Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Volkstaat Maps Prove Boer Orientation of Afrikaans Self Determination.

While looking at a number of maps for the proposed Afrikaner & or Boer Volkstaat I was struck how ALL of these maps intrinsically make the same basic point I have been making for years. IE: the drive for independence & secession within the broader local White population is far more concentrated within the Boer descended population. [ As opposed to Cape Dutch descendents & English speakers etc. ] There are those who assert that campaigning for Boer independence is "divisive" yet the very maps for the various proposed Volkstaat[s] all vindicate & validate the very point I & others have made. As a matter of fact these maps all recognize this point by noticeably leaving the bulk of the Cape Dutch population OUT of the equation. For example: the Cape Dutch strongholds are not even part of the various maps for the proposed Volkstaat. Therefore: if the Cape Dutch descendents were truly as interested in independence as the Boer descendents are then there should be at least some Volkstaat maps which include the Cape Dutch descended populated area of the Western Cape region within a proposal.

Out of all the maps I have seen: not one of them included the Cape Dutch descended stronghold of the Western Cape [ excluding the generic Western Cape secessionist movement which is a somewhat different matter ] & many even exclude Johannesburg within them. Even none other than the map of Dan Roodt [ who eschews the term Boer & favours the dispossessing term Afrikaner ] consists entirely of Boer populated & or historically held territory while conspicuously excluding the Cape Dutch descended population region. Now I know there is indeed a fledgling secessionist movement to break the Western Cape off from South Africa but that movement is not strictly an Afrikaner Volkstaat movement.

The folks who are most wanting a Volkstaat or Afrikaans language based autonomous state are overwhelmingly of Boer descent as even the various map proposals clearly indicate. Yet many Boer descendents insist on diluting their natural strength [ which comes as a natural result from identifying with the Afrikaner designation ] by ceding authority over to an amorphous Afrikaner macro grouping [ whose leadership naturally usurps the Boers' leadership when lumping the two groups together & consequently sharing a leadership ] - the bulk of whom are not descended from the Boer people & whose strongholds are not even part of the various Volkstaat proposal maps. This stark realization should prompt more of those Boer descendents who still think of themselves as Afrikaners to wake up because struggling for freedom under the Afrikaner designation is analogous to Scots struggling for freedom under the British designation or Quebecois struggling for independence under the Canadian designation.

The map for the proposed Volkstaat from the Freedom Front. Chosen for its sparse population.

The map of Dan Roodt spanning the Cape frontier region where the Boers developed / emerged right up to portions of OVS & ZAR Boer Republics. The Cape Dutch stronghold within the Western Cape is conspicuously omitted yet Boers are expected to classify as "Afrikaners" - a designation which was initiated & promoted by Cape Dutch intellectuals at Paarl starting in 1875 back when the Boer Republics were still independent & internationally recognized.

The map of Robert van Tonder of the Boerestaat Party which was a consolidation of the Orange Free State Republic with most of the Transvaal Republic [ ZAR ] & with the Vryheid Republic. This Boerestaat model was based on areas which were independent & under Boer government.

27 Opinion(s):

Majuba said...

What about the original Boer Republic of Natalia?

This is the territory that was agreed upon between Retief and Dingaan and was briefly held between 1839 and 1843 with Pietermaritzburg as it's Capital.

The real stumbling block is that today it is a patchwork of English farmers and old Kawazulu territory.

If it could be agreed upon it would provide the perfect answer IF all blacks returned to what was once Zululand. It would provide the Boere with prime farmland which they would successfully manage, plus a port for exports and the tax revenue therefrom.

Just as ET's map had no interest in the mining wealth of SA that should keep Ju Ju and his cohorts happy.

One can dream once in a while.

Mastercard said...

Ahem! It's important to note how prominently Lesotho and Swaziland stand out in the maps. How would a putative Afrikaner heartland differ? Think about it...

Where was the political will of the Nats at Codesa? What happened with the progressive cantonisation idea touted by the liberals as "The Solution"?

...and for the Afrikaner haters out there, also contemplate Ron's excellent comparative examples especially the Scots. He's got it bang on the head there....

Putting race aside, why are we without a Heartland, a small liebensraum of our own?

(and please don't RUSH to my last paragraph and bombard me with Raaaayyycist! Think about it first)

Ron. said...

The original Boer Republic was Graaff-Reinet which came into effect on Feb 6 1795 later followed by Swellendam in June of 1795. The Natalia Republic was simply the first large scale Boer Republic but there were even others before the Natalia Republic & after 1795. Hendrik Potgieter established the Winburg Republic a year before the Natalia Republic was established. The map of a one Johan Niemoller does in fact include the Natalia Republic as part of a reconstituted & consolidated Boer Republic.

Indeed. I noticed that the maps of both Terre'Blanche & Dan Roodt exclude Johannesburg entirely & for a lot of valid reasons too.
This was even documented by the BBC when Terre'Blanche was "interviewed" by Louis Theroux as part of his Boer Separatists episode of Weird Weekends.

Re-establishing a Boer Republic will no doubt be difficult but it is not as difficult as some folks like to suggest. It will just take some careful planning / co-operation & negotiation.

Ron. said...

Mastercard. I totally agree with your first paragraph. As a matter of fact - the various old Boer Republics were in line with that sort of a model. IE: self government / independence within Boer populated areas. Though I would remind you that considering the inherent forces that work against Boer self determination within Afrikanerdom: going forward as Afrikaners is the death knell for any authentic Boer self determination movement.

The National Party at Codesa only made the faintest moves at promoting a system which could authentically protect ethnic / national self determination as they were far more interested in defending their own elite interests & handing power over to their groomed & revamped ANC puppet successor. Though the ANC is certainly much more of a puppet for British high finance interests & global capital then they are to the old guard of Broederbonders but they too are also of course exerting their influence on the puppet regime which they basically rebuilt in the early 1990s as a "globally acceptable" alternative to their own overt middleman rule.

There are those who have said that the Boers do in fact have a heartland within their old recognized major republics. That was always the basic premise of Robert van Tonder / Eugene Terre'Blanche / the Transvaal Separatists & others. It is interesting that Lesoto & Swaziland were Bantustans which were established by the British. This is why those countries still exist to this day because if they had been created by the old White South African regimes: they would have been incorporated into greater South Africa as the ones they created were in 1994.

Ron. said...

This is the major reason why the old Boer Republics have a strong legal chance of being restored. The British - along with about five other governments abroad - in fact recognized their independence complete with embassies. [ This is noted on page 96 of The Story of the Boers by Dutch diplomat C W van der Hoogt. Published in 1900 ] This was a major reason why the Baltic States were restored in 1991 after having been incorporated into the Soviet Union from 1940. The Soviets occupied & annexed the Baltic States the same way the British occupied & annexed the Boer Republics during & after the second Anglo-Boer War.

Anonymous said...

You forgot the best map of all.


Ron. said...

Well I was not aware of it though it is quite a good map & is once again based on a Boer Republican model & is probably the most achievable of all the proposals. Though the web site it is from is plagued by the perennial problem of using the Afrikaner designation. Which of course is dangerous as it allows the Afrikaner establishment to dismiss the Boers' drive for independence as a "fringe" movement no matter how strong the movement is among the actual Boer population.

The site also parrots some old Afrikaner propaganda. Quote: [ These freedom efforts culminated in 1961 when South Africa under the same National Party became a republic and the British colonial yoke was thrown off for ever. ] That rhetoric was for public consumption at the time because British Colonialism just went covert & South Africa was only ever a nominal or false republic.

The web site in question also uses one of the Boer Republican war flags from the Anglo-Boer War [ the Vyfkleur ] but calls it an Afrikaner unity flag ] somehow missing the point that it is a Boer flag used at a time when many Cape Dutch Afrikaners were fighting AGAINST the Boers & that most of the Afrikaners are never going to want to stand with Boers [ even those who call themselves Afrikaners ] who are calling for actual self determination or a restored Boer Republic.

Anonymous said...

Johan said...

The observations made by the author and reflected in this article are quite correct if one takes the rather limited number of rightwing homeland proposals which are on the table into account. This in my view requires further debate. Before entering this debate I think it is important to know that the majority of Boer descendants certainly no longer define themselves as Boers. The article could therefore be misleading if read by the uninformed. Those who do prefer to be called Boers or Boere-Afrikaners are indeed a very small minority as can be seen in the support which the Volksraadverkiesings-kommissie or VVK - which by the way is spelt incorrectly by their own Afrikaans speaking leaders as three separate words - recently enjoyed in their so called volksraadverkiesing. This ultra rightwing organisation, primarily instigated and facilitated by remnants of the far rightwing Herstigte Nasionale Party (HNP), campaign for a Boere-Afrikaner-volkstaat without having announced where it should be. It is speculated that it could be somewhere in the arid and semi-desert areas of the Northern Cape. The VVK also managed to drive other ultra rightwing movements into their kraal such as the AWB (of the late Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche), Verkenners, Suidlanders, etc. In spite of their attempts to raise support among the majority of ultra rightwing and rightwing Afrikaners for more than a year, less than 24000 persons voted for a number of candidates put up by the VVK to form the so-called Boere-Afrikaner-volksraad. The main and official Afrikaner political party, Vryheids Front Plus, enjoys the support of approximately 160 000 Afrikaners and this party is also officially representing Afrikaners as a minority group at the international Unrepresented Peoples’ Organisation. It is doubtful if the VVK’s recently elected Boere-Afrikaner-volksraad will enjoy any recognition in the international community, even if it is recognised by the country’s president, Mr Zuma, and the RSA government or by parliament. It is my view that one can assume with little doubt that Afrikaners who prefer to be called Boers or Boere-Afrikaners represent less than 1% of the total white Afrikaner population.

...more to follow

Anonymous said...

Johan said...

Nevertheless, mainstream Afrikaners are becoming just as disillusioned with the after 1994 dispensation as their ultra rightwing relatives and friends. Due to the continuous referral by ultra rightwing movements to the concept of a ‘volkstaat’ or homeland, mainstream Afrikaners in large numbers who may also want to strive for political freedom have become alienated from the concept of self-determination primarily due to the concept of external self-determination being associated with ultra rightwing groups. The media no doubt plays a major role in labelling everything which smells of secession as ultra right. The vast majority of Afrikaners do not want to be associated with ultra rightwing sentiments and certainly not with groupings who wish to establish an Afrikaner homeland based on apartheid style policies.

Fortunately a fresh breeze is blowing over Afrikanerdom in the form of an independent, so it seems, non-racist movement called OASE, an Afrikaans acronym for Independent Afrikaner Self-determination Expedition. This movement announced their proposals for an Afrikaner Republic in September this year after what can certainly be regarded as the most in-depth research done thus far on the subject, particularly with regard to international law requirements and the guidelines of the international community for the creation of a new state. Their territorial claim differs largely from the maps which are published in this article and they substantiate Afrikaners’ claims to their defined territory in very clear terms having taken archaeological, anthropological, historical and several other important factors into consideration.

In liberal Afrikaner circles OASE’s objectives to facilitate the process of regaining political freedom have been shot down mostly by playing the man and not the ball. One fallacy originating from the left is the allegation that Afrikaners are a very small minority in OASE’s proposed and defined territory earmarked for external self-determination, by showing a distorted and irrelevant map where Africans (blacks) appear to be the overwhelming majority. In one of OASE’s recent articles this fallacy now seems to be wiped off the table, since it actually appears that Afrikaners constitute 52% of the area’s total population and 95% of the rightful owners of the said territory. According to OASE’s calculations and findings the 52% Afrikaner population exclude English speaking whites and Afrikaans speaking black or coloured people. On enquiring how the two areas where Afrikaans speaking coloured people are concentrated and which are situated close to or adjacent to OASE’s defined territory, namely near Bloemfontein and near Pretoria, I was told that it would be up to those people to decide by means of a local referendum whether they wish to be included in the proposed Afrikaner Republic or whether they wish to remain in a multicultural RSA. In my view this proves the fact that OASE is indeed putting its money where its mouth is and that this movement cannot be labelled as rightwing or racist. This will no doubt be a feather in their cap should their endeavours reach the stage where they will require international recognition, one of the cornerstones of territorial sovereignty.


Anonymous said...

Ron. Why do you keep on concentrating on Boers as again implicated in the Boer Republican model which you refer to above? I certainly nowhere get the impression in any of OASE’s articles that their territorial claim is based on the old Boer Republics, other than the fact that the rather small territorial claim happens to fall within the former Boer Republics where Afrikaners ascendants indeed enjoyed sovereignty prior to British colonial rule – a factor which is always taken into consideration both by international law and by the international community when considering recognition of a new state for minority peoples.

The Afrikaner designation as explained by OASE, is particularly used since it is based on historical facts and they quote one of the most respected modern day and even liberal Afrikaner historians in this regard: The Afrikaner – Bibliography of a People by professor Hermann Giliomee, 2005 edition. The Boers’ drive for independence is indeed a “fringe” movement within the Afrikaner people, since the AWB, Suidlanders, Verkenners and HNP together recently managed to draw less than 24000 votes in the VVK’s “volksraadverkiesing”. These are the remnants of those who still wish to be called Boers or Boere-Afrikaners – less than 1% of the Afrikaner population.

Your allegation which implies that the Republic of South Africa never enjoyed full sovereignty is quite a joke. I am really wondering who is paying for all this anti-Afrikaner and rather cheap propaganda. I believe you should allow readers to also make up their own minds as to why the spesific flag (Vyfkleur) is proposed by OASE as a unity flag for Afrikaners by clicking on the flag on OASE’s web site; your version is once again not what they say.

Ron. said...

That is the crux of the problem facing the Boer people Johan. The fact that hey were conditioned out of defining themselves as Boers thus empowering an anti-Boer establishment. This was the well planned out agenda of the Broederbond & the British Empire. Lord Alfred Milner noted that they did not want to risk having another war with the Boers so they decided to adopt a strategy of getting the Boers to stop identifying themselves as Boers thus began to promote the Afrikaner designation [ through schools / churches / media / etc. ] which was an effective means of sidelining the Boers by lumping them in with the historically anti-Boer & often pro-British Cape Dutch [ noted within the book by Mordechai Tamarkin called Cecil Rhodes and the Cape Afrikaners ] population of the south western Cape region.

Therefore it is irrelevant how supposedly "small" [ Censorbugbear noted that "it's incredible how many privately refer to themselves as Boers" ] a number of folks who call themselves Boers are because the point of the classification is to identify the PEOPLE in question who are struggling for self determination because the bulk of the Afrikaners are descended from
the Cape Dutch & are generally opposed to the notion Boer self determination as the Afrikaner's leadership stand to be cut off from the resources & minerals within the Boer Republics.

The VVK appears to be yet another guise to get Boers to sign away
their birth-rite by identifying with a non-existent Afrikaner group - as the term Afrikaner was British & Cape Dutch mythology aimed at appropriating the Boers' heritage & tethering them to an an artificial macro State under the control of the British Empire. The Right Wing is just an establishment controlled mechanism which serves to distract the Boer
people [ regardless of what they are conditioned to identify themselves as ] from reclaiming their heritage & self determination because it traps them within a controlled political paradigm which is inherently biased against Boer self determination as can be readily seen within even the Afrikaans press & political associations. As Professor Tobias Louw [ a self proclaimed Boer ]has publicly noted in an open letter of September of 2003 to the ISS: the Boer Nationalists transcend the political label of Right Wing as authentic Boer Nationalists do not see themselves as part of a contrived South African political spectrum. Furthermore the Boer
Commandos of the Anglo-Boer War were not called Right Wing Commandos nor were they living in Right Wing Republics but were rather Boer Commandos living within Boer Republics. The term Right Wing is imported political
nonsense which has no relevancy on the situation pertaining to Boer self determination.

Ron. said...

Robert van Tonder wanted the Boers to be represented at the Unrepresented Nations & Peoples Nations Organization back well over 20 years ago only to be stopped by the Afrikaners who were against it. Odd how this controlled opposition Freedom Front Plus has suddenly got on board something its antecedents were originally OPPOSED to when it counted most. The Afrikaner establishment even broke up the movement to restore the Boer Republics back in the 194os when it was supported by 300 000 to 500 000 folks who were openly identifying themselves as Boers thus becoming a threat to the establishment. Robert van Tonder left the National Party in 1961 as he openly stated that the declaration of the Republic of South Africa was a betrayal of the Boer Republics. Link to report. Marginalizing the significance of the Boer designation is an insult to those Boers who faced the brunt of Afrikaner repression.

The point is not what Boers prefer to be called [ the Boers are only about 33% of the total White Afrikaans population ] but rather that the term Boer is their rightful & correct designation.

That was one of the main points of why the establishment promoted the rat hole / death trap of the so called Right Wing. So that it would REPEL people away from the self determination movement & thus reduce the numbers of those who would have naturally joined a self determination movement. Therein is the problem: the Afrikaners [ Cape Dutch dominated ] do not meet international law requirements as they have never struggled for freedom ever & have only ever been Colonists serving a Colonial / foreign power. While the Boers on the other hand fully meet the international law requirements as they have been a people ever since the late 17th cent when they were formed on the Cape frontier developing a strong anti-colonial sentiment & have had numerous freedom struggles & republics. When Boers join with the amorphous Afrikaner designation they inherently sign away their birth-rite & agree to give up their claims just as the Likotas do when they agree to identify as Americans thus signing away their birth-rite & land claims. Once again the notion of an Afrikaner Republic is as relevant as a Canadian Republic because most Afrikaners are opposed to one / or aligned with those forces which oppose any such thing. That is the danger of Boers identifying as Afrikaners because the bulk of the Afrikaners are not ever going to support the notion of an independent Boer based republic. You sound very naive because the media labels anything Right Wing & racist particularly if it threatens the establishment's hold on power.

Ron. said...

Anon. It is a Boer Republican model in the sense that they are working to reclaim part of the old Boer Republics. No you are misguided. The Afrikaners have NEVER had sovereignty within the Boer Republics! Only the Boers ever had sovereignty within the Boer Republics. This is a very important point because by implying that the Afrikaners had sovereignty to Boer lands: it opens the door to Boers being dispossessed by the Afrikaner leadership aligned with global capital interests. President Paul Kruger & President Marthinus Steyn BOTH rebuffed the overtures of the Afrikaner Bond political party of the Cape. The Afrikaners had very little sway within the Boer Republics & Paul Kruger did not like having too mant Cape Dutch coming to live in his repubic as
he felt that they were too pro-British. That is the other problem: the Afrikaners are a "minority" people [ who "arose after the creation of the macro State ] but the Boers are not as they were / are a nation which existed long before the arrival of the Colonial power.

Citing Hermann Giliomee only proves the seriousness of the problem because he was a Broederbonder who propagandizes against the Boer people - but even he himself backhandedly ADMITS the existence of the Boer people by correctly noting that the only folks on the frontier were ever called Boers. That is why the Boers drive for independence is viewed as a "fringe" movement because the Cape Dutch descendents OUTNUMBER the Boer descendents. Were all the Boers to reclaim their historical & proper designation: it would strengthen their cause because they probably make up the bulk of the Boer population as history has shown.

Now you use a very deceptive & an a priori argument because you use the numbers of people who are REGISTERED to various controlled political organizations to support your dubious claim of low Boer designation identification while neglecting to take into account the fact that a lot even probably most Boers do not participate in the political process seeing as how it is controlled.

No. The Republic of South Africa was not sovereign as the British high finance power which created it NEVER lost control of it from behind the scenes & neither did it ever scrap the Westminster model which was the British tool of dividing people along political lines. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be "anti Afrikaner" as such an entity does not exist in any tangible or consistent form so as to be identified as such. Simply because the term Afrikaner just means African & has historically been used to denoted a vast array of peoples of different races & ethnic backgrounds. Going forward as Afrikaners only gives the international community the power to dismiss the entire effort by noting that everyone in Africa is an Afrikaner. That is the main reason why the establishment promote the term so much because they are fully aware of the disempowering & subversive nature of the amorphous designation.

Ron. said...

The OASE site DISTORTS the Vyfleur flag by stating that Afrikaners "enjoyed sovereignty" within the Boer Republics when in reality the Cape Dutch Afrikaners were on the side of the British & were fighting AGAINST the Boers of the republics & of the Cape frontier. Which brings us to another point before you come back with the old: "what about the Cape Rebels Ron you stupid moron!". As I pointed out before numerous times now. The vast majority of the Cape Rebels were Boers from the northern & eastern Cape frontier. Very few actual Cape Dutch joined with the Cape Rebels. Much more of the Cape Dutch were fighting AGAINST the Boers & assisting the British in rounding up Boers into concentration camps. Therefore: can you PLEASE rethink all of this OUTDATED & dangerous British & Broederbond propaganda of promoting the dangerous Afrikaner designation which only empowers the continued establishment rape against the humble self determination aspirations of the actual Boer Nation.

Ron. said...

The sooner that the bulk of the Boer people are aware of who they are & of their heritage [ actually many already are & have long since been ] & that they are not part of the folks who began propagating the term Afrikaner back when most of the Boers were independent within their internationally recognized Boer Republics - the sooner they will be in a strong position & even unstoppable position to reacquire their subverted self determination.

Anonymous said...

This site was much better before Ron started here with his divide and conquer strategy

Anonymous said...

1. ...majority of Boer descendants certainly no longer define themselves as Boers...

Robert Van Tonder, ET, Andre Visagie and many others. They defined themselves as Boers.

2. ...160 000 Afrikaners and this party (FF+) is also officially representing Afrikaners as a minority group at the international Unrepresented Peoples’ Organisation...

If you read their application you note that they used the history of the Boers and not the Cape Dutch

3. ... Boers or Boere-Afrikaners represent less than 1%...

There lays the point. If the Boers are assimiliated or destroyed by other means then the Cape Dutch (Afrikaners) can take thier history and the land claim. See Point 2 above.

4. ...non-racist movement called OASE, an Afrikaans acronym for Independent Afrikaner Self-determination Expedition....

In order to get self determination based on the SA Constitution you would need to be "racist" as it has to descriminate in order to exist. There is a big difference between racism and nationalism. Hence the above will simply fail.

5. ...Their territorial claim differs largely from the maps..

Simply because the Afrikaners aka Cape Dutch have no lost territorial land so there is no claim.

6. ...Afrikaans speaking coloured people are concentrated and which are situated close to or adjacent to OASE’s defined territory... referendum whether they wish to be included in the proposed Afrikaner Republic..

That makes the self determination pointless. 20 years down the line you will have another Allan Boesak wanting this and that. It is a waste of time in my view. What it does show is that NOBODY wants to live with the blacks - NOBODY!

THERE may be a solution so that the Boers and the Afrikaners might be able to live in peace without destroying one or the other. That being that the Boers give up their claim to specific land and concentrate on a claim for self determination within a confederation of South Africa. That allows the Afrikaners to apply the same process without the current destruction of Boer history in order to launch their claim. Both win as the Boers know that they cant get JHB back without a million or so blacks.

Ron. said...

Those are greats points Anon Nov 5. I agree 100%. Further to your point # 5. Looking at the various Volkstaat proposal maps I was struck how NONE of them include the stronghold of the Cape Dutch population - yet the numerically smaller Boer people are supposed to continue going forward under the Cape Dutch created & dominated designation of Afrikaner. Do [ certain uniformed ] people not see a problem here with this? Like I said before: it is like struggling for Scottish independence under the British designation.

Anon Nov 4. Your query as to why I concentrate on the Boers betrays your lack of understanding that it is the Boers & or Boer descendents who drive the Afrikaans self determination movement. That's why going forward as Afrikaners is a grave danger to whatever they decide to do. Even the OASE site draws heavily on the history of the Boers [ virtually entirely ] yet does do under the dispossessing Afrikaner name. Please read the post at this link on the Boerevyheid forum by a one Marietjie Smuts [ who was originally part of the VVK before leaving it ] as posted by a one Barend Paul Kruger to fully appreciate the reason why this can be so dangerous.

Furthermore: needless to say I find it highly insulting & telling that you choose to slander the work I spent well over fifteen years researching & discovering with your trite & baseless accusation of being a someone's payroll. Which causes me to wonder who pays you to post your anti-Boer propaganda. I post on this topic as a matter of principle & conscience because I cannot just sit by while the Boer people are slandered & subverted. As usual I end up getting attacked by White liberals [ since 1997 ] / Black Nationalists / some White Nationalists & ever since circa 2005 by those who identify as Afrikaner Nationalists. The fact of the matter is that dedication to this issue & the sacrifices I have made in order to learn / discover / post & report the truth have come at a cost. I am after all discussing a repressed topic.

Anonymous said...

...Looking at the various Volkstaat proposal maps I was struck how NONE of them include the stronghold of the Cape Dutch population...

That would be a major problem as the Cape Coloureds would lay claim to that land. I was always of the view that the idea was being massaged by the Cape Independence movement as many Afrikaners and English speaking whites liked the idea so much. I wondered if that was one way around the current impasse?

The party in my view makes little sense in any event as if a front for another agenda. They talk about a "Cape Republic" and in their manifesto they state -- "The Cape can be a prosperous, free and independent country". Then they talk about the right to self determination as in the constitution which clearly does not allow for full independence or succession. How did they leap in their election manifesto from confederation to country?

Time will tell who is blowing smoke up the backsides of the people at the Cape.

FreeThinker said...

@ Anon 1.21am: The divide and conquer accusation is getting a bit old.

All over the world whites are forced to believe that they are the intruders, wherever they reside. The Beringians lay claim to the states, even though ample evidence exists for the presence of Solutreans long before their arrival.

Black tribes in SA today claim they are indigenous people of the land. All educated people know the black tribes in SA today come from central and north Africa.

Not knowing the history of Boers and how one simple term assisted in oppressing them for more than 100 years now, is comparable to not knowing your heritage and not caring.

You don't have to like it. The discussions here are for informative purposes. You don't have to be informed. Your choice.

But keep your lame accusations to yourself.

Ron. said...

Anon 1:21 AM. That is an old spook talking point to lob incendiary accusations at someone who exposes truth which threatens a foreign based elite agenda which works to keep people conquered. But as the saying goes: one gets flak when one is over the target. So I must be over the target & YOU no doubt are trying to defend that target.

I think you are simply scared about what will happen to your control & mini-empire once the Boers have reclaimed the independence your superiors stole from them a cent ago. You never contest the facts I bring forth & source - but only ever resort to pathetic & baseless accusations. If you are indeed a spook then you work for folks who spend time trying to divide the Boer people - yet throw the slanderous accusation of division against myself which is refuted by my own statements & position.

I firmly believe that the Boer people must stand together & welcome anyone who would wish to stand with them as I am doing. I have openly lambasted the Westminster system of diving people along political lines. I have posted articles of those who have exposed the old Broederbond tactics of trying to divide & conquer the Boer people. I do not openly promote any one particular Boer organization over another hence the charge of "divide & conquer" is especially puzzling. I have publicly noted that I try to stay out internal Boer politics as that is something that they must rightly sort out for themselves. Campaigning for Boer independence is not division because the notion that it supposedly is promotes the specious & spurious notion that the Boers are not inherently entitled to self determination.

The problem here is that the Boers ARE already divided & conquered! That is the whole point of them reclaiming their usurped identity! Once enough of them stand together as Boers united in the goal of self determination - they will be in a much better position to throw off being conquered as well.

The British started & the establishment have also used the unite & conquer strategy when they manufactured an amorphous Afrikaner grouping thus politically uniting the Boers with the Cape Dutch in order to prevent the Boers from breaking up & or restructuring the macro State of South Africa. The Afrikaner designation has been an instrument which has been used precisely to divide & conquer the Boer Nation.

Ron. said...

Johan from Nov 4. I know you are hoping that the OASE can escape being labeled Right Wing or racist by the media but just look at how the media covers the significance of Boer flags. The media called the Vyfkleur flag [ the very flag that the OASE is using ] "an Apartheid era" flag. I authored & posted: Not an Apartheid Era Flag here as a rebuttal to the media's lies, but their ignorant & probably cynical editorial on the flag was done to distort Boer & Afrikaans self determination movements. I am sure you & the OASE mean well but it truly is naive to think that the media will not also accuse them of being Right Wing.

Ron. said...

Islandshark. There is an absolutely great fact based video series posted online detailing the presence of the Solutreans in North America. Click here at this link to view the entire series. The poster did not post them in chronological order but they are numbered.

Ron. said...

Furthermore it should be pointed out that the campaign for Boer self determination does not even "divide" the amorphous Afrikaner macro grouping for the simple reason that the term was used in the 20th cent describe a coalition between two anthropologically distinct Afrikaans speaking groups. The Boers came into existence as a natural result from an anthropological split dating from just a few decades after the initial arrival of Jan van Riebeeck & even before an established Afrikaans speaking community truly took hold within the western Cape. This bifurcation is what led to the emergence of those labeled as Cape Dutch & those labeled as Boers. Claiming that the Boer drive for independence is "divisive" would make about as much sense as claiming that Canadian autonomy "divides" North Americans. This is all about self determination.

Anonymous said...

The problem with all the maps is that in order to achieve self determination it MUST be based on CULTURE and CULTURE ALONE. The OASE map with a small merging of "Afrikaners" and "Boers" is completely achievable in a very short time frame. BUT IT MUST BE CULTURAL AND NOT RACE BASED to be RECOGNISED as an acceptable international law compliant option.

Southern Sudan was in a similar position and had their own RECOGNISED STATE less than 8 months after the referendum in Southern Sudan.

A number of INTERNATIONAL legal experts who were involved in settling Bosnia/Hertzogovina, Sudan and others are on record saying that the OASE plan is FOOLPROOF providing the referendum is successful.

This would give the "Boer" people their own homeland, but also open the way for the "Afrikaner", who is essentially almost identical culturally, to join them. It also paves the way for the Afrikaans speaking coloureds who are also CULTURALLY very similar to join.

Should the referendum be successful, the next step is to enter negotiations with the "occupying force" - the ANC. If they are not willing to deal then UDI is declared. If they deal then all is good and you become a sovereign state. All that is required for statehood is that ONE currently recognised state must recognise your statehood. OASE has a number lined up who will provide recognition IMMEDIATELY should UDI be declared or settlement reached with the occupying force.


Andrew said...

I still have to see or hear anything about the practicality of a Boer/Afrikaner Volksstaat. The possibility of such a state being formed and existing is somehow not even considered. As briefly as possible the following:1. Whichever area or part of South Africa is decided upon as the Volksstaat, is the consent of the present inhabitants of that area to be a condition? 2. Will the present inhabitants of that area who are not Boere or Afrikaners be forced to leave? 3. Will those who are forced to leave be compensated for their property; mines, factories, farms, houses etc etc etc or will these be simply expropriated? 4. If they are to be compensated where is the money to do so to come from? 4.If the present inhabitants of that area are to remain there, where will the incoming "millions" of Afrikaners find places to live, work because remember almost every square inch of the country is already owned by somebody. There are many other practical problems but these are enough to set you thinking about problems about which the proponents of the idea have clearly not thought yet.

Anonymous said...

"All over the world whites are forced to believe that they are the intruders, wherever they reside.

Black tribes in SA today claim they are indigenous people of the land. All educated people know the black tribes in SA today come from central and north Africa."

Amen to that. All or nothing is where I stand on South Africa,