Cameron, whom I reminded of my special bond with Baroness Thatcher. When he inquired about the nature of such a bond, I replied that Baroness Thatcher had supported me when I campaigned against economic sanctions and disinvestment against South Africa.

I did so because when Prime Minister Cameron visited South Africa shortly after having been elected Conservative Party leader, he apologised to our ruling party for Baroness Thatcher’s support of my campaign against sanctions and disinvestment.

The Right Reverend Richard Chartres described what Lady Thatcher had stood for.

He stated that this was a time for truth that transcends political debate, quoting Baroness Thatcher stating that we are all interdependent and part of a greater whole.

For me this resonated with our belief in ubuntu-botho.

He quoted a letter from a nine-year-old boy to Baroness Thatcher, in which the boy queried whether anyone but Jesus could do no wrong. In my mind, this resonated with one of St Paul’s letters stating that none is without sin.

I sat in the cathedral between my friend Dr Kissinger and Israeli Prime Minister Mr Benjamin Netanyahu, separated by Dr Oriani-Ambrosini [of the Inkatha Freedom Party] and an aide.

I told Netanyahu that we must remember that we all acknowledge Abraham as our father, including those who believe in Jesus the Jew and the Muslims who too regard Abraham as their father. He agreed with me.

I was grateful that I had the opportunity to offer my condolences directly to Lady Thatcher’s son, Mark, who pounded his heart when he told me that he knew the depth of my relationship with his mother.

I regret that I did not talk to his twin sister, Carol.

After the funeral I reflected how, given the chance, I would walk my political path the same way I did, and would be proud to do so with Baroness Thatcher again.

Addendum to Response to What is a Boer at ToxiNews Blog.

2013-04-16T06:21:00.002+01:00

This article could also be called: Generic Terms Dispossess the Boer Nation.

This is an addendum to Response to What is a Boer at the ToxiNews blog. I was originally just going to add to that article but decided to create a new one as I went slightly into depth in rebutting & countering the erroneous assertions & one dimensional outlook of the author of the original article on his blog.

The author claimed that the various White groups have somehow lost their ethnicities & used a cynical devise when he claimed that there are supposedly "only White South Africans" when this term is not a sociological term describing even a single ethnic / biological or national group but rather is a civil term describing a diverse array of various peoples solely on the basis of being White & having been incorporated into the British created macro / mega / super State of South Africa. Try going to Europe & asserting that there are no ethnic groups: "just White Europeans". They will think you have lost it. The terms White & Black when applied to people are dispossessing terms as it deracinates the various peoples & ethnic groups of the region. The fastest way to deracinate a population is to stop referring to their ethnicities & to refer to them along generic one dimensional racial lines or the State in control of the region. The tactic of deracination is a strategy that the global elite have always used in order to gain total control over a region through a blending & friction process. There are those who play into this process & talk of a purported "White minority" & a purported "Black majority" which is a most ineffective & incomplete manner of analyzing the peoples of the region as peoples' ethnicities & cultural background play a much larger role in shaping identity & cultural tradition.


                                                           Graphic from: Boerevolkstaat website.

The author asserted that the Boers have a superiority complex which is yet another example of his reversing the reality of the situation because it was the Cape Dutch that historically had this superiority complex & looked down on the Boers [ complete with claiming they have "no culture" ] & even ridiculed them for trekking during the Great Trek. Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio even noted how the term Afrikaner was always put in a positive light creating an incentive for people to want to "be an Afrikaner" while the term Boer was always put in a negative light as part of a psy-op aimed at driving people way from "being a Boer" & thus from their actual ethnic identity. The Boers lost their countries in 1902 not 1994. What they lost in 1994 was the little say they thought they said had within the old dispensation as per their already dented self determination. [ As Professor Louw notes ] Robert van Tonder actually had no problem in communicating with folks in their own languages, therefore the assertion of the author is moot or at the very least questionable / debatable. A number of British individuals were absorbed into the Boer people so the author's assertion that having some British roots "disqualifies" one from being a Boer is utter nonsense. The Anglophones who accompanied the Boers on the Great Trek were absorbed into the Boer Nation. The author seems to go out of his way in promoting straw man arguments & confusion in a desperate but weak attempt at denying the existence of the Boer Nation.

The author uses some faulty logic & downright double speak as he erroneously asserted that "there are no Boers" [ ? ] then goes on to define them as those who "stand with the Boers" thereby admitting that there must be some pre-existing Boers around with which to stand with in the first place. The truth of the matter is that the Boers did not just disappear [ this was dealt with at length in the previous article ] when the British then later the Afrikaner then later still the ANC regimes took over, as the Boers were simply renamed at an official level & strategically lumped in with the Cape Dutch population - & larger White citizenry as a whole - within a limited / one dimensional & marginalizing political context.

The notion that "no one was born a Boer" is ridiculous & laughable as well as an obvious insult to the 1.5 million people who were born part of the Boer people / nation. No one would assert [ as far as I am aware of ] that "no one was born a Scot" yet the author seems to think that it is logical to claim that the Boers stopped reproducing. The notion that there are no Boers is old British & later Afrikaner Broederbond propaganda aimed at preventing Boer self determination & the fact that he was promoting this old discredited canard is quite telling.

The author goes out of his way to promote the dispossessing & nebulous term White South African when in reality the Boer people pre date any notion of a White South African by centuries. By the time the notion of a White South African was declared: the Boers had already established upwards of seventeen Boer Republics & fought many liberation wars / freedom struggles & lost half of their children within the British concentration camps. The terms White South African & Afrikaner are civil terms. Not terms describing actual ethnic groups. The term Boer is a sociological & cultural term describing a specific ethnic group which can never be trumped or overtaken by the terms White South African or Afrikaner as those latter two terms are civil terms which are applied in a very generic & loose manner to more than just the numerically smaller Boer people who are marginalized & dispossessed under both terms as a result.

Bloody South Africa… part 2

2013-04-15T14:45:00.001+01:00

from Sunette Bridges:

Click on extract above to read full article

Mantashe backs Zuma on Apartheid blame

2013-04-11T10:20:00.001+01:00

Now there is a surprise. The ANC still using the “blame Apartheid” card. But this buffoon has stooped to a new low by comparing the legacy of Apartheid to that of the Holocaust.

Millions were killed in the Holocaust. 21,000 people died in South Africa due to political violence during the whole Apartheid area. Of those 21,000 deaths, 14,000 were a result of black-on-black violence during the transition period, when the ANC and specifically Nelson Mandela refused to end violent struggle. When the National Party government wanted to discuss solutions, Mandela and his ANC thugs planted bombs and limpet mines in shopping centres. They also killed thousands of IFP supporters.

I don’t exactly remember Jews killing each other during the Holocaust.

from News24:

Johannesburg - ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe (right in photo) has added his voice to the debate on whether apartheid can still be blamed for South Africa's problems.

Mantashe appears to have thrown his weight behind President Jacob Zuma's (left in photo) comments on Wednesday that "we can't stop blaming those who caused it".

Zuma's comments were an apparent reference to Planning Minister Trevor Manuel, who told public servants last week that it was time to stop blaming apartheid for the country's problems, and take responsibility for solving them.

Mantashe told Talk Radio 702 on Thursday that he asks a historical question when this debate comes up.

"When did the holocaust happen? And I ask the question: Why is it as fresh as if it happened last year? Because it was such a major injustice against a particular community.”

Mantashe said economic apartheid still affects the life chances of young black people, even though they were born after the end of apartheid.

"If you are a young white graduate you are likely to have an uncle in the furniture business. If you are a young African graduate you’ll battle at the labour market."

Response to What is a Boer at the ToxiNews Blog.

2013-04-11T09:11:00.004+01:00

Now & then I come across some obtuse or one dimensional articles on the Boers & often try to post a response to the author. There is this one at the ToxiNews blog entitled: What is a Boer? that at first looked like it was trying to clarify the issue but only promoted lies / distortion & deliberate confusion. I posted a response but it was never posted for whatever reason so I expanded my response adding numerous excerpts to back up my points & decided that it would make for a good article on its own as it clarifies the erroneous assertions made in the article. There is just too much deliberate confusion and misrepresentation in it and no mention of the Cape Dutch. For example: the article states that Jan Smuts was a Boer when he was in fact not a Boer! He was from the Cape Dutch population. So was JBM Hertzog. A lot of folks from around the world fought with / on the side of the Boers but that did not make them biological Boers. The Trekboers coined the term Cape Dutch to describe the Western Cape Afrikaans speakers back in the late 17th cent when they started to move inland into Africa to get away from the VOC rule. A Boer is not some nebulous undefinable quasi political concept as the article outrageously asserted via its rhetorical tone, but rather a people / nation that was derived from the Trekboers of the 1700s who developed on the Cape frontier and have virtually nothing to do with the Cape Dutch population.

Graphic from the Boerevolkstaat site.

The following is from Arthur Kemp. Quote:

[ Those who stayed behind in the Cape became known amongst the independence minded Boers as the "Cape Dutch" - symbolizing their attachment to Europe. This group loyally supported any European colonial government, and vehemently opposed all attempts by the fledgling Boer population to break ties with the colonial governments. ] From: The Boers of Southern Africa. Also titled: Who Are The Boers? By Arthur Kemp. [ http://www.arthurkemp.com/whoaretheboers.htm ]

Robert van Tonder did not "invent" the modern Boer. [ as the article further outrageously suggests ] The term Boer was used massively when the Boers were calling for the restoration of the Boer Republics during the 1940s!!!!! Later Prime Minister Hans Strijdom [ one of the fewer full ethnic / biological Boers who governed South Africa ] called for the restoration of the Boer Republics and died [ likely killed ] just a few months later. All this LONG before Robert van Tonder left the National Party in 1961 to advocate for the restoration of the Boer Republics.

The article ludicrously asserts that the Boers are "a creation of the Afrikaner Broederbond" I kid you not. Anyone having done a just a little research would know how ridiculous that erroneous assertion is as the Afrikaner Broederbond tried to stamp out Boer identity & routinely suppressed Boer self determination. The Afrikaner Broederbond was started by Henning Klopper [ among many others ] who was influenced by National Party leader JBM Hertzog in the adoption of the dispossessing Afrikaner designation. The Broederbond was an enemy of the Boer people as it sought to conflate them with the Cape Dutch under a false political dialectic. The Cape Dutch were historically pro-British & were the ones who coined the term Afrikaner to describe themselves after the language they named Afrikaans. The Cape Dutch control the Afrikaner designation.

The author conflates the misplaced pro Verwoerd sentiment some appear to have as having anything to do with Boer identity when in fact Verwoerd promoted an Afrikaner agenda that subjugated the Boer people & the National Party hardly ever mentioned the term Boer. Verwoerd was not a friend of the Boer Nation. Listen to Theuns Cloete [ of Boervolk Radio & the Transvaal Separatists think tank ] himself note in brief detail how Verwoerd was a dire threat to the Boer Nation and did great damage to them. Click here for the link. Robert van Tonder was a public opponent of Verwoerd as Verwoerd's policies were a betrayal of the Boers & sold out the Boer Nation.

The following is from the Independent Online news article on the death of Robert van Tonder.

Quote: [ Van Tonder broke away from the National Party in 1961 because of what he described as its betrayal of the old Boer republics. ] From: [ http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=qw933873780531O134 ]

                                                                Robert van Tonder.

The following is from journalist Adriana Stuijt within a post at the African Crisis forum posted on Sunday Oct 7 2007. Quote:

[ For a while people in the Transvaal and Orange-Free State Republics were independent and referred to themselves as "Boers' even though many weren't farmers. Many also referred to their language as die Taal or Boertaal. The Boers have always viewed themselves as different from the Afrikaners at the Cape. After they were defeated by the British, the Boers suddenly were no longer allowed to refer to themselves as Boers, but were forced to join the ethnic-identity of the Afrikaners of whom many had fought with the British and many of whom were given farms as a reward. These Afrikaners generally dominated in the Afrikaner-Broederbond and were very insistent on always suppressing the Boer identity and also the Boers' history. ] End of quote. From: [ http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=18320& ]

The following is from Professor Tobias Louw of the Cultural Justice Foundation. Quote:

[ Another point of grotesque confusion that we need to clear up, is that Boers are not "Afrikaners". None of your co-workers seem to have any understanding of this. All Boers are aware of the systematic subterfuge and distortion of "identity" that has been the result of the makings of the Broederbond and the National Party, based upon the then image of the British imperialist gentleman. This artificial identity was meant to wean away the Boers from their strong identify, from their history, from their nationalism, and thus weaken them. ] From: [ web.archive.org/web/20031001202018/rebellie.org/Raaktief/rk_openletter_ISS.htm ]

The following is from Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio from an interview from December 2007.

Quote:

[ And so it's actually a farce because today when you ask people what happened to the Cape Dutch. Where are they? Where have they gone? Did they become like the dinosaurs? Just wiped out. Did some meteorite hit the Cape province & destroy them? Where did these Afrikaners come from? You know. What happened to the Boers? They can't answer you. You know because the Boers are there... The Cape Dutch have disappeared... Although they say the Afrikaners are there.

Which means the Boers have disappeared and the Cape Dutch have disappeared. So somehow the two became "one". They never became one as a nation. Never at all. They became one as a myth of the politicians to form a new nation. As Milner said: to destroy the Boers there is only one way. Do not ever try to go to war with them again. Britain will lose. Because Britain was nearly bankrupted at the end of the Anglo-Boer War. It was the most expensive war they ever fought.

And Milner said "the only way to destroy the Boers is to destroy their identity". And that's exactly what they did the politicians. They removed our identity from our souls from our nation. And they started calling us Afrikaners in our schools / education systems in our churches and you name it. People started calling themselves Afrikaners. And today a lot of them still don't realize that they're actually Boers because of the propaganda. ] End of quote.

The notion that no one can be a Boer simply because their Boer Republics were conquered [ as the article further ridiculously asserts ] is a lot of absolute dispossessing nonsense! Did the Scots stop existing just because Scotland was conquered for hundreds of years?! What nonsense! The Boers might live in the same South Africa as the Xhosas / Zulus & Griquas etc. but... those groups STILL exist! Just as the Boers still do. They are not all now JUST South Africans as the author disingenuously implied. The author appears to put stock in the mythology of a "South African" when in reality that is a civil term used to describe the citizens & inhabitants of the macro State of South Africa as created by the British in 1909 from an act of British legislation. The Boers will continue to exist so long as they continue to reproduce. The Boers emerged from the Trekboers of the late 17th cent. [ just a few decades after the arrival of Van Riebeeck ] and have existed throughout the era of the Boer Republics [ named after the Boers! ] and throughout the 20th cent despite Broederbond attempts at stamping out Boer identity! Read up on how the Afrikaner Broederbond attempted to stop Robert van Tonder from reporting the Boers' own POST Anglo-Boer War history! The Broederbond tried to eradicate the identity of the Boer people in much the same way the ANC is today trying to eradicate ethnic identities across the board.

The following is another quote from Adriana Stuijt from Wednesday, July 2, 2008. Quote:

[ Robert van Tonder merely propagated his Boerestaat idea - and, realising that most people had been deliberately denied much knowledge about their own post-Anglo-Boer war history, most of his time was spent trying to teach people about their own history. His opponents inside the Nationale Party also were tireless in discrediting him as much as they could - and they had all of the state's machinery to do this with. ] From: [ https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2434489302861048952&postID=2338376545231088075 ]

Another horrendous lie perpetrated in the article is the erroneous notion that the Boer folk got started during the Great Trek. I have seen this lie promoted in a few other places but this lie is ITSELF the true making of Broederbond propaganda because the Boers existed LONG before the Great Trek. The Boers got started from the Trekboers of the late 1600 & 1700s. The Boers existed for 150 years BEFORE the Great Trek. I think this erroneous notion must have been promoted by the Afrikaner Nationalists [ Afrikaans Collectivists who were directed by the Afrikaner Broederbond ] in order to deny the anthropological distinction of the Boer Nation.

Trekboer migration map: start of Boer Nation.
Source of the map.

Then there is the misnomer that they were all originally Dutch speakers when in fact the ancestors of the Boers spoke many different languages & Dutch was at the bottom of the list as very few ancestors were outright of Dutch origin. Once the ancestors began to reproduce & amalgamate among one another on African soil: they began to adopt the patois spoken at the Cape which was a blend of Dutch / Malay / German / Portuguese & Nama: a Khoi dialect.

The Boer people emerged from the Trekboers of the 1700s & speak their own Afrikaans dialect that historians have classified as Eastern Border Afrikaans. The term Afrikaans was coined by the Cape Dutch [ & two Hollanders ] when they started a nominal language rights movement in 1875 for which they began calling themselves Afrikaners for the first time ever in their nebulous history of which virtually nothing was heard from them prior.

I am flabbergasted that the author of the ToxiNews article could write such an offensive anti-Boer hit piece because he was openly implying that the Broederbond created the Boers [ wtf? ] when they were in fact specifically trying to eradicate the Boers! The Afrikaners suppressed Boer identity and oppressed the Boers in the process. Theuns Cloete rightly noted [ in the first interview he did with The Right Perspective ] that the Boers were "also under Apartheid" as they were prevented from obtaining any form of self determination.

The following is from From: Boer, Afrikaner Or White - Which Are You? By Adriana Stuijt. Quote:

[ It's a little-known part of history which started shortly after the end of the Anglo-Boer war in 1902, when the Boers were a defeated, poverty-stricken people who had been chased off their farms and whose towns had been destroyed by the British. They were dirt-poor and plunged into an unprecedented famine. Many had to flee to the cities to survive - places which were totally alien to them, places were only English was being spoken, places where their churches were being run by people who referred to themselves as Afrikaners.

................

After this first genocide to target the Boer nation, their descendants still managed to cling to their identity for at least another generation - until the secret cabal of wealthy Afrikaners called the Afrikaner Broederbond gained hegemony -- and then took away their identity from about 1933 onwards.

...........

Thus all the history books were rewritten and Boers with too-long memories such as Robert van Tonder of the Boerestaat Party and Eugene Terre'Blanche (of the incorrectly-named) Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging were persecuted publicly by the regime, aided and abetted by the Afrikaans-language news media. Eugene's heart is in the right place: he bears the flag of the old Boer Republic and he refers to himself as a Boer. But his organisation's name bears witness to his ethnic confusion, caused by the Afrikaner Broederbond's rewriting of his own history.

...........

The old Voortrekker Streets all over South Africa are now being renamed to Chris Hani and Nelson Mandela streets and other names of people who, unlike the old Voortrekkers, actually have contributed absolutely nothing to the development of those streets whatsoever.

Thus the ANC is proving itself to be just as fascist in its nature as the old Afrikaner Broederbond they had replaced.

Both organisations are still hell-bent to wipe out all evidence of the Boer history.

They even continue to persecute and jail anyone who wants to rekindle Boer history such as Eugene Terre'Blanche and the Boeremag-15, undergoing their hyped-up, trumped-up treason trial in Pretoria High Court. ] End of quote. From: [ http://www.rense.com/general56/boerafrikanerorwhite.htm as well as http://www.stopboergenocide.com/29301/index.html ]

More from Stuijt from a post within the Stop Boer Genocide site. Quote:

[ Small wonder these people are confused about their own identity! A "trekBoer", a "grensBoer", a "Voortrekker" and a "Boer" all refer to exactly the same people who had founded and supported the Independent Boer Republics of Natalia, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal (ZAR) and who were independent citizens in their own democratic republics for about fifty years before the British destroyed them in their ethnic-cleansing campaign.

History records that the British, the Dutch, the Germans, the French, the Americans and indeed many other foreign governments during those years invariably referred to the voters of these republics as "Boers." After they were defeated, they suddenly weren't allowed to call themselves Boers any longer by the British victors -- and the elitists Afrikaans-speaking collaborators who had worked with the British to defeat them and who had always referred to themselves as "Afrikaners" - after the language they spoke -- then started calling the former, defeated voters of the Boer Republics "Afrikaners."

One can generally still identify people who call themselves Boers these days as those Afrikaans-speaking paler-skinned people in South Africa who are mainly descended from working-class Afrikaans-speakers; many of those were mineworkers and technical workers at the former State-owned companies such as Telkom, Sasol etc. It's actually amazing how many of these people still privately refer to themselves as Boers even though they are being derided and sneered at from all sides. ] From: Journalist Adriana Stuijt at Stop Boer Genocide Forum. [ http://www.stopboergenocide.com/108362/66301.html?cc=0.6592351616083536&i=25271013#start ]

I would highly recommend that if anyone really wants to know who the Boers were and are:

That you visit my Boer history & information blog: Republican Trekker Volk. Click here for the link. So named as it is specifically about the specific folk who developed a sporadic trekking / semi nomadic lifestyle as Trekboers & would soon be known as Boers who in turned adopted a republican outlook & established numerous Boer Republics. Unlike the meanderings of the article I am responding to: my humble blog dispenses with all this confusing & divisive claptrap and goes straight to the heart of who the Boer people are & their general outlook. The Boers were lumped in with the Cape Dutch under the dispossessing Afrikaner designation which was a designation promoted by the politicians / press / churches & the British in particular for the express purpose of destroying the identity of the Boers so that there could never be a rerun of the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 which almost restored the Boer Republics.

The Afrikaner establishment does not want the Boer Republics to come back as it would threaten their control over the region and their access to its resources. The notion that the Boers "do not exist" or are a nebulous fringe political concept is dispossessing and damaging anti-Boer nonsense designed to further subjugate & destroy the Boer Nation.

New Black Panthers hit South Africa

2013-03-22T17:47:00.001+00:00

from The New American:

Click on extract above to read full article