The Afrikaner Journal

Pictures, Articles and News related to the Afrikaner Struggle against ANC oppression

Posts Tagged ‘ANC

Convicted Boeremag members, sentenced

leave a comment »


Convicted Boeremag members, sentenced

  
29 October, 2013
Story compiled by Jacques Mare, for the Afrikaner Journal:

  

Boeremag leaders get long sentences

Introduction:

October 29 2013, 15:38
SOURCE:
http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2013/10/29/boeremag-leaders-get-long-sentences

BOEREMAG leader Tom Vorster and five members of its bomb squad, which blew up numerous targets in 2002, were sentenced to an effective 25 years’ imprisonment by the high court in Pretoria on Tuesday.

Vorster shrugged and told reporters he had not expected such a severe sentence, as he had already been in prison for more than a decade.

Bombers Herman van Rooyen, Johan and Wilhelm Pretorius, and Rudi Gouws received the same sentences as Vorster.

The third Pretorius brother, master bomb maker Kobus Pretorius, was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, of which 10 years were suspended.

This was because Kobus Pretorius had a change of heart during the trial, broke away from his past and expressed remorse for what he did.

The members of the bomb squad were sentenced to an additional 13 years’ imprisonment on charges of culpable homicide and conspiring to murder former president Nelson Mandela.

Soweto mother Claudia Mokone was killed in her shack by a piece of steel dislodged by a bomb the Boeremag planted on a railway.

Judge Eben Jordaan said Mr Mandela would have been killed by a land mine planted by the Boeremag bomb squad if he had not arrived by helicopter to open a school in Bolobedu, Limpopo.

This would have caused chaos and bloodshed in the country. He said the Boeremag’s aim had been to destroy democracy in South Africa.

Boeremag trialists in the dock at the North Gauteng High court in Pretoria South Africa, have received stiff sentences for treason today, October 29, 2013 – PHOTO: SABC

How dangerous they were was evidenced by the fact that they carried on committing violent crimes some had said were incapable of being carried out.

The bombers already had five large car bombs ready for targets in the city centres of Pretoria and Johannesburg, and were planning further bomb attacks when they were caught.

Boeremag leaders Mike du Toit, Dirk Hanekom and the Pretorius brothers’ father, Dr Lets Pretorius, were each sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment, of which 10 years were conditionally suspended for five years.

Mike du Toit’s right-hand man, Andre du Toit, and Dion van den Heever were sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment of which 10 years were suspended.

Rooikoos du Plessis and Jurie Vermeulen, who also played important roles in planning the coup, got 15 years’ imprisonment, of which 10 were suspended.

One of the Boeremag’s most active members and the Boeremag chaplain, 74-year-old Vis Visagie, was sentenced to five years of correctional supervision.

Five of the Boeremag members who played a lesser role, including the youngest member Jacques Jordaan, walked out of the court free men after being given suspended sentences.

They are the Boeremag “weakling” Adriaan van Wyk and former defence force officers Giel Burger, Jacques Olivier and Pieter van Deventer.

The sentences were met with outrage by some, but acceptance by others.

Dr Lets Pretorius’s wife, Minnie, cried inconsolably. Friends shielded her from the cameras.

Van Wyk’s wife expressed relief that her husband would be coming home.

Sapa

SOURCE:
http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2013/10/29/boeremag-leaders-get-long-sentences

Revisiting the past; – The ANC’s own treason trial

(How the ANC killed people to achieve their political goals)

The Boeremag trial cannot be seen in isolation though. It is necessary to revisit the past to understand the motives and the reasons behind the treasonous acts of these Boers.

Why would anybody want to commit such heinous acts, in the name of freedom and struggle for human rights?

The Censorbugbear.org website gives us an idea of the atrocities committed by the current governing party of South Africa in their quest to “liberate” South Africa and institute communist socialism.

Throughout their campaign to destroy apartheid, they maintained that violence had been necessary to remove the  illegitimate (and undemocratic) regime  of  the Afrikaners,  oppressing the majority blacks.  Now that Boers are expressing the same violent tendencies to oppose African nationalism – it is deemed an act of treason geared at destabilizing South Africa, according to the ANC government.

The pictures below (and in the attached links) are the work of sitting ANC parliamentarians …… in fact, some of the same violent criminals, who planned and implemented the following acts of violence, still form part of the current ANC executive. and some are honourary members – revered throughout the world and acknowledged as upstanding citizens and politicians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_We_Sizwe#Notable_members

Victim of an ANC terrorist bom in Krugersdorp, South Africa, 17 March, 1988 http://pvj-krugersdorpbom.blogspot.com/

Nobel Peace Laureate Nelson Mandela’s bombs – for the record

For the testimony submitted to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the [ANC] terrorists themselves about the war they waged against the peoples of South Africa, view the TRC website – but also note that Nelson Mandela has never personally had to testify about his role in approving of these atrocities:

http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/amntrans/index.htm

However, in his book,” Long Walk to Freedom”, Mandela writes that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism – the results of which can be seen below.  So look at these scenes on the pictures and videos below to view exactly what  Mandela had “signed off” for while he was in prison – convicted for other acts of terrorism after the Rivonia trial. The late SA president P.W. Botha told Mandela in 1985 that he could be a free man as long as he did just one thing: ‘publicly renounce violence. Mandela refused. That is why Mandela remained in prison until the appeaser Pres F.W. de Klerk freed him unconditionally. The bottom line is that Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced violence.

When Mandela was arrested on his Rivonia farm hideout near Johannesburg, the following munitions and bomb-making equipment were confiscated with him and his courageous comrades.

(Read his ‘Rivonia trial’  transcripts for all the details, starting with his heroic opening statement: “I am prepared to die…’ :http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html – clearly he didn’t care whether all those innocent civilians whose tortured and mutilated bodies can be seen below, died either)

  • 210,000 hand grenades
  • 48,000 anti-personnel mines
  • 1,500 time devices
  • 144 tons of ammonium nitrate
  • 21,6 tons of aluminium powder
  • 1 ton of black powder
Kerkstraatbom 05

The ANC, fighting for freedom. Inquest photo’s of deceased South Africans, killed by the governing party of South Africa.

Kerkstraatbom 01

Nelson Mandela’s ANC killed: 19 people – 17 men, two women (8 blacks, 9 whites) and injured 200 innocent civilians in this cowardly attack against the citizens of Pretoria, South Africa, May 20, 1983
http://pvj-kerkstraatbom.blogspot.com/

Nelson Mandela had been found guilty,  and rightly so, but not-withstanding his violent past became president of South Africa in 1994, without  publicly denouncing violence, or apologising for the pain and suffering his terrorism has caused innocent victims. In fact, Nelson Mandela can be seen singing the “hate speech” song “Kill the Boer!” after his release, very clearly not convinced about his own supposed  personal ideology of “peace and reconciliation”.

How should one interpret these actions of this icon for “human rights”?

Should we accept that violence is sometimes a  justified method of bringing about change?

How should we interpret the new Boer threat to the stability of the South African state?


The new struggle for freedom

(When restorative intervention, becomes deadly)

“African nationalism” has become the new scourge, threatening the livelihood and existence of minorities in South Africa, according to activist from minority communities. The ANC had insisted (during the so-called struggle), that they were the only, real champions of “freedom”, “equality” and “basic human rights” for all South Africans, but what has happened to those noble ideals and principles since liberation?

Since coming to power in South Africa, the ANC has promulgated and signed into law 108 race-based laws, geared at infringing the rights of minority populations, like the Afrikaners and Boers, as well as the minority Indian, Khoi-san and coloured communities, in opposition to the social equality they purported to bring about in South Africa

These laws are designed to restrict Afrikaners in everything they do, and the way they live – from property confiscation, employment reservation, dissolving communities through spatial restrictions, language restrictions, school transformation, reigning-in of mother-tongue education, restricting welfare to vulnerable communities,  and even creating life-threatening conditions by promoting “hate speech”, calling for the murder of Afrikaners in general.

As recently as October 10, thousands of Afrikaner protesters and international supporters protested the extreme violent nature of Afrikaner farmer murders, which is widely believed to be linked to ANC government transformation, and land redistribution policies. In order to popularize these policies,the ANC has created the fiction that Afrikaner farmers have “stolen the land” from blacks and therefore, it may be confiscated and redistributed to poor black South Africans. This has created conditions of immense distrust and tension, and has lead to increased incidents of friction in these rural communities. In addition, many rural supporters of the ANC (encouraged by ANC executives singing  banned “hate speech” songs) feel justified in violently liberating the land, by killing the Afrikaner farmer and looting his belongings.

Afrikaners/Boers are asking themselves why this new dispensation of “codified government thuggery”, should not be seen as severe oppressive measures, designed to eradicate this community. Many activist are asking whether the ultimate goal of “African nationalism”, isn’t perhaps to bring about Afrikaner genocide under the guise of the ANC’s “transformation” agenda.

One activist, put is this way:

Apparently, Afrikaners do not have the right to protest against African Nationalist oppression because [according to popular opinion] there’s just, NOT ENOUGH:

  

1) Job reservation laws
2) Tortured and murdered victims
3) Spatial laws designed to dissolve their communities
4) Afrikaans schools transformed
5) Afrikaner businesses looted [of assets], by means of forced BBB -EE (Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment)  shareholding
6) Poor and destitute Afrikaners
7) Hate Speech directed at this vulnerable minority.

The activist then ventures this question;

        

“When exactly will we reach that point where we qualify to be called victims?”

   

This question is indeed valid and important, in that it addresses the urgency of identifying human rights infringements in the current discourse about perceived  “victimhood” in South Africa.

When does restitutive interventions of government, infringe so severely on the livelihood of minorities that it becomes oppressive and deadly?

When does the “legislating victim” – become the “oppressive monster”?
When does it become justified, to resist oppression … violently

YOU…….decide……

SOURCES:
http://www.censorbugbear.org/tag/the-new-south-africa-and-nelson-mandelas-bombs-videos/
http://pvj-kerkstraatbom.blogspot.com/
http://pvj-johannesburgbom.blogspot.com/
http://pvj-roodepoortbom.blogspot.com/

FW de Klerk Foundation Welcomes Labour Court Ruling on Employment Equity

leave a comment »


FW DE KLERK FOUNDATION WELCOMES LABOUR COURT RULING ON EMPLOYMENT EQUITY


FW De Klerk Foundation

 

The FW de Klerk Foundation (the Foundation) welcomes a recent judgment handed down by the Cape Town Labour Court in Solidarity v Department of Correctional Services to the extent that the Court held that using national racial demographics as the only measure for determining and implementing affirmative action targets, was unfair practice.

In June 2011, the Department of Correctional Services (the Department) issued its latest Employment Equity Plan, which gave strict instructions for the attainment of equality targets throughout the service. The targets – 79.3% for black South Africans, 9.3% for white South Africans, 8.8% for brown South Africans and 2.5% for Indians – would bring employees into line with national – and not regional – demographics. This, despite the fact that brown South Africans comprise 54% of the population in the Western Cape. As a result, the Commissioner of Correctional Services prohibited the appointment or promotion of any more brown or white South Africans – despite the fact that brown and white applicants were often the best qualified and most experienced candidates for vacant posts.

The Foundation viewed the Department’s Employment Equity Plan as illegal, unconstitutional and simply unfair. Non-racialism is one of the founding values in the Constitution. In terms of section 9(3) the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on the basis of race – among other grounds. Section 9(5) determines that discrimination is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair. The Foundation accordingly helped a group of aggrieved employees to challenge the manner through pro-bono legal representation by Bagraims, a leading firm of labour attorneys in Cape Town. The case was subsequently joined with a similar case that was being conducted by Solidarity.

In this joined case, Labour Court Judge Hilary Rabkin-Naicker found in favour of Solidarity and nine of the 10 employees of the Department of Correction Services on whose behalf Solidarity acted. It accordingly held that the nine brown employees (excluding the remaining employee – a white man), had suffered unfair discrimination. The Court hence ordered that the Department must take immediate steps to ensure that both national and regional demographics are taken into account in respect of members of the designated groups when setting equity targets at all occupational levels.

Apart from dealing with the question of whether national and regional demographics should be taken into account, the Court was also asked to consider whether the Department’s Employment Equity Plan was compliant with the Employment Equity Act (the Act) and the Constitution; and whether the application of the Employment Equity Plan amounted to unfair discrimination. Not surprisingly, the Court, bound by the Constitutional Court’s judgement in Minister of Finance & Another v Van Heerden and the High Court’s judgement in SA Police Service v Solidarity on behalf of Barnard (and absent an argument that certain provisions of the Act were unconstitutional), held that affirmative action measures in conformity with the purposes of the Act were indeed aimed at achieving substantive equality. Judge Rabkin-Naicker hence rejected the notion that the restitutionary measures promoted by the Act by itself amounted to equal opportunity for designated groups. The Court was therefore unwilling, on a technical point, to declare the Department’s Employment Equity Plan (as such a restitutionary measure) to be in breach of the Act. In addition, the Court also failed to make an order as to the promotion or appointment of the respective individual applicants and refrained from making a cost order – despite the Court having found that the brown individuals were indeed discriminated against.

Section 195(1)(i) of the Constitution quite rightly requires that “public administration must be broadly representative of the South African people, with employment and personnel management practices based on ability, objectivity, fairness and the need to redress the imbalances of the past to achieve broad representation.”

The Department’s Employment Equity Plan, by contrast, aims at mathematical representivity down to the first decimal place – and not at broad representivity; it would not be representative of the South African people in the Western Cape; it is not based on recognition of ability, since it ignores the fact that the affected employees had been assessed as the most capable for the advertised posts; it is not based on objectivity but on the implementation of the ANC’s subjective racial ideology; it is clearly not fair since it once again entrenches race as the sole criterion for promotion and would require brown employees of the Department to move away from their communities if they want to be promoted; and it does not redress imbalances of the past because it creates new racial imbalances between the profile of the people of the Western Cape and the officials who are intended to serve them.

The Constitution, from the outset, recognises that equality in our society is yet to be achieved and that restorative measures aimed at achieving such substantive equality may be utilised. The Constitution, however, does not require demographic representation. Hence, although the finding in favour of the brown employees of the Department is a victory for the constitutional value of equality in this instance, the premise upon which the Act is seeking to find equality according to demographic representation, falls short of the constitutional values of non-racialism and remains to be tested in a higher court.

Issued by the FW de Klerk Foundation
19 October 2013

http://www.fwdeklerk.org/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&cause_id=2137&news_id=118544&cat_id=1596#.UmV8h1NtaSo

FW De Klerk Foundation

#Solidarity wins affirmative action (#AA) case against #DCS

leave a comment »


#Solidarity wins affirmative action (#AA) case against #DCS

Oct 18, 2013

The Cape Town Labour court this morning ruled in trade union Solidarity’s favour in its affirmative action lawsuit against the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). The court found that using the national racial demographics as the only measure for implementing affirmative action was an unfair practice.

Dirk Hermann, Deputy General Secretary of Solidarity, said Judge Hilary Rabkin-Naicker ruled that the DCS’s unfair practices should be revised immediately. ‘The DCS must therefore revise its affirmative action processes. The ruling will not only affect the DCS, but also the rest of the public service.’

Solidarity indicated, however, that it would appeal against certain aspects of the judgment. ‘Certain constitutional issues were not dealt with by the judge. We can’t expect the Labour Court to pass judgment on important constitutional matters and therefore we still want to go to the Constitutional Court. This victory is significant, but it’s not the end of the road,’ said Hermann.

The judge moreover, among other things, ruled that Peter Davids, the only white applicant in the case, was not included in the judgment, as white men are not part of the designated group. ‘The judge based this decision on the Labour Appeal Court’s ruling in the Renate Barnard case. The Barnard case is due to be heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 6 November. In the meantime we will make the necessary arrangements to appeal against certain aspects of today’s judgment.’

https://solidariteit.co.za/en/solidarity-wins-affirmative-action-case-dcs/

Solidarity Logo

Red October Protest March

with one comment


#RedOctober Protest March: – #Afrikaners Protesting against evil

The day a small, vulnerable minority stood up to be heard

  

The Red October Protest March took place at several locations in South Africa, and many others, all over the world on October 10, 2013.

These pictures in the attached gallery, was taken by The Afrikaner Journal at the Pretoria venue of the march. It tells the story of the march in pictures.

The organizers explained the reasons for their activism on their webpage, given as a source at the end of their statement, which I will publish here in full:

  

What is Red October?

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.” - Martin Luther King

On 10 october 2013 We called on people across the World to raise their voices against the oppression of and violence against White South African minority!

We staged marches and gatherings across South Africa and the World to let everyone know that we have had ENOUGH!

No longer will we be silent about the oppression of White South Africans! No longer will we endure the killing of our people on our farms and in our towns and cities!

We can no longer be silent about the brutal torture of the elderly and defenceless people of our Ethnic Minority!

We are tired of Corrupt Governance, Racist Black Economic Empowerment and Affirmative Action policies. We can no longer tolerate the destruction of our infrastructure, our filthy government hospitals, our pathetic educational system, dirty dams and rivers, uninhabitable parks and public areas, dangerous neighbourhoods and filthy streets! The list is endless and we say it’s ENOUGH!

SOURCE: Red October Web Page

   

Red October – The Fall-out

Since the succesful march, similar photo’s have been streaming in from all over the world, while the South African media had a field-day in demonizing the event as “racist”, because it highlights only the concerns of the small white community of South Africa. It is mind-boggling however, how this can be so, when the same is NEVER BEING SAID about blacks protesting for constitutional rights, which they very often do – and rightly so.

The organizers made it clear that the white minority (Afrikaners) are protesting ‘violence against their own’, which is not only seen as disproportional and brutal, but show clear signs of extreme torture in many cases.

In addition to these perceived ‘hate crimes’, we were also protesting the following treatment at the hands of their government as published by The Afrikaner Journal on October 12, 2013:

   

  • Exclusively addressing social problems on the base of ethnicity

  • Enacting legislation to economically deprive a minority

  • Barring minorities from employment by quota systems etc. and plummeting a significant amount into abject poverty

  • Redirecting the functions of state and security, away from service to a vulnerable community, thereby leaving them open to attacks by looting gangs from the majority population?

  • Driving minorities from their schools and attacking their use of mother-tongue education?

  • Singing hate speech songs and calling them “outsiders”?

  • vilifying any defiance action, however peacefully achieved, as “racist”?

  • Invading and destroying their communities through “spatial planning” legislation, clearly aimed at driving them from their traditional homes?

  • Looting their cultural heritage, by changing names of towns, cities and areas originally named and settled by them.

  • Destroying their national identity by denying their existence, unless of course it is employed to vilify them.

  • Destroying their symbols of national pride through neglect, like historical graveyards, battlefield sites etc.

  • Not protecting members of their community, who are farming in very dangerous conditions, to feed ALL South Africans

SOURCE: Slow-motion Genocide: – Hiding Genocide in modern times

     

Media Bias and the muzzling of the minority voice

Most media houses and press agencies in South Africa couldn’t wait to publish articles vilifying this protest of Afrikaners, but there have been some exceptions to the rule, too.

In order to allow you to make up your own mind up about these events, I’ve selected some articles related to the Red October march, published soon after the event.

    

Red October articles:

We’d like your opinion on this matter and have created this poll, to probe public opinion about the event.

Your feedback is appreciated. Please add your voice as well:

Slow-motion genocide: Hiding genocide in modern times.

with 2 comments


Slow-motion genocide: Hiding genocide in modern times.

By Jacques Mare -
Pretoria, South Africa
12 October, 2013

Man have been murdering man, en masse since time immemorial.

Most mass deaths had generally taken place in ancient times on the battlefield. The victor, in many cases would then carry over this murderous rage from the battlefield, to slaughter the civilian population (of the vanquished enemy) in acts of flash genocide.

In modern times however the perpetrators of mass murder, almost exclusively make use of the functions of state to achieve these horrible outcomes, and usually it is directed at a vulnerable minority in times of peace.

That in short, is the nature of the modern beast.

It is very clear that the perpetrators in all successful modern cases, had been cognizant of the wrongfulness of their intentions and the results of their actions, and yet they continued with their horrible plans by successfully propagating their political ideology to the masses, using very effective means, like advertising.

It is also notable how the modern demon will try and camouflage its murderous policies, by garnishing it with idealistic, positive nation building terminology usually containing some form of patriotic rhetoric- but the  devastation of the target group, is always the outcome.

Slow-motion genocide is not a widely accepted phenomenon, because it is very difficult to distinguish between normal population change dynamics and carefully engineered techniques to drive populations or ethnic groups away.

It is also difficult to label it as an atrocity if there aren’t visuals available to show the dead of the target group piled up in heaps.

“Time-lapse reporting” may be helpful to track changes in population migration, demographic history of areas, legislation imposed and the effect it has on target groups.

Regularly (and accurately) updated lists of murdered community members, are also very helpful and this method is very successfully employed by the #Afrikaners of South Africa to compile a database of victims.

Very few international genocide watch groups keep track of these long-term changes however, and even fewer will publicly acknowledge that negative (devastating) changes to target communities are due to political intervention – especially, if the country or territory in question, is widely perceived by the international community to be stable and peaceful.

It is for that reason that terms like:

*Slow-motion genocide
*Long-period outcomes based eradication
*Broad-based marginalization – rarely makes it into the discourse about mass atrocities.

Here are some very disturbing trends in genocide propaganda terminology, that have lead to mass atrocities in the past, or may very soon:

*Final solution
*Social engineering, etc

Soon to be on the same list?:

*African Nationalist Transformation (in South Africa)?

For those who doubt the validity of this discussion, or that of the terms describing slow-motion genocide, consider the case of the  West Papua community. rnzi.com reports the following:

An Australian academic says West Papuans have been subject to a slow-motion genocide and the United Nations should step in.

Jim Elmslie, of the University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, is the co-author of a just-released report titled ’A Slow-Motion Genocide – Indonesian Rule in West Papua’.

Dr Elmslie says the report concludes the Indonesian Government has intentionally carried out genocidal policies for the past 50 years.

Under the United Nations Genocide Convention, the classification of an act as ’genocide’ requires proven intent.

Amelia Langford asked Jim Elmslie about the findings of the report [in an interview]

JIM ELMSLIE: We believe that a slow-motion genocide is and has been occurring in West Papua. It’s a very deep-seated and difficult problem for everybody involved, including Indonesia. And it’s a problem I think needs a lot more attention because it’s festering away, getting worse, and the Papuans are suffering quite badly now, or they have been for many decades.

AMELIA LANGFORD: What do you mean by ’slow-motion genocide’?

JE: Well, it’s a term that was first used by a man called Clemens Runawery, who’s deceased now, who was a West Papuan who thought about what was happening to his country and his people, and he compared it with disasters like had happened in Rwanda, where a large number of people were killed quickly in a sort of turmoil, a catastrophic series of events. In West Papua, the situation has gone on for decades, and over that period, cumulatively, many thousands of people have died, but not in a short, sharp burst that many people tend to associate with the word ’genocide’. So that’s why we’ve used that term, that it’s a process that’s unfolded over decades, but it’s a genocide in the sense that the killings fall within the definition of the UN convention on genocide.

AL: And tell me about the paper’s findings and what you set out to find or explore.

JE: Well, we set out to explore the whole issue of genocide, really, that many West Papuan people – leaders right down to the grassroots people – often describe what’s happened to them since the Indonesians took over the place as a genocide. And that word has a pretty specific meaning under the international convention. And there’s various acts that fall into the definition of ’genocide’, including the intentional killing of members of a group or conflicting conditions that make life difficult. And most of those acts have been carried out there, people would agree they’ve been carried out. But then the other aspect of fulfilling the criteria of being called a genocide is there’s some element of intentional government policy or there’s intent – the word ’intent’ is the critical word.

Jim Elmslie says parties to the Genocide Convention have a responsibility to look into genocide claims.

Is this slow-motion genocide?

Moreover, ask yourself whether the Afrikaner community of South Africa isn’t also experiencing similar treatment by their government.

Is it racist, and an act of genocide:

*To exclusively address social problems on the base of ethnicity?

*To enact legislation to economically deprive a minority?

*To bar minorities from employment by means of quota systems etc. and plummeting a significant amount into abject poverty?

*To redirect the functions of state and security, away from service to a vulnerable community, thereby leaving them open to attacks by looting gangs from the majority population?

*To drive minorities from their schools and attacking their use of mother-tongue education?

*To sing hate speech songs and calling them “outsiders”?

*To vilify any defiance action, however peacefully achieved, as “racist”?

*To invade and destroy their communities through “spatial planning” legislation, clearly aimed at driving them from their traditional homes?

*To loot their cultural heritage, by changing names of towns, cities and areas originally named and settled by them.

* To destroy their national identity by denying their existence, unless of course it is employed to vilify them.

*To destroy their symbols of national pride through neglect, like historical graveyards, battlefield sites etc.

Will the Afrikaners soon be eradicated from South Africa like the white Zimbanwean from Zimbabwe?

When does “social engineering” for the greater good, amount to slow motion genocide?

You decide.

***

Inspiration for this story comes from this article about the slow-motion genocide of the West Papua community:

http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=79706

De Boer zijn een bedreigde volk - ICC, The Hague, Netherlands - 01122012

International Protest at The Hague, Netherlands against Afrikaner (Boer) genocide 11-12-2012 – De Boer zijn een bedreigde volk – ICC, The Hague, Netherlands – 01122012

Malema wants to turn soldiers on state

leave a comment »


Malema wants to turn soldiers on state

Johannesburg – Expelled ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema seemed bent on turning soldiers against the state, Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula said in an SABC radio interview broadcast on Wednesday morning.

“You can’t just go on and on and on, and be going around mobilising funeral gatherings and agitating people to become ungovernable,” she said.

She was reacting to Malema’s plans to address members of the SA National Defence Force in Lenasia, Johannesburg on Wednesday.

“What are the consequences? I wish I knew. What I do know is that any responsible citizen in South Africa cannot associate him or herself with a person who wants to agitate and mobilise members of the SANDF against the state because they have concerns,” said Mapisa-Nqakula.

‘I don’t see what value Malema will add’

SANDF members should use the current structures in place if they wanted to raise concerns.
She said it was not clear in what capacity Malema would address soldiers.

“I do not know and I don’t see what value he is going to add in trying to resolve their problems. I don’t see in what way he can do that.”

The minister said Malema had been “instigating people” in the past few weeks, in an apparent reference to his address to mineworkers at the volatile Lonmin Platinum mine in Rustenburg, and, more recently, his call to Gold Fields miners to strike until National Union of Mineworkers leaders step down.

Forty-five people have died at Lonmin mine in Marikana in labour unrest in the past month.

Consequences

“It cannot be allowed to happen in the SANDF,” said the minister.

“It cannot be that we allow an ordinary citizen to stand up and want to instigate and want to agitate members of the SANDF, which is what has happened in Marikana, which is what has happened in the mining industry amongst those workers.

“It’s not acceptable, it is wrong, it is incorrect and it is not going to be right. My view is that they are all traits… they are all indications that this is counter-revolutionary, I’m sorry,” said Mapisa-Nqakula.

She warned soldiers attending the Malema address that there would be consequences if they did not report for work on Wednesday.

“Our memory is very short and we would probably have forgotten where we come from. People died for this freedom… people died for this country, it’s been very, very costly.

“I think it is too risky for anyone who wants to agitate members of SANDF to turn against their own government because they have concerns – because effectively that is what it means.
“Judging by what he has been saying in the past few weeks, that is exactly what it means, that people are going into a meeting to agitate members of the SANDF and I’m saying no, it can’t be correct.”

The Friends of the Youth League said Malema would address the soldiers after being invited by them to listen to their grievances.

SAPA

http://m.news24.com/news24/SouthAfrica/News/Malema-wants-to-turn-soldiers-on-state-20120912

Julius Malema addressing mine workers - Photo, Daily Sun

Julius Malema addressing mine workers – Photo, Daily Sun

No Whites for Woolworths

with 10 comments


No Whites for Woolworths
Source: ARAF

Extract from article in

http://www.sapromo.com

The folks at Woolworths SA have been trying to cover their tracks after they were caught out for not wanting to hire any white staff.
Justin Harrison, an internet marketing guru started blogging about the clothes and food chain’s advertising excluding whites last week and now they seem to have started changing the wording of their recruitment adverts.

Justin broke the story on social networks when Woolworths SA posted ads on their career site. It said their jobs were only open to African, Coloured and Indian candidates.
He says that as a post apartheid child, he is “neither politically motivated or inspired, however the increasing blatant racist economic policies that are very clearly exclusive of whites is starting to require a voice and some decisive action”.

He feels the whites who are still in South Africa stayed and signed up for a fully inclusive country, and just want to get on with it and build a South Africa that works for everyone.
We know that Woolies is not alone in these policies as we have already written on this site about our flying circus – SAA – that excludes whites from its cadet pilot training programme.

Since Justin started his online Woolworths SA have changing the advert text to be politically correct. It now says “In accordance with Woolworths’ Employment Equity approach, preference will be given to candidates from designated groups”.
But they are scared old fools. They have since barred poor old Justin from leaving any messages on their Facebook Page. They have off course not barred us. We can also stop buying their lousy stuff.

Source:

POST SCRIPT —

The Boere-Afrikaner community calls on all its friends and supporters to boycott international brand ‘Woolworths’ for assisting the African Nationalist government of South Africa to practice racism and enabling the regime to create conditions of severe hardship and poverty in this community.

International-brand-Woolworths-enables-the-ANC-government-to-practice-racism-by-implementing-job-reservation-lawsbarring-whites PHOTO: http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/shop-a-docket-wins-back-woolworths/story-fn91v9q3-1226124871573

International-brand-Woolworths-enables-the-ANC-government-to-practice-racism-by-implementing-job-reservation-lawsbarring-whites
PHOTO:
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/shop-a-docket-wins-back-woolworths/story-fn91v9q3-1226124871573

The root of bad governance in South Africa

with 4 comments


The Root of bad governance in South Africa
Submitted for publication 07 Juanuary 2012
By: HANNES ENGELBRECHT:

The root of bad governance in South Africa (and why liberals are stupid).

Scientists, Dunning and Kruger were awarded the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology for their report,

“Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”.

“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the meta-cognitive ability to recognize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.”

At the root of poor service delivery, bad governance, corruption and discriminatory practices like Black Economic Empowerment, Affirmative Action and quotas in sport teams in South Africa lies the Manning-Kruger Effect. Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then both at Cornell University, did extensive research into the subject and came to the following conclusion – For a given skill, incompetent people will:

  1.  tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
  2.  fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
  3.  fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
  4.  recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve.

These are the exact tendencies of the ANC government in South Africa – right through from the “affirmative action” civil servant in state departments, the police, defense force – right through to the first level of government, the Parliament and the President Jacob Zuma.

What it means in practice is that these incompetent people do not recognize their own incompetence and do not have the cognitive capability of understanding the frustration of a more intelligent person. In Afrikaans there’s the saying: “Domheid het sy eie narkose”, literally translated “Being stupid has its own anesthetic” One of the effects of illusory superiority in IQ is the Downing effect.

This describes the tendency of people with a below average IQ to overestimate their IQ, and of people with an above average IQ to underestimate their IQ. The propensity to predictably misjudge one’s own IQ was first noted by C. L. Downing.

An interesting analogy with the South African situation, with its high taxi accident rate and road death tolls, can also be found in part of the study: McCormick, Walkey and Green (1986) found similar results, asking participants to evaluate their position on eight different dimensions relating to driving skill. It was found that almost 80% of participants had evaluated themselves as being above the average driver.[26]

The Dunning-Kruger Effect (recognized with a Nobel Prize because of its thorough research) is an exact blueprint of the situation in present-day South Africa. Any liberal or “unitary state” proponent who disputes the effect will have to oppose it with sound academic arguments and research.

  1. The Root of bad governance is stupidity, it is amazing how many of these ANC members are also communis

    The root of bad governance in South Africa - The correlation between bad governance and communism also seems to be clear - Photo Source: NoisyRoom.net - (Used with implied permission)

No human or civil rights for the white minority or Afrikaner in South Africa

with 15 comments


21 December 2011
By Sonia Hruska

No human or civil rights for the white minority or Afrikaner in South Africa

Minority Rights - Does the Afrikaner qualify for human rights given their history or does it only pertain to the monorities on the rest of the World

Minority Rights - Does the Afrikaner qualify for human rights given their history or does it only pertain to the minorities of the rest of the World

The right to identity has secured a prominent place in the discourse of human rights and certain privileges, like inherent right to life, that safeguard minorities against gross human rights violations are basic human rights for any member of the human race, but ironically, it excludes the Afrikaner. Thus Afrikaners cannot make claim to minority or human rights or the right to self determination.  Neither can we claim protection via International law because we are automatically excluded as we “might”, reflect a desire to go back to apartheid.

In her book, Minority protection in post-apartheid South Africa: Human Rights, Minority Rights and Self-determination, Kristin Henrard, expert on minorities and human rights and professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam, explicitly states that Article 27 ICCPR (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm), the international law provision on minority rights par excellence, is generally referred to when the right to identity is directly related to minority protection.”

Article 27 states:  “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.”  But what if you are not allowed to exercise that right because you are not allowed the right to identity?

She further continues to state:  “the right to identity has secured a prominent place in the discourse of human rights” but then furthermore states that ” but at the same time confines the scope of such special measures. Minority protection cannot be used to support claims for measures that would institute certain privileges for (members of) minority groups that cannot be justified by the demands of substantive equality. In this regard, one can think of some of the demands of a section of the Afrikaner minority in post-apartheid South Africa as they (might) reflect a desire to go back to apartheid times or preserve affluence and advantages obtained during apartheid.”

To summarize an expert, who is informing human rights and minority rights policy for the UN:  The Afrikaner will not be afforded the rights as set out in the ICCPR and is denied the right to an identity.  They cannot claim human, civil, minority rights or the right to self determination.  Will somebody then please tell me how two wrongs make a right?

Furthermore, during the African Human Rights Day conference in Parktown, held on Oct 21 2009 it was obvious how this denial of human rights to Afrikaners gives the government unlimited right to intimidate and dehumanize Afrikaners with approval from the Human Rights Commission. According to the Human Rights Commission chairman: “as a Sotho whose ancestral lands were taken away before 1930 he, as a member of the black majority, was not prepared to make any kind of concessions to the civil rights of the Afrikaner minority.”  Thus confirming that the Afrikaner are excluded from enjoying civil rights in South Africa and in direct violation of: Article 3, of the ICCPR: The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.  At the same conference, the  IEC president, Pansy Tlakula said:  “South Africa does not need a special dispensation to cater for indigenous groups and minorities as its Constitution protects and guarantees the cultural, linguistic and religious rights of all her people,”  Which again shows that they are denying their true intentions, the collective punishment strategy of the white minority under the constitutional veil.

It should then rather read:  The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women, excluding the Afrikaner in South Africa, to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

The above then clearly explains how warnings by Dr Gregory Stanton are ignored although they would have been accepted as early warning mechanisms to draw the attention of Member States to situations where racial discrimination has reached alarming levels if it was any other minority group. It also explains why whites are being raped, tortured and murdered under the blanket excuse that it is just crime, but it does not explain the hours of torture they have to endure and where often nothing is stolen.

It will also explain why Afrikaner students are denied their right to education and why whites are being denied access to work and the economic sector through affirmative action and black Economic Empowerment.

ICCPR which Ms Henrard refers to is the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” as adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council and the preamble should then read as follows:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

“The States Parties to the present Covenant,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family (except Afrikaners) is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person (except for Afrikaners),

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings (except Afrikaners) enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms (except for Afrikaners),

Realizing that the individual (except Afrikaners), having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,”

Even more ironically, Article 1 should then also read:

“1. All peoples (except Afrikaners) have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples (except Afrikaners)  may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence (except Afrikaners) .

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations (except for Afrikaners) . “

Thuli Madonsela, Public Protector quoted the preamble of the constitution of South Africa at the 2011 Annual Human Rights Law Lecture, on Friday,  30 September 2011.  What she meant to say was: We the people of South Africa…to:
• Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights; except for Afrikaners/whites
• lay the foundation for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law; except for Afrikaners/whites they cannot exercise their rights because they may use it to revert to apartheid
• Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; ….” except for Afrikaners/whites they cannot exercise their rights because they may use it to revert to apartheid

 

“What does this promise of democracy, human rights and freedom mean for the ordinary person that I often refer to as Gogo Dlamini. How does this play out in an ordinary person’s daily life and interface with the state and those that exercise public power.”

Dunno Thuli, you are supposed to be my protector, you tell me how then am I suppose to protect myself if not through international law and under protection of the Human Rights Commission?

The double standards practiced by the UN are legendary, now the question remains if the global community will remain silent against the backdrop of the Genocide of the white minority.

The white minority and Afrikaners/Boers will have to challenge this gross violation of their human and civil rights collectively on international level.

Time to set aside our differences and tackle one of the most demanding challenges that we have faced as a nation as it determines our future and the future of our children.  We know where we are heading if we continue on our current course, let us then build bridges to change it… Nobody is going to do it for us, the ball is now in our court….

An initiative is underway to establish a secretariat to act as platform to restore our human rights and allow recourse through International law….

Dutch parliament narrowly rejects motion for support to Afrikaners

with 5 comments


PRETORIA,
South Africa

Compiled by: J. Mare


Dutch parliament narrowly rejects motion for support to Afrikaners


Yesterday the Dutch parliament narrowly rejected a motion to support the Afrikaner population of  South Africa.

The reasons for tabling the motion were given as follows:

The Chamber, noting that South Africa is struggling with stubborn forms of discrimination and a great many serious violent crimes, among which are racist-violence also against Afrikaners; and that great concerns exist about fundamental constitutional rights such as press freedom; considering that the Netherlands in the past has assisted the South African authorities with judiciary knowledge and -expertise in regards to the protection of human rights, the combating of violence and discrimination, as well as respecting basic rights; requests the government to examine how the Netherlands, and whereever possible in international cooperation in regards to the prevention, tracking down, judiciary support and expertise, could provide a contribution to combating discrimination and racist crimes of violence also towards the Afrikaners – and how at the same time they could contribute to guarantee baisc rights such as press-freedom in South Africa – submitted by Kees van der Staaij.
Source: Censorbugbear Reports

The motion was rejected by 12 votes – (80 votes against, and 68 for).

“While the motion failed to pass – this time around — this first-ever debate concerning the plight of the Afrikaners in the Dutch House of Representatives also indicates that there are a surprisingly large number of Dutch politicians who clearly are very aware and obviously worried about the plight of the besieged Afrikaners in South Africa.

This is also an sign that world opinion -  about Afrikaners as the hated Apartheid oppressor – is changing, due to the policies of the ANC regime.

It seems like the governing party of South Africa will not necessarily be able to rely on future support from the Netherlands. This motion is a wake-up call for the  ANC and should be interpreted as a real concern for future  international relations.

The tide is turning and the international community is taking note that the ‘previously disadvantaged’ is now in danger of being labeled ‘aggressors’ and ‘human rights’ abusers. There is also the real possibility that this regime may become international outcasts like the previous one.

What follows is a copy of the original motion in Dutch

De tekst van de motie luidt:

GEWIJZIGDE Motie van het lid Van der Staaij (SGP)

De Kamer,

Gehoord de beraadslaging,

Constaterende, dat Zuid-Afrika kampt met hardnekkige vormen van discriminatie en vele ernstige geweldsmisdrijven, waaronder racistisch geweld, mede jegens Afrikaners, maar ook grote zorgen bestaan over elementaire grondrechten, zoals de persvrijheid;

Overwegende, dat Nederland in het verleden de Zuid-Afrikaanse overheid met juridische kennis en expertise heeft bijgestaan ten aanzien van de bescherming van mensenrechten, het tegengaan van geweld en discriminatie, alsmede het respecteren van grondrechten;

Verzoekt de regering te bezien hoe Nederland en waar mogelijk in internationaal verband op het gebied van onder meer preventie, opsporing, justitiële ondersteuning en expertise een bijdrage kunnen verlenen aan het bestrijden van discriminatie en (racistische) geweldsmisdrijven, mede jegens de Afrikaners, en tevens kunnen bijdragen aan het borgen van grondrechten, zoals de persvrijheid, in Zuid-Afrika

En gaat over tot de orde van de dag.
Source: Praag.co.za – (Pro Afrikaanse Aksie Groep) - Nederlandse parlement verwerp Afrikanermosie net-net

Afrikaner reaction to the result of the motion

Joy and elation came in the wake of the result,  as the news of the motion reached South Africa.

Not one  Afrikaner group lamented the rejection of the motion – instead, disbelief and shock registered when they realized that a well-respected member of the international community, noted their suffering and was prepared to speak up against the ANC.

Afrikaners expressed their  gratitude towards those Dutch MP’s who tabled and supported the motion,  in various support groups for Afrikaners on the social network website – facebook.

It seems like a new spirit of hope has taken root, and with this renewed hope,  many Afrikaners are beginning to feel positive about the future.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 312 other followers

%d bloggers like this: