Thursday, September 29, 2011

To ignore the facts does not change the facts

by Johan P Prinsloo

deklerk-mandela-1There are certain facts about South Africa that tend to be ignored or denied. People do not like hearing the truth, because they prefer living in a dream world of make-believe, but its time to wake up.

An opposition party is a body that consists mainly of people with experience in political affairs, because they have seats in parliament and have experience as active role-players in National and Local Governance.

It is a fact that when the ANC were handed the reigns in 1994 they had ZERO experience and ZERO knowledge of Politics, Democracy or Governance at any level. They were no more than a militant terrorist tea-club put in power to run a FIRST-WORLD COUNTRY.

Nowhere, never in the history of the World had a revolutionary, militant, rebel, terrorist, communist organisation taken over a country and continued its success or turn it into a success. In every single case where terrorists / "freedom fighters" had taken control of a country, they destroyed it.

The New SA is a typical African country on its way to revolution, bankruptcy, anarchy and total collapse.

The infrastructure is destroyed, because it has not been maintained since 1994. Our Railway services are destroyed, because the most overpaid person on Earth, Maria Ramos, sold all the assets to make the books look good, but by the time she left there was nothing left to sell, little income and the SA Railway services was destroyed, leaving us without even that rail infrastructure.

The Energy / Electricity supply is failing, because it has not been maintained or upgraded to keep up with the outrageous growing demand since 1994. Two weeks ago ESKOM the main (only) supplier of energy in the country publicly admitted that they had lost the battle and cannot meet the energy demands of the country. Another example of incompetent uneducated inexperienced fools taking over a well-oiled first world machine and driving it into the ground, besides having robbed it bankrupt.

Health Services is failing, because it has not been maintained since 1994 and from the outset it was given to incompetent uneducated fools to manage.

The whites who possess the knowledge and experience and work ethic to do the work, because they had been doing it for 400 years were removed from their positions and replaced with uneducated, ignorant, inexperienced, fools who do not possess the loyalty, the dedication or the work ethic to do the work.

Less than 6 million people carry the total tax burden of a population officially quoted as 50 million, but unofficially estimated at anything ranging from 70 million to as high as 150 million.

Less than 5% of all residents in all Municipal districts pay for services.

10% of the population is carrying the other 90%, while those in power are squandering 90% of the money taken from that 10%.

The New SA is an upside down pyramid that has to fall over. It cannot remain standing. It HAS to fall.

Educational standards were deliberately dropped and an educational system that built this country and delivered world-class professionals in all fields and at all levels was exchanged for a pathetic picture based so-called Outcomes Based Educational system. Without proper educational standards from the first grade to the highest post-graduate level, a country is rendered infertile and barren with no future.

Our dams have never been maintained, the motors needed to open the sluices at some of the major dams have been stolen, the foundations of some of the dams damaged beyond repair, the dam walls are nearing the end of their lifespan with no back-up to replace it with. It is suicide living below any dam in the New SA.

There is not a government department that is not either bankrupt or virtually bankrupt. This regime is bankrupt, this country is virtually bankrupt, mostly due to mismanagement by ignorant uneducated inexperienced fools and their theft, fraud and corruption.

The banks are bankrupt and the inflation rate is a pathetic joke, because everyone with even the least bit of sense realises that our inflation rate is at least 10 times what government says it is.

All Government and semi-state institutions are in complete and utter chaos, inefficient, ineffective and incapable of coping with or doing their work.

Notwithstanding the fact that the regime is discriminating against the white minority with transformation policies that PROHIBIT whites from entering the job market and whites are being laid off to make room for uneducated, unqualified, inexperienced blacks.

By 2014 blacks must be the majority shareholders of all companies, whether founded and built by whites or not and even family businesses.

It is a fact that whites are being dispossessed and disowned. Whites are being denied their "Constitutional rights" and their citizenship is being limited. The regime is trying to making life impossible for whites.

Notwithstanding the above, blacks are still unsatisfied with whites being in any position or being allowed in any kind of business. This dissatisfaction is a driving force behind the revolution. Even members of the ruling party frequently make public statements openly expressing their hatred of whites. Members of parliament have on occasion told whites to leave the country if they are unhappy, obviously because we are not wanted.

There are many, many examples of revolutionary videos, articles, movements and calls for the public to rise up against the Regime. This is being done so openly that articles are published in newspapers, black revolutionaries are stirring the pot on their Facebook walls on blogs and in YouTube videos. Numerous journalists and political analysts have warned about the revolution headed our way. This is Africa, therefore the standard symptoms and signs of revolution do not apply. Here it will not be the middle class rising up against the state, but the poor ignorant masses being abused by self-serving militant communists.

The regime is undoubtedly aware that the revolution will not come from the disarmed white minority population and that it is being driven by the black populous, spearheaded by middle-class and super rich blacks. Notwithstanding this knowledge the regime is not lifting a finger to gain the support of the white minority and allowing the white population to be victimised, murdered, harassed and terrorised by militant terrorist blacks.

Many official internationally accepted aspects of genocide are openly being perpetrated against the white minority, yet not a single opposition party, let alone the regime itself, says anything about it. Genocide Watch upgraded the New SA to level 6 Genocide, out of a possible 8 levels. Not a single newspaper, radio station or television network has said a word about it, but perhaps for Radio Pretoria to a limited extent due of legal restrictions. Something strange is happening. Even the leaders of the numerous volkstaat movements are denying the looming revolution.

At the same time the Boers are occupying the minds of a sector of the white population with an ideal of an elitist super Afrikaner-Boer volkstaat, while also being deliberately blind about the coming revolution. The people leading the volkstaat ideology openly object to anyone, like myself, warning people and informing people about the coming revolution and one has to question WHY? If you scroll down my wall you will see those arguments thrown at me, because they the volkstaat Boers do not want people to know what’s coming. It obviously does not suit their exclusive elitist self-preservation ideologies.

One has to question why the media, the liberals, the opposition parties and the volkstaters are ignoring the looming signs of revolution and collapse. One has to question why people want to promise the Afrikaner-Broers a promised land of freedom and self-governance, while denying any signs of a civil war? One has to question why the world is being told of a genocide against the Afrikaners and Boers, while ignoring the other non-Afrikaner whites being murdered, while at the same time denying a looming civil war and economic collapse?

With reference to the volkstaat lets consider a few facts being deliberately ignored.

It is a fact that the Boer Republics officially ceased to exist on 31 May 1902, with the signing of the Treaty of Vereeniging. A new British colony, the Union of South Africa, was subsequently established, in which the Transvaal and the Orange Free State became provinces along with the Cape and Natal. The Boer republics AGREED to come under the sovereignty of the British Crown. It is a fact that the Boer Republics were lost because the Boers themselves laid down their arms and gave it to Britain by having signed it away. That is a fact, like or or not. The BOERS signed away the Boer Republics and no one can ever go back on that. Signatories for the Government of the South African Republic, Schalk W. Burger, F.W. Reitz, Louis Botha, J. H. de la Rey, L.J. Meyer, and J.C. Krogh. For the Government of the Orange Free State, C.R. de Wet, J.B.M. Hertzog, C.H. Olivier and WCJ Bebner.

With the advent of the Republic of South Africa on 31 May 1961 the borders of the Republic were laid down and recognised world-wide. This time the British signed away the entire United territory of South Africa by which a new Internationally recognised Independent Republic was established. It is a fact that the Boer Republics are gone forever, because the BOERS THEMSELVES signed it away willingly, so live with it.

This is Africa. While we may ignore the fact, nothing in Africa works the way it does anywhere else in the World. Africa has its own rules, they make their own new rules as they go along, and always to suit them and their needs and wants.

To change any Act takes no less than five years, lately anything between five and ten years. For a Volkstaat to be established numerous pieces of Legislation would need to be amended and drafted, which would not be possible within the next 15 to 25 years. The volkstaat would also require serious considerations in terms of the Constitution, which would certainly extend that period.

Before the volkstaat could be negotiated they would need to define exactly where this volkstaat would be, which is a major obstacle, because even to this day the promoters of the volkstaat are still arguing and asking where perhaps it could be.

They would need to set the criteria for qualification as a citizen of the volkstaat, which thus far excluded anyone not of the so-called ethnic genetic pool, strictly Afrikaans speaking, strictly Christian (probably only those belonging to the three mainstream Afrikaans Broederbond churches), etc. They have not even given any consideration to those qualifying members of the super-race living in old-age homes, retirements villages, land owners that would need to try and get their land sold and restart everything from scratch in the Shangri-La, because quite frankly they could not be bothered with those people, as long as they themselves could flee to their holy land and be safe, because that is all that matters to them.

Now consider the following. Since 1994 the SA farmers have been demanding that their land be bought for the purpose of redistribution to blacks, but they the white Afrikaner-Boers are expecting to just be given this massive area of land without having to pay for it at current market prices, right? In Africa, right? Yeah right.

Before the Boers could get their volkstaat, they would need to negotiate that the large yet-to-be-identified section of the independent sovereign Republic of South Africa be given away (or sold to them). This would require that COSATU, the DA, the SACP, the ANC, the ANCYL, AZAPO, and every other political grouping in the country agrees to it. At the very least a special Referendum would need to be called and the majority of the country would need to agree to this. Without the approval/agreement of the majority of the owners of the country, which means the citisens of this country, this will never happen. Now the whites are 3 million, of which only about 30,000 could possibly qualify according to these special ethnic genetic language and christian criteria, while at least 20 million people are on the voters' roll? Perhaps I just cannot do maths. We could ignore these facts, but unfortunately it remains facts they choose to ignore or keep quiet about. Only once that is done would the rest of the World consider recognising this new Boer Shangri-La.

"Nothing is impossible, but some things are just highly unlikely" - my late eldest brother Pieter Willem Prinsloo

Also remember this, the very Afrikaners opposed the Referendum calling for us to break away from Britain and become a Republic in 1961 and the referendum was almost lost, but for a tiny number of votes.

Then the next referendum was to decide about allowing blacks into government with everything that went with it. Well as I recall it was won quite comfortably with the help of huge Afrikaner support.

Then in 1995 Nelson Mandela pulled a Rugby jersey over his shoulders and the Afrikaners cheered him and thought heaven had descended upon this great land. In FACT he stole their hearts and bought their souls in the name of their one TRUE god, Rugby.

Then just a few months ago the DA won their hearts, their support and their votes, while they shunned their own Afrikaner parties? Those that chose not to vote gave their tacit support to the ruling party, the ANC, while they could have supported one of their own Afrikaner parties, like the Freedom Front, which was the only viable option and which I chose to support myself. Those who voted for the DA supported the same land reform policies as that of the ANC? They also supported the ex-leader of the BLACK SASH, Helen Zille. They always have some sneering remarks about the Jews, but yet they chose to support a Jew above their own? Yet now they want a volkstaat without Jews, without English, Portuguese, Greeks, Germans, etc?

It is a fact that Africans are wanting to claim Africa for Africans only. They want to get rid of ALL whites on this continent and they succeeded in every other country in Africa.

It is a fact that the SA whites are under threat, not just the Afrikaans speaking or the so-called Boers. This is a fact we could choose to ignore, but it certainly does not change the fact.

It is a fact that in 1994 the Republic of SA was given away by Afrikaners. It is a fact that those Afrikaners qualify for Boer Status, whether we like to admit it or not. Just like the Boers signed away the Boer Republics the Boers signed away the old Republic of SA.

6 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

That so called "iconic" image of Mandela and De Klerk has always irritated the shiza out of me...First off all, there is deKlerk using his left hand and Mandela's using his right...then when you look closer at it, it's NOT a handshake at all, there is no UNION in the clasp at all.....

...In fact, Mandela is clearly trying to force down DeKlerk's hand...Body language 101 ;)...

Anonymous Bosh

Luke said...

"at least 10 times what government says it is."

10 times, that's sounds like really too much !

Ron. said...

The point of placing the current dispensation in place was presicely to achieve the disastrous results which have since transpired. But later on in this article the author [ a one Johan P Prinsloo ] takes & parrots decidedly anti-Boer talking points. The folks calling for a Volkstaat are not all Boers & the Volkstaat proposal is simply something that General Constand Viljoen signed onto & promoted as part of his public co-option into the new dispensation.

Prinsloo claims that no Boers are warning about the coming revolution yet none other than both Robert van Tonder & Eugene Terre'Blanche had repeatedly warned about it & was the main reason why they were calling for the restoration of the Boer Republics or some other form of Boer self determination.

Then Prinsloo throws out the discredited line of "their exclusive elitist self-preservation ideologies". This is a typical Leftist recycled talking point aimed at trying to make people feel guilty about pursing self determination. Who pray tell is promising the Boers or Afrikaners in general a land of freedom & self governance? Does Prinsloo know about some OTHER neo colonial regime in control offering these things to the Afrikaans communities? The regime talks about it sometimes but they sure as hell are not "promising" anything to the Boers nor Afrikaners in general.

No. The Boer Republics did not "cease to exist"! Their independence [ particularly the recognition of their independence ] was revoked when the Vereeniging Peace Treaty was signed. The treaty was only signed in order to
end the war as Boer civilians [ mainly children ] were dying in the concentration camps. President Marthinus Styen & General Christian de Wet were OPPOSED to signing the peace treaty & the father of Robert van Tonder was among those who even voted to continue the war.

Therefore Prinsloo paints a very misleading picture of Boers as though they had agreed en mass to their surrender. Article 7 of the Vereeniging Peace Treaty even stipulated that self government was supposed to be resorted to the Boer Republics at some point but that was never granted as only a
limited form of "self government" under British military rule was ever granted. Essentially a puppet government was put into place similar to what we see nowadays in places like Iraq & Afghanistan.

The fact of the matter is that the
Boer Republics came under OCCUPATION by an illegitimate Colonial regime which simply transferred its power onto the various successive puppet regimes. The Boer Republics might not "officially" exist but they exist in the minds & heats of every Boer Republican ever since as testament to the various movements aimed at restoring the republics during the 20th cent & beyond.

The author Johan Prinsloo was incorrect again. The borders of South Africa were recognized world wide LONG before the Republic of South Africa was declared. The Republic of South Africa simply inherited the border of the previous Union of South Africa complete with the previous Union's flag. The Republic of South Africa was only ever a NOMINAL republic as it inherited the Westminster model & made quite superficial changes which did not alter at all the basic form of government.

Ron. said...

When the so called Republic of South Africa was declared all it did was turn the Governor General [ who acts as the representative of the BRITISH MONARCH! ] into a nominal & ceremonial President with no actual executive powers. [ Which did come about later with the Constitutional changes of 1984 abolishing the post of Prime Minister & creating an executive post in that of the State President but the basic Westminster structure was retained ] Then there was this telling little gem of a boring talking point. Quote: [ It is a fact that the Boer Republics are gone forever, because the BOERS THEMSELVES signed it away willingly, so live with it. ] This line sounds like something the anti-Boer propagandist Mike Smith would say with relish.

No. it is not a "fact" that the Boer Republics are "gone forever" [ was not the ANC also "gone forever" before they were deliberately resurrected in 1990 then placed into power over the entire macro State? ] because so long as there are Boers struggling for self determination the likelihood of the Boer Republics being restored some day will remain a strong probability particularly when considering that it will be the default outcome once the macro State has collapsed due to bankruptcy & mismanagement.

While some of the Boer leaders of the time might have signed away their independence - it was done in part on the condition that it would be restored. [ A point Prinsloo conveniently ignored ] The "so live with it" line is also quite Roosteresque as it is a petulant exclamation which has no moral nor legal authority whatsoever because it is not up to this Prinsloo character as to how the Boers choose to go forward but up to the Boers themselves & to date a great many of them have chosen not to "live with it" as seen from the Martiz Rebellion of 1914 / the mass movement to restore the Boer Republics during the 1940s / & the resurgence of the movement from over 30 years ago. Furthermore two of the so called "Boer" negotiators were not Boers at all but were Cape Dutch such as General JBM Hertzog & General Jan Smuts. There is an odd tendency of incurring blame onto the Boers alone & as a whole while neglecting the role of the British & the Cape Dutch.

The signing away of their republican independence was not done so "willingly" but upon pain of total genocide. How in the wold does a treaty signed with a proverbial gun to the heads of the Boer negotiators constitute as having been done"willingly" in the mind of Prinsloo? If someone came to your home & burned it to the ground & killed off your children in a concentration camp with no signs of stopping then shoved a piece of paper in your face saying that if you sign it, the aggressor will agree to stop the carnage: would you consider yourself to have taken the decision "willingly" to sign away your freedom & independence to the power of the aggressor? Let's try to get things in perspective here before being so quick to lay the entire blame on the Boers who under immense pressures.

I notice how Prinsloo uses the old pejorative of "super race" to describe Boers [ & probably Afrikaans speakers in general ] I spotted another a priori argument from him with this telling line: [ to negotiate that the large yet-to-be-identified section of the independent sovereign Republic of South Africa... (blah blah blah) ] The Republic of South Africa is in actual fact not "sovereign" as it was a creation of British legislation & was only ever granted a nominal form of "independence" [ in 1931 then again later in 1961 with the establishment of the false republic which continued the same British system under the rubric of a nominal republic ] as the various puppet regimes which have administered South Africa were not as "sovereign" as the rhetoric would suggest.

Ron. said...

Furthermore Prinsloo conflates the Afrikaners' struggle to identify the location of a compromised proposed Volkstaat with that of the Boers' much longer struggle for self determination within their occupied republics. True a lot of Boers are co-opted within the Afrikaner framework but the authentic struggle for Boer self determination is not caught up within the false promise of an Afrikaner controlled Volkstaat which is compromised.

Then he gets it half right with this assertion: [ Without the approval/agreement of the majority of the owners of the country... ] The majority owners of the "country" [ ie: British high finance interests ] will no doubt not want to just let the Boers' regain their independence but as soon as the Boers petition to the point of critical mass [ similar to the original mass grass roots protests of the "Arab Spring" ] the establishment / owners would have no choice but to negotiate with the Boer Republicans.

Then he dramatically downgrades the Boer population. There are 1.5 million Boers not 30 000. This drastically downsized figure provided by Prinsloo is never backed up nor does he demonstrate his methodology for providing
such a figure. He talks about "maths" while forgetting that the folks in the Baltic States faced similar [ though not as overwhelming ] odds when they set about restoring their independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

Then he deliberately misrepresents the referendum of 1960. He correctly notes how Afrikaners as a whole [ ie: the Cape Dutch including the Boer segment as per use of the term as used in the 20th cent ] opposed the referendum but neglects to mention the results showing that the Cape Dutch segment was much more were evenly divided while the Boer
population voted in a massive majority among themselves in favour of declaring a republic. [ As noted & discerned on page 166 of The White Tribe of Africa by David Harrison. ] As Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio & the small Transvaal Separatists think tank stated publicly on The Right Perspective radio program: [ Hendrik Verwoerd was a traitor to
the Boerevolk. He was not a friend of the Boer Nation. He was there to amalgamate everything in one under an economic sphere. Hendrik Verwoerd did great damage to the Boer Nation. He gave a false pretense that here is a republic so that the Boers could feel okay. ] The support for a republic [ as nominal as it was ] was strongest among the Boer population but much weaker among the Cape Dutch population.

Then he cites the Afrikaner support during the 1992 referendum while neglecting to note that the northern Transvaal [ probably the most unreconstructed Boer region ] was the only section of the macro State which voted No thus clearly demonstrating that at least a substantial portion of the Boer population was OPPOSED to the majority Afrikaner outlook & trend yet Prinsloo would have you believe that the Afrikaner outlook spoke for all Boers.

Ron. said...

The Afrikaans population shunned "their own Afrikaner (sic) parties" because those political parties had shunned them & jumped into bed with the ANC! Interesting that Prinsloo neglects to mention that pertinent fact. The Freedom Front Plus is simply a controlled opposition political party which will NEVER lead to Boer freedom or even Afrikaner freedom &
anyone putting their trust in established political parties [ which are by their very nature part of the establishment &
their opposition to self determination. ] are naive to say the least. The established political parties of part of the tools of the establishment / State oppression / repression.

Another a priori argument is made once again when he tries to draw Africans on one side & White persons on the other [
though this is clearly the documented strategy used by the current neo Colonial regime in power ] when in reality the Boer people ARE an African people as well despite the irrelevant protests of some of the Black Nationalists & White Liberals. Even some White Nationalists seem to deny this fact.

Then this telling line: "or the so-called Boers". Quite a Smithian talking point. Seems this Prinsloo fellow is threatened by the Boers struggling for self determination. Okay I will bite: What the hell is "Boer status" & how are all Afrikaners supposed to "qualify" for it when most Afrikaners are from the Cape Dutch not the Boers? Prinsloo promotes another Smithian concept that the Boers are a quasi political "status" when in reality the Boers are a cultural / ethnic
group who are renown within the historical literature LONG before a few Cape Dutch intellectuals got together in 1875 [ at a time when the Boers were independent in their Boer Republics that we are not supposed to try to reclaim ] & started calling themselves "Afrikaners" & later insisting that the Boers must also be called "Afrikaners". Prinsloo adds another despicable Smithian talking point with the blanket notion that the "Boers" [ who are supposed to "not exist" anymore according to convoluted Smithian logic (sic) ] "signed away the old Republic of South Africa" when in reality it was signed away by the Afrikaner leadership [ some of whom were of Boer decent indeed but totally under Cape Dutch dominated Afrikaner suzerainty thus can not be disproportionately nor unfairly singled out! ] because Boers like Robert van Tonder / Eugene Terre'Blanche / Fritz Meyer & Theuns Cloete were all at the time & prior trying to reacquire Boer self determination.