The Boers' Stockholm Syndrome Complication.

Those Boers who tragically identify as Afrikaners are displaying classic Stockholm Syndrome & are allowing themselves to be dispossessed by the leadership that controls the Afrikaner designation. These self professed "Afrikaners" & or "Boer Afrikaners" appear to be ignorant of the history of the anti-Boer orientation of the Afrikaner political grouping. The Cape Dutch Afrikaners helped the British to round up Boers into the concentration camps during the second Anglo-Boer War. [ 1 ] Prior to that the Cape Dutch accused the Boers who went on the Great Trek of being heretics & were ridiculed. [ 2 ] The Dutch Reformed Church even forbade them from going on the trek. [ 3 ] Going even further back to the mid 1700s: the Dutch East India Company established the Cape frontier towns of Swellendam & Graaff-Reinet in order to control the nomadic Trekboers. [ 4 ] The Afrikaner Bond political party of late 19th cent Cape tried to infiltrate & control the Boer Republics after gold & diamonds were discovered within the republics. [ 5 ] Prior to the discovery of gold & diamonds - the Cape Dutch had very little interest in the Boer people / nation. 

The Afrikaner Bond was formed in the aftermath of the gold & diamonds found within the Boer Republics in order to usurp the republics & secure them under the dispossessing rubric of the Afrikaner designation. Only a few individuals in the Boer Republics were ever persuaded to join the Afrikaner Bond. [ Like F W Reitz. ] Notable Boer leaders like President Paul Kruger of the ZAR & President Marthinus Steyn of the OVS wanted nothing to do with the Afrikaner Bond. [ 6 ] President Kruger did not even like having too many Cape Dutch people in his country as he viewed them as being too pro British. [ 7 ]  The Cape Dutch leadership have always had an anti-Boer agenda [ 8 ] & worked with the British in securing the resources & minerals of the conquered Boer Republics. The standardization process of the Afrikaans language involved the changing of numerous words & terms within the Boer dialect in particular [ 9 ] as the Cape Dutch that ran the process were often Dutch language purists who introduced Dutch terms to replace the original organic local based terms that were used for centuries prior. 

The Afrikaner run establishment committed an ethnocide against the Boer people when they tried to destroy the Boers' identity by rolling them into the manufactured Afrikaner designation [ which was run by the Cape Dutch ] & rewrote history in books they published when they changed the term Boer to "Afrikaner" when describing Boers. The British Lord Alfred Milner even publicly noted that the term Afrikaner was meant to destroy the identity of the Boers [ 10 ] as it lumped them in with the numerically larger Cape Dutch [ & initially with the Anglophones [ 11 ] as well ] population. When large numbers of Boers were migrating to the cities in the aftermath of the second Anglo-Boer War they often encountered Afrikaners [ 12 ] who were in the process of taking control of major institutions. One of the main founders of the Afrikaner Broederbond: Henning Klopper betrayed his lack of critical thinking when he admitted that he viewed himself as an Afrikaner simply after watching JBM Hertzog speak at public rallies. [ 13 ] Hertzog promoted the notion that all Caucasian citizens of South Africa regardless of the language they spoke & who were loyal to South Africa were all Afrikaners. [ 14 ] This harmful propaganda was part of the process that conditioned & outright brainwashed the smaller Boer people out of having their own identity outside of the new manufactured & dispossessing Afrikaner designation [ 15 ] which was in fact led & controlled by the larger Cape Dutch population. The Afrikaner establishment along with the South African Party government put down the Maritz Rebellion with force in 1914. The major aim of the Maritz Rebellion was the restoration of the Boer Republics. 

The Afrikaner Broederbond of the 20th century was set up in part to counter Boer Nationalism which is why they often promoted some aspects of Boer history like the Great Trek. [ While tellingly omitting events prior to 1815 & after 1915. ] [ 16 ] The Afrikaners coined the terms: The Great Trek & Voortrekker [ 17 ] as part of this appropriation process & constructed the Voortrekker Monument as a means to co-opt the Boer Nation. The Afrikaner leaders Malan & Smuts [ both from the Cape Dutch population & childhood friends [ 18 ] who were now running the two main political parties in the South African Parliament ] worked together to stop the Boers from restoring their Boer Republics during the late 1940s. [ 19 ]  Malan's incarnation of the National Party [ which differed somewhat from the original of 1914 started by JBM Hertzog. ] worked to secure & co-opt the Boer people into the Afrikaner fold. 

The voting patterns between the Cape Dutch & the Boers have had stark differences. The referendum of 1960 on turning South Africa into a nominal republic was not supported as much by the Cape Dutch - but it was overwhelmingly supported by the Boer people particularly the inhabitants of the old Boer Republics. [ 20 ] The Boers falsely thought that Verwoerd was offering a true republic. Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd [ who was a Dutch immigrant ] created a false republic for the entire artificial macro state of South Africa in 1961 in order to scupper the Boers natural drive towards restoring their Boer republics. Robert van Tonder called Verwoered out in the same year of 1961 on Verwoerd's betrayal of the Boer people & of the Boer Republics. [ 21 ]  Van Tonder began calling for the restoration of the Boers Republics in 1961 but was met with resistance from the Afrikaner establishment. He was forced to run an illegal underground printing press [ 22 ] in order to try to get the truth out to the Boer people in particular & to the world in general. 

Robert van Tonder correctly noted in 1977 that the Afrikaner government of South Africa was putting the Boers' culture into a straight jacket. [ 23 ] National Party politicians rarely mentioned the term Boer [ 24 ] & when it was mentioned it was often put down. Afrikaners often claim that the Boers are a "minority" due to being outnumbered by the Cape Dutch [ & the larger South African population in general ] when in reality the Boers are a nation whose existence predates the state of South Africa & even of the introduction of the Afrikaner political ideology of pan White South Africanism of the late 19th cent. [ 25 ] A clear sign of the Stockholm Syndrome some Boers are suffering from is evident with the t-shirts & patches of the old South African flag with the tragic & inaccurate words: " 100 % Boer "  printed over them - when in actual fact the old orange / white & blue flag represented a state & regimes that were anti-Boer. President P W Botha refused to consider the notion of allowing the Boers to have any area of South Africa for their own use for self determination. The National Party helped bring the ANC to power while Afrikaner companies like Sanlam help fund & prop up the ANC. [ 26 ]  A number of former prominent National Party members have since joined the ANC. [ 27 ] The entire National Party eventually merged with the ANC & the major Afrikaans media publications propagandize against Boer self determination. The Afrikaner Broderbond controlled all major institutions of South Africa & were a major force against Boer Republic restoration.

Notes. 

1. This was noted by Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio during an interview with The Right Perspective radio program. Robert van Tonder stated the following about the Cape Dutch.  

Quote: [ During the British War the members of the Afrikaner Bond, that still kept the pro-British government in power in the Cape, formed the core of the British Town Guards and they were the forerunners in hunting down the Boere-rebels that fought on our side. The word 'Afrikaner' therefore leaves a foul taste in the mouth of a Boer. ] From Boerstaat. Chapter 13. Robert van Tonder. 

2. Quote: [ The emigrants were ridiculed for leaving their homes for the wilderness ] From: The Great Ber Trek. Stephen Crane. Link.  

3. Quote: [ The Dutch Church in the Cape offered no blessing to those who trekked. The Church was part of the establishment and gave its support to the government of the day even if it was British. ] From: The White Tribe of Africa. David Harrison. Page 15. 

4. Quote: [ The officials there, attempting to reassert their authority in the distant districts, appointed magistrates to Swellendam and Graaff Reinet, but this only increased the tension between the frontiersmen and the Company's servants at the capital. Open revolt flared up in 1795: numbers of trekboers withdrew their allegiance from the Company and set up two republics of their own. ] From: The Gret Trek. Chapter One. Oliver Ransford. 

Quote: [ The Company in Cape Town attempted to bring these frontiersmen under control by establishing magistracies in Graaf Reinet and Swellendam but caused open revolt in these areas. ] From: The Great Trek - South Africa 1835 - 1845. Link.  

5. The Afrikaner Bond tried to make inroads into the Boer Republics. The Afrikaner Bond was founded at the Cape - after the discovery of gold & diamonds found within the Boer Republics -  in part as a vehicle for the Cape Dutch to claim control over the resources of the Boer Republics. 

6. Quote: [ In the Republics the Bond did not flourish: neither President Brand nor President Kruger wanted his authority questioned. ] From: Michael Barthorp. The Anglo-Boer Wars. page 44. 

7. Paul Kruger was wary of the Cape Dutch. Quote: [ Paul Kruger did not like people from the Cape - he felt they were subjugated by the British, so he encouraged people from the Netherlands to work in the Transvaal as a way to strengthen Boer independence. ] From: Clare Wyllie interviews Professor Gerrit Schutte. Link. Kruger's suspicions were ultimately proven to have been justified. 

8. Quote: [ The Bond scientists in Holland had fully persevered in their craftily laid programme. After having succeeded in producing race hatred between Boer and English, the next step had been to convince the Boer leaders and the people of the inevitableness of a contest for ensuring the supremacy of the Afrikaners... ] From: Author C H Thomas. Thomas also noted that the goal of the Afrikaner Bond of the Cape was to covertly goad the British into going to war with &  conquering the Boer Republics. In effect The Cape Dutch were using the British as the muscle to conquer the Boer Republics in order to get their hands on the wealth of the republics. 

9. Quote: [ Afrikaner intellectuals worked very hard to ‘clean up’ Afrikaans —they appropriated the language developed by the ‘coloured’ lower classes and claimed it as their own, ‘white’ language. They removed black and Malay as well as English influences; for example, many southern Nguni words, which had entered the dialect in the Eastern Cape, were replaced by Dutch words in the new dictionaries devised by teachers and academics, to reinforce the idea that Afrikaans was respectable and ‘white’. ] From: Afrikaner Nationalism Captures the State. 

10. Lord Alfred Milner noted that the idea behind promoting the Afrikaner designation was to destroy the identity of the Boers. A plan that was started by the Cape Dutch leadership during the late nineteenth century after gold & diamonds were discovered within the Boer Republics & continued into the 20th century by organizations controlled by the Afrikaner Broederbond.  

Quote: [ The British masters of Southern Africa therefore engineered the National Convention of 1909, which saw the creation of the Union of South Africa. This union consisted of the former Cape Colony, the Natal Colony, and the two former Boer Republics. This union was not merely a geographic convenience, but a deliberate plan to try and destroy the independence minded Boers by mingling them with the Cape Dutch & English settlers. ] From: The Boers of Southern Africa by Arthur Kemp. 

11. There are 3 books I have come across that specifically note that the term Afrikaner was applied to all White / Caucasian citizens of South Africa until the 1930s. Those books are: The White Tribe of Africa from David Harrison. The Rise of Afrikanerdom: Power, Apartheid, and the Afrikaner Civil Religion from T. Dunbar Moodie & Boerestaat from Robert van Tonder. 

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

13. Quote: [ Immediately after the speech, nineteen year old Henning Klopper now a railway clerk in his first job, attended a meeting with seven others at Oogies station, where they passed a resolution supporting Herztog. Klopper was elected secretary and sent off a telegram "saying we would stand firmly behind him... It just came out of your whole being. You couldn't suppress it. You were an Afrikaner and that's all about it". Hertzog's inevitable confrontation with Botha came when he was dropped from the cabinet. ] From: The White Tribe of Africa. David Harrison. Page 61.  

14. Quote: [ Hertzog had always recognized that there were two groups both deeply rooted in South Africa, the English and the Dutch. He accepted them as "twin streams", equal but separate, and believed that both could be called Afrikaners in the widest sense. He insisted that each group should educate its children in its own language - although each group should learn the language of the other. ] From: The White Tribe of Africa. David Harrison. Page 59.  

15. This process was started by the Society For True Afrikaners in 1875 then later by the Afrikaner Bond of the Cape from 1881 onwards then later picked up by South African politicians & academics during the 20th century notably under organizations controlled by the Afrikaner Broederbond founded in 1920. 

16. Testament to this is the fact that few people seem to know about the first Boer Republics of 1795 on the Cape frontier [ Swellendam & Graaff-Reinet ] & much of the Boer history from 1700 - 1815 nor of the post Anglo-Boer War history of particularly post 1915. 

17. Quote: [ The exodus from the Cape was not organized in a single movement at the time, but it was later termed the Great Trek by nationalist historians, and its participants were called Voortrekkers (pioneers). ] From: The Great Trek. The United States Library of Congress.  

18. Quote: [ A new personality had emerged among the Nationalists. This was Dr Daniel Francois Malan, one of Smuts' neighbours when both were children in the western Cape and, bizarrely enough, one of Smuts' pupils in the local Sunday School in the 1800s. Malan was born in 1874, four years after Smuts; he was the son of a Cape wine-farmer of Huguenot descent. Like Smuts he was not a typical sport-loving young Afrikaner: but there the resemblance ended. ] From: The Afrikaners: an historical interpretation. By Godfrey Hugh & Lancelot Le May. Page 160. 

19. Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio pointed this out on December 7 2007 on The Right Perspective radio program. The Afrikaner establishment [ despite political divisions ] was united on stopping the Boers from restoring their old Boer republics. The Afrikaner establishment did not want to lose control over the resources found within the Boer Republics region.

20.  Quote: [ Natal had voted against: in the Cape the republicans had a majority of fewer than two thousand from over half a million votes cast. But the Afrikaner [ editor note: Boer not Afrikaner ] strongholds, the [ Orange ] Free State and the Transvaal had swung the victory. What Verwoerd would have done had the majority gone the other way is not clear. With his Parliamentary majority he could still have put a republican bill through the Assembly. But the issue did not arise. The gamble had paid off. ] From: The White Tribe of Africa. David Harrison. Page 166. 

21. Quote: [ Van Tonder broke away from the National Party in 1961 because of what he described as its betrayal of the old Boer republics. ] From article at: iol.co.za entitled: Right Wing Leader Robert van Tonder Dies. Dated August 5 1999. 

22. Quote: [ Robert van Tonder spent most of his own money to plead for the Boer-cause abroad. He not only self-published his boek 'Boerestaat' in four different foreign languages with many reprints: English, Dutch, German and French; he also maintained his own (illegal) underground printing press at his farm, and all his school-age children were involved in printing this small book, and also distributing his monthly newspaper 'Die Stem". ] From: Adriana Stuijt. Posted on a blog on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 10:33:00 AM. 

23. Quote: [ Van Tonder is scornful of South African policies. "It's a police state," he says. "It's putting my culture into a straitjacket." ] From: a 1977 Time Magazine interview with Robert van Tonder. 

24. Quote: [ under the National Party government, they weren't allowed to know a lot of their own rich history and the word "Boer" wasn't used much by National-Party ministers. ] From: Adriana Stuijt. Posted on a blog on Thursday 21-Jun-2007. 

25. The Boer people emerged on the Cape frontier just before 1700 & referred to themselves as Africans viewing Africa as their homeland while the Cape Dutch did not start using the term Afrikaner to describe themselves until 1875: a full 175 years later. The Cape Dutch leadership were hoping to use the term Afrikaner to build a pan White Afrikaans speaking movement that included the larger Cape Dutch population conflated with the smaller Boer people / nation. Afrikaner leaders like Jan Hofmeyr went so far as to promote a generic pan local White citizen movement which included Anglophones & was the precursor to how the term Afrikaner was used by early 20th cent politicians like Louis Botha & JBM Hertzog.

26. The late Boer activist Fred Rundle noted this fact on The Right Perspective radio program. 

27. Former Foreign Affairs Minister of the National Party government Pik Botha was among the first to join the ANC but eventually included many others as well as Marthinus van Schalkwyk - the last leader of the National Party & the New National Party. The New National Party folded into the ANC beginning in 2005. The ANC regime is basically a more recent puppet regime of South Africa in much the same way the old National Party regime was for the true power.   

You Might be a Liberal if.....

This one's a bit American, but it's fun!Hat tip to TexasFred

IQ tests should be used to stop the death penalty, but not to determine admission to AP classes.

The Ten Commandments in schools will hurt the children, but “Heather Has Two Mommies” won’t.

African-American, Queer and Women’s Studies prepare young people for good careers, but a biology major is an outdated relic of white, misogynist domination.

College students must protest the President (before Obama was elected), but never challenge anything the professor says.

Math tests are racist, but there is nothing racist about blacks being admitted over more qualified white applicants.

Spending 4 years – make that 5 years – repeating your professor’s liberal slogans is a solid education, but demanding that colleges present all view-points and actually teach the subject is “anti-intellectualism”.

McCarthyism was wrong, but black-listing “right-wingers” from ever teaching in college is just plain old common sense. A right-winger is anyone who doesn’t toe the line on all issues.

Education is about “feeling”, not knowing. Logic is the product of white male supremacy in our culture.

After spending 5 years in college, you still don’t know when the Civil War took place and you are absolutely certain it had nothing to do with freeing black slaves.

Meat is bad for you. So is milk. But marijuana gets you ready for your finals.

AIDS is caused by poverty. So is crime. And membership in the Republican party.

You march to raise awareness about breast cancer, but believe it’s caused by sexism and infant mortality is caused by racism.

You want to outlaw cigarettes and legalize marijuana.

Global Cooling for 10 years proves that there is global warming.

You fly on private jets, but feel free to tell others to use only one square of toilet paper to save the environment.

You think that using less toilet paper will be good for the air.

The best way to care about a disease is to wear a ribbon. You must also prevent pharmaceutical companies from making a profit.

People should be allowed to euthanize themselves, but not to eat in McDonald’s.

Career welfare recipients are fat because they can’t afford food.

You preach to everyone that diversity is our greatest strength, but you paid half a million dollars more for a house in an all-white suburb than you could’ve for the same house in a black neighborhood.

You see racist code-words in all media except in hip-hop singles such as “Kill The White People”.

You wonder out loud, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

You oppose all racial prejudice, but think all whites are racist, consciously or not.

IQ tests are completely invalid and there are no differences between people, except when an anonymous blogger posts that all the Red States have a borderline retarded IQ and all the Blue states are made up exclusively of intellectually gifted people. Then you feel the need to send the blog post to everyone you know as conclusive proof that voting for Democrats makes you smart.

You greet a black person with, “Yo Bro!”

Indians created the United States and Europe became great as a result of Islamic influences. On second thought, Europe isn’t great.

You can’t believe you were so racist as to say that there’s something great about Europe except their Social Democrat parties.

Black dominance in basketball is progress, but white dominance in swimming is an outrage.

Illegal Mexicans are real Americans. Descendants of our Founding Fathers aren’t.

Racial profiling is wrong, but all serial killers are white and all Mexicans are hard-working family men.

US wants to build a wall on the Mexican and not Canadian border because of racism, not because 20 million Mexicans and almost no Canadians cross into the U.S. illegally.

There is no correlation between Islamic immigration to Europe and increased anti-Semitic attacks against European Jews.

Prostitution empowers women, but having a man open the door for you is degrading.

You get out of bed, look at your naked body and at your wife’s, and then think: “gender is a social construct that has no basis in science”.

On second thought, you got married in Vermont and your wife’s name is Thomas.

Your dog is smaller than your cat.

You bought your son a doll and your daughter a toy truck just to prove that gender is a social construct.

You then gave your son a “time-out” for pretending that the doll is an enemy soldier. Such violence will not be accepted.

When your 2-year-old daughter turned the truck into a “tea party” table, your immediate thought was, “I got to her too late and she was already brainwashed by society to think she’s a little woman”.

Men are bigger, stronger and faster than women because our society is sexist.

On second thought, it’s sexist to say that men are bigger, stronger and faster.

Western women suffer at the hands of men, but Islamic women are greatly respected.

The only time you’ve ever used the word “choice” was in reference to abortion. School choice or the choice to shop at Wal-Mart should be prevented at all costs.

If you are a man, your hair is longer than your girlfriend’s.

Women should stop listening to their husbands and start listening to you.

There’s never a reason to hit a woman, unless she’s Ann Coulter or another conservative, in which case, she had it coming for having a mind of her own and disagreeing with you.

People are born with a sexual orientation, but gender is a social construct and nobody is really born with male or female qualities.

You agree with your cross-dressing friend that “our society” is just “too focused” on genitals in determining a person’s sex instead of determining gender by looking at the person’s clothes. Just because she has a penis instead of a vagina, chest hair instead of breasts and a prostate instead of ovaries, doesn’t mean she’s any less of a woman.

Men who are aroused by breasts are abnormal freaks, but homosexuality is biologically normal.

Men stand in front of toilets only to promote male supremacy and should be forced by the government to sit.

Great spirituality is found in Voodoo, but nothing in the Bible.

Gay students should be allowed to publicly kiss in class, but Christians shouldn’t be allowed to quietly pray during a break.

The Christmas tree should be banned from public view, but that anyone objecting to pornography “only has to look the other way.”

When a Western woman travels to the Middle East, she should respect their traditions and cover up. When Muslim illegally infiltrate Europe, they have the right to expect the Westerners to adjust to them. If the Europeans don’t, Muslims have every right to riot.

Christianity is a threat. Islam is a religion of peace.

The Constitution allows desecration of the flag, but makes it strictly illegal to desecrate the Koran.

You found where the right to an abortion is written in the Constitution, but cannot find where the Constitution provides for a right to bear arms.

None of the Constitutional Rights you believe in are actually written in the U.S. Constitution.

Constitutional rights that are actually written in the Constitution are outdated and should be ignored.

The First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech must take a back seat to sensitivity.

You think that the Declaration of Independence is a legally-binding document, but the Constitution should be read any which way you want.

On second thought, the only thing binding about the Declaration of Independence is the sentence “all men are created equal”. You aren’t sure what else the declaration says, but you are sure that whitey had no right to declare independence on Indians’ land.

Child molesters can live anywhere and maintain their privacy, but Wal-Mart should be limited to far-away places where children can’t be exposed to it.

Teenagers can’t control their sexual urges no matter what we do, but child molesters and rapists can after counseling.

Counseling is the proper punishment for all crimes except sexual harassment and racism.

McDonald’s should be sued for selling dangerous products, but drug dealers should be released from prisons.

Mumia is a great American, but the Founding Fathers were brutal racists and we should ignore everything they said.

A five-year-old boy who pulls a girl’s hair should be punished, but gang bangers who are caught with guns should be let go because they didn’t do anything.

Affirmative action is the way to solve racial problems in America.

Quietly reading “The Bell Curve” on the bus is harassment, but keying someone’s car for disagreeing with you is activism.

When rape and murder statistics go up, you blame poverty.

Society should take responsibility for crime, but the criminals need more understanding.

We have too many police. If the cops backed off, the ghetto would be pristine.

America and Israel are the only problems in the Middle East.

Four year old babies should be frisked at the airport because focusing on nervous young Arabs would be discriminatory.

Hezbollah is a legitimate political party, but Republicans are just a bunch of racist haters who should never be exposed to kids or college students.

It is wrong to kill terror leaders without a trial, but blowing up buses and airplanes is legitimate resistance.

Your peace rally consists of supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah and Saddam Hussein.

You say, “Why do they hate us?” when America is attacked and “we’re just furthering the cycle of violence” when we retaliate.

You aren’t unpatriotic, but you just can’t remember the last time you sided with the United States … on anything… against any country.

If you support the United States, you are blind idiot who wraps himself in patriotism. If you support Israel, you fell for Zionist propaganda. If you side with Islamists, you truly understand international politics and your views are intricate and nuanced.

We had no business going to Afghanistan, but bombing Serbia in the 1990s on behalf of Islamic terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army was vital to our national interest.

Truth matters less than feelings.

You think Hamas and Robert Mugabe were fairly and democratically elected, but President Bush was not.

You tell anyone who’ll listen that our elections are fraudulent and then you fight tooth and nail to prevent states from requiring a photo ID to vote.

You are more proud of Obama’s race than of John McCain’s refusal to leave his buddies behind in Vietnamese prison.

Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President ever because he believed a flash card that misspelled “potato,” but Obama is a genius despite the fact that he believes that we have more than 57 states.

You laugh at Dan Quayle, but you still can’t figure out the difference between “your” and “you’re”.

Governor Sarah Palin is unqualified, but Daughter Caroline Kennedy and Wife Hillary Clinton were great candidates for the U.S. Senate.

You are more concerned about a politician being endorsed by the NRA than al Qaeda and the Socialist Workers Party.

All recounts must continue until the Democrat takes the lead, and not a second longer.

You announce that you will move to Canada every time a Republican wins an election.

None of your friends ever voted for a Republican.

People who don’t chat, “Bush Lied, People Died” are all stupid.

Barbra Streisand knows more about politics than Newt Gingrich.

95% of blacks voting for a black guy is normal, but 55% of whites voting for the white candidate is a sign of how flawed our racist voting system is.

You call yourself ‘progressive’ but oppose all progress because somebody might get fired and replaced by a cheap and more efficient computer program.

Capitalism is the cause of poverty.

People aren’t successful, they are privileged.

People don’t earn. They deserve.

The Christian Right shouldn’t impose their morality on you, but you want to impose big government on everyone else because otherwise they won’t do the right thing.

You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.

You think the case for global warming is proven without a shadow of a doubt, but that we need another century or two worth of evidence to figure out if capitalism and free markets work better than socialism.

It’s obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3 cents per gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but it’s OK for the government to make several times more than that in taxes.

McDonald’s gives people an option to super-size their meal because it is purposely trying to kill black people by giving them heart disease, cancer, diabetes and stroke.

You are steeped in compassion, but never gave money to charity or donated blood.

Your favorite sport is soccer. You pronounce it “foot-bowl”. You can’t name a single player or when was the last World Cup. You never actually watched a soccer match, but saying “foot-bowl” seems like a good answer to give when you are drinking your caramel latte with scones.

Your other interests are Ballet, Opera and Gangsta Rap.

You favor games where you don’t keep score, run or in any way risk bruising yourself.

You really wish to go to India to study spiritualism there, but you wouldn’t be caught dead in a church.

Your car has 8 bumper stickers calling Republicans morons and saying that Bush is a murderer, but that “McCain/Palin” bumper stick you just saw is really offensive so you just had to scratch that car with your key.

You wear a Yasser Arafat head scarf, but laugh at those who wear formal ties.

Playing competitive sports could do permanent harm to teenagers, but smoking weed daily and occasionally trying hard drugs is just something all college students do.

Fox News is biased, but Al Jazeera isn’t. In fact, Fox News invented media bias.

Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan are mean-spirited racists and promote hate crime, but Maxine Waters, John Conyers and Louis Farrakhan aren’t and don’t.

Rush Limbaugh’s listeners are mindless “dittoheads,” but you have never doubted anything that you heard from Michael Moore.

Assaulting the President by throwing shoes at him is free speech, but political cartoons about Muhammad aren’t.

Freedom of speech means the right to scream when a conservative tries to speak in order to prevent anyone from hearing his views.

Freedom of speech applies to terrorists, not conservative radio talk show hosts.

Everyone who disagrees with you must be reported for racism to your employer, university dean and the police.

After making the report, you are shocked that racism is not a crime and that the offender won’t won’t be locked up.

If you answered yes to over 10 of these, you are a liberal. Start drinking the Kool-Aid!

Where did it all go wrong?

By Bheki Dungeni:
Monday, November 5, 2012
After much reflection and consideration on quite a number of things happening around, this notion eerily crossed my mind, and for the first time I began to ask myself questions I had never asked before. But one question that overshadowed most of them was this simple, yet so complex inquiry: Where did it all go wrong?
Also, I have to admit, I had made a pact with my ‘journalistic gods’ that I will keep away from anything ‘political’ for some time, but thanks to our ‘gifted politicians’, I was forcefully stirred out of my peaceful slumber.
If the recent events are anything to go by, I believe millions, if not billions of people all over the world have noticed that something is amiss, and whatever it is, it is not only jeopardizing unity among all, but it has left South Africa rattling along the rancid edges of what many tend to call a ‘point of no return’.
This piece does not set out to conclude on anything, but to try and find answers to this rather perplexing question. Where did it really go wrong?
Would it be for the fact that a party that has been in existence for over 100 years, and has run the country for the past 18, has fallen victim to the evil forces of profligacy? Or is it because the ideologies set down when South Africa attained her independence remained merely inscriptions within the pediments of the Freedom Charter, and did not see the light of day? How about maybe the country took a left turn, when it was supposed to turn right (Led by the one and only)?
Well, to begin with, I would love to refer you to a statement from the President of South Africa himself, which did not only leave me gob smacked, but truly dismayed. I have never been one to point a finger at the other, but after that sentiment the President put out, I felt like pointing a finger all the way to his heart. Probably poke it even, and assess if it’s still in touch with the world around it or not.
“Let us solve African problems the African way, not the white man’s way,” President Jacob Zuma was quoted saying, at the opening of the National House of Traditional Leaders in Parliament.
I would love to quote the rest of it, but truth be told, my heart would not allow me.
Maybe we would like you recap a bit, Mr. President, and go back a little bit, because it certainly seems it’s a lot easy for political leaders nowadays to forget things as is it for some of them to bid for a ‘four-legged’ Buffalo (Would have made sense if maybe it had two. Rare-breed).
When did it all suddenly become a question of doing it the ‘white man’s’ way or the African way? When did all the principles and tenets penned down in the Freedom Charter wash down the drain? Was it not you Mr. President who has been advocating for unity among South Africans; black, white, Coloured, Indian, Chinese or any other race?
It is truly sad, if not disheartening, that the man at such an echelon in the governing house would truly utter such words, especially when the country is grappling with multitudes of conflicts that are simultaneously boiling with each and every day. If that statement, Mr. President, is not racist, then we all didn’t get the memo. Probably we were in a different train going somewhere else, where we never got to see words like ‘racism, prejudice and segregation’. You would certainly be forgiven to think that such political views brandish nothing but conceit.
I have a suggestion, Mr. President. Why not let the ‘white man’ have what is his then? Let him have his sky-scrapper buildings that he ‘brought’ into the land, and maybe we can all finally cram up in caves, crevices, and mud-huts that we seem like we ‘truly miss’ so bad. How about giving back his suits that you always seem cooped up in every time you appear at conferences and conventions? Or your stylish ‘blue-light’ convoy that is entirely a ‘white man’s’ creation?
Let me not even mention the iPad, which you tap on and touch with ease, warmed by the beauty of civilization, technology and now the digital world. I’m sure you will do just fine counting your cows, goats, sheep and corn fields using stones and your fingers. Oh, wait, you wouldn’t even know how to count because it was the same ‘white man’ who taught you all this, and today you’re telling the people that ‘lawyers will not help you’?
My message is simple: I think it’s time people woke up from their dreams of going back into the primitive world; where animal skin, feathers, traditional beer, five or more wives and walking barefoot would be the style of the day. Let’s enjoy it as a culture and tradition, and celebrate it forever and ever if we have to. But let’s not try and undo the road to civilization, because surely by trying to bring it all back together is like trying to undo a whole two to three centuries.
You would die before even starting on such a journey, Mr. President. We have already been influenced by many different cultures. We have already taken the leap into civilization and left the ‘dark, stone-age’ days behind us. I am sorry to break it down to you, but as bad as it may seem or sound, especially to the older generation, its either we fight it (whatever it is we are fighting), or make it work for everyone else. Well, I wouldn’t take the first option, as we have already seen what fighting has done. Who would want to relive Apartheid?
Five words: Get on with the programme
Honestly, has it not crossed your mind that South Africa is probably one of the only countries in the world that is still blaming the ‘white man’? How long will it go on and when will it end?
Again, thanks to our forever-opinionated Comrade Blade Nzimande, the barrel of the gun has suddenly shifted to the media now. He claims South African media is ‘unfair and unbalanced’. ‘Unfair and Unbalanced’ in what way, I ask myself.
Like I said, it certainly seems easy to forget for many politicians in the country. It seems it is easy to remember animal skins and ‘spears’ from the 1800s, but pledges set down merely 18 years ago vanished with the blink of an eye.
Was it not the same media that was at the forefront of atrocities back in the day when the country was fighting apartheid? Was it not the same media that chased after riots, marches and uprisings in townships, to show the world the plight of the people? Soweto and Sharpeville, anyone?
How about the same media that afforded people like Nelson Mandela a platform to share their views and hopes for South Africa with the world? Who filmed him and followed him around? It surely wasn’t CNN, BBC or Sky News, was it? If you know the history of media houses in South Africa, you would certainly know that most of them haven’t changed much. Some of the media houses and companies that covered the uprisings during apartheid days are still the same that are in existence today. What’s new?
Probably what Nzimande means is media houses should only cover events where the ANC is about to hand over keys to 50 new RDP house owners in the communities, sidelining the millions that are squeezed into townships and shacks, and have been waiting for houses for years now. Maybe what he is suggesting is that media houses should get VIP seats at their dinner tables, and leave thousands of mine workers striking, marching and slaughtering each other around the country in the name of ‘better salaries’? Probably what he means is that media houses should come ‘dance’ and dine with the ruling party at their galas and conventions, and neglect protesters burning down libraries, streets lights, infrastructure and stoning cars in Khayelitsha because they demand better housing, better services, water and electricity.
Well, I got news for you, because the same media that you invited to the ANC 100 years centenary celebrations will be the same media that will stretch its arms to cover the millions of rands in tax money that the party is channeling into its coffers day in day out. It will stretch its arms to dig up allegations and reports about arms deals, corruption, money laundering and ‘tenderpreneurship’ in the country.
If it has ample space in its hands, it will be the same media that will be the first to know that the Presidents nephew’s car was hijacked while his bodyguard was waiting for some KFC somewhere in the land, while workers at ‘his mine’ go without salaries for months. How about being the same media to capture sterling HD pictures of ‘Rolex’ watches precariously dangling on the wrists political demagogues claiming to be at the realm of the ‘poor’.
It will be the same media that will be the first to catch a glimpse of thousands of books and stationery dumped somewhere in Limpopo, while students suffer at schools and go for months without them. How about being the first to know that the man at the top of the governing house is getting married for the umpteenth time, thanks to the ‘middle-class’ tax-paying citizens of South Africa ‘cordially sponsoring’ the weddings?
There is no need to sugar-coat things here, or is there a need to compile reports in favour of one against the other. That, my dear comrades in the political spheres, would be tantamount to unethical, ‘unfair and unbalanced’ reporting, as Nzimande put it. It would certainly be uncalled for, especially when political heads have proved to everyone that their chosen path is theirs and theirs only. Should it go unchallenged? I don’t think so.
Well, thanks to the media, the country now knows that the President wanted, and still is probably going to use more than R200m taxpayers money for the ‘upgrading’ of his ‘homestead’.
Thanks to the media, the country now knows that government officials get charged of different crimes but never face the dock, as cases get ‘miraculously’ dropped, and to some extent, courts peculiarly burn down somewhere in Polokwane.
Oh yes, thanks to the media, the country now knows that police were involved in the bombing of a correctional services vehicle, killing people and wounding more than a dozen, because they wanted to help criminals escape.
Without the media, this country would be in the dark. But, most importantly, it wouldn’t be in the dark as it would be without the ‘white man’s’ technology. (Let’s be honest, a mere fire wouldn’t light up Johannesburg the way its glistening lights at night do today).
With that said, I am certainly looking forward to another long vacation from politics, and go back to enjoy the beauty of the world without ‘politics’ breathing down my neck, and hopefully I will wake up on the other side of Mangaung. Honestly, It seems it has become one big circus where, if Julius Malema is not swindling tenders and money somewhere, Mr. President is busy trying to convince the world that everything is okay and there is absolutely nothing to worry about. For now, all I can say is let’s brace ourselves people, and simply hope nobody is going to dance themselves out of their ‘red’ neckties come December.

The Loyalist

from News24 Voices, by Thabo Seroke:
I’ve often suffered the misfortune of being called “a mouth piece for the enemy”, usually by people who claim to be ANC loyalists. As a relatively young South African, who has spent most of his conscious years in our cancerous democracy, maligned by constant promises of transparency, accountability and competence, I quiver because I had no idea who this enemy is. I have unfortunately allowed the term to occupy most of my thoughts and I have reached several conclusions.
The enemy here not only represents white South Africans who are obviously unsatisfied by the direction (or lack thereof) of the country but equally opinionated Black, Coloured or Indian South Africans who share similar sentiments.
Sadly, these ‘loyalists’ are naturally oblivious to their own conditions brought upon by the people they constantly claim to be willing to die and kill for. They are usually readily available to cause havoc to any individual, group or opposition party because a large majority are unemployed and their occupation is protest, vandalism and disruption. They equate the relevance of these protests to the apartheid era, except this time, in defense of the very government that oppresses them.  They are loyal nonetheless to the leadership because they can be bussed in anywhere to stand in contention with something they hardly understand, if the know what it is they are against at all.
Even a greater number of them are the youth. The biggest victims in my opinion of this veiled democracy. They’re being crippled with flawed education but no chaos there; there are after all more pupils in classrooms now than in 1994. Quality is optional and out of gratitude, the loyalist accepts education that rates part of the lowest in world.
An even comical sign of loyalty was when the SACP and COSATU marched in support of Zuma’s administration, celebrating his success since taking public office. Ironically, now the constitution is an obstacle to our President’s agenda
They descend on you en masse wherever you are. The ANC women’s leagues, major loyalists, are willing to turn their backs on the people they should be standing up for. Last week our President, perhaps the only survivor of the Stone Age met with other traditional leaders who gathered in support of the Traditional Courts Bill. Out of loyalty, the ANCWL joined our tribalist Zuma in time travel by endorsing him for a second term, a step that will take women’s rights 600 000 years back.
The thing is, it is not necessarily just Zuma they support. Loyalists oppose every other opportunity for progressive change. It isn’t the ANC they were defending on Sunday when they stopped Zille’s intentionally dubious visit to Nkandla, they were purely just defending a man who can do no wrong in their eyes. This loyalty bears fruit, because it fast tracks the supporters’ position in the queue. When its time to dish up, such devotion is beneficial
This culture of crushing the voices of these ‘mouth pieces for the enemy’ will be the demise of our democracy. Should I be satisfied with incompetence, complacency and poor service delivery purely because I am a black person and owe my freedom to the ANC? Am I less of a black person for disagreeing with the party’s leadership?
Perhaps my loyalty changed when I stopped supporting the man and grew back to the party in hopes of restoring it to what it was almost a century ago. We often make the mistake of never finding the connection or distinction between deployed leadership and founding principles of a particular organization. If your loyalty has blinded you, I ask this, is this the vision of Luthuli, Sobukwe and Biko?
The common assumption is that if you vehemently oppose the manner in which an ANC led government does things and express your views in a liberal tone, you’re automatically labeled a DA member or counter-revolutionary.
It would be ambitious to the point of foolishness of me to describe the South African voter as independent, I mean we say we but are we really? As long as deferring from archaic, tribal rule is seen as a disdain of black heritage and back-stabbing the people who sacrificed their lives for the freedom we claim to have today, we cannot be independent.
The reality we face is that South Africa now has to deal with an inactive, unemployed and unskilled youth that is running out of patience and if the government still believes that all it expects from that youth are praise singers, they are sitting on a ticking time bomb. The amplified voices of these youths will one day speak out for themselves and they will be their own mouth-pieces, which will be highly necessary when testing their loyalty to the country and that will be true freedom.
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER Thabo_SerokeY
“Misguided loyalty will not help you or your sons”

Chapter From Boerestaat From Robert van Tonder.

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

Chapter 13.

Boere and 'Afrikaners'.

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

13.1 The historical sequence of events.

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

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

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

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

13.2 The historical interpretation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here the new Union of South Africa was born.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13.3 A Faulk's identity.

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

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

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

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

13.4 A referendum for the Boere of the Cape.

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

28. -

29. -

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

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

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

33. -

Contents of “Boerestaat”, by Robert van Tonder.

Found at this link.

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

Map of the First Boer Republics of the Cape Frontier.

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

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

For further reading: The First Boer Republic.

Kill the Boer – Kill the farmer

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

Back-tracking faster than you reverse

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


Kill The Boer Kill The Farmer from Marek Ranis on Vimeo.

The British Roots of the Afrikaner Designation.

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

 

Quote: [ THE "AFRIKANERS"

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

(i) the internationally recognized and indigenous Boer people;
(ii) the Cape Dutch Settlers, loyal to the British Empire; and
(iii) the English speaking White settlers, also loyal to the British Empire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: The Boers of Southern Africa. Arthur Kemp.

Report on the Growing Impoverishmet of the White Population.

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



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

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

The following video of libertarian commentator Stefan Molyneaux expounds further.



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

The Local Natural Leaders Were Not Consulted.

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

Kenny Kunene’s letter to Zuma

By Kenny Kunene, South African businessman

Dear President Jacob Zuma...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Roodt on Youth Day

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

Click on extract to read full article at PRAAG.

Rebuttal to Mike Smith's Latest Distortion.

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

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

The following is what Mike posted concerning this topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        WOW!!! Is that not amazing? Just about ALL the Boer Generals and heroes were from the Cape Colony and therefore Afrikaners. Now who would have thought that?

No it was not I who posted on his blog.

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

5. The Boers Documented as Distinct Nation.

Now it makes no difference whether Smuts was "on the side of" the ZAR Boers during the second Anglo-Boer War as he was not from the Boer ethnic group since he was from the Cape Dutch group. Mike's erroneous assertion that he was a Boer for simply fighting with the Boers is classic faulty logic as many different nationalities fought on the side of the Boers but that did not make them biological or ethnic Boers. One does not become a biological or ethnic Boer simply by joining their side of the war. Mike's assertion that De la Rey was not a Boer due to not having German roots is another total straw man argument & of course a total lie as he was born in Winburg Orange Free State. Furthermore just about all Boers have at least some German roots [ as well as French / Frisian / Dutch / Danish  roots ] so his assertion that De la Rey allegedly had none is nonsense & pure conjecture & no doubt a rhetorical device aimed at creating confusion. His assertion that Louis Botha must have been an Englishman because he was born in northern Natal is laughably absurd because a lot of Boers had settled in Natal ever since the Great Trek.
                                            
As a matter of fact Louis Botha was one of the founders of the Vryheid Republic - also known as the New Republic: a full fledged Boer Republic - which was established within northern Natal on land granted to the local & Transvaal Boers by Zulu King Dinuzulu in 1884. This Boer Republic even adopted a Vierkleur designed flag with the blue & green colours switched from the Transvaal Vierkleur layout. No. Louis Botha was descended from a German named Bode. Now I have never denied that there were Boer traitors but Mike likes to hide the fact that there were far more Cape Dutch on the side of the British then there were ever Boers who sided with them during the second Anglo-Boer War. I rarely ever go around calling anyone a traitor. The only person who EVER throws the word "traitor" around is Mike! All I ever see from him is how the Boers are "a nation of traitors" while rarely ever defining his use of the term traitor. The truth is that he defines traitor as anyone who would get in the way of imperial control of South Africa. No wonder he views the Boers as "traitors" because their historical attempts at restoring their conquered Boer Republics is viewed as treachery towards the British created macro State of South Africa. Further: one would think that authentic Boer traitors [ ie: traitors against the actual Boer people & or Boer independence ] would be a boon for Mike's pan Afrikaans Afrikaner ideology since in order for the political ideology of Afrikaner Collectivism to work: the Boers must surrender their political sovereignty & cede their power to Afrikaner domination. Though strictly speaking, the Cape Dutch cannot be "traitors" since they are not even from the Boers BUT due to the larger numbers of the Cape Dutch: they OUTVOTE the Boers thus their numbers work against Boer self determination. 

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

The Cape Rebels Were Not Cape Dutch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore:

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