ALONG A HIGHWAY ON A GRASSY HILL, THOUSANDS OF WHITE CROSSES.... THIS IS GENOCIDE OF THE WHITE BOER NATION.

ALONG A HIGHWAY ON A GRASSY HILL, THOUSANDS OF WHITE CROSSES - GENOCIDE IN SOUTH AFRICA... OUR PLEAD TO THE GOVERNMENT - STOP FARM MURDERS STOP MURDERS IN THE CITIES THAT IS KILLING OUR WHITE MINORITY GROUP.... THIS IS GENOCIDE OF THE WHITE BOER NATION.

Along a highway on a grassy hill, thousands of white crosses — each one representing an individual victim of brutal farm murders, or plaasmoorde in Afrikaans — are a stark reminder of the reality facing European-descent farmers in the new South Africa. One of the iron crosses was planted last year in memory of two-year-old Willemien Potgieter, who was executed on a farm and left in a pool of her own blood. Her parents were murdered, too — the father hacked to death with a machete. Before leaving, the half-dozen killers tied a note to the gate: “We killed them. We’re coming back.”

The Potgieter family massacre is just one of the tens of thousands of farm attacks to have plagued South Africa since 1994. Like little Willemien’s cross, many of those now-iconic emblems represent innocent children, even babies, who have been savagely murdered, oftentimes after being tortured in ways so gruesome, horrifying, and barbaric, that mere words could never adequately describe it. The death toll is still rising.

Like countless South Africans, Andre Vandenberg has lost multiple relatives to violence in the so-called “Rainbow Nation.” In separate incidents, according to Vandenberg, a motorcycle exporter and former military man who now lives in the United States, two of his female cousins were brutally and repeatedly raped in front of their husbands. One of the women was pregnant with the couple’s first child. All five victims were murdered. After sodomizing and killing the husbands, in both cases, the ruthless attackers raped Vandenberg’s cousins again.

Enduring the horror for hours, one of the women was eventually shot. The other had a tire filled with gasoline put around her neck and set ablaze — the agonizing punishment known as “necklacing,” which was once commonly meted out to black opponents of the predominantly black African National Congress (ANC) now ruling South Africa in an unholy alliance with the South African Communist Party (SACP) and an umbrella group for labor unions. Nelson Mandela’s wife, Winnie, was known for publicly supporting the barbaric act. Nobody was ever arrested in connection with those two farm attacks.

Before Vandenberg lost his cousins, his father was killed by a truck driver in a suspicious accident. The drunken suspect, apparently a respected figure within the ANC, was arrested at the scene. However, under pressure from the ANC, the killer was released on $100 bail. Again with help from the ANC, Vandenberg said, the driver fled and was never prosecuted for the killing. No explanation was ever given by authorities, despite repeated appeals for answers.

After being deported back to South Africa from the United States over an alleged failure to report a change of address, Vandenberg’s brother was killed, too. Within a year of his arrival, he was brutally murdered. Witnesses watched the murder unfold and told police, but as has become typical, nobody was ever prosecuted. A male cousin of Vandenberg’s, meanwhile, was shot in the chest while being robbed. And as is often the case, the murder was labeled an “accident” by authorities.

“It’s racial crime,” insisted Vandenberg, an Afrikaner descendant of Dutch settlers, in an interview with The New American. “The ANC people are using genocide — they’re pro-genocide. Long term, they want all the property that belongs to the whites.” The black-led ANC-communist regime is “twice as racist” as the former white-led apartheid government ever was, he added. And along with its supporters, the South African government is willing to do “anything” to accomplish its goals.

When top ANC government leaders, including South African President Jacob Zuma, chant about exterminating whites, “some people think they’re just singing songs,” Vandenberg said, becoming visibly uncomfortable at the thought of it. “But I think they’re very serious about that. That’s why we have all the farm murders.... What they do, their followers will follow.”

In its defense, the ANC regime points out that crime affects all South Africans; and it is true, the country has one of the highest murder rates in the world — blacks, whites, people of Asian origin, and others are all terrorized by it. But respected independent experts who have investigated allegations of anti-white genocide in the Rainbow Nation have concluded that the government is not being honest about the wave of genocidal murders. The ANC’s national spokesman declined repeated requests for comment.

Genocide

Heritage and identity of Provinces

 Map of the provinces of South Africa during apartheid. Source: www.fotw.net

The Union of South Africa (1910-1961)  (Video)

The homelands were :

Ciskei, Transkei, KwaZulu, Venda, Bophuthatswana, Gazankulu, KaNgwane, KwaNdebele, Lebowa and Quaqua.

After the Anglo-Boer War, there were six British colonies in South Africa. They were all separate, with their own governments. In 1910 four of the colonies were brought together as the Union of South Africa. The four old colonies became the provinces of the Union, namely the Cape Province, the Orange Free State, the Transvaal, and Natal.

In 1961 the Union of South Africa became independent from Britain. This means that it was not a British colony anymore. The name of the country changed to the Republic of South Africa. Today it is still the name, but everybody calls it South Africa.

In 1993 with the preparations for democracy, the country was divided into nine provinces. These provinces included the old homeland territories.

The other two colonies were the smaller kingdoms of Swaziland and Basotholand. Today, Basotholand is called Lesotho. These also became self ruling and independent from Britain as separate countries from South Africa.

Cape Province

The Cape Province’s official name was the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. It was the biggest of the four South African provinces.

Cape Town began as a small trading post run by the Dutch East India Company (DEIC) from the Netherlands. Sailing ships on their way to India could stop to rest, do repairs and restock. This trading post was started by Jan van Riebeeck, who arrived in 1652. At first most of the Europeans worked for the DEIC, but later, more and more Europeans chose to come to the Cape to settle. They moved away from Cape Town and started farms and little towns to the north and east. The Europeans included Dutch, French and German people. There were also slaves in the Cape, brought from Africa, Malaysia and other parts of the east, to serve the people from the DEIC. When the Europeans came to the Cape, they came into contact with the native Khoikhoi people. The two groups had very different ways of life, and there were many clashes between them.

In 1806 Britain took over the Cape from the Dutch East India Company. This caused unhappiness among the White farmers especially those on the eastern border of the Cape Colony. They were mostly Afrikaans, and did not want to be ruled by the British. The eastern border was very far from Cape Town, the capital. In those days, it was much more difficult to travel and it took a lot longer than today. This meant that the government did not have as much control over the places that were far away from Cape Town, so the farmers had to look after themselves and were basically free to do what they wanted. But when the British took over, they wanted more control over the eastern border.

When the British government of the Cape spread their control to the east, they also fought with the local Xhosa inhabitants. There were nine wars between the government and the Xhosa, called the frontier (pronounced ‘front-ear’) or border wars. The Dutch farmers also fought with the Xhosa over land. In the end, in about 1838, thousands of these farmers moved away from the Cape Colony to the north. This migration is called the Great Trek.

The Cape stayed a British colony until it became one of the four provinces of the Union of South Africa in 1910

Transvaal

When the Dutch or Afrikaner Boers left the Cape with the Great Trek, they moved north. They did not all move together. There were different groups, called trek parties, and the people who moved were called Voortrekkers. The Voortrekkers wanted their own land where they would not be controlled by the British and where they did not have to fight for land all the time, as they did with the Xhosa on the eastern border of the Cape. When they moved inland, some of the Voortrekker groups thought the land was uninhabited. There were big open spaces and they thought that they could take the land for themselves.

They got this idea possibly because many of the Black groups moved around. One reason for this was to flee from the Zulu king Shaka, who started wars with the groups around him. This was called the mfecane or difaqane, which means something like ‘to flee’ or ‘to break up’. Although the Voortrekkers thought that nobody lived there, some of the groups moved back after the mfecane. There were many clashes between them and the different Voortrekker parties. Black communities included the Ndebele, the Pedi and the Batlou. When the Voortrekkers won they took the land for themselves. The Voortrekkers founded towns, including Potchefstroom and Lydenburg, not far from the Vaal River. In 1852 the area that they had taken over became a republic, called the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek or ZAR (this is Dutch for South African Republic). The first president of the ZAR was Marthinus Wessel Pretorius.

In 1877 the British took control of the ZAR. But the Boers did not want to be controlled by the British again, and fought to get their freedom and independence back. This was the first Anglo-Boer War. The Boers won the war and their independence, but only for a little while. Soon another Anglo-Boer War would break out, and this time the Boers would lose.

In 1886, gold was discovered in the ZAR. People from all over the world came to Johannesburg, the new mining town, to find gold. The Boers did not want the foreigners to take their freedom away again and tried to control them very strictly. This angered the British government and they wanted to take over the republic and the gold. This led to the Second Anglo-Boer War or South African War between 1899-1902. The war started in the ZAR, but spread to the whole of South Africa. The other Boer republic, the Orange Free State, helped the ZAR. There were also people from the Cape Colony and even from Europe who came to help the Boers, and Blacks fought on both sides of the war. In the end, the Boers lost and the ZAR and the Orange Free State became British colonies, and the ZAR’s name changed to Transvaal, which means ‘across the Vaal River’.

In 1910 the Transvaal became one of the four provinces of the Union of South Africa.

The flag of the Zuid-Afrikaanshe Republiek, the Vierkleur (meaning 'four colour') Source: www.praag.co.za

Orange Free State

When the Voortrekkers moved away from the Cape Colony in the Great Trek, some of them settled just north of the Orange River, which formed the border between the Cape Colony and the rest of South Africa. There, they founded many towns and farms. They soon came into conflict with some of the native groups, especially the Basotho. The Basotho nation was founded by Moshoeshoe during the mfecane. Their capital was at Thaba Bosiu, which means Mountain of the Night in Sotho. In 1854 the Boers (as the Voortrekkers who had settled in the new republics were now called) declared the area the Orange Free State, a Boer republic like the ZAR. They fought against Moshoeshoe many times, mostly over who owned what land and the border between the OFS and the Basotho kingdom. In 1868 the Basotho lost the war against the Boers. Moshoeshoe did not want to lose his kingdom, and asked the British for protection. This meant that the Boers could not take over his kingdom, but it also meant that the British could have control over his land. After Moshoeshoe died in 1870, the British made the kingdom a colony and called it Basotholand. In 1966 Basotholand became independent, and the name was changed to Lesotho.

When the Second Anglo-Boer War broke out in 1899, the Orange Free State helped the ZAR to fight against the British. But in 1902 the Boers lost the war and their republics became British colonies. The name of the Orange Free State was changed to the Orange River Colony. In 1910, it became one of the provinces of the new Union of South Africa, and the name was changed back to the Orange Free State.

Natal

The first people who came to live in Natal were the San and later many Black groups collectively called the Nguni, followed. The Nguni was not one big group or kingdom, but rather small, separate tribes, each one with its own chief. One of these small groups was the Zulu. In 1816 a young man, Shaka became the chief of the Zulu. Shaka was a very good warrior and taught the Zulu army to fight very well. The army, or impis, fought and won many wars against other Nguni and Sotho groups with their skilful military tactics. Shaka included the groups that the impis beat in the Zulu kingdom, so that the Zulus became a very big and strong nation. Not all of the other groups were beaten. Some moved away from Shaka’s area to form their own kingdoms. One such kingdom was the Ndebele under king Mzilikazi, who settled in northern Transvaal and Zimbabwe. Another is the Basotho, who formed their own kingdom in Lesotho under King Moshoeshoe (pronounced Moe-shwe-shwe).

In 1824 British ivory traders came to the shore of Shaka’s kingdom and, with Shaka’s permission, formed a small settlement. In time the settlement grew and became a small town, which they called D’Urban, after the Governor of the Cape Colony. There were about 30 men in this village.

To find out more about the history of Durban, visit SAHO feature.

In 1828 Shaka was killed by his half-brothers and one of them, Dingane, became the new Zulu-king. When one of the Voortrekker parties arrived in Zululand and wanted to settle there, they first had to negotiate with Dingane to get some of his land to live on. The Voortrekker party’s leader, Piet Retief, made an agreement with Dingane, and the Voortrekkers believed that they had Dingane’s permission to move over the Drakensberg into his land. But when Retief went to sign the papers at Dingane’s kraal on 6 February 1838, he and the men who went with him were killed. The impis then attacked and killed hundreds of the Voortrekkers, and also attacked the village of D’Urban.

On 16 December 1838 the impis attacked a Voortrekker laager at Blood River. There were thousands of Zulu-warriors and only a few Voortrekkers, but the Voortrekkers won the battle. The day became a very important day for Afrikaners. Before 1994, it was a public holiday called the Day of the Covenant, because the Voortrekkers had promised God that if He helped them in the battle against the impis, they would keep 16 December as a special day. Today, it is still a holiday, but it is called Day of Reconciliation. After the Battle of Blood River (or Ncome River), Dingane lost a lot of his power. The Voortrekkers moved into the land, and began to form towns and districts. It became a Boer republic, called Natalia, which means Christmas. The capital of Natalia was called Pietermaritzburg, a mixture of the names of Piet Retief and Gerrit Maritz, two Voortrekker leaders.

But in 1842 British troops annexed the Republic of Natalia. It became a British colony called Natal. The Voortrekkers (or Boers, as the Afrikaner farmers were called) did not want to be ruled by the British as they had been in the Cape, and most of them left Natal to go and live in one of the other two Boer Republics, the South African Republic (ZAR) or the Orange Free State. In 1879 the British attacked Zululand after years of fights over land. This was the beginning of the Anglo-Zulu War. The captured the Zulu king, Cetshwayo, and sent him into exile. In 1887 they annexed Zululand, and it became part of the Natal Colony.

Natal remained a British colony until 1910, when it became one of the four provinces of the Union of South Africa.

The Homelands

After South Africa became a Union, the government wanted Black and White people to live separately, so they created certain areas, or reserves for Black people. Before the Union they were rural areas ruled by local chiefs. They came to be called ‘Native Locations’ and Black South Africans lost their land through the 1913 Land Act. Later, under apartheid the division of races and control of black people became tighter and these reserved areas were extended to be called bantustans or homelands. The idea was that the homelands would be like countries where Black people could live and vote for their own governments, led by chiefs who were controlled by the apartheid Government. There was a homeland for different language groups like Venda and Xhosa in South Africa. These groups were called nations, and all Black South Africans were made citizens of one of these ‘homeland’ ‘countries’, without any consideration for where they were born or where they lived. This meant forcing millions of people, who became non-citizens of South Africa, to these far off places.

Many people had never even been to the place which they were now supposed to call home. They now had to get permission to come and work in South Africa as if they were foreigners. These ‘homelands’ were home to the workers and regarded as a pool of cheap black labour. They were small making up less than a tenth of the whole country but accomodating almost 90 percent of the people. The land could not support all these people and was of the worst quality so that people were forced to work on mines and in factories in the towns to earn an income. This separated families as fathers left for long periods to work far away from home.

Each homeland had its own leader, installed by the apartheid government. They depended on South Africa for economic survival and so could never challenge the Government. The world refused to recognise the homelands as independent countries.

Activity  1 Map of the provinces of South Africa during apartheid. Source:http://www.fotw.net/misc/za(old.gif Fill in the names of the old provinces on the map. a. In which province do you live? b. What is the capital of your province? c. Of which province was it a part before 1993? On the maps, there are pieces of land that have different colours. What were these places called? What were they? Activity 2 Do you know anybody who lived in a homeland? (Like a family member, neighbour, friend or maybe somebody that works for your family.) Ask them about life in the homeland. Ask questions like – •Were they born there? •If not, were they forced to move there? •How was life in the homelands different from life in the rest of South Africa? •How were their lives in the homeland different from what it is today? •Did they like living in the homeland? •Why/why not? Write their story down in a paragraph or two.

Murders of whites hidden by fraudulent 'natural death' certificates: 

  ATTACKS ON WHITES  Genocide Indicators

Murders of whites hidden with false 'natural death' certificates: Henry Locke, shot through the heart April 5 2009; and Roy Munk, stabbed to death, Hoedspruit
In 2011, two cases came to light where local authorities had hidden the murders of two rural Afrikaners behind false death certificates.
1. Henry Locke, a low-income working class Afrikaner smallholder, was murdered with a shot through his heart by black killers on April 5 2009. This was witnessed by thirteen-year-old daughter Monique Locke, his wife and his paraplegic son.
When the family received the death cerficate, it stated 'natural cause". The shocked family told the Beeld daily Afrikaans newspaper that the 39-year-old electrician was shot dead on April 5 2009 with a bullet through his heart on the Elands wildlife farm by a black gang -- right in front of his wife, his daughter Monique, 13 and disabled son Dawie, 23.
The official explanation of why the 'natural cause' was entered on the death certificate was that 'he had a heart-attack when the bullet was fired through his heart”.
The shocked family demanded an explanation: 'he was shot dead right in front of our eyes. The klillers said nothing at all: they just shot him dead for no reason although we pleaded with him not to shoot him..'
The family’s only wage-earner was pleaded with by his then-13-year-old daughter and her paraplegic brother Dawie, 23, – who prayed and pleaded with their father's killers to 'not take away my mother and sister too'..
The story was originally reported on October 6 2009 by Virginia Keppler of Beeld newspaper, who reported that the murder occurred after mother Amanda, 43, had stepped outside just before the family was going to bed at 11pm to check why the dogs were barking so loudly.
The ANC officials claimed they would l ‘investigate the erroneous death certificate.’ Nothing has been heard since. However the SAPS statistics were not adjusted.

2. Roy Munk, a Hoedspruit farmer, was stabbed to death on his farm. The authorities issued an inaccurate finding of "accidental death by buffalo attack" because his body was dumped in a large encampment with buffalo and the animals were driven across his body.
The authorities were forced to issue a new death-certificate for the death on July 1 2008 of the 65-year-old wildlife farmer and East Rand businessman Roy Munks, (news clipping from Rapport newspaper left,) who was found dead in a kraal on his Hoedspruit farm. Police initially reported this as an ‘accidential death due to a buffalo attack’, but forensic examinations revealed that he had been stabbed to death. Rapport newspaper quoted police as blaming the farmer for his ownn death, stating he’d kept his wildlife herd in camps which were too small for them. However, a second court-hearing subsequently ruled that the initial ruling by the local inquest court that Munks had been killed by a buffalo on his Hoedspruit farm was totally inaccurate. A few weeks after this ruling, two armed attackers were arrested while breaking into a nearby house – and ‘spoke out of turn” during questioning by police’ admitting to Munks’ violent death. They were charged with his murder. The forensic traces of the stabbing were not ddiscovered by a post-mortem examination of the farmer’s body because the wild-life herd was driven across his body after the murder.


The original stories were on

http://www.beeld.com/Content/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/1928/43eb720cb2b84f66aca6b62419a23f4a/06-10-2009-12-19/Kind_hou_pa_styf_vas_n%C3%A1_hy_in_hart_geskiet_is
and 
http://www.beeld.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/In-hart-geskiet-is-natuurlike-oorsake-20091027
Naspers group has since then removed many of these reports from their internet sites.
and
http://www.news24.com/Rapport/Nuus/0,,752-795_2396862,00.html

The death of South Africa - By Allister Sparks

Read this and weep - The death of South Africa.

Some interesting facts about Welkom, which South Africans were possibly not aware of.

How sad to read - Strange that the situation does not seem to be reflected in mining reports and the stock market in SA - or is it ? 
Last Sunday's papers covered the Oppenheimer’s sale of all their family's de Beers for  $5.2 billion to Anglo American. Nicky says it was a tough decision. 
----------------
The death of South Africa’s mines is the death of South Africa By Mike Smith 20th of September 2011
In many respects the booming of South Africa’s mining industry and its current decay under the ANC’s BEE system is a microcosm of the booming of the Republic of South Africa under Apartheid and its decay under the ANC Marxist terrorist regime.

During the first half of the 20th century, gold was discovered on several farms south of the Free State town of Odendaalsrus. After the Second World War, Sir Ernest Oppenheimer and his Anglo American Corporation, the progenitor of Anglo Gold bought up all the prospecting rights in the area and decided to mine the richest gold find in the history of South Africa.

Prices of property in Odendaalsrus skyrocketed so Sir Ernest Oppenheimer decided that he would build his own town for his miners instead of paying the exorbitant prices in Odendaalsrus.

He drove 20km south and climbed a hill called Koppie-alleen (Hill alone) and looked down on the plains where his mines would be and decided to build a town from scratch called Welkom, named after the farm where the gold was first discovered.

The people of Odendaalsrus were upset and took him to court objecting to the new town. Ernest Oppenheimer’s lawyer was Abram (Bram) Fischer, an Afrikaner Communist and Anti-Apartheid activist that would later defend Nelson Mandela at the Rivonia trial.

Fischer was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University and travelled to the Soviet Union in 1932. He was also later awarded the Lenin Peace Prize (1966) the Soviet equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize was normally awarded to prominent Communists who were not Soviet citizens.

Fischer, incidentally, was married to Molly Krige, the niece of liberal Boer General Jan Smuts. She was also a staunch Communist.Nevertheless, in 1947 the Provincial Council issued Oppenheimer with the birth certificate of the town of Welkom.
In his mind Oppenheimer envisioned a beautiful garden city with broad streets. He commissioned the design of Welkom to leading town planner William Backhouse and landscape gardener Joane Prim. For Backhouse the design of a town from scratch was a dream came true. Space was not a problem on the Free State plains, so he designed the streets broad with no traffic lights, only roundabouts, to keep the traffic flowing and no high-rise buildings. In the centre of Town he wanted a Roman Forum with a square where town folk could gather. It was surrounded by a horseshoe shaped road of 75metres wide, known affectionately by the town people as the 'Hoefie' short for the Afrikaans word 'hoefyster' meaning horseshoe.

Sports clubs, golf clubs, Olympic swimming pools, cinemas, theatres, hospitals, parks, schools, a technical college and an airport was built all with the riches of the gold below the soil. The town attracted people from all over South Africa. Money was flowing, salaries were high. By the 1970's Anglo Gold was operating six massive mines with 22 deep level shafts in which 122,000 people worked. The mines of Welkom were producing 35% of South Africa's gold, which in turn was producing 75% of the world's gold. Everyone was driving a new car at least every year. They would say that when the ashtray was full, it was time to buy a new car. The 'hoefie' gave rise to the hot-rod culture of Welkom where young men would drive around at night showing off their new Ford Cortina’s with eagles painted on the bonnets and flames on the sides, fur on the dashboard and plastic oranges on the radio antennae. This culture also gave rise to the building of a Grand Prix racing track at Welkom. Times were good for blue collar whites.

Even in the nearby black township of Thabong and the coloured township of Bronville, the living standards were very high.

But then the ANC took over in 1994, mostly with the help of the Oppenheimer’s and J.P. Morgan who founded Anglo American Corporation in 1917. Hardly have the ANC communists taken over or they wanted not only a cut of the pie from the mining industry, but the whole thing.

Black Economic Empowerment was introduced and mines had to give away half of their assets to black ANC members. For Anglo American Corporation the writing was on the wall and before they could lose everything, they merged with Minorco in 1999 and moved their assets to London. In the last 10-15 years more than 100,000 jobs have been lost in Welkom. The skip wheels of the mines are not turning anymore and the noise of the mines as well as the hot-rods have fallen silent. The ziggurat-like walls of the slime dams next to the R73 road is the last remnants of a once thriving mining industry. Today, the mines are in the hands of BEE companies and being plundered for scrap metal. The municipality of Matjabeng is run by the ANC. In June 2011 it came into prominence as one of the worst examples of ANC corruption and misrule. How a small town blew R2bn on dodgy deals

Most of the whites have left Welkom. Blacks make up 90% of the population and whites 8%. To say that the town is a shadow of its former self is an overstatement. The decay is obvious everywhere and it is fast becoming a ghost town. 1500 staff houses at the mines are standing empty. Even churches have closed their doors. The remaining whites in the area, mostly farmers are struggling under stock theft and brutal farm attacks, tortures and murders .

Elsewhere it is not going any better. The Aurora mine at Grootvlei, which is owned by the Zuma and Mandela families and at one stage employed 5000 workers now have less than 200. Aurora is now a ghost town. On the 8th of May 2011 in a Carte Blanche TV show, it was revealed that Cosatu calls the owners of Aurora (Zuma and Mandela family members).  Super exploiters!!

If there is an abyss of desperation these men at the hostels are in it. At Grootvlei, near Springs, the water and electricity has been cut, the toilets are a shock. On good days they have hot food. Two hours drive to the west is the Orkney mine in Klerksdorp. There is an inescapable feeling of sadness here. Cooking pots are empty here too. Ntsani Mohapi has been on the mine since the mid 70s, he should be in line for a pension but that is all gone now. "There are people who are crying, there are people who are dying because we deal with people who are lying. As things stand hundreds of miners are still in limbo; millions are outstanding in salaries. Wives have left husbands, children have dropped out of school, people have been blacklisted.

They can't even claim UIF. The allegations against Aurora's directors are damning: since they took over the Pamodzi mines in 2009, which were fully operational at the time, they have been accused of not paying salaries, making endless broken promises, misappropriating UIF and pension fund money and stripping assets of mines they haven't paid for. Source Carte Blanche The BBC has extensively reported on how the Zuma (JZ's nephew) and Mandela (Nelson's grandson) families exploit their workers and treat them worse than dogs. While the Zuma and Mandela family members grow rich and fat, they do not pay their starving workers, which effectively makes them slave owners. Is this the 'Freedom' Mandela and Zuma spoke about and fought for? They were not Freedom Fighters. They were not fighting for the Freedom of the people, rather for the enslavement of the people under a communist yoke.

The Grootvlei mine now stands in ruins. What could not be stolen and sold for scrap is cut up and sold to Chinese state-owned mining company Shandong Gold. The white foreman at Aurora can only watch as the looting of the mine continues This is the same ANC who wants to nationalize the mines, the banks and the farms. Can you even imagine the utter enslavement of blacks, the dilapidation and ruin of South Africa that will follow? As the rivers of gold and other critical minerals that once flowed from South Africa dries up one after the other due to BEE and nationalisation, the world and especially the Oppenheimer’s will look back to the good old days when the whites were in charge of South Africa and they were making their fortunes. The day will still come that they will realize that they might have betted on the wrong horse.

Allister Sparks is one of the most senior, respected journalists in the country. His facts can surely only be the truth, and many of them are already well known.

The Boer War

The Boer War

by Carol DeBoer-Langworthy 

The armed conflict between Britain and the two Boer republics of Transvaal and Orange Free State in South Africa, often called the Boer War, began on 11 October 1899 and ceased on 31 May 1902. Depending on one’s point of view and point in time, this war is also known as the Boer Insurrection, Second Anglo-Boer War, Second War for Freedom, South African War, Second South African War, Boer War II, or English War. At the time of The New Age, it also was called the "last gentleman’s war" and "a white man’s war." By whatever name, this was England’s last great colonial conflict and an important precursor for its participation in World War I. 

Britons still argue about what went wrong in its execution, even though they were ultimately victorious. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who experienced the war as a volunteer doctor, wrote that its events ["...] stirred the minds of our people more than anything since the Indian Mutiny, and humiliated our arms as they have not been humiliated in this [nineteenth] century (Conan Doyle 21)["]. The fact that some 450,000 British and Empire troops were needed to defeat a population of half that size (of whom only a fraction, 50,000, were in arms as part-time soldiers) put England on notice about its state of military preparedness. For the defeated South Africans the war has remained a rallying point for nationalistic sentiment. 

The centenary of this conflict has prompted new considerations of the war’s causes, results, and implications for the British Empire. These studies indicate that the conflict was, in fact, a civil war that involved the entire population across the length and breadth of South Africa and caused fissures in the Afrikaner and African societies. People of colour fought on all sides, sometimes under duress and sometimes from conviction, and suffered. Diamonds and gold played large roles in the conflict’s beginnings, along with race, nationalism and international power politics -- all of which were nuanced by gender and class. 

Three people have been held, on occasion, responsible for starting the war: Joseph Chamberlain, then Britain’s Colonial Secretary; Paul Kruger, president of the South Africa Republic; and Alfred Milner, British High Commissioner in the Cape Colony from 1897-1905. It now appears that the British forced the war in 1899 to gain control of the Transvaal, the independent republic where Boers had political control and where gold mining was a major new industry. Since the latter part of the 19th century gold had been the major underpinning of the world’s expanding commerce. By 1890 London was the financial centre of the world’s trade, and a steady supply of the world’s stock of gold was critical for maintaining this position. Nearly 100,000 migrant black workers from the subcontinent were working in the gold mines of the Rand, along with 12,000 whites.

Rivalry between the Boers and British settlers in these areas had been going on for some 50 years as Britain sought to consolidate its control and the Dutch-descended settlers strove to maintain their autonomy and culture. At the time of onset of hostilities, there were about 500,000 people of British extraction in the Cape Colony and Natal and fewer than 250,000 people of Dutch extraction in the Transvaal, which was independent, and in the Orange Free State, which had partial independence. The Cape Colony also had approximately 500,000 Coloureds. There also was an Asian community of 100,000 -- most of whom lived in Natal. So this war was fought in a region where white people made up only one-fifth of the population. In 1899 there were approximately one million whites in South Africa, compared to four million black Africans. During the last three decades of the nineteenth century, Britain had subdued and incorporated the remaining independent African chiefdoms and states in the subcontinent.

Dutch people had been in South Africa since 1652, when they first settled at Cape of Good Hope to supply ships to and from the Dutch colonies in the East Indies. By 1814, when the Cape Colony was added to the British Empire as the result of the Napoleonic wars, some 30,000 Dutch, French and German colonists were in South Africa. In 1820 5,000 British emigrants landed there, settling on the eastern border of Cape Colony. 

To escape what seemed to be English encroachments, as well as the freeing of their slaves in the 1830s, some 5,000 Dutch settlers, or about a quarter of its population, left the coastal areas with an equivalent number of slaves. They migrated in Conestoga-style wagons into the hinterlands, ostensibly to maintain their way of life as herdsmen, hunters, and farmers. This Great Trek soon became part of the national saga, with its participants called voortrekkers (pioneers). They moved into what became Transvaal and Orange Free State, leaving the coastal areas of Cape Colony to British settlers and a substantial number of remaining Dutch settlers. Soon Natal became a British colony, and pushed out many of its Boers into the two Boer republics in the north. Thus was set the pattern of two English-speaking provinces in the south and two Afrikaans-speaking provinces in the north. By time of the war, some Dutch families had been in South Africa for seven generations. 

Diamonds were discovered near Kimberley in 1872. In 1877 Britain took over the Transvaal, declaring it a British crown colony. The Transvaal Boers protested, finally rising in rebellion in 1880: the First Anglo-Boer War or Transvaal war. The Boers humiliated the British in the Battle of Majuba Hill, and Gladstone sued for peace. The Transvaal was handed back to the Boers. The Boers established alliances with Germany; this made Britain nervous. 

Then gold was discovered in the Transvaal hills in 1886. A gold rush ensued, with engineers, miners and merchants from England, America and European countries flocking to the scene. The Transvaal was delighted with its overnight wealth, but reluctant to grant political power to the "Uitlanders" who were needed for the industry but perceived as ready to overwhelm local culture. Frustrated, the Uitlanders orchestrated an ill-fated uprising, masterminded by Cecil Rhodes himself and led by his physician, Dr. Leander Starr Jameson, in late 1895-early 1896. This invasion of the Transvaal with an armed force, Jameson’s Raid, failed and confirmed the Dutch-descended Africans’ suspicions about Britain’s motives. After a series of bluffs orchestrated by Chamberlain and Boer ultimatums in response, the two Boer provinces declared war on 11 October 1899.

In the second phase, heavy imperial reinforcements and changes in command (Lord Roberts of Kandahar as Commander-in-Chief and Lord Kitchener of Khartoum as his chief of staff) turned things around. Imperial troops were able to relieve the besieged towns of Ladysmith, Kimberley and Mafeking. On 13 March 1900 Roberts’s soldiers occupied Bloemfontein, the capital of the Orange Free State, and on 24 May the province was annexed, to be known as the Orange River Colony. On 31 May British troops entered Johannesburg, and on 5 June, Pretoria. On 1 September 1900 the Transvaal was annexed to the British crown and the war seemed over. Roberts returned to England.

Then the guerrilla war began in earnest. Under the leadership of Louis Botha, Christiaan de Wet, J.C. Smuts and J.H. de la Rey, the Boers stepped up their use of small mobile military units. These were able to capture supplies, disrupt communications and inflict casualties on the army of occupation and largely escape capture themselves. Their success induced draconian measures in response, especially after Kitchener replaced Roberts as Commander-in-Chief.

The answer was concentration camps, a technique developed by the Spanish in Cuba during the Spanish-American war. In all, there were 18 such camps before the end of the war, including four separate camps for women and children of black Africans. Almost 28,000 Boer civilians, mainly children under the age of 16 and women, died in British concentration camps, along with a reported 14,154 Africans dying in separate camps. Altogether, at least 42,000 people died in the camps. By comparison, a total of 22,000 imperial soldiers and over 7,000 republican fighters were killed in the conflict.

Hobhouse was not alone in attempting to influence public opinion in the conduct of this war. New technologies made it possible for members of the press to cover the war in ways unavailable in the Crimean War. Photography and telegraphy had improved, printing technology was more available, and moving picture film provided the British and world public a front-row view of the British exploits. Thanks to improved transportation, war correspondents and other writers looking for material were able to travel with the troops. Rudyard Kipling, Winston Churchill, Rider Haggard and Arthur Conan Doyle enhanced or -- in the case of Churchill -- created their reputations on the war scene. The three long famous sieges (Ladysmith, Kimberley, and Mafeking) as well as the slow pace of the war allowed many participants to maintain diaries and write letters. Personal narratives such as diaries, memoirs, letters and after-the-fact histories abound. 

Not all people in Britain accepted the necessity of this war to maintain the empire or to ensure the safety of southern Africa for British culture. W.T. Stead, editor of the Review of Reviews, was one of the most outspoken dissenters on this topic. G.K. Chesterton was another, arguing that the Boers had the right to defend their farms. That fiery young Liberal MP, David Lloyd George, was one of the few speaking in Parliament against the war. And even Henry Campbell-Bannerman, whose rather offhand comment in 1901 deploring "methods of barbarism" in reference to the concentration camps -- for which he was severely criticized -- was able to become Prime Minister eventually. A lot of British people perhaps sensed, beneath their "jingoism," that humanitarian concerns trumped empire in the greater order of things. 
The European press was largely anti-British. In South Africa and Britain, the writer Olive Schreiner criticized Boer and Briton alike for this nasty little war. In Italy, the writer Ouida (Louise De La Ramée) exhorted the expatriate community to protest the war. 

In the field, both sides used the latest long-range, high velocity, small-bore repeating rifles and machine guns. Yet horses played a more important role in the ranging over the countryside and in supply lines. Britain had to scour its empire for the 400,346 horses, mules and donkeys that it "expended" in supply lines, pulling artillery, moving soldiers and machinery. The Boer commandos were excellent horsemen and crack shots, able to live in the saddle, and were operating on their home turf with horses that could survive on tough veldt grass. Railroads played a huge part in supply and troop movement, while steam engines and oxen were used to haul wagons and guns. 

With the Treaty of Vereeniging on 31 May 1902, Britain assumed final control over Cape Colony and put the Afrikaner provinces on a schedule for inclusion in what, in 1910, became -- with Natal -- the Union of South Africa as a British colony. Historians have largely claimed that the British negotiated away fair treatment of Africans in hammering out an accommodation with the Boer provinces. This assessment has been recently challenged, claiming instead that the British liberal, sometimes missionary, impulse regarding indigenous native claims was just as racist and perhaps as destructive to native cultures as was the Boer caste system. These issues merit further exploration.

Under whatever name, the Second South African War forced Britain to overhaul its defence apparatus, reform its administrative structures, and reform the army itself -- all of which helped prepare it for World War I in 1914.

There were three distinct phases to this war of two years and eight months. Initially, the Boer republican fighters were successful in three major offensives. Their commandos (militia-like groups of informal mounted fighters) occupied northern Natal and besieged Ladysmith, invaded the Cape, and struck westwards to lay siege to the British garrisons in Kimberley and Mafeking. On all three fronts -- at Colenso, the Stormberg and Magersfontein -- the Boers achieved serious defeats of British forces during the "black week" of mid-December 1899.

The reformer Emily Hobhouse (1860-1926), sister of Leonard Hobhouse, exposed the horrors of the concentration camps to an unwilling British public. Eventually Kitchener had to revise this policy and Milner took over administration of the camps. In many ways, the camps now serve as the war’s most memorable legacy.

Correct Term: Boer Nationalist Not Right Winger.

The Boer Republicans / Boer Nationalists / Boer Irredentists & other modern era Boers who are working towards & struggling to regain the self determination which was stripped from them after the Anglo-Boer War & were further marginalized after 1994 are often recklessly & erroneously labeled as Right Wingers despite the fact that the Boer Nation is a volk / people & not an organization therefore as such is not a political element of a contrived one dimensional political spectrum or a special interest group.

Please note that the correct term is "Boer nationalists" and not "right wingers". We are not an (extremist) element on the spectrum of the South African professional party-political comedy. We wish to be no part of this "rainbow spectrum". We do not consider ourselves bound in conscience by a constitution, laws, rules and statutes made on our behalf without any form of consultation with us or consent by us. If and when we do obey these oppressive laws, we do it out of a higher conscience, and out of respect for the semblance of the order of things. We have a right to resist an oppressive constitution and oppressive laws. Actions borne from coercion can never be interpreted as the giving of consent.

From an open letter Professor Tobias Louw addressed to the Institute for Security Studies dated September 16 2003.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kulturele Geregtigheid Stigting

OPEN LETTER TO THE Institute for Security Studies

Dr. Tobias Louw

c/o Cultural Justice Foundation

Pretoria, South Africa

incite@lantic.net

tel: RSA 082 200 3489

Office 306, Standard Bank Chambers, Church Square, PRETORIA

Postal address - Box 26037, GEZINA, Pretoria, 0031

16 September 2003

OPEN LETTER TO THE Institute for Security Studies

C/o Dr. Jakkie Cilliers

Executive Director, ISS

South Africa

JKC@iss.co.za                                                   

Dear Dr. Cilliers

I write to you on behalf of the Cultural Justice Foundation.

The good work that your organization has done has not gone unnoticed among the general public, and I wish to congratulate you on your efforts, hard work and successes. From the great number of staff you display on the home page of your Internet webpage it appears that the ISS has succeeded to obtain substantial donor funding.

However, it is also apparent from some of your publications that members of the ISS make no bones about their ideological orientation. Although everyone has the right to express such views, it raises some vital issues about objectivity and core values.

I previewed the ISS Code of Ethics, which should be kept in mind during the rest of my discussion. The Code of Ethics of the ISS says that:

·          I am committed to the pursuit of democracy, peace and justice for all Africa's people.

·          I shall respect the rights and dignity of all people.

·          I shall strive to be fair and courteous, and will undertake my responsibilities with honesty and without fear or favour.

·          I commit myself to the Institute's mission and objectives and shall strive to encourage and support my colleagues.

·          I accept responsibility for all my words, deeds and decisions.

With this in mind, it is difficult to reconcile the honourable code of the ISS with, for instance, the inflammatory rhetoric of your Mr. Boshoff, which is fanning the flames of ethnic hatred. He seems to think that the Boers are not a people, an ethnic group, to be accorded parity of esteem, as are other ethnic groups such as the Zulus, Xhosas, Congolese, Somalians, French, Brits, the diverse American Indians groups etc. All groups have a right to equal respect, dignity and fundamental rights. Why do the Boers as a people not qualify for respect, dignity and fundamental rights?

Judging from the published views of the ISS the Boers should not be allowed to strive to realize their fundamental group rights, as several UN charters stipulate. They are also not allowed in any event to take a critical view of the South African unitary state they have been forced into without having been asked for their opinion, leave alone their consent. "An injury to one is an injury to all", esp. when one views matters from the perspective of group rights, is it not? Is it not true that the ISS consider all Boers as "terrorists", "extremists" and "rightwingers" when deciding to add the Boeremag to your list of terrorist organizations to be "objectively" dissected in your symposium? I am dead certain that the ISS would bend over backwards to agree with the ANC that their Mbekis, Zumas, Mandelas, Boesaks, Yengenis, etc. are innocent until proven guilty. The same courtesy does not extend to the dangerous Boers.

It is also evident that the term "rightwinger" is, by implication, far worse than "leftwinger", when is is common course that these "leftwingers" have succeeded in damaging the world and its peoples with centuries of bloody revolutions, worst nightmare genocides and aggressive wars whilst hiding their desire for power and money under the chant of 'freedom'. The death of millions of his people caused by one such "leftwinger", Joseph Stalin, who is so revered among the political master class of the New South Africa, is a case in point.

Please note that the correct term is "Boer nationalists" and not "rightwingers". We are not an (extremist) element on the spectrum of the South African professional party-political comedy. We wish to be no part of this "rainbow spectrum". We do not consider ourselves bound in conscience by a constitution, laws, rules and statutes made on our behalf without any form of consultation with us or consent by us. If and when we do obey these oppressive laws, we do it out of a higher conscience, and out of respect for the semblance of the order of things. We have a right to resist an oppressive constitution and oppressive laws. Actions borne from coercion can never be interpreted as the giving of consent.

If your Code of Ethics means anything, then kindly make a sincere effort to persuade ISS members to refrain from using degrading terms in their "scientific" ISS reports, which are apparently meant to demonize and polarize the Boers by the use of such inflammatory rhetoric. In so doing, they display the inability to distinguish between a fact and a value, or more precisely, a prejudice. The use of such rhetoric itself displays the blind ideological prejudice that the ISS uncritically copies from their Masters Voice.

All it really does, is to motivate ordinary people who daily suffer at the hands of crime terrorists, to see Boers as "freedom fighters", "heroes" and "martyrs". You must be aware of the fact that the Moslem response to the US-led attack on Afghanistan and Iraq had been: every day your actions recruit for us a hundred more young Osama Bin Ladens.

The image of hatred, racism and Boer-bashing the ISS is currently developing for itself is, I am afraid, discrediting itself as biased and thus untrustworthy. Unless your donors share the same scant respect for international conventions, they might not be pleased with this conscious and deliberate attempt to flog a horse of your own making.

Is it really so difficult for the ISS to display, as a matter of principle, a fundamental parity of esteem for the Boer people? You profess to do so for any other people, as ethnic groups deserving of the fundamental rights provided for in the two UN charters on Universal Political, Civil, Economic and Social Rights. In terms if these rights, an instance of violation of fundamental rights against an individual member of this people is equal to a violation of the fundamental rights of the group as a whole.

Including by implication then the whole of the peaceful Boer people as "terrorists", "extremists" and "rightwingers"  (by virtue of which they could be "hunted off the face of the earth"!) during the ISS Seminar (Terrorism in Southern Africa) destined for 18-19 September 2003, doesn’t bode well for future good relations and peace on the African sub-continent.

The world knows what has been happening in Zimbabwe: state-sponsored crime terrorism at its "best". Does the ISS support Mr "Hitler Tenfold's" Politburo and his racist rhetoric too? If you didn’t notice, South Africa is already at the doorstep of the same room the Mugabe entered, and out of which he will not come.

If you perhaps have any doubt about the terrifying impact of the NSA ideology and its crime terrorists on our people, please bear with us. We invite you to sit with us and view through long hours of video tape and bundles of documents on the ugly face of rural terrorism in Southern Africa. These acts are NOT committed by the Boers, but by members of the Azanian, or non-Boer culture groups of the New South Africa. If the ISS had any objectivity, it would have included the ugly face of farm terrorism in its programme ! You may well agree with the "official view" of there being no sufficient proof of political organization in these acts of terror, but you only have to read the Rivonia trial documents to see how the plan is to be carried out.

You are also invited to visit with us families from among thousands of our Boer-people that were devastated by the New South African crime terrorists. Boers - men, women and their children - are tortured, slaughtered, burned, terrorised and attacked at a rate that is equal to none other in the entire world.

These brutal attacks are sending shock waves throughout the world. Even Prince Charles has recently, in a letter, expressed his shock and dismay at the brutality of these terrorist acts. An international institute, Genocide Watch, is doing a good job to inform the world of what is really happening in South Africa. Even the UN has recently called South Africa one of the four major drug and crime areas in the entire world. So we, the Boers, are not sucking these things out of our thumb.

We, in turn, offer to accompany you to visit the one family that allegedly was devastated as a result of the alleged actions by the so-called Boeremag. One alleged death in two years of activities. The woman concerned lived in a remote dwelling quite a distance away from where the bomb exploded at night, when a piece of railway line flew across the veld and accidentally hit the shack two kilometres away. If anything, her death was an unforeseen consequence. Nothing has been proven in any event, and for all we know it might be the work of some new "Third Force". Its their style. So even that death - which is what percentage of the total? - cannot be attributed to the Boers.

But even should any so-called Boeremag member be found guilty of the accidental death of this woman, it is a far cry from the Azanians who with intention and planning, daily wait for their white victims inside their own homes to rape, rob and perhaps slit their throats, if they don’t have guns to shoot with. How many times must we relive the story of the young boy shot by robbers between his parents in their own bed? How many times must we relive the callous rape of a baby, of the shooting of a white baby and her grandmom, after having raped and killed her mother, in the back of the head during a broad daylight hi-jack with AK47s?

I ask you with tears in my eyes: one death out of an official count of about 26 000 p.a., which constitutes less than 0,004% and in which the persons accused have not been proven in a court of law: is that sufficient cause to blemish the Boers as terrorists? It becomes even more atrocious to comprehend this statistic in terms of foreign figures, which are at least double than those made known by the local thought police: it becomes a mere 0,002%. If one considers that the average international murder rate is at about 0,02 persons per 100 000, and South Africa is at the number one spot with an official rate of 0,25 persons per 100 000, then the Boeremag's alleged "contribution" is lower than the rate of any other country in the world ! So please, let us get real here.

Why not does the ISS, instead of being an integral part of the problem, rather play a more meaningful role as peace mediator? We challenge you to drop the Boers from your terrorism category on the symposium programme, and instead organize a special symposium on (a) minority rights in South Africa, and (b) self-determination for any of the ethnic groups who wishes for it, especially for the Boers who have a proven record of the necessary experience and expertise to successfully run a First World country, and (c) international support measures to ensure that these issues do not merely remain "talked about"? Would such not be a conflict-reducing exercise, instead of a hatred-inflaming one? Would it not be liberating to strive for the inclusion of a statement in the ISS Code of Ethics to insist on independence from current ideological rhetoric?

What is our problem with South African "democracy" then? We both know that the problem is not with democracy as such, but with the Uhuru version of "democracy". By the way, the Boers are republicans, and definitely not "democrats" in the perversed sense of the term. A republic only becomes feasible when the basic judicial attributes of citizenship can become a living reality.

Some years ago, a visiting student from the US asked me in all seriousness as her professor of philosophy: "I thought South Africa was now a democracy?" The question was prompted after her fellow Yankee students were gently persuaded (physically beaten - one broke an arm!) into joining a student protest walk about an issue they had no idea of. The shuddering group of nine Yanks were forced, against their will, to participate in tyre burning and the holding hostage a few hundred employees. Her concluding impression was that "Africa democracy" appears to mean that everyone has the right to act in a way they see fit, as long as such action coincided with what the "majority" expects, or forces, them to do.

We cannot impress it enough upon you how unjust, demenaing and undignifying the stereotyping of the Boers are. Adjudged by the particular rhetoric used in the Terrorism symposium of the ISS, it is not as though facts and values are clearly distinguished. The "rightwing" and the "Boeremag" are demonized as "terrorists" (according to your Henri Boshoff). This tactic, to repeat ad nauseam the insulting stereotype of the vulgar, ill-mannered and uneducated Boer-Afrikaner, needs to be deleted from ISS rhetoric if it wishes to retain a semblance of respect in the outside world.  The Boers are a well-educated, friendly, warm and peaceful ethnic group well-liked in the developed countries; they are well-known as hard workers in every field, with brilliant scientists and innovating entrepreneurs in many fields, and are eagerly sought after employees in the advanced countries of the world.

Of course, what the ISS does is nothing new in Boer history. The famous book on the history of treacherous rhetoric and dishonest dealings of the British Empire with the Boer Republics in the century preceding the second War of Independence of 1899, translated as "A Century of Wrong", is a clear exposition of exactly the same shenanigans that the ISS is engaging in now.

Although the ISS is trying to demonize the Boers, the members of the ISS should ask themselves the following: in the day when you leave home, at night when you return, and you set your expensive security systems, and you check up on your guard dogs and have tea and sandwiches served to the extra security personnel - is it because you fear the dreaded evil-doers of the so-called Boeremag?

Or do you perhaps fear the Azanians (the ones who vote in your elections) who roam the country and rob, hi-jack, torture and kill without having to fear that they will be convicted in the courts of the New South Africa - or when convicted, won’t fear having to spend too long in the already overcrowded prisons? Little wonder, because annually about a quarter of the prison population is just let loose on the streets!

The prisons of the New South Africa are crowded to the rafters with Azanian criminals, many of whom are drug pedlars, many of whom gang-rape their fellow inmates; 150 000 criminals, nearly all Black convicts, have been released into our society since 1994; 9 000 criminals – including Black murderers – have been prematurely released in July 2003 as part of the celebrations of Nelson Mandela's 85^th birthday. Interpol has recently released the figure of 50 000 murders per year committed in the New South Africa … Are these 50 000 murders per year committed by the Boers or the so-called Boeremag? If so, name one, I beg of you.

No, the Boers are not the ones raping babies of only three of four months old because they have the primitive believe that it will cure their AIDS.

And the civilized world knows this.

The Boers are not the ones slicing off bits of their victim's anatomy for 'muti medicine'.

And the civilized world knows this.

The Boers are not the ones falsifying school or university certificates and calling themselves 'doctor' without having actually studied for this degree.

And the civilized world knows this.

Does the ISS truly imagine that by trying to shift the focus, from the disaster that the New South Africa has become, to demonizing the Boers, and that the intelligent and developed international community is fooled by this for one moment?

The ISS lives in a fool's paradise if it imagines this.

Of course the ISS members are more than welcome to entertain their own views of things. At no point do we wish to change any of that. But whatever these views, why must you negate the veracity of our historical experience and consciousness? Why do you not pay us the same courtesy and stop meddling with those views we hold dear?

The advanced nations of the world know full well what is happening in the New South Africa and where the blame for the anarchy truly lies: the present regime and other hatred groups who are trying their best to blame the sorrowful state of the country on the Boers and apartheid. The world no longer falls for this tactic. Many people throughout the world are openly admitting that they were gravely mislead in helping to manipulate the unsophisticated Third World in taking over this once First World country which flourished under the management of the Boers. That champion of Uhuru democracy, Mr. Mugabe's, has helped our cause a tremendous deal, as it has helped to open the eyes of the civilized world.

In your own reports you seem to be surprised that most of the members of the so-called "Boeremag" accused of "terrorism" are well-educated, professional and very decent persons. The surprise is understandable, as it doesn’t fit the stereotype of the ISS, the SACC, the professional politicians and the kings and queens of the media. Why is it so difficult to look the truth in they eye?

There are many of us who are proud to refer to ourselves by the name of Boer, the nation of pioneering farmers when our beloved country was wild, empty and young; yes, we are proud of our small and young nation that has become well-travelled and highly educated, proud of our many professional people, proud of our people's honesty and famous hartlikheid, or warm-heartedness. We have all experience many times how good African people have exclaimed that they prefer to deal with the Boers as they know exactly where they stand with them, while, when dealing with some other Europeans or Islanders they feel there is falsehood. Yes, we are proud of ourselves, the Boers, a patient people with a respect for the differing views of others, a people whose members have spent great parts of their lives and their personal resources in helping to educate, feed, house and develop persons of all races in this country.

Why then deny the Boers their God-given right, which is ironically also internationally accepted, to govern and develop themselves politically, economically, judicially, educationally, and as a society? We honesty don’t begrudge any other individual or group anything, except for the right to begrudge and deny us our fundamental rights! Or is it more important to live as if international covenants on which these fundamental rights of a people are based, and even little Article 235 of the RSA constitution is worthless.

Yes, the Boers have a proud culture of their own. We have a religious world-view of our own. We share a common language. We have a common ethnic heritage. These are not mere arbitrary criteria, but recognised internationally as sufficient to stake a claim for self-determination as a people. We have no difficulty if other peoples in Southern Africa are not advanced to the point where self-determination is of any importance for them.

We have the right to full self-determination. This right was adopted as a matter of the greatest importance as relating to the Political and Civil (and Economic) Rights of Peoples (Volkere), by the UN, nogal on 16 December 1966. Again, the right to constitutional and economic selfdetermination in a territorium of their own is seen as the most fundamental freedom of a people. Do you and Mr Boshoff deny that the Boers have that right?

The Boers never desired to have a unitary state of a one-nation South Africa. It is sheer nonsense to allege that the so-called Boeremag wants to return to pre-1994 South Africa. Not one Boer supports the single nation-state created by the British empire after they cowardly killed nearly 27 000 Boer women and children during the Boers's Freedom War of 1899-1902, and in this evil manner forced the small, brave Boer army made up of farmers, fighting in their Sunday three-piece suits, to relinquish their two Republics to prevent all of their women and children to be murdered; 60 000 of their farms were completely destroyed in the criminal "scorched earth" policy of the British and left the Boers deeply destitute after they were thus forced to sign the peace agreement of Vereeniging.

Is the Boers the only people in South Africa wanting self-government? Did you know that very recently the Griqua people also rejected the territorial integrity of the unitary South Africa? So the the Rehoboth Basters too with respect to Namibia.

For the Boers, it is not a matter of race. However, our language, culture, ethnicity and religious world-view do play a key role, and rightly so. If we have no right to depend on such, then please put up a fight at the UN and get them to scrap their most sacred covenants on the rights of peoples.

We mention race, because we are often accused of it. We must take this opportunity though to inform you that, if the Boers now had to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea, most Boers would prefer to suffer under Mandela's yoke rather than under De Klerk's lies. But to tell you the truth, we are not interested to be the subjects of either Mbeki or Mugabe, of either Blair or Bush, of either Tony Leon or the "Afrikaners" Van Schalkwyk and De Klerk - the latter two least of all. You can appreciate that as a people we are deeply disgusted by those who callously signed away the last remnants of our already dented self-determination without even bothering to consult us about the effects on us.

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.

The ISS should take note that the Boers never wanted a singular state with a single government ruling all the peoples of the sub-continent. The Boer Republics were taken from them with violent force. Even the terms of the peace treaty of Vereeniging in 1902 stated unambiguously to see to the restoration of Boer independence as a people before any political rights be bestowed upon the African peoples.

But we Boers are not colonialists or imperialists. The Boers never engaged in any "Christianizing" mission work to convert the heathens as did the American, Scottish and German missionaries. Our forebears wisely thought it best not to interfere with those values and views that other people cherish and hold sacred. The Boers made no bones about the fact that they were not great supporters of the capitalist system, as it was seen to be nothing else than another form of Imperialism. No wonder then that the Irish, the Russians, and so many others from Europe joined in the defense of our freedom. The Boers never sought to "civilize" and "develop" other racial and cultural groups from a position of cultural superiority. The Afrikaners tried it for many ears, and failed dismally in more than one way.

Take note that the Boers today have good reason to be immensely frustrated and angered. We have not only lost all forms of the partial self-determination we previously enjoyed, through the treacherous dealings of Afrikaner politicians, but have lost virtually all rights to make a decent living and bringing up our children with good values and good learning.  All indications are that the marginalizing of the Boer will only get worse under the present regime, which is regarded by us as illegitimate.

Even Afrikaners hostile to the Boer aspirations, like the well-known historian Prof. H. Gilliomee, has stated that De Klerk shamelessly broke his promises and public commitment to counsel with his people about changes to be introduced into South Africa and it is openly admitted that during the vote of 1994 the count of the vote was stopped midway and the ANC declared the winner, and that De Klerk's National Party was given extra percentage of the vote for allowing the ANC to be declared the winner.

During the only referendum held for the white electorate in 1992, about half of all Afrikaners rejected even the principle of negotiations for a "new constitution". You should know this, as it was reflected in an ISS report. It is common knowledge that the array of acts currently passed through national parliament are primarily based upon race as criterion, made possible by the RSA Constitution that actually actively promotes racial discrimination ! Ironically, the fact that the race classification act was dropped long ago, makes no difference. The logic of it? It is simple if one understands the basics of historical-materialist dialectics: "black empowerment" as basic thesis has "white disempowerment" as basic antithesis. The synthesis will be a Cuban-influenced fanagalo of rainbow tongues where everyone will be equally destitute.

The then electorate was never given the opportunity to express themselves on the undertaking of the State President, that the implementation of any substantial constitutional changes would be preceded by testing the opinion of the electorate on those proposed changes. The question was changed and an answer given that became equally meaningless. It reminds one of the beautiful description by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, of the ancient spectacle of one man trying to milk a he-goat, and the other man holding a sieve underneath. That happens when someone gives an answer to a question that was not asked: De Klerk did say: we had a referendum and the electorate said yes. Half of the "Afrikaners" are definitely donkeys, one must admit.

This still means that the clear views of a substantial segment of the then electorate was totally ignored: this being at least half of the Afrikaans speaking electorate!

The Afrikaners/Boers were lied to.

If they thought they were to give a mandate for a process that will lead to a two-thirds domination by the ANC/Communists with no security of meaningful minority/group rights, there would never have been a "Yes" vote to go ahead with negotiations.  Nobody, esp. not one Boer, accepted under any circumstance, a "mandate" that would most certainly end up in giving up our freedom in toto, and handing over all forms of power on all levels of existence to a group or groups that are in principle and in practice harbour nothing but ill intentions with respect to our ideals.

It is alleged that the state advocate Mr. Paul Fick, during the present High Treason trial of the so-called Boeremag, whose members denies the legitimacy of the present regime, flippantly remarked: "De Klerk lied, but so what?" He staunchly defended the view that De Klerk's testimony, as well as history itself, was irrelevant to proceedings, and therefore irrelevant to the issue of the Boers losing their freedom, however partial and watered down it had already become at that stage,

The user of the expression "so what", my professor of philosophy at university taught us, conveys a lack of and refusal to understand what a matter is about, and reflects the extreme indifference of "Das Man" - the typical mass man of today's world. By stereotyping the Boer as extremists and terrorists, Fick and Boshoff alike tell the Boer people in their striving for freedom: "You are not deserving of freedom, dignity, life and justice, and so what !"

The Boer people insist on the most fundamental right as a people: the right to freedom, to full self-determination, as contained in the UN charters.

It is our divine right as a people.

In the eyes of the world and the UN the ISS has no justification to deny us this basic right. They also have no right to even pay lip service to it, esp. when in practice they do everything they can to deny its realisation.

The ISS and the world knows full well that in the past we have enjoyed a number of constitutional Republics of our own making. Torn down by the Dutch or English, we rebuilt it over and over again. This predates the time that Western books became more known among migrants from central Africa.

At the very least, you would do well to heed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We, the Boers, insist on recognition of our legitimate striving for freedom as a people.

We demand that you display parity of esteem.

As a specific people we have the right to the dignity, equality and liberty of which also the Constitution of the New South Africa speaks. Not because this constitution says so, but because international convention say so.

We call for all of the "freedoms and rights" mentioned in the said UN declarations and covenants.

We petition for the right of self-control over the vital areas of our lives.

We claim the rights to "life, liberty and security of person".

Our children of five years old know enough about rape, AIDS, assault, murder and the like to grow up with a big question: what are you doing to protect us properly? When we grew up, we slepts with open windows and walked down the streets without fear. Its all changed. So please do not blame the Boers for having no confidence in the unitary Azanian State's ability or willingness to protect us. Don't blame us for not having any confidence in a regime that puts a racial tag on us in typical Orwellian newspeak, as members of the "Non-Designated Group". How surreal can the Marxists ideologues get!

The ISS should have a picture of why, now even much more than ever before, the flames of Boer freedom are flaring up once more. It is not a party-political decision, but a natural move of resistance. We hate oppression and we love freedom.

Our first proposal, which is a reasonable and morally acceptable one, made in the spirit of peace, justice and conciliation, is that the ISS makes a start in the same spirit to monitor their hate inciting members and language. The ISS and especially Mr. Boshoff have a responsibility to choose their  words wisely, and demonstrate thereby that the ISS is not racial or cultural bigots, but that instead it can rise above such low levels of expression and ideals.

We are very longsuffering, but we shall not stand for Mr Boshoff's insults.

In conclusion, we, the Boers, wish to be free of the low moral standards and racial hatred exhibited daily by the rulers of the New South Africa by ignoring the atrocities committed by the people of their own culture.

In view of the above, as well as the ISS Code of Ethics, one can justifiably ask whether the ISS is in fact even-handed in its professed striving for "democarcy, justice and peace" - esp. as it rejects the Boers universally accepted right to self-determination? Is there really any respect for the rights and dignity of the Boer people? Is it responsible, honest and fair to simply parrot the professional politician's ostensible Boer hatred? Are the individuals in the ISS actually supporting one another in Henri Boshoff's attempt to label the Boers as extremists and terrorists? Does the ISS accept responsibility for all Henri's words, deeds and actions, esp. when he so ostensibly seeks to inflame racial and cultural hatred?

You are more than welcome to disagree with us, and even to criticise our points of view. But please do not insist that we have no right to disagree with you, or with the regime imposed onto us. The irony is that, in addition to the crime terrorists, for which we both have to watch out, our people also have to watch out for the regime's forces arriving at night on our doorsteps armed to the teeth.

We, the Boers, are simply striving for liberty and justice for ourselves.

We, the Boers, will once again be free in our own peace-loving, prosperous country.

---

After their arrest and conviction for illegal armed occupation, their khaki-clad leader, Willem Ratte, wrote furiously from goal to contest his English press depiction as some right wing anachronism. what outweighed this was a First Anglo-Boer War antecedent. In his torrential and powerful manifesto, Ratte insisted:

Were the Boers of 1880 called right-wingers, for resisting the imperialist British occupation? Then, as now, you had an alien regime lording it in Pretoria over our people, whose gutless president had betrayed and handed over his sovereign state.

Then, as now, the new (neo) colonialist administration pretended to be God's gift to the supposedly "dirty and dumb Dutchmen", and tried its beast to smear the pro-independence party as only a few backward "Don Quixote's tilting at windmills". Our struggle has nothing to do with right or left ... this being incidental, like religion in the Irish-British conflict, but everything to do with a nation having an inherent right to be free.

From: The Politics of War Memory and Commemoration. Page: 121.Chapter 3. The South African War / Anglo-Boer War 1899 - 1902. and political memory in South Africa. Bill Nasson. The one dimensional / nebulous & reckless term Right Wing therefore does not accurately describe nor does justice to the centuries old just struggle of Boer self determination as the mass use of the term even post dates the first Boer freedom struggle & was not even used to describe to the Boer Commandos of the Anglo-Boer War.   

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Liberty, after all, cannot be suppressed and crushed. 

When the Liberty was on the verge of being swept away by Ceasar from the mouth of the River Rhein, it was defended by the Neblis, the forefathers of the present day Hollanders. 

The Teutons thus have never become the nation of subordination. 

When the Liberty was again about to be wiped out from the whole Europe by King Phillip II of Spain, it was preserved through 80 years of hard battles by the 16th century Hollanders, the forefathers of the present day Boers. 

Liberty, thus, flourished among them and finally went across the Atlantic to bear beautiful fruit in the virgin forests of the new Continent. 

The Dutch people have saved the Liberty of Mankind twice, indeed, from danger and perils. Who could know that Liberty expects its third rescue to the Boers in South Africa, who are the descendants of this nation. 

When the Romans came to its extremity of puff-up, the Neblis broke them. 

When the Spanish came to play the tyrant, the Hollanders crushed them. 

And now, when the Englishmen are about to come to the extremity of haughtiness 

and arrogance, the Boers are boldly assuming the duty of correcting them. 

How great is the Dutch race!! Liberty owes much to them.

RISE AND FALL OF NATIONS

Kanzo Uchimura*, 15 December 1899

*Japanese writer and philosopher, born and raised as a Samurai (warrior) and later converted to Christianity.