Saturday, February 26, 2011

Anniversary of the Orange Free State Flag.

The anniversary of the Orange Free State flag was a few days ago & a few months ago I found the best picture of it online. The flag in the picture is slightly incorrect as there is supposed to be another white stripe / bar. The Orange Free State Republic flag was designed 155 years ago & was adopted on February 23 1857 on the third anniversary of the Orange Free State Republic.

Note to first time learners: the Orange Free State was a Boer Republic established between the Orange & Vaal Rivers in southern Africa [ today known as the Free State Province of the Republic of South Africa ] on February 23 1854 as a result of the Orange River Convention. The northern portion of the Orange Free State was where the Winburg Republic [ which used a red saltire on a blue background as a flag ] was located which was established by Hendrik Potgieter & his followers during the era of the Great Trek. The Orange Free State Republic flag is said to have been loosely modeled on the design of the United States of America flag. The red / white & blue horizontal tri colour in the canton was the first Boer Republican flag ever adopted as it was the flag adopted for the short lived Graaff-Reinet Republic of 1795 - 1796 as well as the flag of the even shorter lived Swellendam Republic of 1795. The orange stripes are said to represent the Orange River. The Orange Free State was conquered by the British at the conclusion of the second Anglo-Boer War. This flag was depicted in the popular De la Rey video of Bok van Blerk which was depicting the Bitter Ender phase of the second Anglo-Boer War. The flag was & is one of the numerous Boer Republic flags on display within the Cenotaph Chamber at the Voortrekker Monument at Pretoria atop Monument Hill & is a popular symbol of the Boer folk.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

By their friends you shall know the rapists of Africa

I wonder what is currently going on in the inner circles of the ANC?

A cash cow is dying?

Gaddafi Gives Anc Millions: Report

CAPE TOWN 30 May 1999 Sapa

Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi has donated millions of pounds to a "secret election campaign fund" run by President Nelson Mandela to allow the African National Congress to win the June 2 election, the British Sunday Telegraph reported on Sunday.

According to SABC radio news reports, figures compiled by Greg Mills of the South African Institute for International Affairs revealed that the ANC had received more than 112 million pounds in overseas funding from what Mills said was "questionable sources".

ANC spokesman Smuts Ngonyama dismissed the Telegraph report as a "smear campaign" against the ANC and "whoever is making the claims... has got a sinister motive".

The ANC could not say whether it had received money from Gaddafi or not, but there was nothing wrong if it had. "Like all other political parties, the ANC receives donations," Ngonyama said.

Parties such as the Democratic Party and the United Democratic Movement received funds from "countries such as the United States, but no-one has ever queried this", he said.

The Sunday Telegraph report was a "continuation of the British media trying to choose friends for the ANC", Smuts said.

Excerpt from a Mandela speech.

“It was pure expediency to call on democratic South Africa to turn its back on Libya and Qaddafi, who had assisted us in obtaining democracy at a time when those who now made that call were the friends of the enemies of democracy in South Africa.

Had we heeded those demands, we would have betrayed the very values and attitudes that allowed us as a nation to have adversaries sitting down and negotiating in a spirit of compromise. It would have meant denying that the South African experience could be a model and example for international behaviour.

In many ways, our modest contribution to resolving the Lockerbie issue will remain a highlight of the international aspects of our Presidency. No one can deny that the friendship and trust between South Africa and Libya played a significant part in arriving at this solution. If that be so, it vindicates our view that talking to one another and searching for peaceful solutions remain the surest way to resolve differences and advance peace and progress in the world.

We look forward with joy and anticipation to the full re-entry of Libya into the affairs of our continent and the world.

We have already seen Libya take up its role as an important actor on the African continent to help advance the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

South Africa is proud to acknowledge the coincidence between its own position and SADC's, on the one hand, and that of Libya on the other. We share the view that peace in the DRC can only be achieved through the withdrawal of all foreign forces and an inclusive political process of Congolese groups.

We appreciate very much Libya's indication that its own efforts will be co-ordinated with those of our regional organisation, SADC. This approach confounds those who suggest that Libya is less than fully committed to multilateralism. My Brother Leader is involved in the Congolese process as a facilitator of the SADC process, just as we were involved in the Lockerbie issue as facilitators for the United Nations. In such ways we advance the ideals of multilateral co-operation and discipline. And for that we thank our Brother Leader and the Libyan people.

It was with much appreciation that I received reports from my Minister of Trade and Industry about our recent trade delegation to Libya. The friendly political relations between our two countries are now being consolidated and deepened through trade. We look forward to South African companies and Libyan entities bridging our continent from North to South in concrete expressions of African unity.

My Brother Leader, I know that in the abstemious conditions of the North African desert it is not the custom to propose a toast. We are, however, overwhelmed by at last having here on this southern tip of Africa one of the revolutionary icons of our times.

I shall therefore take the liberty to invite our guests to rise and raise their glasses with me in salute to Muamar Qaddafi, our Brother Leader of the Revolution of the Libyan Jamahariya, and to growing friendship between the people of our two countries.”

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Bloodbath on farms

STOP_GENOCIDE350More than 60 murders from Dec 2010 to mid-January 2011 on farms and smallholdings – André Botha, Agri SA.  This excludes recent farm murders like that of Helgard Muller (66) of the farm Mara in Frankfort.

These murders are an indication of moral decay in South Africa – Salam Abram, ANC MP.  “There is no respect for fellow citizens or age.”

Source: Volksblad




Vicüs Bürger

Meer as 60 moorde is van begin Desember 2010 tot middel Januarie op plase en kleiner boerdery-eenhede in Suid-Afrika gepleeg.

Dié skoksyfer is gister deur mnr. André Botha, voorsitter van Agri SA se komitee vir landelike veiligheid, aan Volksblad bekend gemaak.

In reaksie sê Botha dit help nie die regering het die stelsels en strukture om mense se veiligheid te verseker, maar niemand veroordeel misdaad in die sterkste moontlike terme nie.

Mnr. Salam Abram, ’n ANC-LP van die Vrystaat, sê dié moorde getuig van morele verval in die land.

“Daar is nie meer respek vir die medemens en ouderdom nie.”

As daar inderdaad ’n gewisse gesamentlike poging bestaan om boere uit te wis, sal die Vrystaatse LUR van landbou en landelike ontwikkeling, mnr. Msebenzi Zwane, ’n kommissie van ondersoek hierná instel. Hy sal dit egter nie doen as dit net normale misdadige optrede blyk te wees nie.

Só het die LUR se woordvoerder, mnr. Life Mokone, by navraag gesê. (Berig op bl.2.)

Die 60 moorde sluit onlangse plaasmoorde uit soos die naweek s’n op die Vrystater mnr. Helgard Muller (66).

Intussen het Muller, van die plaas Mara in die Frankfort-distrik, se vermeende moordenaars die eerste keer in die landdroshof op die dorp verskyn.

Me. Sebongile Mnguni (25) van Frankfort en mnre. Mojalefa Albiner Motloung (32) en Themba Chris Ncala (19), albei van Oranjeville, word aangekla van gewapende roof en moord.

Hul saak is tot 2 Maart uitgestel sodat hulle regsverteenwoordigers kan kry.

Mnr. Hans Pretorius, DA-raadslid van die Mafube-munisipaliteit, sê tientalle boere het gister na die hof opgeruk. Die hofverskyning het vreedsaam en sonder enige oproer plaasgevind.

Nadat die hof verdaag het, het een van die vermeende moordenaars volgens Pretorius met ’n “siniese glimlag” na die boere gekyk.

Pretorius het die boere ná die hofverrigtinge byeengeroep en die polisie vir hul flinke optrede bedank, waarná die boere spontaan begin hande klap het.

Die polisie het die vermeende moordenaars vasgetrek slegs enkele ure nadat Muller Saterdag vermoor is. Muller is in die kop geskiet en op pad na ’n hospitaal in Vereeniging dood.

Volgens sy dogter, mev. Hanneke Coetzee (36), is een van die verdagtes die broer van ’n huishulp op die plaas. Die mans het na bewering Vrydagaand in die huishulp se huis geslaap. Sy was glo nie tuis nie.

Dit is nie seker of sy vir hulle toestemming gegee het nie.

Coetzee sê die familie vermoed nie in hierdie stadium dat die huishulp by die plaasaanval en -moord betrokke was nie.

Botha is tans op Agri SA se konferensie op Somerset-Wes waar plaasmoorde en ander landboukwessies met onder meer regeringslui bespreek word. Die konferensie het gister begin en eindig vandag.

Muller word Donderdag om 12:00 uit die Gereformeerde kerk op Frankfort begrawe.

- Volksblad

Monday, February 21, 2011

New Affirmative Action Law to Come into Force

I was sent this email by a representative of the Cape Party, and it represents a terrifying new move by the ANC to consolidate its power and make it impossible for non-blacks to survive in the "new" South Africa:

The letter reads:

"...You wont be able to find a job even if you're well qualified because the ANC is about to pass a law which guarantees that Affirmative Action quotas are to be applied according to national and not regional demographics.

What does this mean? The black national majority (79%) will fill 79% of all jobs in the Western Cape, for no other reason than the fact that they're black. Coloureds and whites will get jobs according to their national share of the population. At present coloureds are roughly 52% of the Western Cape population and whites 18%, but under the newly proposed AA laws coloureds are only allowed to be given 8% of the jobs and whites 9% in line with their respective national share."
According to News24:
Solidarity's deputy general secretary Dirk Hermann said the amendments could amount to "a massive and unfeasible social engineering programme".

"In terms of the amendment, the act would no longer recognise the economically active population (EAP) of a region, but only the national demographics the economically active population," Hermann said.
Solidarity is planning a legal challenge to the new law.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Apartheid v African Tribalism

It is quite easy to criticise Apartheid when ignoring the alternative.  Any person with half a brain and living in South Africa during the Apartheid years will tell you that certain things had to change.  Some laws had nothing to do with protecting people, but with enriching the elite (exactly what you have with the ANC now).  It is also true that for every fact known about Apartheid, there exists thousands of lies and propaganda, ranging from blacks being starved to death to being killed by the millions.

However, the truth is out there for those interested in finding it.  That’s the beauty of alternative media – not even the leftist liberal loser lackey scum can hide the facts.  Sometimes you don’t even have to read a book.  You just have to listen.  Listen to those stating fact as opposed to spreading propaganda.

Here is another prime example of fact, care of The Right Perspective…

The Right Perspective on Apartheid v African Tribalism

Saturday, February 19, 2011

One farm attack per day

FarmMurdersMonumentSouthAfricaPietersburg_thumb[2]The reason I don’t tolerate communist propaganda BS from brain-dead anti-white liberal hoodlums - even the English newspapers are publishing articles on the frequency of farm attacks and murders.  Something they deliberately withheld in the past to limit international exposure.  Only Afrikaans newspapers published regular articles on farm murders.

The list of murdered farmers is available for anybody interested in doing the research.

But if you want to phone up the local ANC office to ask for a copy, chances are Sipho will fob you off with some more propaganda that no such thing exists.  Farm murders that is.

The ANC thugs got their security guards to prevent Steve Hofmeyr and his group from handing over the list of murdered farmers together with a petition for the SA government to do something about the onslaught on white farmers.  The mud hut dwellers tore up the list and threw it in the street.

But if you rather want Marxist propaganda or regurgitated drivel – go and Google “Kill all Whitey” or “Shut-up Whitey” or whatever some thug hoodlum is calling his tripe nowadays.  There you’ll find 101 reasons why killing a farmer is a good thing.  Or not so bad.  Or not as bad as somebody says.

Then go and read the Marxist agenda of the Frankfurt School (1923) and decide who is holding a blindfold in one hand and a spoon full of shit in the other.  Or do you really need to do the blindfold test to determine whether Marxists actually feed you the crap they are clutching in the other hand, or magically conjure up a spoon full of honey you didn’t notice?

There has been about one farm attack per day in SA since President Jacob Zuma’s state of the nation address on February 10, the Christian Democratic Party said.

“The latest farm murder – that of Alberto Cota near Stellenbosch – brings the tally to at least five farm murders since President Jacob Zuma claimed a reduction in certain categories of crime during his state of the nation address,” said CDP leader Reverend Theunis Botha.

“Some farm attacks have taken place in the Free State and Mpumalanga, in one case the victim is in a critical condition,” he said referring to the attack on a Free State farmer by three men this morning in which the farmer was shot in the head and his bakkie stolen.

“Periodic condemnations by the ANC simply do not cut it especially when the ANC insists on its ‘right’ to sing songs like ‘kill the farmer’.

“Potential attackers must be made to understand quite clearly that farmers are not free game and that the government is serious in rooting out the problem,” he said.

A farmer was attacked on Mara Farm, between Frankfort and Tweeling, at about 11am.

Police were unsure of the exact details of the incident but the farmer was shot in the head and the three attackers fled with his bakkie.

There have been no arrests and police are investigating a case of attempted murder and robbery.


Source: Citypress

Crime Documentary - An Appeal For Help

Friday, February 18, 2011

Lara Logan Update

Lara Logan, the CBS News correspondent and Durban-born journalist who was sexually assaulted and beaten by a gang of men in Egypt, is recovering from her ordeal.

Logan has recovered enough from the situation to where she is going to be reunited with her two children. Logan is said to be in good spirits, despite what happened to her.

"It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy," Logan said in an interview.

Ms.Logan is a reminder that journalists are often brave souls who go to great lengths to report the truth.



An interesting view on the media and Political Correctness from Caroline B. Glick:

"...a person's membership in specific victim groups is far more important than his behavior. And there is a clear pecking order of victimhood in identity politics. Anti-American Third World national, religious and ethnic groups are at the top of the victim food chain. They out-victim everyone else.

After them come the Western victims: Racial minorities, women, homosexuals, children and animals.

Israelis, Jews, Americans, white males and rich people are the predetermined perpetrators. No matter how badly they are victimized, brave reporters will go to heroic lengths to ignore, underplay or explain away their suffering."

Affirmative action (BEE) is at last showing results.

It is with great despair that I read articles like this.

I am not an artisan, never have been one, but I grew up in a time when many of my friends went to Olifantsfontein, and am well aware of how difficult it sometimes were for them.

The reasons in the article are a BIG lie and I am adding a comment from HendrikAfrika, that gives a very clear synopsis of what really the problems are.

SA artisan shortage.

Cape Town - The extent to which South Africa has slipped backwards in the training of artisans was made clear by Deputy Economic Development Minister Enoch Godongwana on Wednesday.

Briefing members of parliament's water and environmental affairs portfolio committee on the government's new growth path, he said lack of skills was a major obstacle on the road to economic prosperity.

"Lack of skills is a major challenge. Unless we change skills formation, we're not likely to make a huge impact.

"(What is) shocking is that in 1975, there were 33 000 registered apprentices, largely white, with a few coloured and Indian (apprentices), because Africans (blacks) were not allowed to be artisans at the time," he said.

"Now if you take a picture in 2000, there were 10% of (this figure), 3 000 artisans of all races. What this means is we're not training people at all in this economy. Clearly this is a major challenge."

The government intended to "ramp up" these figures, with particular focus on artisan training in state-owned enterprises.

"Why did they have 33 000 in 1975, and 3 000 in 2000? It's because the people who were training these artisans in those years were... Iscor before privatisation, Telkom before privatisation, Transnet before corporatisation, Eskom before corporatisation, you can count a lot.

"But what happened when this restructuring took place? Profit became the determining factor, and the first target in terms of cost-cutting was training.

"So, we're beginning to say some of the state-owned enterprises are playing a critical role in skills formation in this economy and therefore we've got to ramp up," he said.

Among the government's key skills targets is the training of 30 000 engineers and 50 000 artisans by 2014/15.

HendrikAfrika Feb 16 2011 15:34

At last somebody has noted it.

Artisans, we need qualified artisans.

The numbers are down from 30000 in 1975 to some 3000 in 2007.

Enoch Godonsy ask why?

I will tell you why.

It is because like most other things that were worth something your government has brought the standard and quality down. FAST TRACKING is what it is called. Nobody wants to be an artisan anymore, at least not a South African qualified artisan.

Whereas before 1994 our artisans were the backbone of our industry and recognized worldwide.

With the advent of the change in Government in 1994 it was quickly recognized that they needed to increase the number black (previously excluded people) artisans in this well sought after category of skilled workers.

The problem was that this skill was not easily achieved; it took three to four years of being trained as an apprentice and attending an appropriate Technical College course for a boilermaker, fitter and turner etc. Then, the main thing, you had to PASS a proper practical trade test at a center specializing in trade test e.g. the old Olifantsfontein trade test center.

The government quickly recognized that the population groups previously excluded from this route of qualification were not up to the quality required to pass these trade tests.

Anyway their better students were rather sending to university which is surely the correct thing to do.

For the non-graduate artisan discipline (surely these guys do not need four years or good quality people) the period required for working as an apprentice was reduced to something like six months with no proper testing at the end only proof that they were employed in the appropriate position for the required period. They were then 'qualified' as artisans. The result was a product that could not do the job and nobody wanted to hire them.

They themselves quickly noticed that this was a 'career' with no future and any worthwhile candidate avoided this route of training. That is what is called FAST TRACKING.

How many artisans from all races could have been trained (PROPERLY) from 1994 and you know what, proper artisans create employment opportunities around them. They start up successful small businesses that grow employing more and more people.

THIS fast tracking, that has been the creation of the current government, is the MAIN reason why millions of job opportunities are lost.

Your voters should crucify you.

By now we would have had thousands and thousands of proper trained artisans with a successful industry and many successful small businesses with entrepreneurs that would have been welcomed by existing industry as BEE partners.

Overall we would have had an increase in employment figures not a decrease as it stands at the moment.

South Africa's government has completely derailed a well organised and efficient training of practical engineers.

Parents, unemployed youngsters, it is not to late to turn it around.

With the subsidies that our president, Jacob Zuma, had announced (in his state of the nation address) the system could be brought back on track - but forget about the fast tracking - do it properly.

One of the problems with the decisions since 1994 is that it was made by people that had no idea of what the actual situation was and what effect their uninformed decisions would have.

INSIST that government apply and adjust the training of artisans correctly.

You can do it, you overcame apartheid, now overcome the short sightedness of your representatives in government. Tell them to do the right thing; you have the vote, look at the long term.

We have a new opportunity. Get people that know what is required for the system to work to sit with the government departments involved and let us look back in ten years time at a success story.

REMEMBER the four years proper training and proper TESTING and forget the short cuts.

Ol’ dangling testicles…

He’s showing his true colours again.  I told everybody that he was playing all the Boer and Afrikaner groups when meeting with them.  He would never allow a homeland to them, or any other tribe (like the “evil Apartheid regime” did).  For one, those wanting their own homeland are currently supporting the criminal communist bunch by paying the majority of taxes in the country.  They are his meal ticket.  And his whole fat arsed family’s too.  Everybody knows that.

Click on the image to read the rest at The Right Perspective…


Saturday, February 12, 2011

Boer Genocide Song

Thursday, February 10, 2011

The Persistent Blind Spot.

There appears to be a long running blind spot concerning the Afrikaans speaking population of the Western Cape as some authors & commentators have routinely conflated them with the Boer population of the Cape frontier. Discussions on the Great Trek by those authors therefore refer to an amorphous Afrikaner group thereby overshadowing the actual Boer population which went on the Great Trek. Thereby openly insinuating that the Great Trek was something "only a minority of Afrikaners" engaged in when in reality the bulk of the Boer people engaged in it & very few actual Cape Dutch did. The most most egregious example of this blind spot was demonstrated by an Anglo-Boer War era author from France whose misunderstanding was so extreme that he actually erroneously thought that most "Boers" remained behind at the Cape during the Great Trek simply because most of the Afrikaans speaking population - the Cape Dutch population - remained. The author in question: Yves Guyot wrote the following.

[ Ancestors of the Boers had more than once acted in a similar manner towards the Dutch East India Company when dissatisfied with their administration, and unwilling to pay their taxes. But Pro-Boers have a curious habit of magnifying things. One would imagine, to hear them speak, that every Boer in the Cape had packed wife, children, and goods into ox-wagons and had trekked north. As a matter of fact, the greater proportion remained behind, and their descendants formed the majority of the 376,000 whites enumerated in the census of 1891. The Great Trek was really composed of various detachments which started one after another in 1836. Statistics of the numbers of trekkers vary from 5,000 to 10,000. ]

The "greater proportion" of the Afrikaans speakers he was referring to were in fact the Cape Dutch [ ie: non-Boer ] population of the Western Cape who have always outnumbered the Boer population which developed on the Cape frontier. [ circa 1679 - 1735 ] Therefore his devise of trying to imply that most "Boers" did not go on the Great Trek falls flat & underscores his total misunderstanding over who the greater proportion of the Afrikaans speaking folks at the Cape were because most of them have never ascribed to the independence outlook of the Boer population of the frontier nor saw themselves as Boers. Therefore his feeble attempt at implying that the Boers who trekked somehow represented a "marginal" or "minority" decision [ as he views the Afrikaans speakers as one monolithic group when in reality the Boers developed into a separate group away from & distinct from the Cape Dutch ] does great damage to the reality that the bulk of the Boer population [ if not even most ] were driven to trek.

Therefore Guyot was employing a technique which is still commonly used to marginalize the aspirations of the Boer people by implying that they are simply "a minority" within a larger language based whole who "must respect the majority decision" of the artificial larger whole & accept the decisions of the establishment Afrikaner leadership & "abandon" their centuries long struggle for Boer self determination.

This glaring misconception & the accompanying blind spot to the larger Cape Dutch population is also erroneously asserted & propagated in books such as The White Tribe of Africa [ authored by a British BBC journalist who specifically sought out & largely parroted an Afrikaner Broederbond tinged perspective ] most notable in the incorrect assertion within the line: [ One hundred and fifty years ago, the Boers had nothing but a determination to escape from those who prevented them from living as they wished. Today their descendents control the whole of South Africa. ] Which of course is impossible & a false claim because the Boers are no more than 40 % of the entire White Afrikaans speaking population. How could they control "the whole of South Africa" when they did not even control the whole of the Afrikaner designation. The macro Afrikaner group which inherited control of South Africa was mainly of Cape Dutch descent as the Boer segment was the smaller portion. The Cape Dutch descendents make up at least 60 - 65 % of the White Afrikaans speaking population ergo when the White Afrikaans speakers inherited the macro State of South Africa: the Boer segment could not possibly have controlled "the whole of South Africa" as they were naturally outnumbered by the Cape Dutch originated Afrikaners whose votes carried more weight. Cape Dutch, English speakers & Boers all had access to the vote under South Africa ergo the Boer segment did not have the numerical strength to take control of South Africa via the electoral process. Why do some authors purposely omit the Cape Dutch ancestors of the Afrikaner named group? Are they simply ignorant of them? Are they simply influenced by Afrikaner Broederbond propaganda? Did the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners suddenly die out? Of course not. So why are the Cape Dutch segment curiously rarely mentioned? The Cape Dutch were not an invisible people as they had in fact named the Afrikaans language as such & started the first Afrikaans language based newspaper. One would think that this act would have put them on the map. Though they did so under the Afrikaner designation thereby obscuring the Cape Dutch roots. In fact the Boer population were the ones dying out as per the 50 % loss of their children in the concentration camps during the second Anglo-Boer War. Thereby giving the Cape Dutch an even greater population momentum within the Afrikaner designation. Therefore it is mathematically impossible for Boers to have controlled the WHOLE of South Africa as they would only have held sway within the regions they dominated numerically via the electorate though tragically under Afrikaner political domination.

This misunderstanding still shows up in present times. As an example: when the host of the African Crisis website read a book noting that there were more Afrikaans speakers at the Cape during the Anglo-Boer War. He then outrageously & erroneously proclaimed: "I read that there were more 'Boers' in the Western Cape than there were in the Boer Republics. "! Which of course is totally wrong & demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of who the Boer people are & who the Afrikaans speaking population at the Western Cape were / are. While some Boers of the Cape frontier remained behind during the Great Trek - the vast majority of the Cape Afrikaans speaking population are of course the Cape Dutch of the Western Cape. This misunderstanding is compounded further as many do not even know that the Great Trek was from the eastern Cape where the Boer population lived & not from the Western Cape of the Cape Dutch. This misunderstanding was typified when an American website host erroneously thought that the Great Trek was from Cape Town [ probably confusing the re-enactment which occurred during the centennial & started from Cape Town ] when the fact of the matter is that the Great Trek was virtually exclusively from the north eastern Cape frontier from towns like: Cradock / Uitenhage / Grahamstown / Swellendam / Somerset East / Graaff-Reniet etc. There were around 10 000 Boers at most who went on the Great Trek out of a total Cape Afrikaans speaking population of at least 30 000 - 40 000. The vast majority of the 30 000 - 40 000 Afrikaans speakers were the Western Cape based Cape Dutch.

The population statistics for the late 19th cent show that there were around 400 000 White inhabitants at the Cape - with the vast majority of the Afrikaans speakers being from the Cape Dutch population. While there were never more than 250 000 to 300 000 Boers at most prior to the second Anglo-Boer War thereby demonstrating as plain as day that the erroneous notion that Boer desendents could have governed South Africa alone by themselves is mathematically impossible & totally disregards the numerically larger Cape Dutch population group.

This regrettable misunderstanding & conflation got perpetuated further as the African Crisis website host Jan Lamprecht misinformed the large listening audience of the Jeff Rense radio program on April 5 of 2010 when he erroneously stated ad nauseum that the Boer Republics were established by the "Afrikaners" [ when the Afrikaners of the time were in fact not even yet trying to co-opt the Boers via the Afrikaner Bond ] when in fact the Cape Dutch Afrikaners have NEVER wanted freedom or independence & have NEVER established any republics until 1961 when they turned the Union of South Africa into the nominal Republic of South Africa largely as a result of Boer population support via the national referendum on the topic. Then during the same broadcast he made the most outrageous assertion when he claimed that the National Party rose to power as a result of a "Boer conspiracy"! I kid you not. While the rise of the National Party could be ascribed as having been the result of an Afrikaner Broederbond conspiracy - the fact that Lamprecht attempts to shift blame ENTIRELY on then largely impoverished & working class Boer people [ who are the SMALLER segment of the White Afrikaans speaking population ] & TOTALLY OMITTED MENTIONING the role of the Afrikaners [ who are mostly of Cape Dutch origin ] spoke volumes / betrays ignorance & would suggest an anti-Boer agenda at worst. Because he has been informed in the past but continues to peddle erroneous assertions.

Why does he speak of "Afrikaner Republics" when the Afrikaners of the era were OPPOSED to the Great Trek of the Boers? Why does he speak about a "Boer conspiracy" when the Afrikaners engaged in said "conspiracy" [ his term ] would be of Cape Dutch origin as well? He could have called it accurately an "Afrikaner conspiracy" but he chose to call it a "Boer conspiracy". The term Afrikaner was used when he was talking about Boers & the term Boer was used when he was taking about Afrikaners. This is rather curious. While there were certainly a number of Boer descendents [ now part of the Afrikaner coalition & only identifying themselves as Afrikaners ] who participated in the rise of the National Party with some also recruited into the Broederbond - it would certainly be a total distortion & an outright lie to blame the Boer people for engaging in a "conspiracy" when the vast majority of the Afrikaners were descended from the Cape Dutch population & thus not were not even from the Boer population.

The Boer people were under the thumb of the Afrikaners & blaming Boers exclusively for the actions of the Afrikaners neglects the role of the larger & dominant Afrikaans speaking population group. Furthermore the driving force behind the "conspiracy" was not even the average Afrikaner but rather the Afrikaner Broederbond which was a then semi secret society which was unknown to most Boers & Afrikaners. But Lamprecht blames an entire ethnic group for the actions of a very small & secretive group. The two most notable drivers of the rise of the National Party were D F Malan & Hendrik Verwoerd. Both not from the Boer people. [ Malan was from the Cape Dutch & Verwoerd was a naturalized Afrikaner originally from Holland. ] Henning Klopper who was one of the founders of the Broederbond might have been of Boer descent BUT he was totally initiated into viewing himself as an Afrikaner via the speeches of JBM Hertzog & thus on board with the Afrikaner teleocratic agenda to work within macro State to take it over for the bulk of the Afrikaans speakers [ which Hertzog actually opposed as he wanted to promote a bi-lingual coalition via "English Afrikaners" working together with "Afrikaans Afrikaners" ] & the Afrikaner Broederbond in particular. Lamprecht also gave a dangerous false impression when he spoke of Terre'Blanche as being the only one who "stood up" to be counted while totally neglecting the much longer role that Robert van Tonder played as he left the National Party in 1961 to defend the Boer people & to advocate for the restoration of the Boer Republics. The political outlook of Robert van Tonder would later play a significant role in the political outlook of Eugene Terre'Blanche - particularly when Terre'Blanche got on board with the Boer freedom struggle & began to call for the restoration of the Boer Republics by 1985 due to the influence of van Tonder. Therefore ignoring the role of Robert van Tonder was also curious. Van Tonder had to endure a lot more abuse / threats & violence than Terre'Blanche did in the defense of his people yet nary of word.

Another curious thing about Lamprecht was when he noted on his website that he could not identify most of the Boer flags used during the Boer Protest March of March 2006. How can someone who can not even identify various Boer flags let alone not even admit that the Boers are not Afrikaners [ as the Boers are from the Cape frontier not the Western Cape ] - be taken so seriously on the Jeff Rense Radio Program concerning the history of the Boer people? One of the most outrageous lies was when he distorted a quote when he claimed that Eugene Terre'Blanche said that: "an Afrikaner just wants to be an Afrikaner". When in reality what he said was & what the actual quote was: "A Boer just wants to be a Boer". While Terre'Blanche also used to sometimes erroneously refer to himself as an Afrikaner at times due to his conditioning - he used the term Boer in that quote & not Afrikaner. There is no ethnicity of Afrikaner [ it is a continental derived term like American which also encompasses multiple ethnic groups ] as it was & is an umbrella term used to describe anyone whose home language was Afrikaans. While the Boers are a minority within the Afrikaner designation.

The newly adopted Afrikaner flag also plays into the Afrikaner domination of the Boer Nation as they purposely hijack Boer flags & attach them within an Afrikaner colour scheme dating back to the Prince Flag as used by the tyrant Jan van Riebeeck: the original oppressor of the ancestors of the Boer people at the Cape. The flag no doubt aims at co-opting the Boer people into the Afrikaner camp so that any Boer Republican secessionist movement is neutralized because the Afrikaner leadership is adamantly opposed to the restoration of the Boer Republics which will no doubt be the natural result of an authentic Boer independence movement.

This drastic misunderstanding causes great damage & harm to the actual Boer people because the Afrikaner establishment has always worked AGAINST them denying them their independence & the conflation of the Boer with the Afrikaner makes the Boers responsible & a scapegoat for actions taken & driven mainly by ANOTHER ethnic group. This is why one often hears the ignorant lament & harmful straw man argument of: "the Boers should have created a homeland for themselves when 'they' were still in power" because those who utter such a sentiment betray their total lack of knowledge of the situation & who the actual Boer people are. There were Boers struggling to "create a homeland for themselves" all throughout the 20th cent but they were prevented & stopped by the Afrikaner establishment. The very regime that the ignoramuses erroneously believe were "Boers who should have created a homeland for themselves". Mind you this is the same Afrikaner establishment that many folks insist that the Boers must stand with in the name of "unity" for reasons that entirely escape one because so long as the Boers stand with the establishment Afrikaners so long will their long running independence movement get stalled. While there were numerous folks of Boer descent part of the past regimes - one must remember that they had long since been conditioned to view themselves as Afrikaners & many rejected the Boer Nation & therefore did not work on even trying to accommodate Boer self determination.

There are folks who try to deny the Boers their own cultural identity asserting that they should fold themselves into - or be assimilated into the Afrikaners but I have never heard anyone make the same argument & claim that the Acadians should do the same & fold into the French Canadians & Quebecois because Boer identity should be as respected as Acadian identity is in Canada. Someone on another website once commented that Boers who are proud of their culture & display their historical Boer Republican flags are "extremists" yet once again I never hear the same argument put forward against Acadians who are proud of their distinct culture & display their own distinct Acadian flag.

The fact of the matter is that so long as this persistent blind spot & lack of insight continues - the actual Boer people will be damaged / maligned as "extremists" / misrepresented / accused & marginalized under the Afrikaners simply because a larger uninsightful public has been conditioned to view all Afrikaans speakers as a mythological monolithic block due to the Afrikaner Broederbond propaganda of the past & the curious omission of the larger Cape Dutch population by some authors whose tragic myopic misunderstanding only sees Boer ancestors of the Afrikaners thus negating & ignoring the larger Cape Dutch population.

Quotes From Robert van Tonder.

The following are some great quotes from the late Robert van Tonder I have collected.

The Boerevolk were the first freedom fighters of Africa.

The politics of the Boerestaat Party will restore the old Boer Republics which we want to do democratically but unfortunately it is not possible to do because according to de Klerk we can have no elections for the first time in [ a cent. ] Therefore it has been made impossible for us to vote out the government. That is not our fault but that of de Klerk who appears pleasant & moderate in the Netherlands but in South Africa is an undemocratic oppressor.

The AWB flag emblem is not in the tradition of our people.

From 1991 Dutch documentary Haartseer Land.

We Boere are not South Africans. Neither are we ‘Afrikaners’. The history of the Boere is totally different from that of the Cape ‘Afrikaners’. The case for the new Boer Republic rests on history, language, culture and an own territory (state). Not merely on colour. That is the basis on which any faulk’s (sic) identity is determined.

Our Boer republics were crushed in 1902 and other "peoples" were forced to live with us in one state.

De Klerk was warned beforehand that he was not welcome in Ventersdorp.

The only solution for multiparty negotiators is to accept a flag with white and black spots which reflects the variety of colors in the country," said Boerstaat Party leader Robert Van Tonder, "with a Coca-Cola bottle in the middle to symbolize South Africa's new status as an American vassal state."

From: The Baltimore Sun. October 1993.

We were people who did not want to enslave a black tribe," he says. "We are being accused by every country on earth of being Nazis and oppressors. We came here alone. We never conquered any other nation. We have no blood on our hands.

From: Time Magazine 1977.

The modern world has changed relationships like those between Danger and ourselves," says Van Tonder. "Although this is a lovely friendship, it can't last always, and it would be unfair for it to last. Danger's children will become educated and Westernized. They will want their country. My descendants would also like to have their country."

From: Time Magazine 1977.

It's [ 1977 South Africa ] a police state," he says. "It's putting my culture into a straitjacket.

From: Time Magazine 1977.

Integration will be the ultimate destruction of the whites," he says. "I would like to see them [blacks] free and happy. I would like to see them preserve their own culture. It is just not in our nature either to integrate with them or oversee them. We only want to live among our own people, to live our own religion and to lead a rational, happy life.

From: Time Magazine 1977.

Proposal to Join the Boer Independence Movement.

The author of this video sent me a message about a year ago informing me of his videos & I recently looked at them again & like this one as he makes some accurate points & is urging people to join the movement for Boer sovereignty / independence. He rightly notes that the Boer people are indigenous to Southern Africa & even has a fuller understanding of their ethnic origins than most Westerners. His economic trading policy is similar to the one Robert van Tonder proposed. Infokemp also suggests a Constitution based on the United States Constitution which is also in keeping with Boer tradition as the Constitutions of the old Boer Republics were in fact modeled in part on the United States Constitution. The President of Genocide Watch has publicly called attention to the Boer genocide which Infokemp references to. He also recognizes the Boers as distinct from the Cape Dutch originated Afrikaners & notes that Boer independence would help them too along with just about every other national / ethnic group living in the region.

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

South Africa Sucks v8

They’re back! SAS / South Africa Sucks / ZA Sucks. Click on image to be directed to the new site…

They’re back! SAS / South Africa Sucks / ZA Sucks. Click on image to be directed to the new site…


Tuesday, February 08, 2011

South Africa, Zimbabwe and Venezuela?

South Africa, Zimbabwe and Venezuela? What is different? And who will benefit?

Sitting here, trying to verbalize my thoughts, I can only come up with one repeating mantra in my head… baby, run…..

For those that think that the ANC government will do the right thing…..a prediction from me. Mines will be nationalized. It is a given.

Next will be commercial farms.

Then whatever industry that is left over…..banks, newspapers, manufacturing…
And to really push it, what about fracking in the Karoo? Does anybody think the ANC cares about the environment in for instance Sutherland?

I know that this prediction makes me one of the doomsayers that everybody hates, but so be it.

Anybody want to dispute this?

Also read about Venezuela.

SA and Nationalisation

This year’s annual mining Indaba in Cape Town had more of a buzz to it, in comparison with 2009. Zimbabwe’s potential gained a particularly high profile; many see opportunities in this geologically rich terrain that has experienced little modern exploration. As more than one project developer notes, first one looks at the geological potential and only then does one assess the country political and other risks.

In spite of the fact that Mugabe is still around, people are positioning themselves for if and when Zimbabwe adopts governance that inspires greater international investment confidence. They use words like ‘could’ and ‘positive trends’ and are living in hope. Signals are mixed; some governing officials in Zimbabwe say that security of title will be guaranteed but others talk about ensuring that Zimbabweans will have a controlling interest of all mineral assets.

Yet at some point Mugabe and his cronies will indeed be gone. Of course much has to be done, like implement rule of law so that diamond fields such as Marange which is controlled by politically connected thugs, reverts to its actual and legal owner, an exploration group which at the moment is unable to implement its rights.

However, it is, south of the border, the continent’s economic powerhouse that many international investors and potential investors are watching closely. And South Africa’s government is behaving as if it has at last realised that it needs to compete with other countries for mining investment.

The South African government at least made the right noises at this year’s Indaba. In her keynote speech minister of minerals Susan Shabangu promised to halve the time taken to process applications for prospecting and mining rights in South Africa, respectively from six to three months and from 12 to six months. She talked about the need to ensure transparency and avoid opportunities for corruption.

Later at the Indaba she reiterated what senior government officials have said at other forums over the past year, that nationalisation of South Africa’s mining industry is not government policy.

However in response, the ANC’s youth league head Julius Malema attacked Shabangu, and simply based on the noise he is making, some investors will shun the country. They will shun it because it is seen as potentially experimenting with nationalisation of its mining sector long after others such as Brazil and Chile have given that up as a really stupid idea.

For a long time the concept of nationalisation of industries such as South Africa’s mining sector was seen as too silly to be mentioned seriously, but such has been the persistence in promoting this idea in certain quarters that are perceived to be politically influential that it has become a topic of discussion.

Sadly those noises do affect some people. An example was the response of one attendee at the Indaba, not a first language English speaker, who asked fellow delegates, what is this nationalisation being talked about, you mean like Chavez? When the response was, ‘er, yes’, he asked, you mean, expropriation without compensation, and the response again was ‘er, yes’; you could see the delegate mentally packing his bags.

The government responded well to investors on the topic, and while the current power structure is in place common sense will prevail. Government officials did not only make statements that nationalisation will not happen, but explained in painstaking detail that policy is not formulated on the back of a matchbox, and that neither the ANC’s freedom charter, nor the country’s constitution support or create the space for nationalisation of mining assets as called for by Malema.

But should enough of the existing policymakers be swept aside by populist self-serving forces within an ANC organisation whose political supremacy in South Africa has not yet been seriously challenged then anything could happen. In the end, a constitution is just a piece of paper.

Concern will have been alleviated when South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma did, a few days later in parliament, make a definitive statement and reiterated what his ministers were saying, that nationalisation of mines was not government policy.

South Africa’s ongoing electricity shortage, mitigated only by the temporary drop in global commodities demand, also remains a factor. Little has been done here to inspire confidence among international investors.

But when all is said, while a mining Indaba in Cape Town can attract 4,000 people, many of them international analysts and investors, something must be working. And while people can still openly air their thoughts on South Africa’s problems in detail at such forums the country is not yet a basket case.

Thursday, February 03, 2011

Ai Koos, en nou?

I am always fascinated by individuals like Koos Kombuis. We are of the same age, have the same background, but will never agree on anything.

He however is highly intelligent, and I always enjoy his blog postings. I actually like him.

Please read the below blog of him, but keep in mind that he is part or was part of a group of musicians that in the 80’s did everything in their power to make white Afrikaners look like the bogeymen. They did everything they can to push the ANC agenda, and I guess, if we look at the history since, very successful.

He must absolutely love the new South Africa.

Or not, Andrè?

The Mona Lisa conspiracy

Now they’re saying the Mona Lisa was a MAN? I’ve always suspected it!

I’ve suspected it even more when I saw that picture — it’s a famous picture by now — on the front page of a Cape Town newspaper the other day!

It was the story — “Zille, You Can’t Touch This” — by reporter Murray Williams on the front page of the Cape Argus of January 31 that got people talking. Not only the story, but the photograph next to it. It’s a pity that the photographer was not credited, because, without any doubt, that shot of ANCYL president Julius Malema partying with sushi-loving businessman Kenny Kunene is a masterpiece of subtlety, hidden messages and rich metaphoric content.

The photograph, for those of you who haven’t seen it yet, shows Malema and Kunene, hand in hand, Kunene in some kind of fancy party suit and waving an open bottle of champagne in his hand, living it up at a late-night club in Cape Town. The caption “Zille, You Can’t Touch This”, let me hasten to add, had no erotic undertones, and did not refer to anyone actually touching anyone, not even on anybody’s studio. It was all about the new 2am by-laws introduced in Cape Town, and the determination of certain individuals to consider them above such laws. Certain individuals later claimed that they were misquoted, but the damage was already done. That pic was out in the media.

No-one who saw that photograph was unmoved by it. Even the ANC was spurred into action when, in the throes of what appeared on the surface to be a rare attack of conscience, they condemned the frivolous attitude apparent in the picture as “anti-revolutionary”. It was an image that spoke right to the heart of our nation. The fact that this whole uproar took place right in the middle the Nelson Mandela health scare episode, evoked contrasting emotional reactions that simply screamed against one another. Never before has it been so painfully obvious what a gigantic paradox the new South Africa has become.

It was inevitable that someone would soon see the connection between this photograph and another work of art that also evokes strong feelings and an inexplicable sense of paradox: the simple little portrait study of the Mona Lisa, which has intrigued art lovers for centuries. Seldom before was so much said with such a simple portrayal as these two. I smell a conspiracy.

Allow me to explain. The first thing that really links these two pictures together is the obvious fact that both images are dominated by a smile. The gentle smile, on the one hand, on the face of the Mona Lisa, and the wide grin, on the other hand, on the face of Julius Malema.

What’s in a smile? Well, let’s start with the Mona Lisa’s smile. I once read an article by a learned scholar in which he claimed that one can only see the Mona Lisa smile when one doesn’t look at her (or him, whatever the case may be) directly. Once you look at the smile, it seems to disappear. Once your eyes wander to the peripheries of the image, or if you look at the whole picture from a distance, there’s the smile again. (It’s exactly the opposite, of course, of the smile on Lewis Car¬roll’s cat in Alice in Wonderland, where everything disappears except the smile.)

Admittedly, as I said two paragraphs ago, Mona Lisa’s smile is not quite the same kind of smile as Julius Malema’s smile. Taken at face value, when you ignore the context of the rest of the photograph — the open champagne bottle, the wild party atmosphere, the general ambience of decadence created not only by the photograph itself but by the tone of the entire newspaper story built around it — Malema’s smile conveys nothing but simple boyish exuberance. One can imagine that same smile on the face of a young Huckleberry Finn when he goes fishing on a beautiful sunny morning. It is a fresh smile, a friendly smile, a smile oozing health, youth, spontaneity and a sheer hearty enjoyment of the good things in life.

I have done some thinking and some research about the context of everything written about Malema and how and why we perceive him the way we do. Those of us who like Malema, like him (among other things) because of his smile. We also like him because he is a straightforward and painfully sincere bloke, the kind of guy who means exactly what he says and isn’t scared of the consequences. An admirable, if somewhat naïve, collection of traits.

Those of us who don’t like Malema have somewhat more complicated reasons for not liking him.

Yet, if we are really brutally honest with ourselves, we have to admit that there is nothing wrong with having one hell of a party once in a while. We all do it now and then. Neither is there anything downright wrong with eating sushi off a naked girl’s body as Malema’s friend Kunene seems to be fond of doing. It may be in bad taste, it may be kitsch and a bit over-indulgent, but if the girl is willing and nobody is exploited or hurt or killed in the process, why the hell not?

The same with songs like Kill the Boer and Umshini Wami. I can understand and I believe that many people in the ANC, people who, in the course of their daily lives, harbour no ill feelings towards whites in general, have sentimental memories of songs like these. In the same way, a song like De la Rey brings tears in my eyes, even though I have no desire to re-enact the Boer War and feel uncomfortable every time people try to superimpose that song on the situation in present-day South Africa.

The devil is all in the context. When you put all of these elements together — every single element quite harmless and innocent in itself — and place these combined nuances in the context of other things happening simultaneously, that’s when a completely different picture emerges. Like the subtle smile on the face of the Mona Lisa can only be seen if you look at the whole picture all at once (this is called Gestalt), the true nature of Julius Malema’s smile emerges once you look at it in the larger context. And this is where things get a bit weird. This is where the conspiracy theory becomes a self-evident truth.

First context: Malema’s smile. Second context: wild party. Third context: very expensive champagne, sushi. Fourth context: the extreme poverty of so many ANC voters. Fifth context: the ideology of “ubuntu”. Sixth context: Mandela dying possibly at some time in the near future. Seventh context: Mandela never ate sushi off the naked bodies of women. Eighth context: the tripartite alliance leftist notions, hatred of capitalism expressed by many of their members, judgment passed on “rich whites”. Ninth context: songs like Kill the Boer. Tenth context: actual horrific farm killings taking place increasingly at the same moment while people like Malema are trying to resurrect that historical struggle song.

One can go on and on. Is the struggle over, or has it just begun? If it’s not over, who is struggling against whom? Who are the real fat cats? Does the act of eating sushi while Rome burns have political overtones? Did the album Eet Kreef have political overtones during the rebellion of Johannes Kerkorrel? What are the similarities between our situation now and the situation during the eighties?

I believe we were the victims of a National Party conspiracy in the eighties. The purpose of that conspiracy was simple: to keep political and economic power in the hands of white men. I believe we are the victims of an equally sinister conspiracy, a conspiracy just as dangerous as the National Party conspiracy, and far more subtle and more dangerous and far-reaching than the conspiracy imagined in the Da Vinci Code.

I also believe I know the true reason why the ANC has condemned the kind of activities portrayed in that photograph. It shames them. It shames them, not necessarily because they have had a sudden attack of conscience, but because it is not in their interest for this sushi-eating, wild-partying, fat-cat-lifestyle thing to be exposed in such a graphic way. This kind of exposure rankles against the basic philosophy they are trying to sell to the people of South Africa.

And what is this philosophy? Well, in a nutshell, I think they are trying to enslave the people of this country with guilt complexes. Whites are feeling guilty because they are white. Coloureds and Indians are feeling guilty because they are not Chinese. Blacks are feeling guilty because they feel they should still vote for the ANC but cannot find any real reasons in their hearts to do so. Everyone in South Africa is unhappy about something … except — or so it appears — Julius Malema.

Julius Malema is the only one still smiling brightly, who feels absolutely no tinge of guilt or remorse about anything whatsoever. There’s enough sushi to go around, there’s more than enough champagne for everyone (everyone invited to this party, that is) so what’s the problem?

I said in my previous blog entry that I believe there are experts in every field, and that one should not hesitate in consulting with such experts whenever a difficult job needs to be done. I also said that, in the follow-up blog entry, I would state what professions, in my mind, are sometimes the exceptions to this rule.

In order to get my point across, I will need to digress somewhat from the Mona Lisa conspiracy, but there’s no other way to prove this theory.

You see, it’s a bit like the difference between buying a new car and a second-hand car. When you buy a new car, you know exactly what to expect. It does not matter whether the previous owner was a rally driver or a sweet, little, old lady in an old-age home. You don’t need to get a second opinion or pay your own mechanic to take a peek under the hood. There is very little room for nuance and no need for speculation, mistrust and paranoia. That is because there are no invisible factors to take into account. When you buy a second-hand car, the invisible factor is the actual state of the engine. The average car-buyer simply cannot tell, just by looking at a second-hand car or even by driving it around the block once, what the state of the gearbox is or whether or not the clutch is going to start emitting a burning smell within two weeks after signing the paperwork.

Whereas I have the greatest respect for experts in fields of expertise that can enhance my existence by tangible means — such as dentists, doctors, handymen, firemen and architects — I tend to be suspicious of so-called experts who deal in invisible products. At the risk of generalising, I must admit that I harbour a healthy scepticism towards members of the following professions: priests and dominees (they appear to be selling real estate in the hereafter, but no-one’s ever seen their product), insurance salesmen (with the exception of OUTsurance, none of these guys have ever managed to convince me that I actually need them in my life), sociologists (I don’t even know what the word means), land surveyors (what on earth do they do?), psychologists (there’s no problem so deep that I can’t discuss with my hairdresser or my personal trainer at Virgin Active), writers (it’s just words), musicians (it’s just notes), and, of course, politicians.

The first lot of professionals are like new car salesmen. You need a car, you do your research, you make your decision, you go to a new car salesman and you buy one. The second lot are like used car salesmen. You want something, but you’re not sure what it looks like or where to find it, and then this expert who pretends to know all the answers sell you something you can’t judge at face value, at the price usually unrelated to what it’s really worth. The stuff they sell is as ephemeral and vague as spookasem. It’s like buying Mona Lisa’s smile.

I’m not saying that all ephemeral concepts are without value. You get good writers, good musicians, you get honest used car salesmen, and once in a while you come across an abstract idea so powerful that it actually makes the world a better place. Nelson Mandela has become, in his later years, the embodiment of such an idea. He is now virtually nothing but a concept. And it’s a perfectly good concept! The ideal of reconciliation he stands for may be something you can’t actually touch or see, it’s more like a currency or a trademark, but right now, that currency is just about the only thing — apart from the memory of vuvuzelas — which is still keeping this country afloat. The strings we are dangling from, the dreams and hopes that keep us from hurtling into the abyss, are pretty thin, and they can break any moment, so let’s not knock them, they’re all we’ve got right now.

The unseen qualities of peace, reconciliation and hope projected by the image of Nelson Mandela are, unfortunately, in stark contrast to the so-called inverted “values” of the present-day ANC.

The ANC base their entire value system on half-truths. The first half-truth is this (though they never say it in these exact words, this seems to be the subtext of everything they do or say): white people, and white people only, are responsible for all the racism and inequalities of the past.

What’s the catch in this? Well, I’d say white people are responsible for a pretty large segment of the inequalities of the past, true enough. But white people are also responsible for a few excellent things: schools, hospitals, hairdryers and record players, to name but a few. Without whites, Nelson Mandela wouldn’t be able to read and write, and we wouldn’t be able to sit in the sun on our back stoeps and listen to Abdullah Ibrahim playing Manenberg on the stereo system.

The second half-truth is this: only black people are Africans.

What is the real truth? The fact that I’m white and prefer hake and chips to mielie pap does not mean I’m a tourist here, it simply means I like eating different stuff than rural blacks. And, by the way, I still can’t afford sushi on a regular basis like the super-blacks.

The third half-truth is: ANC rule is an inevitable result of an inevitable revolution and anyone who does not support the ANC is resisting destiny and creating disunity.

Well, this sounds pretty Calvinistic, to say the least. What has happened to cause and effect, free will and democracy? As for unity, there’s more than enough disunity in the ANC already, it doesn’t look as if they need outside help to self-destruct, so why go on and on about this crap at all?

There are many other half-truths like these, ephemeral ideas, dangerous and damaging memes, concepts and prejudices and floating pieces of nonsense that are threatening to erode the ideals Nelson Mandela used to stand for. These half-truths are poisoning our national psyche, they hold us ransom, they shackle us to the past, and they are keeping us imprisoned in our separate cocoons of mutual mistrust.

This, in a nutshell, is what I call, for want of a better word, the Mona Lisa conspiracy. This is the hidden clause in the contract, the dark side of the revolution, the meaning we can’t penetrate, the motive we can’t fathom. This is the smile on the face of the man-eating tiger. And this is the final piece of the puzzle falling into place. We now know, without a shadow of a doubt, what the Mona Lisa was smirking about.

He/she was smirking because he/she had just had his/her first taste of sushi.